Well, now there will never be any question about whether Scripps is political or not. They even made up a graphic to go with the story here. When a prominent scientific organization allows a member to resort to name calling on an issue in an official communications on their website, it cheapens the whole organization.
This appears to be a response to John Coleman’s hour long video special. It was dated the same day as the video release, Jan 14th. Of course, when you read his website at richardsomerville.com you may come to understand that he may not be speaking for everyone there at Scripps. Here’s his page at Scripps. Perhaps the UCSD President might benefit from some communications about the use of his institute to label people with differing views on science.
A Response to Climate Change Denialism
Richard Somerville, a distinguished professor emeritus and research professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, issued the following statement in response to a recent request to address claims recently made by climate change denialists:
1. The essential findings of mainstream climate change science are firm. This is solid settled science. The world is warming. There are many kinds of evidence: air temperatures, ocean temperatures, melting ice, rising sea levels, and much more. Human activities are the main cause. The warming is not natural. It is not due to the sun, for example. We know this because we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide and it is much stronger than that of the sun, which we also measure.
2. The greenhouse effect is well understood. It is as real as gravity. The foundations of the science are more than 150 years old. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. We know carbon dioxide is increasing because we measure it. We know the increase is due to human activities like burning fossil fuels because we can analyze the chemical evidence for that.
3. Our climate predictions are coming true. Many observed climate changes, like rising sea level, are occurring at the high end of the predicted changes. Some changes, like melting sea ice, are happening faster than the anticipated worst case. Unless mankind takes strong steps to halt and reverse the rapid global increase of fossil fuel use and the other activities that cause climate change, and does so in a very few years, severe climate change is inevitable. Urgent action is needed if global warming is to be limited to moderate levels.
4. The standard skeptical arguments have been refuted many times over. The refutations are on many web sites and in many books. For example, natural climate change like ice ages is irrelevant to the current warming. We know why ice ages come and go. That is due to changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, changes that take thousands of years. The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes. But it can be caused by man-made changes in the greenhouse effect.
5. Science has its own high standards. It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet. It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals. Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned. Science is self-correcting. People who are not experts, who are not trained and experienced in this field, who do not do research and publish it following standard scientific practice, are not doing science. When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.
6. The leading scientific organizations of the world, like national academies of science and professional scientific societies, have carefully examined the results of climate science and endorsed these results. It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody. The first thing that the world needs to do if it is going to confront the challenge of climate change wisely is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it.
— Robert Monroe
Jan. 14, 2010
h/t to WUWT reader Skepshaka
yonason (20:01:24) : [Correction. (sort of) to my yonason (17:33:05)] “My very first link was to show that there was no ocean warming, and that it was in fact cooling. The link I gave there was only part of the story, since he [Willis–jk] subsequently repented of his initial finding. This one was supposed to supplement it.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/”
Yonason-san: The link above was, I believe, retracted by the later post based on a communication via Fred Singer:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/
photon without a Higgs (20:23:17) :
~~Freeman Dyson
http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151
one of the good ones. Princeton, Institute For Advanced Study, like Einstein, Feynman, Tukey, and many more. If they want to appeal to authority, we have them trumped there, as well, at least with him, anyway.
jorgekafkazar (21:10:44) :
Thanks for that update.
Here’s something a little more recent on the topic…
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
The oceans are still cooling, apparently.
Sorry for not being more careful with the links, as it would have eliminated unnecessary messiness.
photon without a Higgs (20:30:41) :
Most interesting what Freeman Dyson says about it: They are too comfy to get out of the office.
The Subcomittees should have Dyson there to rate the merit of their payola.
Peer Pay Review.
Scripps is one of the institutions which is funded by the California Energy Commission to conduct climate studies. In 2007, the CEC awarded $2,300,000 to Scripps. Under the contract, “Scripps will install and run meteorological and hydrological stations in key areas in the state, enhance the available climatic and hydrologic records, investigate climate extremes, and lead the preparation of the 2008 Scenarios Study for the Climate Action Team.” Link here:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/2007_minutes/2007-12-05_MINUTES.PDF
It is not surprising that academics at Scripps would use the “D” word to try to protect their climate programs when they receive so much funding from California taxpayers, especially when the state is functionally bankrupt.
It is another case where the government pays academics to produce the kinds of results which the government wants.
rbateman (20:32:03)
Another example of fraudulent claims of rises in sea level is in Tasmania. There, a historic seaside mark was inscribed in rock on the Isle of the Dead in 1841 to indicate the mean sea level (MSL). Recent investigations by esteemed global warming debunker, the late John Daly, show that MSL is now about 30 cm lower than in 1841.
Apparently, there are 19th century paintings showing boats moored at places that are now dry.
