Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”

The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt.

“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”

From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:

“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”

Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date? ;-)

=========================================

Excerpts of: Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate

By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.

But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.

The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.

The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.

“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday.

Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.

“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”

A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.

Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.

Some critics think these are merely cosmetic efforts that do not address the real problem, however.

“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”

“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”

…….

read the rest at Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate in the New York Times

Advertisements

243 thoughts on “Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop “persuading the public”

  1. This NYT story is a very biased white wash…

    For example…
    Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked,

    Have been following this very closely and am not aware that the ‘serious’ allegations have been debunked..rather the statute of limitations has expired.. very different POV

  2. Indeed Willis,
    We must bring back the idea of actual “consequences” for malfeasence.

    Not simply the tired status quo of blaming the system while the offenders skate and continue their work.

    In the arena of AGW, many individuals, whole departments and enitre institutions must face disqualification from any additional contributions.

  3. The NYT author referred to, “…recent revelations of a handful of errors in…” the IPCC report. A handful of errors? A HANDFUL of errors? (More like dozens of handfuls of errors.)

    He also characterized those errors as “several relatively minor errors”. Minor errors? MINOR errors? (More like large enough to call the entire report into question.)

    It is clear that the warmists still don’t get it. They still aren’t listening. They are still in denial. (Interesting that the AGW alarmists are the real deniers.)

  4. Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date?

    Is your point that a scientist should not do both scientific research and run a commentary website? Do you consider that a conflict of interest of some sort?

    Like a lot terms that get thrown around these days — denier, alarmist, warmist, skeptic — your post here can mean whatever different people want it to mean. I’d like to see this in more scientific terms and urge you to remove the ambiguity here.

  5. “Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked, while several investigations are still under way to determine whether others hold up. ”

    … and what charges are these? the debunked ones???

  6. When you read the NYT, you not only finish the article less informed than when you started you also leave with less IQ.

  7. It’s too bad the Broder piece was cut off just before Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences is quoted, then followed by this:

    The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

  8. I took the quote from the article to mean that scientists shouldn’t over-extend themselves in trying to persuade staunchly opposed people; ‘“Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.” ‘

    It sounds like he’s taking more of a “let the science speak for itself” approach. I don’t see that as opposed to explaining the science on a blog. If you present the newest scientific findings or respond to some misconception, that’s one thing. If you propagandize and over-inflate it while explaining it to the public, it’s going to come back and bite you. I think that’s what he’s cautioning against.

  9. The Grand Logia of The Most Respectful and Holy Progressive BInternational Brotherhood and its International Agenda it is just trying to fix things up a bit so as to make it more swallable for what they disrespectfully consider the idiotic and dumbed general public like us.

  10. typical new york times garbage. The science is still settled according to them and non biased Gavin schmidt.

    Interesting to see how independant this independant panel will be. Lets’ see; the independant panel cannot refute previous studies and will be selected by people like pachuiri. I can’t see anything going wrong with this.

  11. “The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”

    Willis, Harsh but Fair

  12. John Broder’s career appears to be tied in w/ AGW. His article is utter slander against everyone who’s exposed the AGW fraud, and, he needs to be fired.

  13. Gavin , the climate scientist, not “trying to persuade the public”:

    “…It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    The answer is simple, he said.

    “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
    ………………………………………………………………………….
    His last sentence will hopefully come true, but not in the way he wishes.

  14. I get concerned when I see an article quoting the Union of Concerned Scientists which leans more towards advocacy than they do science.

  15. Sorry, Anthony, but RealClimateAlarmism, the commentary site on climate alarmism by working climate alarmists, is not going to disappear soon.

    REPLY: Oh I know that. Perhaps the sarcasm wasn’t clear enough. I’ll add a winky. – Anthony

  16. The NYT continues with its traditional tilt – though I guess it’s a “sea-change” for them to admit the problems exist. The question of causality, however, raises its head. The reason the scientists have had to respond is posited thus:

    “It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately.”

    This comment fails to acknowledge that the scientists brought the problem on themselves. It was very much an “own goal”. Had they approached their science appropriately, with the caveats that it deserved, from the outset, rather than as a game of advocacy, where bad results are to be concealed, “bodged” or overlooked, the tenor and direction of the debate would have been very much different.

