Foreword – Below is a guest post (by request) from Dr. Judith Curry on the issues we deal with every day here. While I and other like minded bloggers were given the opportunity to have some early input into this, little of it was accepted. This I think puts it off to a bad start in light of the title. One of my issues was that it wasn’t necessary to use the word “deniers”, which I think removal of is central to any discourse that includes a goal of “rebuilding trust”. There’s also other more technical issues related to current investigations that are not addressed here.
I had made my concerns known to Dr. Curry before in this post: The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”… which is worth re-reading again.
To be frank, given that she’s still using the term even when pointed out, and had deferred other valid suggestions from other skeptics, I’d given serious consideration to not carrying this at all. But I had carried Dr. Curry’s original post (at my request) on 11/27/09, just seven days after the Climategate story broke here at WUWT on 11/20/09:
An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science
Since I had carried that one at my request to Dr. Curry, I decided it only fair that I’d carry this one she offered, but with the above caveat. Further, as Andrew Revkin pointed out yesterday, WUWT is now by far the most trafficked climate blog in the world. With that comes a level of responsibility to broadly report the issues. Readers should give their opinion here, pulling no punches, but with one caveat: make the discourse respectful and without labels or inflammatory comments. – Anthony
Guest post by Judith Curry, Georgia Institute of Technology
I am trying something new, a blogospheric experiment, if you will. I have been a fairly active participant in the blogosphere since 2006, and recently posted two essays on climategate, one at climateaudit.org and the other at climateprogress.org. Both essays were subsequently picked up by other blogs, and the diversity of opinions expressed at the different blogs was quite interesting. Hence I am distributing this essay to a number of different blogs simultaneously with the hope of demonstrating the collective power of the blogosphere to generate ideas and debate them. I look forward to a stimulating discussion on this important topic.
Losing the Public’s Trust
Climategate has now become broadened in scope to extend beyond the CRU emails to include glaciergate and a host of other issues associated with the IPCC. In responding to climategate, the climate research establishment has appealed to its own authority and failed to understand that climategate is primarily a crisis of trust. Finally, we have an editorial published in Science on February 10 from Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Science, that begins to articulate the trust issue: “This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole. What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” While I applaud loudly Dr. Cicerone’s statement, I wish it had been made earlier and had not been isolated from the public by publishing the statement behind paywall at Science. Unfortunately, the void of substantive statements from our institutions has been filled in ways that have made the situation much worse.
Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust. While scientists persist in thinking that they should be trusted because of their expertise, climategate has made it clear that expertise itself is not a sufficient basis for public trust. The fallout from climategate is much broader than the allegations of misconduct by scientists at two universities. Of greatest importance is the reduced credibility of the IPCC assessment reports, which are providing the scientific basis for international policies on climate change. Recent disclosures about the IPCC have brought up a host of concerns about the IPCC that had been festering in the background: involvement of IPCC scientists in explicit climate policy advocacy; tribalism that excluded skeptics; hubris of scientists with regards to a noble (Nobel) cause; alarmism; and inadequate attention to the statistics of uncertainty and the complexity of alternative interpretations.
The scientists involved in the CRU emails and the IPCC have been defended as scientists with the best of intentions trying to do their work in a very difficult environment. They blame the alleged hacking incident on the “climate denial machine.” They are described as fighting a valiant war to keep misinformation from the public that is being pushed by skeptics with links to the oil industry. They are focused on moving the science forward, rather than the janitorial work of record keeping, data archival, etc. They have had to adopt unconventional strategies to fight off what they thought was malicious interference. They defend their science based upon their years of experience and their expertise.
Scientists are claiming that the scientific content of the IPCC reports is not compromised by climategate. The jury is still out on the specific fallout from climategate in terms of the historical and paleo temperature records. There are larger concerns (raised by glaciergate, etc.) particularly with regards to the IPCC Assessment Report on Impacts (Working Group II): has a combination of groupthink, political advocacy and a noble cause syndrome stifled scientific debate, slowed down scientific progress and corrupted the assessment process? If institutions are doing their jobs, then misconduct by a few individual scientists should be quickly identified, and the impacts of the misconduct should be confined and quickly rectified. Institutions need to look in the mirror and ask the question as to how they enabled this situation and what opportunities they missed to forestall such substantial loss of public trust in climate research and the major assessment reports.
In their misguided war against the skeptics, the CRU emails reveal that core research values became compromised. Much has been said about the role of the highly politicized environment in providing an extremely difficult environment in which to conduct science that produces a lot of stress for the scientists. There is no question that this environment is not conducive to science and scientists need more support from their institutions in dealing with it. However, there is nothing in this crazy environment that is worth sacrificing your personal or professional integrity. And when your science receives this kind of attention, it means that the science is really important to the public. Therefore scientists need to do everything possible to make sure that they effectively communicate uncertainty, risk, probability and complexity, and provide a context that includes alternative and competing scientific viewpoints. This is an important responsibility that individual scientists and particularly the institutions need to take very seriously.
Both individual scientists and the institutions need to look in the mirror and really understand how this happened. Climategate isn’t going to go away until these issues are resolved. Science is ultimately a self-correcting process, but with a major international treaty and far-reaching domestic legislation on the table, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The Changing Nature of Skepticism about Global Warming
Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed. In my informal investigations, I have been listening to the perspectives of a broad range of people that have been labeled as “skeptics” or even “deniers”. I have come to understand that global warming skepticism is very different now than it was five years ago. Here is my take on how global warming skepticism has evolved over the past several decades.
In the 1980’s, James Hansen and Steven Schneider led the charge in informing the public of the risks of potential anthropogenic climate change. Sir John Houghton and Bert Bolin played similar roles in Europe. This charge was embraced by the environmental advocacy groups, and global warming alarmism was born. During this period I would say that many if not most researchers, including myself, were skeptical that global warming was detectable in the temperature record and that it would have dire consequences. The traditional foes of the environmental movement worked to counter the alarmism of the environmental movement, but this was mostly a war between advocacy groups and not an issue that had taken hold in the mainstream media and the public consciousness. In the first few years of the 21st century, the stakes became higher and we saw the birth of what some have called a “monolithic climate denial machine”. Skeptical research published by academics provided fodder for the think tanks and advocacy groups, which were fed by money provided by the oil industry. This was all amplified by talk radio and cable news.