This in itself is a story of chicanery by scientists driven by the AGW fraud. It’s an interesting read at
http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/evans-daly2004-2.php
MJK (10:20:21) : edit
“I think it is totally appropriate for Somerville to use the “D” word. Denialists deny that the world is warming despite hard evidence showing it to be a proven fact (e.g. even DR Spencer admits the world has warmed).”
“evidence” as in what? 90% of US surface stations fail siting standards, GISS data is manipulated, Aussie, Kiwi, and Russian data is likewise manipulated by “homogenization” and site cherry picking, while old data is made cooler to amplify fake trends. It’s not hard to deny assertions of factuality when the data is fraudulent.
“Sceptics, on the other hand ,are sceptical about the extent and cause of that warming. Most of the contributors on this blog fall into the category of Deniers refusing to accept that any warming has taken place –often resorting to juvenile arguments that a couple of cold weeks in the U.S and Europe prove global warming to be false. Note Henry Chance above now goes as far to use a rainy day in California to support his denialist stance.”
Bub, it’s been raining here in Los Angeles for 5 days straight so far with no letup in sight. Annual rainfall since Jan 1 is some 100% above normal. We are 156 degree days below normal since last July 1 (that means almost 1 degree C below normal every day for the last 6.5 months, a significant change in climate. Does that much time of such a significant below normal anomaly count as “climate change”?). I recall just a few weeks ago some fools were saying the El Nino was going to make LA even dryer than normal. Lets see some of that.
I’m familiar with Professor Somerville too from the Intelligence Squared debate. Seems to me he is one of those mediocrities who brown-nosed his way to a PhD and to a research then professorial position all these years, and he is now paying back his friends and employer in volume, which speaks to the man’s utter lack of intellectual integrity. Because his statement is pretty unscientific and more propagandistic. So I have to laugh, because I’m familiar with mediocrities of his ilk in some of my own work experience who pretend to be “experts.” I let the other responses to his diatribe speak for themselves, they responded far better than I could at the moment, I’m laughing so hard at Somerville.
Bulldust (19:53:57)
His nibs Lord Monckton has it all. This kind of caper is rare for me but, what the hell, I emailed him last night with some numbers about cooling in Oz which I’ve posted here.
For all the schedule pressure he must be under, this great man had the time and decency to reply overnight. I’m looking forward to his Sydney visit.
VIDEO: “GLOBAL WARMING – DOOMSDAY CALLED OFF” – 5 PARTS
Written and directed by Lars Oxfeldt Mortensen
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-Y3iOFF6LE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y_7QNdysiQ
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LksZ75KnqJA&NR=1
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdL-i52wSI&NR=1
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xb4jcPqLI&NR=1
The 5-part video series includes statements from these academics:
Climatologist:
Dr. David Legates
Center for Climate Research
University of Delaware
Glaciologist,
Jorgen Peder Steffensen
Curator
Niels Bohr Institute, Department of Geophysics
Professor John Cristy
University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Sallie Baliunas
Astrophysicist, Harvard University
Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner
Stockholm University
Robin,
“No soldier with the name of ‘Bush’ or ‘Clinton’ or ‘Gates’ or ‘Rothchilds’ will EVER be your trench partner.”
You got it exactly right. The little guy is being manipulated and skinned by these elitist cabal, and you can toss many other names into the pot including Soros, Gore and Rockefeller. And you know what? Most of them are the guys lobbying and pushing for a binding cap & trade to continue the proud elitist tradition of helping themselves to our money.
The scam works like this. Pressure the government into implementing a means of controlling and rationing energy by certificates that are obtained from the government, that are mandatory and can be traded by privateers. The money is wrung out of consumers pockets into their bank accounts just as surely as water is wrung out of a spin dryer.
Why do you think James Hansen has been so vocally opposed to the scam? He is the only person with an iota of sincerity left and he knows it will a) do nothing to alter the climate and b) create a society dependent on government largess, whim and widespread fraud.
I can see here how Somervilles article has been completely shredded by hundreds of posters on just this one blog. And that got me thinking about why this guy would bother uttering such nonsense, until I realised he isn’t writing to convince skeptics. He is writing to reassure the faithfull.
There must be an army out there, of believers whose faith is being sorely tested. They are becoming agitated and afraid. They have seen the enemy looming over the horizon and are awed by his weapons. Somervilles words are the rallying cry of the madman before descending into his bunker for the last time.
Well, since we’ve heard from Scripps Institution of Oceanography, what about Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution?
Any wacky fun sorts of people there, ready and waiting to do the “science is settled” regurgitation?
A relief to be on the same wavelenght as other contributors..!
Here’s another crumb of comfort. We have a Chinese student staying with us here in Cambridge – and I’ve met his sister who is reading Business Studies at the University of Essex. By chance, we got onto the subject of ‘climate change’ – and she is of EXACTLY the same view as the rest of us on here..! So – if the younger generation are becoming skeptical – there’s hope for us yet..!