    Worryingly, it suggests that MORE time should be spent by climate scientists on blogs such as Real Climate, rather than addressing the genuine problems that exist in how they’ve approached their work and the dissemination of their results.

    I think Willis is correct here: the issue is not simply a matter of more effective presentation of the existing “Team” line – it’s an overhaul of how they approach their work, a separation of advocacy from science and a PUBLIC recognition of how material are the caveats, qualifiers and uncertainties in all that they do.

  17. Well, Willis wrote one of the best pieces ever on the so-called science and it was only a matter of time before the media noticed. It is thoughtful and to the point.

  18. Gavin’s comment seems to be that it is not the job of all climate scientists – contra Dr. Curry’s statement – to “respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists.”

    Do you see some contradiction in the fact that he and other scientists choose to “do so in a personal capacity during their spare time” (also from the About page)?

  19. Gavin Schmidt’s duplicity is hopeless. What always amazes me is he still find ears to listen to his double talk.

  20. Thomas,

    The questioning itself has been pathetic at best. All that’s been missing is ending each question with “while hopping on one foot?”. Providing that all too clever for the befuddled masses “While hopping on one foot… no.” way out.

  21. “For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media”

    LOL. It’s good to see people like Broder coming to the conclusion that most US news organizations, and the NYT, in particular, is not to be considered part of the media.

  22. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate.

    Let me save them the trouble.

    The climate has been warming since the little ice age.

  23. If only “some of the most serious allegations” have been debunked, then, NYT, shouldn’t you at least report on the “serious allegations” which have not been debunked? After all, even the NYT says they’re “serious”.

  24. That’s for sure Thomas.

    As for Ralph Cicerone, his job is to insure the integrety of the science not “…trying to be heard over the loudest voices on cable news, talk radio and the Internet.” The minute he said that he crossed over into advocacy.

    The facts sir. Just the facts.

  25. Oh, and the piece seriously underestimates the delusion many climate scientists have that current methodology can yield such “precise” assertions about what is going to happen. If anything, they need to focus on ways to reliably distinguish a signal in the noise, presupposing there is one.

  26. As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…”

    Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job. Public trust needs to be won back through good scientific practices.

    This is why I couldn’t receive any statement more openly than I do Gavin Schmidt’s that ended the Broder piece: ““Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    To Gavin, I say, let the revenge begin.

    Just my two-cents’ worth.

    -Chip Knappenberger

    PS. And as far as Willis Eschenbach’s statement that “The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.” He seems to be directing this at climate scientists, but hopefully he means that it should include arm chair climate scientists as well–on both sides of the issue.

  27. Note the following excerpt from the NYT article:
    “The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.”

    If it were only true that Jones, Mann et. al. felt compelled to provide replicable analysis.

    In this sense, the article has perhaps done us a service. Let’s turn the sentence around and argue that one who has, or feels, no obligation to support his/her findings with replicable analysis is not a scientist, regardless of prestige, degree or title.

    And if making sweeping statements condemning competing viewpoints and analyses (that could be you, Gavin Schmidt) makes someone less of a scientist, there should be many warmists in the dock.

  28. Gavin has identified the roots of the current problem. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    Err, no Gavin. The nutters wouldn’t have got close to the Agenda had the numbers stood up to any level of scrutiny. What must be continuously embarassing for Climate Science professionals, as distinct from the nutters like you and me, is that often the data squeeks as soon as it is put under a magnifying glass. What would be the result of using a microscope?

  29. “Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.”
    So, in other words now that they’ve been outed, we’re supposed to believe they are going to act like actual scientists. Mistakes were made. Oops. We can do better, we promise. Trust us. Would we lie?
    The saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” comes to mind.
    We need to start seeing some heads on pikes. Maybe then we start beginning to trust them once more.

  30. Gavin says;

    “There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    The answer is simple, he said.

    “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    Okay then. Whats Gavin response to this;

    Global warming, or not global warming?

  31. Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked

    Debunked? What is debunked? This I am not aware. I would suggest to the contrary. If anything, these allegations have been confirmed. What utter BS….