In 2006 and 2007, things changed as a result of Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” plus the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and global warming became a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut. The reason that the IPCC 4th Assessment Report was so influential is that people trusted the process the IPCC described: participation of a thousand scientists from 100 different countries, who worked for several years to produce 3000 pages with thousands of peer reviewed scientific references, with extensive peer review. Further, the process was undertaken with the participation of policy makers under the watchful eyes of advocacy groups with a broad range of conflicting interests. As a result of the IPCC influence, scientific skepticism by academic researchers became vastly diminished and it became easier to embellish the IPCC findings rather than to buck the juggernaut. Big oil funding for contrary views mostly dried up and the mainstream media supported the IPCC consensus. But there was a new movement in the blogosphere, which I refer to as the “climate auditors”, started by Steve McIntyre. The climate change establishment failed to understand this changing dynamic, and continued to blame skepticism on the denial machine funded by big oil.
Climate Auditors and the Blogosphere
Steve McIntyre started the blog climateaudit.org so that he could defend himself against claims being made at the blog realclimate.org with regards to his critique of the “hockey stick” since he was unable to post his comments there. Climateaudit has focused on auditing topics related to the paleoclimate reconstructions over the past millennia (in particular the so called “hockey stick”) and also the software being used by climate researchers to fix data problems due to poor quality surface weather stations in the historical climate data record. McIntyre’s “auditing” became very popular not only with the skeptics, but also with the progressive “open source” community, and there are now a number of such blogs. The blog with the largest public audience is wattsupwiththat.com, led by weatherman Anthony Watts, with over 2 million unique visitors each month.
So who are the climate auditors? They are technically educated people, mostly outside of academia. Several individuals have developed substantial expertise in aspects of climate science, although they mainly audit rather than produce original scientific research. They tend to be watchdogs rather than deniers; many of them classify themselves as “lukewarmers”. They are independent of oil industry influence. They have found a collective voice in the blogosphere and their posts are often picked up by the mainstream media. They are demanding greater accountability and transparency of climate research and assessment reports.
So what motivated their FOIA requests of the CRU at the University of East Anglia? Last weekend, I was part of a discussion on this issue at the Blackboard. Among the participants in this discussion was Steven Mosher, who broke the climategate story and has already written a book on it here. They are concerned about inadvertent introduction of bias into the CRU temperature data by having the same people who create the dataset use the dataset in research and in verifying climate models; this concern applies to both NASA GISS and the connection between CRU and the Hadley Centre. This concern is exacerbated by the choice of James Hansen at NASA GISS to become a policy advocate, and his forecasts of forthcoming “warmest years.” Medical research has long been concerned with the introduction of such bias, which is why they conduct double blind studies when testing the efficacy of a medical treatment. Any such bias could be checked by independent analyses of the data; however, people outside the inner circle were unable to obtain access to the information required to link the raw data to the final analyzed product. Further, creation of the surface data sets was treated like a research project, with no emphasis on data quality analysis, and there was no independent oversight. Given the importance of these data sets both to scientific research and public policy, they feel that greater public accountability is required.
So why do the mainstream climate researchers have such a problem with the climate auditors? The scientists involved in the CRU emails seem to regard Steve McIntyre as their arch-nemesis (Roger Pielke Jr’s term). Steve McIntyre’s early critiques of the hockey stick were dismissed and he was characterized as a shill for the oil industry. Academic/blogospheric guerilla warfare ensued, as the academic researchers tried to prevent access of the climate auditors to publishing in scientific journals and presenting their work at professional conferences, and tried to deny them access to published research data and computer programs. The bloggers countered with highly critical posts in the blogosphere and FOIA requests. And climategate was the result.
So how did this group of bloggers succeed in bringing the climate establishment to its knees (whether or not the climate establishment realizes yet that this has happened)? Again, trust plays a big role; it was pretty easy to follow the money trail associated with the “denial machine”. On the other hand, the climate auditors have no apparent political agenda,
are doing this work for free, and have been playing a watchdog role, which has engendered the trust of a large segment of the population.
Towards Rebuilding Trust
Rebuilding trust with the public on the subject of climate research starts with Ralph Cicerone’s statement “Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists.” Much has been written about the need for greater transparency, reforms to peer review, etc. and I am hopeful that the relevant institutions will respond appropriately. Investigations of misconduct are being conducted at the University of East Anglia and at Penn State. Here I would like to bring up some broader issues that will require substantial reflection by the institutions and also by individual scientists.
Climate research and its institutions have not yet adapted to its high policy relevance. How scientists can most effectively and appropriately engage with the policy process is a topic that has not been adequately discussed (e.g. the “honest broker” challenge discussed by Roger Pielke Jr), and climate researchers are poorly informed in this regard. The result has been reflexive support for the UNFCCC policy agenda (e.g. carbon cap and trade) by many climate researchers that are involved in the public debate (particularly those involved in the IPCC), which they believe follows logically from the findings of the (allegedly policy neutral) IPCC. The often misinformed policy advocacy by this group of climate scientists has played a role in the political polarization of this issue.. The interface between science and policy is a muddy issue, but it is very important that scientists have guidance in navigating the potential pitfalls. Improving this situation could help defuse the hostile environment that scientists involved in the public debate have to deal with, and would also help restore the public trust of climate scientists.
The failure of the public and policy makers to understand the truth as presented by the IPCC is often blamed on difficulties of communicating such a complex topic to a relatively uneducated public that is referred to as “unscientific America” by Chris Mooney. Efforts are made to “dumb down” the message and to frame the message to respond to issues that are salient to the audience. People have heard the alarm, but they remain unconvinced because of a perceived political agenda and lack of trust of the message and the messengers. At the same time, there is a large group of educated and evidence driven people (e.g. the libertarians, people that read the technical skeptic blogs, not to mention policy makers) who want to understand the risk and uncertainties associated with climate change, without being told what kinds of policies they should be supporting. More effective communication strategies can be devised by recognizing that there are two groups with different levels of base knowledge about the topic. But building trust through public communication on this topic requires that uncertainty be acknowledged. My own experience in making public presentations about climate change has found that discussing the uncertainties increases the public trust in what scientists are trying to convey and doesn’t detract from the receptivity to understanding climate change risks (they distrust alarmism). Trust can also be rebuilt by discussing broad choices rather than focusing on specific policies.