Another point I’d like a view on. ‘Carbon Trading’ – what the hell is that..?? Its not like oil, gas, or pork belly futures – it doesn’t exist..! Seems to be its like trading in the fabric from which the Emperor’s New Clothes were made…
Somerville is a wide-eyed believer in AGW who obviously doesn’t understand that shouting insults in unacceptable terms destroys much of his credibility; the shallow AGW mantras he uttered removed the remainder. He reminds of a Diane Arbus photograph I saw at the time of the war in Veitnam and have never forgotten – the subject was a scrubbed and shining American teenager in blazer and political campaign boater, waving a tiny US flag and wearing a ‘Bomb Hanoi’ lapel badge.
I honestly thought that many of the posts on here were denying climate change. Not all of them, certainly. But a fair proportion. Now some of these same people want to deny that they are denying it. This is getting to be a very circular discussion. Personally I prefer to call a spade a spade rather than calling it a digging tool. But some might prefer the tool label.
In an article in Yale Forum, linked to from the sidebar of the Sommerville piece on Scripps website, scripps Assistant Director Stephen Bennett made this revealing comment:
In a brief telephone interview from Atlanta, where he was attending the annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society, Bennett pointed to his own experience having doubted and questioned climate science research as an operational meteorologist and consultant.
A further insight into the thinking at Scripps – taken from coverage in Yale Forum (referenced from the sidebar of the Sommerville piece on Scripps website) .
This statement from Scripps Assistant Director Stephen Bennett: “About three years ago, it dawned on me that my experience as a meteorologist did not equip me with appropriate knowledge on the state of climate change science. It was professionally humbling to realize that I had misunderstood the primary issues and I had been communicating incorrect conclusions to my clients and colleagues for several years.”
Bennett says he set out to learn climate scientists from what he now calls “the domain experts” and now feels that meteorologists “have a professional responsibility to not express their personal opinions disguised as facts” on issues such as climate change.
End Quote
I think in the last para he means to say “learn climate science”.
He appears to have had what I would liken to a religious conversion three years ago, when he saw the light and sought further enlightenment.
So apparently, even meteorologists are unqualified to comment on climate change, unless they have have been anointed at the temple of the “Domain Experts”.
Do you think he was having a pop at you, Anthony?
David, 03:50:52 re Carbon Trading
Carbon trading occurs in Europe, and in the US , and is a form of payment for the right to emit a substance.
At least one company in Chicago trades carbon credits, see
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
California has had a similar program for many years for trading pollutants (SOx, NOx) with a link below to their webpage.
http://www.aqmd.gov/RECLAIM/reclaim.html
Sou (05:17:03) :
Why don’t you give us a list of the “many” posts here “denying climate change”? I’d like to see what you consider a “fair proportion” of comments saying what you allege.
Posters, I hate to be a pedant (actually I love it but I was being nice) but where does ‘tow the line’ come from?
I was taught that it was ‘toe the line’, meaning ‘to conform to rules as set down by authority’ which came from sailors being ordered to stand with their toes neatly touching a specified ‘line’ or join in the deck planking.
Like many others, inaccurate use of language is distracting.
Mr Somerville May be distinguished Professor Emeritus, but if he really made these claims he is no scientist.
His points, particularly point 3 suggest he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is being deliberately dishonest.
Sorry, hit submit button too quickly;
Last line should read
Like many others, I find inaccurate use of language and traditional sayings distracting.
The poor chap was just having a ‘torn skirt’ moment. It would be like a Christian finding out that Jesus didn’t exist, a Scientologist discovering that Thetans are a joke, and Muslims learning that mohammed was… Anyway I don’t care because I invested in a hundred acres of mallee scrub out in the depths of the outback that’s probably worth two and sixpence and a bag of rabbits if I was lucky enough to find a bigger fool on which to offload this dry dusty no-good snake infested albatross around my neck …that is until a god-send in the form of the “Cap and Trade” scheme, because, guess what? My parched nightmare is really a save-the-world giant carbon sink and I can swap the C02 it is furiously gobbling with a power station that is furiously Co2 pumping. Q.E.D. Of course I will have to deal with a whole pile of greedy middle-men, bankers, brokers and rat-bags like me who jumped aboard this gravy train of smoke and mirrors. How smart am I. So bring it all on I say.
From the CRU emails, Richard Somerville
“I think we ought to say that the science was
absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of
any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed
point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism”
” we can measure the effect of man-made carbon dioxide”
Is this true? I don’t know of a way to directly measure the effect of carbon dioxide on anything in the atmosphere. There are too many variables to consider.
All temperature measurements relating to CO2 are indeterminant as to cause, and there is an assumption, albeit a pretty good assumption, that CO2 is the cause of part of the warming. However, Mr. Somerville could increase the scientific knowledge base by doing his measurements now while CO2 atmospheric concentration is increasing drastically, and the average global temperature has been falling.