  32. Meanwhile the entrenched civil service carries on – when asked about Phil Jones statement of 15 years of no significant warming –

    “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco would only say “that it is inappropriate to look at any particular short period of time to discern the long-term trend.””

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/61525

  33. “We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific heretic are very, very rare.”

    To paraphrase: “The science is 99% settled, with a 50% certainty, so we need more funding”. Typical hubris and spin.

    btw – grats on the NYT quote Willis. Well said.

  34. This article only hits the half that has to do with public trust. In that, I agree, the mainstream climate scientists have failed miserably. But the NYT does not discuss the real nub of how they failed–by passing off shoddy science as legitimate and careful.

  35. Apparently Gavin has a misquote at the end of the article. The controversy has for once prevented “the nutters from controlling the agenda”. In his role as deputy chief nutter I can only assume he accidently left out the word prevented.

    The popular fabrication “debunked” regarding messy things like observational data that is impossible to debunk continues, so they haven’t learned much yet.

  36. “There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    Quite the quote! Note the agenda…

    Diminish the importance of the accusations.
    Deflect the issues. Blame the problem on the weather!!!
    (Weather is NOT climate, remember?!)
    Relegate the proof of malfeasance to one among many specious propositions.
    Reconfirm the unusual nature of the accusations
    (perfect storm…AGAIN with the weather!!)
    Finally, discredit the accusers by comparing them to LHO, CT.

    This man may well be a CIA spook in his spare time. Certainly understandable why he got the nod as the PR guy….although BS guy might be more appropriate.

    Polarizing and marginalizing is a tactic and not a solution.

    A sad, sad day for science of any kind.

  37. Broder is using opinion from advocacy groups (e.g. Union of Concerned Scientists) to bolster the position (his sole point, actually) that it’s not advocacy. If sanity prevailed, this would be ironic. Instead, it’s par for the course.

  38. My favorite part of that column. (A finer parody could not be written if you tried)

    In the middle of the article:

    “The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent”

    At the end:

    Dr. Schmidt said. “It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    Certainly no sweeping statements of condemnation there!

  39. What Jones gives for an excuse to not release the USHCN data he uses turns out to be trashed versions as found on
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
    The reality is that many stations were rejected in the CRU set…they have many yearly means zeroed out over missing data that turns out to actually exist.
    So, Dr. Jones is not telling the truth, and nobody can replicate thier work because the raw data that is assembled by hand is far more complete than the ncdc version. There is no way to know what Jones used, but it is very clear that he used a set of the real data that was artificially gutted.

  40. “…have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. ”

    I was always under the impression that good scientific research required no faith whatsoever.

  41. Yeah right, the climate scientists are surprised. They’ve known which side the bread was buttered for a long time. While many were necessarily complicit to maintain their jobs, there was no surprise whatsoever. That is just more cover-up.

  42. At least they picked a good quote from Willis – the rest of the piece is garbage, but I do find it interesting that the NAS and UCS essentially say “scientists should learn how to be better advocates” while Gavin, he must have been LOL’ing when he wrote it, says they need to stick to the science. Call my cynical but I don’t think there’s really a split there, just Gavin trying to act all holier than thou when in truth he probably spends more time on RC, IPCC, and Hockey Team politicking than he does on “science”

  43. The NYT, as a part of the global Old Boys Network, is unafraid of telling untruths, obviously, as no ‘serious allegations were debunked in the UK parliamentary hearing to my knowledge. In fact Jones’ admissions were self-incriminating from an ethical and traditional view of what science is.
    And, way to go, Willis!

  44. And in regards to “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    Lets see his climate models and theory actually make a falsifiable prediction. Their GCMs are only one step removed from divination by chicken bones… everything is predicted by it, it is never wrong

  45. paid. . . job

    Gavin just means the RC team does it as a hobby, because it is so much fun and so relaxing.

    Now, arguably that should mean the IPCC “lead author” climate scientists should quit the IPCC, because they are getting paid by their home organizations to take part, and certainly persuading the public is its goal.

  46. Why does the author make it sounds like climate scientists admit all their errors and want to correct it…? They don’t.

  47. All anyone needs to know about the Times piece is captured in a single, upside-down sentence:

    The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

    Blecch!