And finally, the blogosphere can be a very powerful tool for increasing the credibility of climate research. “Dueling blogs” (e.g. climateprogress.org versus wattsupwiththat.com and realclimate.org versus climateaudit.org) can actually enhance public trust in the science as they see both sides of the arguments being discussed. Debating science with skeptics should be the spice of academic life, but many climate researchers lost this somehow by mistakenly thinking that skeptical arguments would diminish the public trust in the message coming from the climate research establishment. Such debate is alive and well in the blogosphere, but few mainstream climate researchers participate in the blogospheric debate. The climate researchers at realclimate.org were the pioneers in this, and other academic climate researchers hosting blogs include Roy Spencer, Roger Pielke Sr and Jr, Richard Rood, and Andrew Dessler. The blogs that are most effective are those that allow comments from both sides of the debate (many blogs are heavily moderated). While the blogosphere has a “wild west” aspect to it, I have certainly learned a lot by participating in the blogospheric debate including how to sharpen my thinking and improve the rhetoric of my arguments. Additional scientific voices entering the public debate particularly in the blogosphere would help in the broader communication efforts and in rebuilding trust. And we need to acknowledge the emerging auditing and open source movements in the in the internet-enabled world, and put them to productive use. The openness and democratization of knowledge enabled by the internet can be a tremendous tool for building public understanding of climate science and also trust in climate research.
No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.
And finally, I hope that this blogospheric experiment will demonstrate how the diversity of the different blogs can be used collectively to generate ideas and debate them, towards bringing some sanity to this whole situation surrounding the politicization of climate science and rebuilding trust with the public.
First off, I would like to thank Dr. Curry for at least the effort to understand the whole of the climate change situation. There are several points she makes in her essay that I agree with but I think on the whole, she has missed the point.
It begins with James Hansen and his testimony before Congress. The whole situation was contrived from the beginning. Hansen admits that he conspired with Al Gore to turn off the air conditioners on a particularly hot and humid day in DC to artificially make their point. This is not science but circus. The continual willingness to stretch the truth to drive agenda is one of the biggest reason this has gotten to this point. Several of the IPCC authors have admitted that they exaggerated their issues for the greater political good – the end justifies the means. Again, this is not science, this is scandal.
Not wanting to miss out on a good catastrophe, the mainstream media (MSM) seized upon the impending doom and ran with it unlike what is claimed in the essay. A simple search of the literature will show the overwhelming bias of the media to alarmism and is well documented in this and other blogs. For years, all the public was told was that we were killing the earth and that all the scientists agreed. And scientists like James Hansen were suddenly media darlings with pictures, editorials and the works. It had to be a huge ego boost to go from lowly scientist in some dark lab somewhere to media superstar influencing government policy. But all of that is gone if they are wrong.
So now governments are starting to pour ever increasing sums of money into finding out how bad it is and how we can avoid it. A few voices start to decry the exaggerations but cannot find traction as the money was in alarmism and they were the ones getting the press. In a relatively short amount of time, an empire of academics and government research facilities was formed that controlled most of the research monies and by now data flow and scientific publications. By 1997 when Kyoto hit, even the ‘big oil denial machine” as she put it figured out there were huge sums of money to be made by cap and trade schemes. Witness Enron, Duke Engergy, GE and so forth. Then came 1998, the big El Nino year, and it was evident we were creating Hell on earth and the juggernaut seemed invincible.
I have been following this developing for years and was undecided until a couple of years ago. This is how I understand the events unfolded from there. In 1998, Michael Mann et al published there no infamous “hockey stick graph” that was seized upon as irrefutable proof that mankind was driving this warming and it was disastrous. Up until that point the skeptical voices has been pretty much isolated but growing in numbers. Then McIntyre managed to publish a debunking of the hockey stick graph (in a non-scientific journal, I might add) and was immediately crucified for his efforts. The ad-homenims were intense so as a defense to these attacks and as a way to disseminate information to the broader public, he created ClimateAudit.com. Gavin Schmidt et al immediately set up Realclimate as a way to counter ClimateAudit. And the blogosphere war was on.
As the internet was pretty much the only place to get published, the skeptical community had an idea that there were some shenanigans happening to delay, deny and otherwise discredit them so they begin to put out FOI requests. As it turns out, they were right as witnessed by the climategate exposure. I liken this to turning on a light at night and seeing the roaches scurry. For every one you see, there are probably 20 you do not so the published emails are most likely only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. But that is enough.
What I find most disheartening is that what should be reputable scientists have abdicated their roles as seekers and jumped to advocates. Instead of acknowledging that there are alternative explanations for the recent warming, they refused to even acknowledge what they did not know. To me, this is the unforgiveable. Science is only as good as our current understanding and if we get to the point we think we know it all, we are doomed. Science is advanced when we acknowledge, examine and test theories that have the potential to add to the overall body of knowledge even when it is at odds with the established current understanding. Sometimes those theories come from unconventional sources. We must be open.
I have an MS in materials science from Rice University (94) and throughout my educational experience, I have noticed more and more the tendency to indoctrinate rather than to teach critical thinking. It is my belief that these are fruits of that system bearing out today.
One last point I noticed was missing from Dr. Curry’s essay. While I want to believe that most scientist out there are altruistic and pure in their approach to science, I know for a fact that bureaucrats are not. The IPCC is governmental agency and is therefore by nature policy driven which means money, power and control. One need only look to Al Gore as proof. If he really believed we were burning up the earth, would he really travel the globe in an over-the-top energy hog private jet and an entourage of limosines?
I’ve read several essays by Dr. Curry, and I always come away with the same bemusement. She seems to start out saying that the process of science should be open, yadda, yadda, but then goes on to say that of course there’s a Great Pumpkin, and if you deny it, you must be on Big Oil’s payroll.
She continues to baffle. I don’t get it.
Look, we can go round and round on this
I’m trying to have a substantive discussion about how you chose to frame this letter, not “go round and round.” Other readers have made similar points, not just me, but you obviously don’t want to address the point. I am going to “leave it at that:” it’s your site and you get to do with it what you wish.
You could ask yourself why you’re so fixated on this, to the point of torpedoing Dr. Curry’s whole attempt at dialogue, and why you’re withholding our whole interaction from the comments thread, but that’s really on you.
REPLY: “withholding our whole interaction from the comments thread” heh, right. Look at how many comments there have been and the variety of opinions expressed. We have differing opinions, mine has been stated, yours has been stated, and hundreds of others have been stated. We disagree. I’m leaving it at that. -A
Well that “scandal” that goes by the name “Climategate” can be judged to some extent by the manner in which it is reported to various groups of the public, by different spokespersosn; one of whom Dr Curry evidently chooses to be (which is ok with me).
