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
When you want the goods on someone, the web provides.
Somerville sounded very much like NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco.
a Google search of “Richard Somerville Jane Lubchenco” turns up many hits
A fine sample is here
http://www.coejl.org/news/20051008_yale.php
“Interspersed with these work sessions were a series of plenary speeches and panels, presented by global climate change scientists (e.g., Stephen Schneider, Richard Somerville, Jane Lubchenco), social decision researchers (Baruch Fischhoff, George Lakoff), business leaders (Jim Rogers, CEO of Cinergy), and politicians (Al Gore, John Kerry, Jim Leach), and entertainers (Al Franken), among others.”
The d word doesn’t bother me, but I think there are some holes, equivocations, uncontroversial generalities, pious platitudes, straw men, and even pomposity in this statement of Somerville’s. Is he a scientist at Scripps or an administrator? Scripps relies on funding sources, of course they are going to bolster any notions that alarm and increase the flow of money from funding sources.
Somerville needs to get out of his ivory tower. There is a very healthy market in America for authors willing to undertake popularized explanations of things as complicated as relativity and quantum science. If Scripps doesn’t at least show an attempt to engage this lay public fairly they risk losing the public’s regard. Climate science and the global warming thesis still needs a lot of fleshing out because as things stand now the public perception is becoming that it’s a flimsy thing defended with some pretty juvenile tactics.
This is a classic!
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. ……
(has this guy heard of CRU, let alone the emails? )
6. The leading scientific organizations of the world .. 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 … is to learn about what science has discovered and accept it. Or ELSE!
….. yessir, nosir, threebagsfullsir! … and we silly internet people won’t mention Climategate and Glaciers ever again!
PS; Scripps is the place where they do the Mauna Loa adjustments.
5. Science has its own high standards.
Guess he missed the “Harry Readme File” about just how bad the CRU code was… You know, the ones that said things like the whole thing ought to be tossed out and just start over… and that no runs could be reproduced due to a combination of bad code and lost data.
It does not work by unqualified people making claims on television or the Internet.
So Al Gore will be pulling his media coverage? And tell me again what Climate Science degree Hansen has?
I know he can’t be talking about me, since I focused on computer code and data; things directly in my field of expertise. I am an experienced professional in the field with a State issued college level teaching credential in it. Can’t be talking about Joe D’Aleo either, as he is a credentialed meteorologist.
Must be one of those other half dozen Ph.Ds on the video… /sarcoff>
It works by scientists doing research and publishing it in carefully reviewed research journals.
Oh, I get it now! “Science” only comes from the editors you have intimidated into being under your control and only can be valid from journals where the views that do not agree get suppressed.
Other scientists examine the research and repeat it and extend it. Valid results are confirmed, and wrong ones are exposed and abandoned.
I think he left out a few words, as evidenced by the CRU Emails. This ought to have read:
“Other scientists from your circle of pals, vetted to have your view, examine the research produced by the circle of pals, and repeat it endlessly, and extend it in the direction of more grant money. Self confirmation bias renders to these results the label “Valid”, and other views if accidentally exposed are either suppressed or if they do find the light of day ruthlessly branded “wrong ones” as a propaganda effort is undertaken to abandon them.”
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.
So, that would be Al Gore, Hansen, Puchari, Jones … Oh, and you are upset that folks bypassed a broken peer review process when it was found to be subject to undue influence by a circle of pals that was suppressing anyone who did not agree with their point of view?
Sorry, but “public review” is the way forward now. Back room deals and self dealing are “not cool”…
When they claim that they are the real experts, they are just plain wrong.
Oh, and please point out the professional expert computer programmers that wrote the GIStemp code, produced the External Requirements Specification ERS, created the flow charts and design documents, did the QA runs and built the Benchmarks and benchmark data?
Oh, that’s right, there are no design documents ERS or otherwise, there are no QA runs and there is no Benchmark code, and Hansen is NOT a professional computer programmer, and… So this would say that Hansen is “just plain wrong.”
It is silly to imagine that thousands of climate scientists worldwide are engaged in a massive conspiracy to fool everybody.
Ah, yes, the “if you find something wrong you must be accusing everyone else of conspiracy” argument.
So, exactly how many folks have done a “Characterize the input data for benchmarking” step on GHCN data? How many have run benchmarks on GIStemp? Heck, how many people have ever even READ the darned thing in the last decade? As near as I can tell, I’m the first guy to get it to run outside NASA.
And, exactly how many folks have reviewed the computer code used by NCDC to adjust GHCN and USHCN data sets? Oh, that’s right, they have not released their code.