  48. Gavin is rightfully upset about the weather. The 1998 El Nino confused a lot of people into believing that the world was warming rapidly. But recent years haven’t cooperated, and the cold winters at GISS and UEA couldn’t have come at a worse time. Not to mention Obama’s early snow evacuation from Copenhagen.

    “Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
    – Albert Einstein

    “The gods too are fond of a joke.”
    – Aristotle

  49. Gavin A. Schmidt:

    “What is new is this paranoia…”
    “…allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”
    “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    paranoia, nutters…. revenge??? – welcome to the mad world of Science!

  50. I am impressed. They couldn’t use a more appropriate part of Willis’ letter. (congrats)

    Not at all surprised about some statements showing they still don’t get it.
    My favoured one is always that sceptics have to prove something.
    Old Georg Christoph Lichtenberg comes to mind:”You don’t need to be a chicken, to smell if an egg stinks.”

    But isn’t it great to read the Schmidts will start doing ‘good’ science finally?
    It’s about time.

  51. In this rare instance I’ll have to agree with Gavin – “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    The irony is that is exactly what skeptics have been saying for years.

  52. Although Our Gav is clearly nothing but a political agitator, the possibility that he is being coerced exists.

    Andrew

  53. kwik (08:37:11) :

    I bet he will say the US isnt “Global”.
    But how can global warming “Avoid” the US ?

    The same way the MWP, LIA, RWP, and Holocene Optimum avoided the southern hemisphere. /sarcoff

  54. Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) : ,

    You say this:

    “As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…” ”

    And then immediately proceed to agree with Willis’ point:

    “Public trust needs to be won back through good scientific practices.”

    It is exactly that sort of duplicitous, politicized, tribalistic advocacy that has earned ‘climate science’ its bad name. You are part of the problem.

    JJ

  55. Ah, Gavin Schmidt. Whenever he appears as a topic, I like to check to see if he’s done anything to remedy the horrible state of documentation for his “code” Model E. Hmmm…let me check…. Nope…

  56. “paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States…”

    Schmidt relies on Times’ readers ignorance of exceptional cold and snow across Europe and Asia that the Times, by coincidence, failed to report in anything like a responsible way.

    When the next strong hurricane season crops up (as it may this summer), do you suppose that the Times will manage to give that weather some coverage?

  57. Give me a break. Sometimes I wonder if Dr. Schmidt is capable of speaking truthfully.

    As best I can remember, some of the Climategate hacked/leaked E-mails discussed the reasons for establishing the RealClimate blog in the first place–specifically, to give the AGW team the means to rapidly counter criticisms of their work. To me it’s obvious that the intended audience was the “internet public”, not climate scientists. After all, climate scientists have their infallible “peer review”. And now Gavin has the gall to say Their [climate scientists] job is not persuading the public.

    My questions to Dr. Schmidt are: If the RealClimate Blog is not about engaging the public, why have it at all? And would you please provide a job description for your position as a senior RealClimate honcho?

  58. Squidly (08:32:30) :

    Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked

    Debunked? What is debunked?

    ———————————–

    AGW types seem to want to redefine language as much as they do science.

    In this case the word “debunked” means “a totally unconvincing/absurd excuse was blurted out by the panicked accused or one of their mates”.

  59. First of all-We need to hear from Willis that he in fact wrote what they quoted him saying. I know of no instance where the print media correctly quoted anyone (in the instances where and I knew the person who said it and asked them). The NYT is irrelevant, like CO2. This is a global problem and your excellence’s effect: Willis, Anthony, and the rest of you good bhoys, is global in scope. Take the fight to the NYT but they, and the rest of media in general, are entering an age they’ve yet to understand; where the masses no longer feed from the troughs they fill. It is India that has removed themselves from the IPCC. The world is listening! It is the world that is (not) at stake!

  60. Jean Demesure (08:13:17) :

    Gavin Schmidt’s duplicity is hopeless. What always amazes me is he still find ears to listen to his double talk.

    *****************************************

    And what angers me is that my taxes pay his salary. Grrrrr!

  61. “Scientists must continually earn the public’s trust or we risk descending into a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason,” Dr. Pachauri said in an e-mail message.