At one extreme, you have Madam Senator Mrs Barbara Boxer, chairman of the US Senate Committe on Energy and Public Works; who chooses to call it “theftgate” or some synonym for that term. The most important aspect of the event to Mrs Boxer is that e-mails were stolen; or at least so she asserts by virtue of her chosen characterization.
So we have a theft; but with no known theif; something which is anathema to the American Idea of innocent until PROVEN guilty.
No one has even shown any credible evidence of a theft having occurred; let alone any clue to a possible perpetrator.
Well in the field of energy and science, the Chairman of that US Senate committee, is arguably dumber than a box of rocks; and her science tutors don’t show any greater skills.
The UEA CRU e-mails, are simply a distraction from the real event; which was the disclosure of sections of computer code, and line by line comments by the very people who wrote that code; of the very mechanisms that were, or at least were capable of being used to misrepresent the scientific meaning of the raw data processed by that code. Now the apparent loss of the actual raw data, which has variously been confirmed, and denied by responsible parties at the CRU, would if true render it impossible to retrace events, and show which sections of the commented out code, would actually create the “homogenized” output derived from the now missing (purportedly) raw data.
So Dr Curry, also seems oblivious to this aspect of “Climategate”. The very existence at that institution of computer code, commented out or not; that is capable (as asserted by several computer code experts), of carrying out such nefarious manipulations on what is palmed off to the public, and the science community, as a true account of scientific results. That is the seat of the mistrust response.
The distrust, Dr Curry, is not some stream of e-mails showing “boys will be boys” naughtiness in action; but the inclusion of fudge making machinery, and also the inexcusable; and quite inexplicable occurrence of the loss of valuable historic climate data; and the lame excuse that it was filed in the circular file for lack of storage space.
Other recognized Climate Scientists, with impeccable credentials, have asserted that the entire packet of any and all climate data ever recorded anywhere here on planet earth, can be stored quite comfortably on a couple of spools of open reel tape, and stored in the average desk drawer.
As messy, as my office desk is; I still have available space to store all that climate data for Dr Phil Jones.
Back in the cold war days when U2 pilot Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union; resulting in the capture of sensitive intelligence data; many questioned why it was, that Powers failed to obey orders to hit the delayed self destruct button, as he exited the plane, and parachuted to his capture.
Powers would be floating to earth, and then the plane would destroy itself after a certain delay time.
Apparently (it is reported) that the self destruct delay time was a classified piece of information; access denied even to the pilots who flew the plane.
Powers evidently was the first pilot who was smart enough to figure out that the only possible reason for classifying that delay time information, was because the delay was zero. It has also been reported by engineers, and technicians, who claimed to have built those self destruct devices for the U2; that they were unaware, of any delay circuitry built into the device.
So the UEA CRU climate data processing code included commented out sections of code, that were capable, if used, of creating mayhem unknown to the unsuspecting users of the output from that code; and the (possibly) convenient loss of the raw input data (as in the dog ate it), sounds like the self destruct delay circuitry in the U2 cockpit.
Perhaps it was never intended, that anyone would be able to retrace the tracks that could have been travelled by Dr Phil Jones, and his fellow “miscreants” ; bearing in mind, that they haven’t been proven guilty of anything; well except perhaps, being apparently dumber than a box of rocks, like Senator Mrs Boxer.
Dr Curry; the e-mails are more of a distraction than a revelation; it is the hard core data, and computer code, that engenders distrust of the integrity of at least this bunch of “Climate Experts.”
And please don’t fall into that trap beloved by lawyers; that we; the “skeptics” et al are not competent to judge the merits of these arguments; and therefore should be ignored.
Only some of us are really skeptics; some such as me (or myself if you like longer words), are quite convinced beyond any doubt, that the “established science” of man made climate change global warming AGW is in fact quite wrong.
No we don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas; somewhat akin to H2O the primary greenhouse gas. No we don’t deny that greenhouse gases can and do, capture some of the surface emitted LWIR, and delay the surface cooling.
No we don’t deny that this energy capture by GHGs in the atmosphere results in warming the atmosphere;as does some incoming solar radiation.
No we don’t deny that since at least 1958 (The IGY) CO2 monitoring at Mauna Loa has indicated a steady increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. No we don’t deny that the CO2 level is now about 39% higher than what is assumed from proxies to have been extant around 1850 when CRU started gathering climate data.
No we also don’t deny that over the recent centuries, the earth has enjoyed the lowest levels of CO2 that it has seen ove the last 600 million years (based on proxies), and has steadily dropped (in geologic time terms) from levels about 25 times recent historical (proxy) levels, or 18 times current levels; and that life has prospered over that entire time frame; with notable extinction interruptions due to reasonably well understood unpredicted catastrophic incidents.
Some of us don’t deny any of that Dr Curry; we simply don’t believe that those mechanisms are in control of earth’s climate; nor do we believe the silly predictions, projections, extrapolations of computer models that the IPCC champions as a foretaste of the planet’s future.
We have already enjoyed at least 20 years of actual climate experience since the dire protestations of the diciples of those computer models; and so far none of their projected events has actually materialized.
Something else is in control of the climate Dr Curry; and robustly so; and no I can’t prove what it is; but I have a pretty good idea; at least I have a prime candidate. “IT’S THE WATER; INCLUDING THE WATER VAPOR; THE WATER LIQUID; AND THE WATER SOLID PHASE; aka “CLOUDS”. ”
Oddly it seems the most likely (in my view) candidate for climate control on earth; is somehow poorly represented in those vaunted computer climate “simulations”.
The most powerful, fastest, expensive computer, can only do what its programmers instruct it to do. I they give it garbage input; as in aliassed undersampled climate “data”; they will surely get the garbage out that they so far proclaim.
Accurate account but is still condescending. She admits that the notion of oil company funding all but dries up but still contends it’s easy to follow “the money trail” of the “deniers”.
More telling though is this question/comment. “Over the last few months, I have been trying to understand how this insane environment for climate research developed.” Are you freakin’ kidding me! Could it have been the money trail, no, money FLOOD of gov’t grants and funding to these people that corrupted their objectiveness?! Nah, couldn’t be. They are academics… Look in the mirror Ms. Curry.
Dr Curry’s interest in understanding and empathy from both sides seems to have developed since the AGW opponents arguments gained sufficient traction to force a scientific debate. It appears that the debate is now equally joined and the AGW “believers” are losing scientific ,and more importantly, political credibility.