So exactly how many of those thousands of scientists have actually done anything OTHER than just accept the NCDC data and the GIStemp runs on it as Gods Own Truth and used it to do some other research? You are not a conspirator if you are a dupe.
So if you think about this you will figure out that there are maybe a dozen (and I’m being VERY generous) folks at NCDC and GISS that have a clue what is in the computer code and have read it or worked on it. Not thousands. Order of magnitude 10s. And they need not be conspiring, just wrong.
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.
Ah yes, the old “Shut up and drink the KoolAid” argument. Worked out real well for Jim Jones and followers…
Well, no, thank you very much. I prefer to mix my own drinks and know exactly what is in them. I’ll look at your published recipe for your drink, but then I’ll mix up a batch. Then I’ll QA test it on some lab critters. If they live, I’ll benchmark the effect on a suitable sample. Finally, I just might drink a bit of it myself. But no, I’ll not be putting my dipper in your bucket and just having an uncritical guzzle…
Here is the deal: Want me to stop policing GIStemp an GHCN? Simple:
Publish design documents, QA test suites and QA run results, benchmark data and benchmark run results ( including white noise, pink noise, red noise, representative data, and data with built in bias for both warming and cooling), along with the code used (For NCDC as GIStemp is now published, but for GIStemp, please publish the code you actually use. The GISS web site has options to adjust baseline period and in-fill range that are not in the published code – Not Nice to publish one code and use a different one…) I’ll take a look at it. If it’s clean, I’ll be happy to go do something else.
(I’d really love to get back to my stock market analysis tools… so “Make My Day” and publish those benchmarks…)
Hey, Richard Somerville has BS degree from Penn State!
The insanity of partisan AGW will only be ended when people like Richard Somerville are removed from positions of trust and “authority”. If they really believe the hoax, they are incompetent. If they don’t believe the hoax, then they can’t be trusted.
Busy people
http://www.climatecentral.org/about/people/
Board
Richard Somerville
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego
Dr. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. He is a theoretical meteorologist and an expert on…
Founding Board
Jane Lubchenco
Dr. Lubchenco serves as Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Prior to her Senate confirmation in early 2009, she resigned from the Board of Climate…
So if the science is settled, we should stop funding AGW research related to CO2, seems simple enough.
Trysail
Speaking only for myself
I agree that warming has occurred over the past two centuries because we are coming out of the Little Ice Age.
I do not agree that carbon dioxide is the cause of the observed rise of temperatures to the degree that the Warmists do. CO2 is a radiation forcing factor but there are poorly understood feedbacks, it is not the only greenhouse gas, there are other forcing mechanisms and we do not have a complete understanding of all the natural cycles affecting climate.
In order to tease out the effect of CO2 against all these other factors you have to rely on somebody’s model and parameterizations within that model that could very easily predict the observed thing (and I am being charitable saying that the models are actually predicting correctly) for the wrong reason.
Some people (old professors and the like) should stop spreading their “scientific drible” after a certain age. It seems that they stagnate and are unable to absorb new knowledge after a while and just get embarrasing as they regurgitate ancient knowledge as if cast in stone.
My own supervisor was just like that, the old sod (hate him actually).
I am not aware of any measurements of the effect of man-made carbon dioxide, but perhaps somebody can correct me.
I am aware of measurements that indicate increasing temperatures over the latter part of the 20th century, but these are not a measure of the effect of man-made carbon dioxide, just of temperature.
I am aware that climate models indicate that CO2 has an impact, but these are models and not measurements. Also, the models are designed specifically with CO2 having an exaggerated effect (positive feedback).
I am aware of measurements that indicate increasing sea-level, but again these do not measure the effect of anthropogenic CO2, just the level of the sea.
Dr. Somerville, please do not insult those of us with education and experience in varied science and engineering disciplines. It is not difficult to ascertain the data manipulations, the deceptions, and the outright lies in climate science.
Physics is impartial. CO2 cannot know if it is over Abilene, Texas, or San Diego, California. Thus, both locations should respond to CO2. Yet they do not.
CO2 does not meet the accepted and known requirements under process control fundamentals. CO2 fails as a means to changing the average global temperature, see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
Small towns in the USA show absolutely zero warming during more than 120 years of record-keeping. What small trends in warming did occur were much more pronounced from 1910 to 1940 than that from 1975 to 2009. CO2 cannot explain this.