    How ironic, since it is precisely CAGW pseudo-science which threatens the very thing he portends – “a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason”.

    It is indeed refreshing to hear Schmidty refer to us as “nutters” now instead of deniers.
    The truce was nice while it lasted.

  62. In the real world we have Dr. Floyd Ferris’ counterpart, Dr. Gavin Schmidt saying that, “Good science is the best revenge.”

    Right. That’d be a first.

    There are more serious concerns to address than the minor impact mankind has on climatic variations. Right now climate scientist don’t need to be doing a better job, they need to start doing their job and quit adjusting temperature records to come up with an imaginary warming trend; quit advocating the breaking of laws to further an agenda.

  63. There you go, quick word with the Guardian and “deniers” is replaced with “nutters”. Looks as though Judith didn’t get the point over either.

  64. Herman L (07:55:02) :

    support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis,

    You just have to be jocking with us!
    It is exactly the lack of being replicable that this is all about.
    Did you not watch the UK parliamentary Committee and the Statements to the Committee by the Scientific Oragnisations?

  65. @-Chip Knappenberger

    PS. And as far as Willis Eschenbach’s statement that “The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.” He seems to be directing this at climate scientists, but hopefully he means that it should include arm chair climate scientists as well–on both sides of the issue.

    —-

    Chip, are you saying that Willis should also blame the messengers, the so-called “arm chair climate scientists”? The burden is ENTIRELY upon climate scientists to earn a reputation of trustworthiness. The arm chair scientists did not hide behind FOIA requests to avoid transparency. The arm chair scientists did not create GCMs to support a non-falsifiable theory. The arm chair scientists did not collude to stop publication of dissenting research articles in prestigious journals.

    Climate science is still in a Kuhnian pre-Normal phase, and it is doubtful that it will ever move beyond that phase unless you and your colleagues show the rest of us that you’re passionately engaged not in advocacy but in the scientific enterprise.

  66. I’m truly saddened to see NASA devalued like this.
    As a l kid I dreamed of working there – pushing the boundaries of science and exploration – working with the greatest minds on the planet.
    I see only one nutter in this narrative, and I fear the long term damage he is doing to NASA will only be clear in years to come.

    How did it come to this?

  67. I fully agree with Gavin’s last quote, that good science is the best revenge. Let’s take a look at this in action, from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 is a series of emails detailing a trouncing by 3 scathing reviews of a paper written by Gavin Schmidt et al submitted not once but twice to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and ultimately rejected outright. Followed by this are emails regarding a blog posting at climatedepot.com in 2009 stating “prominent scientist appalled by Gavin Schmidt’s lack of knowledge”. Looks like Gavin better just stick to “persuading the public” at his blog rather than being “paid to do climate science”.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/03/good-science-gets-its-revenge.html

  68. I see the Climategate E-mails are now the result of an “unauthorized release” rather than “theft” or “hacking”. I suppose that’s progress of sorts.

  69. Bob Tisdale (08:10:45) :

    Sorry, Anthony, but RealClimateAlarmism, the commentary site on climate alarmism by working climate alarmists, is not going to disappear soon.

    Given that there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW (five thousand in IPCC FAR WGI alone), the word “alarmism” does a superior job of accurately reporting the scientific facts than anything the “deniers” have come up with.

    I have been asking for more than two years for a scientific rebuttal from the “deniers” to the 900 pages of the IPCC FAR Working Group One report. No one has produced one.

    Last week when I asked Anthony for a list of the “tough questions” (his words, not mine) on climate change, he directed me to a website where I learned that the tough scientific questions include informing me that Al Gore bought a condo in San Francisco.

    Remember what the NYT wrote: scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

    The phrase “alarmism” is just another one of those sweeping statements of condemnation, and is backed up by nothing.

  70. Can we really trust chief scientific officers?

    The predictions for swine flu (and bird flu, Sars, vCJD) were embarrassingly inaccurate
    snip

    There was a time when, if you read a scientific scare story, you tended to put it down to the over-active imagination of a redtop journalist. No longer: nowadays it is outwardly sober government scientists who spin the biggest scares. They know they can get away with it because laymen have an irrational respect for words uttered by scientists.