My advice to Dr Curry is sit down and pass the Popcorn as the real scientific debate commences. If some scientist’s reputations are destroyed, if some scientists are fired, jailed etc because they were in the business of political science, Tough.
Climate Science has linked itself inextricably with a convergence of self-interested idiocies ranging through political, green theocracy, authoritarianism, state & big corporate interests, carpet baggers, eco-hustlers, investors… you name it. This amorphous blob has done some very, very bad things. It’s still doing them now.
So far, with dirty tricks, vitriol, projection, censorship, shunning & quashing debate this loose entity has managed to get a scam rolling into which trillions (I think) have been poured. At its most basic, it’s the old one using an eclipse to convince the natives they’ll all die if they don’t ‘trust’ the juju man to bring it back.
I would suggest it’s much too late for science to hop down from the cab of this jolly green juggernaut & simply ask us all to lie back down in front of it again & trust them to move on. Climate science is only a small part of the whole, even if it is held out as some sort of infallible totem. In that respect, it’s probably out of climate science’s hands now; the thing has grown too big. At the risk of mixing metaphors, climate science has nailed its colours to the mast & is now standing on the burning deck wondering if it’s not too late to shut the gate after the milk’s been well & truly spilled.
Well I see that the climate gizmo up there has now discovered some more CO2, and it is now 388.33 ppm up from just 388.09 a year ago, or whenever the gizmo achieved self determination.
I thought it was supposed to be going up 2 ppm per year I calculate the increase as being just 43.8 days worth of the annual growth rate.
Either the gizmo, or ML is off track somehow.
Dr Curry’s essay is a “higher level” attempt to put the cat back in the bag. A few minor changes, and things can get back to where they were before Climategate, Glaciergate etc.
She barely acknowledges the Agenda that’s being forced on the public, and her faith in Realclimate is breathtaking.
A Climate Trojan Horse methinks.
Hurricane activity down. Time to energize the base.
I find it bizarre that in the present time of recession, as bank lending rates bounce along at lows not seen since 1945, that tuition and fees at public and private universities only go up, and that these institutions actually protest their lot in the media. In another year, when my own kid goes off to college, I’ll get to send some of my own dollars toward this needy cause.
Here are average tution rates compared to medical costs and cost of living over the last 30 years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/InflationTuitionMedicalGeneral1978to2008.png
Not to put too gross a point on this: Two characteristics make a metastatic cancer so scary: first, it has the ability to steal the blood supply from healthy tissues, thus usurping otherwise healthy bodily functions to support its own growth; and secondly it seems to morph as it spreads. A new tumor appears in public institutions of higher ed every decade or so, trivially changing from one environmental aspect to another. The variant this decade is an outgrowth of an old fear of catastrophe, this time from man-made global warming. And no surprise, it’s proponents have shut down healthy debate and usurped all funds which fail to support its genotype: (C)AGW.
If any of Ms. Curry’s former students are reading here, perhaps they can tell us if any of the trillions in Obama stimulus funds (billions to NSF) have been coming their way. But if climate science has followed the same path as NIH grants, money has been harder for young scientists to come by than for older ones who seem to be so busy protecting the status quo, according to a recent article by Jonah Lehrer in the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071573334216604.html
Ironically, research by younger scientists is often more creative and insightful than that of their teachers and mentors. Archimedes, Einstein, Galileo and Curie all made significant discoveries in their early 20’s, and their contributions to science soon thereafter began to wane, according to the article.
Funded or not, the challenge in this science is still “out there”: to find reliable sources of paleo data, gather incontrovertible evidence, do honest and unbiased analysis recording clear lines of reasoning, and present solid proofs with replicability… then let the chips fall where they may. My guess is that your universities, departments, and the science of climate change will be invigorated by your actions.
What hubris for Dr. Curry to think that she is initiating a blogosphere experiment. This experiment was initiated by Watts and McIntyre and RealClimate and she is a very late comer. Science has been in trouble for a long time- most of what passes for science is gizmo-ology, publish or perishology and drug marketingology. Science should be a philosophical pursuit of truth and as far as I am concerned the best scientific values are reprented on the blogoshere by the “sceptics”- regardless of the credentials of the participants- though Dr. Curry would do well to note that many of the blogosphere participants are highly credentialled. I appreciate her overture or admission of failure, or whatever it is, but it is way too late. The genie is out of the bottle. Most human social constructs are subject to paratism by the human genotype that seems evolved to thrive by creating niches for managers, high priests and royalty. When these people get hold, the end of the useful life of the social construct is usually imminent. I feel mainstream science is so driven by political interference, the need to exaggerate to get funding, and parasites masquerading as scientists so they don’t have to really work, that a major loss in credibility was inevitable. It will be interesting to see if the blogosphere is wild enough and so far reaching that it can sustain a reviatalization of the search for truth- or will it develop its own cadre of high priests, senior researchers and royality who create the little pockets of pus where they can thrive. I would like to see the blogosphere tackle world hunger. Why are children starving around the world while countries limit food production? Why are the oceans in a catastrophic state of decline with seemingly no end in sight? What are the limits to growth- in an economist’s wet dream, just how many people do they see on this earth? How can we reign in the quack pharmaceutical industry- why are millions spent on over the counter medications that have been proven to be useless or worse, when will the medical community start rotating antibiotics to prevent resistance from building up- an idea that was first put forward in the early sixties, but which has been steadfastly ignored by drug companies? etc. I hope that the blogosphere is just getting started on junk science and social injustice (the much bigger issue). Go blogosphere go!
Welll….the ‘science isn’t settled’ quote was interesting, but I’m reading it as ‘you are wrong and we just need to convince you’ rather than an admission that she might actually be wrong.
My gut reaction to this and similar ‘outreaches’ is that I recognise a Hudna when I see one.
Sorry Dr Curry but there are a couple of things that are totally fundemental to our side of the arguement that you need to address before i consider peace negotiations.
The Hockey Stick. You need to admit in a public forum such as this that the attempt by Michael Mann (and the Team) to re-invent climate history so as to try and discredit skeptics was wrong.
Tell me that the hockey stick is wrong.
Tell me that Al Gore is a carpet bagger and does nothing for the integrity of climate science.
Then…I’ll think you are genuine. Until then, I see this as just a hudna.