San Diego, California (a place where someone from Scripps should know quite well), shows a cooling from 1975 to 2009. CO2 increases cannot explain this, either.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/no-warming-from-co2.html
Almost reads like some sort of medieval condemnation of heresy.
A scientific fatwath if you will…
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.
In which case get on to the San Diego Union-Tribune it was their headline writer and reporter, Robert Monroe, who used the ‘D’ word.
I think he looks a lot like Al Gore.
Perhaps he is Al Gore!
http://richardsomerville.com/
If truly made analogous to evolution, AGW would be be like “Anthropogenic Albino Evolution” (AAE). While we can all agree about the fossil record, and rightfully dismiss creationism or “intelligent design”, if people were to begin theorizing that man-made factors were causing all evolution in all life forms to head towards complete albinism, and then started saying that such inevitable whitening of all life on earth was “settled science”, they’d be tarred and feathered.
AGW has a lot in common with “intelligent design” though – listen to his statement, “The warming that is occurring now, over just a few decades, cannot possibly be caused by such slow-acting processes.” That sounds an awful lot like, “The evolution of the eyeball, or the bombardier beetle, cannot possibly be caused by random natural selection.”
Mr. Somerville seems to think we are too stupid to make up our own minds and just trust the scientists. He makes hardly any technical arguments. He thinks we should only trust research that go through the peer reviewed process, despite that there’s stronger and stronger evidence that peer review journals have a strong bias against papers that shed doubt on AGW.
If these are the main pro-AGW counter-arguments, then it is no wonder why they have been losing the PR battle.
Well that is really sad to hear. I e-mail converse with a chap at Scripps, whom I discovered through a fly fishing website; but we have never actually met.
He seems like an extremely nice guy, and he is a PhD CO2 expert in that group there at Scripps. He has supplied me with numerous important CO2 papers. His specific CO2 interest is not directly climate related (well CO2 isn’t is it ?)
Yes he has chuckled at my position and says I need reprogramming. But as I have said Dr Steven Piper is a very nice fellow.
To hear that an outfit like Scripps, that I have always held in high regard, because of my interest in ocean/fishing interests; mmay be contaminated with the East Anglia disease, is truly disappointing.
I don’t know whether the organization could have been cheapened – it would have to be expensive to start with. If it were building on people like Richard Somerville, I strongly doubt it.
Together with Gavin Schmidt and Brenda Ekwurzel, they made the “concerned team” in the IQ2 debate against Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, and Philip Stott. According to the audience, the skeptics won.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html
Schmidt may have many problems and he may have looked arrogant at places but he was by far the brightest member of the “concerned” team, as far as I can say. When it comes to the implicitly displayed intelligence, what Ekwurzel and Somerville have shown was really, really lousy. They were just parroting some pop-science emotional statements at the Gore level. I wouldn’t believe that they could be employed as scientists if someone hadn’t told me.
Notice that all he does make assertions of authority and denial of the legitimacy of any who qustion him.
IOW, he is just yet another AGW promoter.
OT – I just clicked on the WUWT link to sea ice – 2010 has vanished!
Is it the Chinese?
[blockquote] Roy (09:55:44) :
His point 5 is my particular pet hate; it shows up all the time. No one EVER needs to know anything at all about any particular field to be entitled to expose an error. [/blockquote]
As Tim Allen said as “Jason Nesmith” in the movie “Galaxy Quest”:
“It doesn’t take a great actor to recognize a bad one. “
ahahah I noticed the comment it’s as sure as gravity. Thing is, we don’t understand gravity yet, that’s why we are spending billion on CERN, THE SCIENCE ON GRAVITY IS NOT SETTLED!!!
That’s not true of the regulars here. We don’t bother to correct every OTT “no warming” assertion, but when the issue is explicitly debated this site’s consensus is that there is warming since the LIA, and in multi-decadal phases during the 20th century.
Of course it’s true to say that there has been “no warming” in the 21st century, or over the past eight to ten years. But that’s not denialism.
I notice next to the story Anthony’s excellent climate widget. Now I challenge the individual Mr. Somerville to do a non-parametric correlation between the temperature anomaly and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere for the period from 1980 to the present and present the results. Correlation is not causation, but as somebody who has been eyeballing non-parametric correlations between time series, this one looks like it is going to be close to zero. Dr. D’Aleo has done it for a much longer time and come up with a very weak correlation (.44 if I remember) with a really ratty r-squared. Mr. Somerville, sadly you are no scientist, just another hack who pretends to be one. You will notice I drop Dr. from Mr. Somerville’s title, he is not worthy of it.