    That much was proved by the 1963 Milgram experiment in which the Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram persuaded volunteers to administer a — simulated — potentially fatal electric shock to another human being when instructed to do so by a man in a white lab coat.

    It will be a good 50 years before anyone can make a definitive judgment on the biggest scientific scare of our times: climate change. But I can’t read the latest prediction for man-made flood and tempest without thinking of all those millions who have failed to die from swine flu and the other grim fates predicted by government scientists.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6982943.ece

  71. Dusty (08:16:05) : “’For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media’ LOL. It’s good to see people like Broder coming to the conclusion that most US news organizations, and the NYT, in particular, is not to be considered part of the media.”

    Well noted, Mr. Dusty. The NYT chose to give up journalism and become an obsolete, irrelevant, one-sided propaganda organ far more suitable for lining the bottom of birdcages than for providing accurate information.

  72. I’ve been reading this blog for a couple of months now. As a result I have become much better equipped to debate the CAGW myth because of the vast knowledge base available here. I do not understand much of the science, however, that does not preclude me from using the scientific findings. Now I don’t deny that climates have changed, we are not in an ice age. I don’t deny that man has polluted the environment. What I deny is that this 150 years of “pollution” is going to have catastrophic effects. The real struggle is not about the science. It’s all about power and money. Unfortunately for those of us in the USA the wrong people are in charge of the power at the current time. The far left political wing has gained control and is concerned with one thing, stripping as much away from individuals and placing it in control of the state. Why is there no acknowledgement in the US MSM? simply because the current administration wants it that way and continues to foster the alarmist attitude. It’s pretty obvious that the President is aware of all the controversy surrounding the settled science, it’s also pretty obvious that he just doesn’t care. Until that changes not much will change for the good in the U.S.

  73. Andrew (09:18:35) : “Although Our Gav is clearly nothing but a political agitator, the possibility that he is being coerced exists.”

    The “Big Cut-off?”

  74. Moving the AGW social movmement is like turning a huge ship:
    It is going to respond very slowly.
    That the NYT is even acknowledging there is a problem to report is an incremental change, but more are on the way.
    The idea that AGW promoters have not been effective selling their pov is ludicrous on its face.
    The only cure is for the AGW promoters to actually perform science.
    But their attempts to prove that there is a climate crisis occurring or even likely to occur will fail.

  75. ” Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) :

    As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…”

    Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job. Public trust needs to be won back through good scientific practices.

    This is why I couldn’t receive any statement more openly than I do Gavin Schmidt’s that ended the Broder piece: ““Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    To Gavin, I say, let the revenge begin.

    Just my two-cents’ worth.”

    I’d say go into meteorology, but you’re not qualified.

  76. John in L du B (08:19:15) : “…As for Ralph Cicerone, his job is to insure the integr(i)ty of the science not.” [full stop provided by jk]

    Amen.

  77. AW: “On that note let me say that we could all (and that includes me) benefit from the dialing back of the use of labels, and we should focus on the issues before us. There’s really nothing positive or factual to be gained from such labeling.

    I call on readers of WUWT to reciprocate this gesture by The Guardian by refraining from labeling others they may disagree with here and at other web forums.

    Let’s all dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home.”

    I guess the NYT didn’t read about what has happened at the Guardian, or if it has it could care less about what the Guardian and more especially, this “nutter” blog think. I assume that the NYT piece you linked reflects their opinion on the whole thing. As we know, they are the “Paper of record”. Just a couple of the NYT attempts to “dial back and treat others with the same respect in conversation as you might treat dinner guests having a discussion at home”:
    -” unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages”
    -“revelations of a handful of errors”…in the IPCC report
    -“The correspondence appears(!!!) to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests.” (my emphasis)
    -“Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones…and other researchers have been debunked” (Really??? Can we see the evidence? Or do we need a handful of FOIA requests for that info?)
    -“The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.” The critics being…us? The sceptics? The deniers? The nutters?
    -“Critics, citing several relatively minor errors in its most recent report” Move on, there’s nothing to see here.