Tell me that you believe in AGW, but admit that the observational evidence so far does not back it up…I’ll help you look for it. Tell me you are unsure, but believe, and thats fine, lets look at the evidence in a cold objective way together. I may be wrong, you may be right.
But don’t come to me with fraudulent statistics and scare stories such as you and your colleagues have allowed the media and governments to beat us over the heads with. Clean out your house and we can talk.
A start for engendered trust would be for Dr Curry to point the following in the direction of politicians: –
“No one really believes that the “science is settled” or that “the debate is over.” Scientists and others that say this seem to want to advance a particular agenda. There is nothing more detrimental to public trust than such statements.”
I’m fascinated by the long, detailed posts here by names I don’t recall ever seeing post at WUWT.
Anyway, here’s mine:
I’m sorry, but here’s a major disconnect from reality. Who are these alleged “traditional foes of the environmental movement”? Real people with real lives? Those who are more realistic about what is and is not harmful to “the environment”? Those who already have a religion and don’t want to add Mother Earth? It’s not “big oil”, they’re firmly in the “environmentalism” pocket.
Exactly what sane individual could possibly look at the skeptic community and see some sort of monolithic machine? Try using a mirror: the AGW machine is the giant, monolithic, exorbitantly funded juggernaut that has rolled over many extremely capable people, crushing their careers and credibility for a political position. SHAME on you if you think it is otherwise. SHAME on AGW proponents for their repeated and current arrogance and uncaring destructive actions against anyone who disagrees. SHAME on the AGW machine for indoctrinating children with what is more political spin than scientific certainty, giving them nightmares and making their hopes for the future even more bleak than those of us who were children during the Cold War.
The stakes are not “higher” from the perspective of the planet. They are higher from the perspective of people who have invested their careers and finances into this ridiculous and highly UNscientific AGW meme, where tipping points and inane hyperbole are the scare-tools for extracting raw cash from the pockets of the populace. It is not Earth or our or our childrens’ future that is at stake, no matter how much you want to frame it that way.
—-
No, as others have said, I’m not buying. Dr. Curry is speaking from a position that is deluded. I realize that this is a decent start toward understanding something, but that something won’t be understood until all of her preconceived notions about what has happened since 1988 can be thrown away.
What she apparently does not understand is that the AGW “side” has not just low credibility, but NO credibility. None. The tricks, hiding, fumbling, old-boys networking, denial of FOI requests, concealing of methods and data, alarmism, media proclamations, personal smears and the rest are not simply anecdotal, they demonstrate clearly that not ONE SINGLE WORD of what any of these people or their supporters say should be taken seriously.
It’s not the communication that is the problem, Dr. Curry, it is the message.
Just a hypothetical:
I go down to my local car dealer and buy a used sports car. They have lots of ballons floating around and free rootbeer and hotdogs. I buy the car because I trust the salesman, figuring they have the expertise their business requires, and drive the car home.
The next weekend I take this sports car on a lengthy road trip. Problem is, the car grinds to a halt far from home so after some difficulty, I find a mechanic to inspect it. He tells me someone has put sawdust in the manual tranmission, apparently hoping I’d take it to some mechanic that would never tell me what the real problem was just so he could sell me a new transmission.
I should have looked past the numerous balloons and free hotdogs and been really skeptical when I bought it, but they wouldn’t let me take it to another mechanic for a second opinion.
Now, would any of you ever go back to the car dealer that sold me the car? Would these folks have any further credibility in your estimation? Could any of you defend this dealer as having the best of intentions and pass it off as trying to do their work in a very difficult environment?
I think not.
And would any of you want a refund?
Absolutely.
Applying a legal remedy wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.
“Credibility is a combination of expertise and trust”. Expertise? Really?
How would you define “credibility gap”?
FOLLOW THE CASH
Taken from Richard’s post @ur momisugly EU Referendum web site:
‘………………Since taking the chair of the IPCC in 2002, Rajendra Pachauri’s own personal research institute, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has enjoyed a multi-million-euro bonanza from EU-funded research projects. Having led the institute from 1982, in the 20 years before he assumed the IPCC chair, only four EU projects had been awarded. Since then, the institute in seven years has shared in 17 projects worth over €56 million. For many of them, TERI had no obvious expertise or physical presence.
COASTIN……………..on “Measuring, monitoring and managing sustainability – the coastal dimension”. Another tranche of EU money was awarded to his institute
PRO-CET……………..a grant of €125,000 towards the €786,830 needed to host an “OPET-Associate” for the Indian sub-continent and the ASEAN region.
OPET Network………Organisations for the Promotion of Energy Technologies (OPET) – for which the commission had ambitions of turning into a world-wide network. The funding was only for a year.
ASIA-URBS……………conveniently centred on the TERI Retreat which now boasts a nine-hole golf course, cricket grounds and a badminton green. The project was part of the EU’s long-running ASIA-URBS programme, taking the institute’s involvement through to May 2004. It was aimed at “improving urban environment through the introduction of sustainability measures in building design”, TERI sharing €127,332.50 with its local government partner. INTEREST, this was worth €650.000 split between six partners, starting on 1 February 2002 and lasting until 31 January 2005 The objective was to “generate tools to support improved ecosystem management for sustainability.”
PERIURBAN……………study of, “Sustainable settlements in peri-urban areas: with special reference to impacts of transport and energy on natural resources management”. With €687,998 shared between six partners, this was the largest yet.
OPET project………….EU paid €893,374 of its €1,636,910 costs, shared between its 18 – mostly European – member organisations.
ED-WAVE………………June 2003, TERI shared with five other partners a €480,155 project called ED-WAVE, developing “a sustainable framework for training in technologies for conservation, reclamation and reuse of natural resources”, with special reference to improving water efficiency.
NEU-CO2……………..TERI was nominated as a partner in stage three of an ongoing research project called NEU-CO2. Starting in September 2004 and lasting for two years, TERI’s task was to assist in setting up the systems to monitor the manufacture of synthetic materials and chemical products, e.g. plastics, paints, solvents, lubricants and bitumen, as these were considered to contribute substantially to CO2 emissions. For this endeavour, Pachauri’s institute shared in the fairly modest €289,656 pot paid-for by the EU. But greater riches were to come. The next project for TERI started in March 2005. Called
TBT IMPACTS……………and lasting until February 2009, it was co-ordinated by TERI under the leadership of Dr Sangeeta Sonak, with a budget of €799,841. The task, from the offices in land-locked New Delhi, included an assessment of current policy concerns and developments with regards to the ban on using organotin compounds in antifouling paints and an assessment of their environmental impacts. The project was also to develop a simple biomonitoring system to regulate TBT impacts and help implementation of legislation. End of January 2006, TERI was again a project leader, this time under the direction of Ms Ritu Mathur,
GAINS-ASIA…………….. This brought together “state-of-the-art disciplinary models on air pollution and climate change to assess technical and market based policies that maximize synergies and benefits between these policy areas.” The pot here was a much improved €1,161,102 – the first million-plus project in which TERI has been involved – of which the EU paid €695,000. As project leader, TERI’s percentage would have been significant.
ADAM…………………..Now the big money beckoned. Although a curiously specific European affair, TERI was invited to take part in ADAM a huge project on “Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: supporting European climate policy.” Starting in March 2006 and running to the end of July 2009, working alongside multiple partners including the University of East Anglia – led by Mike Hulme – TERI took a part-share in the €18,197,000 pot. The EU paid €12,905,000.
By now, the EU was taking a keen interest in Dr Pachauri, part-sponsoring (alongside the UK’s DFID) a conference in Delhi on “Adaptation to climate variability and change”, organised by TERI. Ms. Soledad Blanco, Director International Affairs, European Commission (Directorate General for Environment), gave the “welcome address”.
COMPETE………………Then, when the EU commission wanted work carried out in Africa, TERI was chosen, despite having no presence on the continent. This was COMPETE, a “Competence Platform on Energy Crop and Agroforestry Systems for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems – Africa”. The project started in January 2007 and finished at the end of December last year. Its objective was “to stimulate bioenergy implementation in arid and semi-arid regions in Africa.” TERI took a share of the €1,497,000 paid by the EU.
EUCAARI……………….Such was the flow of work that, for the first time, Pachuari’s institute was in that January starting another EU project simultaneously. This was EUCAARI, due for completion in December this year, at an overall cost of €15,025,634 – for which the EU has budgeted €9,999,627. Entitled “a European integrated project on aerosol cloud, climate and air quality interactions” this was also – at first sight – a European affair. But it included “key players” from third countries, of which TERI was fortunate to be regarded as one, enabling it to work alongside the University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences, under the leadership of professor Simon Clegg.
Meanwhile, on the 8th and 9th February 2007, as a sign of the closer relationship, the EU commission launched its “1st EU-India Strategic Science and Technology Workshop,” on the theme: “Climate change research needs”. Conveniently, the event, co-organised by DG-Research, was held at the TERI office location and inaugurated by the Commissioner for Research, Janez Potočnik.
Now fully engaged on the launch of his IPCC report, and then attending to collect the Nobel prize on behalf of the IPCC, Pachauri had less time to devote to EU affairs. Nevertheless, the relationship had become extremely lucrative.
The projects roll in
SAFERWIND……………..In September 2008, TERI started another project, one called SAFEWIND. A highly technical project ending on 31 August 2012, this involves: “Multi-scale data assimilation, advanced wind modelling and forecasting with emphasis on extreme weather situations for a secure large-scale wind power integration.” TERI is not known for its prowess in “advanced wind modelling” – especially in European scenarios where the project is centred. But that has not stopped it becoming a partner, sharing in the French co-ordinated work which will yield €5,581,859, of which €3,992,400 will be donated by the EU.
Only months later, on 1 January 2009, another major project started, in which TERI was a partner.
CLIMATECOST……….This was CLIMATECOST ending in August 2011 at a cost of €4.61 million of which the EU was paying €3.5 million. Led by the Oxford Office of the Stockholm Environment Institute, TERI was to contribute to determining the “full costs of climate change”.
ISSOWAMA…………….That coincided with the start of ISSOWAMA – “Integrated Sustainable Solid Waste Management in Asia”. Requiring, “Networking and preparatory action in view of developing cost-effective, environmentally-safe waste treatment technologies and services adapted to the needs of developing countries, within a targeted life cycle approach”, TERI was to share €1,278,698, the EU providing €989,523 for the 30 month duration of the project.
RESPONSES……………….The University of East Anglia cropped up in yet another EU-funded project in which TERI also partnered. That one was called RESPONSES, dealing with: “European responses to climate change: deep emissions reductions and mainstreaming of mitigation and adaptation.” Again a largely European affair funded from the main research budget, it started on an unspecified date in 2009 with TERI sharing a pot of €3,149,708.
HIGHNOON……………………Also starting in 2009, officially on 1 May, was the now notorious HIGHNOON. It had been set up to study “adaptation to changing water resources availability in northern India with Himalayan glacier retreat and changing monsoon pattern”. TERI gets a share of €4.28 million, of which €3.31 million is to be paid by the EU.
SETATWORK………………….Then, in September 2009 and ending this coming August, TERI commenced work on SETATWORK, a €1.27 million project with €999,972 of EU funding, aimed at the “thematic promotion of energy efficiency and energy saving technologies in the carbon markets”.
RISKCYCLE…………………..,Also in September 2009, TERI started its involvement in RISKCYCLE, a project charged with defining future R&D requirements “in the field of risk-based management of chemicals and products,” with a view to using alternative testing strategies to minimise animal tests. Again, this was not an obvious area of TERI expertise but it nevertheless shares in the three-year project worth €1,206,063 – of which the EU is paying €996,324.
Other Europeans pitich in
Furthermore, support from European countries did not come only via the EU. The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland has been funding TERI to carry out projects on Pollution in India, a project that aims to address some of the questions posed by the “brown cloud” phenomenon. Phased payments for 2004-2006 were € 302,000, phase two from 2007-2009 was € 220,000 and phase three from 2010-2012 is planned to spend € 480,000 – amounting to nearly €1 million.
Additionally, the British government in September last year pledged £10 million to TERI – having already funded the institute to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds, while the Norwegian government on 13 November last year signed a 60 million Norwegian Kroners (about €7.5 million) contract with TERI.
For R K Pachauri, whether man-made global warming exists or not, it has proved very profitable indeed for his institute, not least through the “generosity” of the Europeans who seem only too keen to encourage his ambitions……………………………………………’ Richard @ur momisugly EU Referendum
———————I think I feel sick———————–
The problem with what the CRU scientists (ok, most of the ‘climate’ scientists) have done is that it is indefensible.
Dr. Curry, Dr. Ravitz and Mead are all taking the “prodigal son” approach: forgive these errant people, just because.
Nope, can’t do it. First and foremost, all of these people should have their govt funding cut to zero. Second, if they have tenure, they should be fired. If they don’t have tenure, they should be fired. And then let the criminal prosecutions, RICO prosecutions and civil suits follow.
They have yelled ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. Lives have been lost, billions wasted, for a fraud. Make them pay, like they’ve been making us pay for the last 20 years to fund their bogus conclusions and research.
A further comment. You will observe, Dr. Curry, that I use a tag rather than give my real name. Why is this? It is because the scientific establishment that created the “science is settled” argument manufactured a toxic environment in which it became dangerous to one’s career to admit to being skeptical about global warming alarmist claims. Scientists – let alone politicians – cast ‘flat earther’ and ‘creationist’, and ‘conspiracy theorist’ and other aspersions upon skeptics regardless of their credentials or education or the scientific stengths of their objections to the more questionable science being done by AGW activists and scientists.
I happen to slightly know one of the players who is currently involved in defending the alarmist science, and am firmly of the opinion that this individual would lose respect for me if s/he became aware of my views. Because of third party links this individual and I have, I need to hide my name. Note please that I continue to have a high level of respect, even admiration, for this individual because of other academic work s/he has done. A debate over the scientific issues should not cost one the regard of one’s peers, and in normal circumstances would not. This debate is not normal: it has been pathologized by the political-scientific-environmentalist moralism and extremism of AGW defenders.
The question that has not been addressed thus far is whether we are interested in intellectual debate or effecting change.
If the latter is the case, then we need to embrace and encourage suggestions (if they are credible and well intentioned) on how to ‘rebuild the trust’.
Is that not what we are all asking for? A ‘bi-partisan’, transparent, balanced ‘do-over’ of everything from surface temperature analysis, to climate models, proxy reconstructions etc.
My 5 cents (inflation), would be that our number one agenda is to push for a ‘fair and balanced’ re-assesment of the science. I inferred or read the same from JC.
In order for this to happen, parties from both sides need to come together and suggest a ‘framework’ proposal for the son-of-IPCC. To do this we need to find partners within the Pro-AGW camp who have the common goal of finding the best and most reasonable assessments of the science.
No doubt that we can quibble and debate the tone, word-choices and biases of JC’s letter but it might be more productive to follow up on the suggestion for the path forward which restores ‘trust’.
Wow, the timing is good. Steve just posted another entry at Climate Audit with the title of “Rob Bradley: Climategate from an Enron Perspective”. The analogy really hits key parts of how trust failed. … Even if analogies are not a good thing.
Why call anyone a “denier”? Is use of that nasty word intended as a play on a denial of those nasty Nazi gas chambers by some history recalcitrants, or is it intended to suggest that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is as deadly as the Nazis’ gas? In any case, why tar me as a “denier” of AGW? Just call me an AGWNB, the acronym for AnthropogenicGlobalWarmingNonBeliever.
I have had many jobs over the past 45 years, most recently as a tool and die machinist for the past 9 years. Drama and politics are not my game, detail and precision, the fit and inter working of processes, is my normal concern and focus. In my spare time over the past 35 years I have been studying the weather, I have read more research than text books, and usually find more problems in the text books.
What climatologists suggest to be the main driving forces of the climate, ie long term weather patterns, are second and third derivatives of the real driving forces that move the global circulation around. The global warming hypothesis has focused on one tiny insignificant factor, the CO2 content.
Much more important are the Planetary interaction of the solar system with the Barycenter of the solar system’s effects on the sun’s solar cycles and the secondary influences of the outer planets on the resultant tidal interactions of the Earth / moon system that drives the decade period ocean, and atmospheric oscillations.
Until these main drivers can be understood, and their main patterns of natural variations accounted for, and incorporated into the models, the process of the cyclic patterns of meridional flow surges created and maintained by the Lunar declinational tides, that control the Earth’s radiative energy balance, via driving the patterns of the Rossby wave generation, and jet stream movement, will not be understood well enough to separate out the resultant long term compound signal from the weather records. This has to be done before the left over signal from the solar variability, can be seen easily enough to remove, to see if there are any residual effects due to the CO2 component.
I am not a skeptic, I am just a critical thinker, and there needs to be a process in place where by the dross is removed, before the refining of the ore can proceed. The whole problem has been that the CO2 signal is so small, that it is undetectable in the background.
The spending of huge sums of research on a CO2 agenda focused outcome, has wasted resources that could have been much better utilized in producing basic knowledge about the secondary effects such as El /La nino, PDO, AO NAO periodicity, that are derived from long term solar and lunar declinational tidal components.
The changes in the 18.6 Mn lunar declinational patterns of atmospheric tides as a cyclic pattern alone, can forecast 87% of the daily weather pattern progression. When adjustment for the influences of the outer planets on the remaining surges in global circulation, that produce most of the severe weather outbreaks of global scale, good forecast could be produced for the main killers of peoples in low lying areas.
Your focus on the concern for the lack of public trust, in a failed hypothesis that has the wrong focus, just because it has the economic mismanagement potential, of focusing the movement of massive funds, to those in control of the “global warming mitigation process” is a travesty.
Not all of the intelligent people of the world are driven by greed. Some of us are humble enough to see the whole world as it is, and realize we can only watch and learn. Control over the solar system that is driving the weather and climate through the interactions of the planetary bodies of this solar system and it’s interactions with the greater galactic fields, is beyond our abilities.
The best we as humans can do is to engender a better understanding of how the whole process is interconnected, and assist in the enhancement of the the photosynthetic capture ratio of the sun light available by the plant population of the biosphere to best support the greatest diversity of life possible. While maintaining the best water quality we can, still providing the infrastructure to support the food and energy needs of all of the non plants.
This whole quibbling over the political aspirations of a few, at the expense of everything else, in the name of environmental salvation is shameful.
Pew! A hundred comments later, but now I think I understand why the article felt like an odd read — it’s like a batch of cough syrup to try and mitigate the symptoms…. the “deniers” are preconceived to suffer from.
Luv@internetANDall
Ref johnnythelowerly..
Me too. And its this that I just don’t get about the ‘left of centre’ media…don’t they see what a scam this whole thing is. Its worse than any capitalist sweat shop story.
The creaming off money for quangos when a fraction of that could be spent doing real good such as fresh water, vaccines, anti malarials…..I want to puke.
Don’t these guys understand they have been had.
Good intentions I’m sure, but the sharks swam in and took it over as a money making exercise. What was it Lenin said about useful idiots?