    The hubris of these people knows no bounds. My top choice, and there were many to choose from, for the most arrogant quote showing an utter sense of entitlement to rule over those who know no better, is their inclusion of this by “White House Science Advisor” John P. Holdren- “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific heretic are very, very rare”. Let’s see, the “scientific heretic” he refers to would be…

    While not specifically calling the “heretics” names, the “paper of record” goes about it’s business of smearing thousands of dedicated scientists who are not promoting a political agenda, but simply attempting to get the supporting information out in the public domain where, if it is correct, it can be recreated or supported.

    I do admire you, Mr. Watts, ’cause you do an admirable job of keeping your conversations “dialed back”, in the face of amazing hubris and even duplicity. But I cannot do that. These people at the top of the “Science is settled” crowd are pushing a statist view of the world, i.e. scientists and their sympathetic political and business advocates should be determining public policy and where the money for R&D goes. In their ideal world, work like that done by Svensmark, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Eschenbach and many others would become not just the objects of scorn and derision in the mainstream media, but eventually crimes. There have been calls by some of these annointed types to make “climate deniers” criminals.

    From F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom, quoting M. Benda from a 1928 book, The Treason of the Intellectuals (The Betrayal of the Intellectuals in a 1955 re-print): “…It is to be noted that the dogma that history is obedient to scientific laws is preached especially by partisans of arbitrary authority. This is quite natural, since it eliminates the two realities they most hate, i.e., human liberty and the historical action of the individual.”

    Make no mistake, this blog, Climate Audit, and many others, as well as the scientists who support the views expressed on them are the targets of these folks. Thank God we have the ability to keep questioning the “accepted” wisdom. God forbid that we continue on that road, espoused by the NYT and their acolytes, that led to human tragedies like the totalitarian regimes that have plagued this planet in the 20th century. You take a few politically oriented scientists with a morally superior attitude, mix in a few ambitious statist politicians like Algore, add a large dose of media compliance and it is not hard to imagine a scenario like that of Germany and it’s evolution from 1840 to 1940.

    These people are not going away. They have just retreated into their corners for now to lick their wounds. When things die down a little, they will reappear with a re-packaged message, all dressed yup in pretty paper and ribbons, but from the same old playbook: statist control over every aspect of human life, including which blogs should be allowed to “debate” climate science (or anything else). The NYT op-ed is just proof that they do not believe our side has any validity whatsoever.

  78. It’s style, not substance, but your headline, “Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop ‘persuading the public'” is ungrammatical. It could be ‘asks’, but it cannot be “make. . .to”. I know you’re rushed, but this kind of thing (like the still-uncorrected ‘has’ [for ‘have’] in the tornado post) makes WUWT look silly (not “makes WUWT to look silly,” unless perhaps you’re a non-native speaker).

    /Mr Lynn

  79. I sent the following to the NYTimes author.

    ===============================

    Dear Mr. Broder,

    The most serious allegation that has been made against Phil Jones is that he committed fraud in his work on the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report. I am the person who made that allegation. My allegation was positively reported in a front-page story in The Guardian, on February 2nd. I previously published my allegation in a peer-reviewed paper. To date, there has been no defense.

    On February 9th, The Guardian did something very unusual: they put a copy of their main article on the web and allowed select scientists to annotate it. The copy is at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/weather-stations-china . Click on the highlighted portions of the text to see the annotations.

    As shown there, several annotations were made by Gavin Schmidt. For each of Schmidt’s annotations, I posted a reply annotation. I believe that my replies fully rebutted each of Schmidt’s points and, moreover, showed that Schmidt’s response were not always honest–but you may judge that for yourself (no background in climatology is needed).

    Schmidt did not attempt rejoinders to my annotations. Instead, Schmidt posted on the blog RealClimate, which he co-founded for the benefit of “the interested public and journalists. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/ .

    Schmidt’s post (see Part 5) does not link to The Guardian article that is devoted to my allegation, but rather to the cover article, about Climategate generally. His post says that my allegation was “completely unsubstantiated” and then goes on to quote Jones saying “I’d be far happier if they would write some papers and act in the normal way. I’d know how to respond to that”. Schmidt had used the same quote in one of his earlier annotations. My reply annotation pointed out that I had written a peer-reviewed paper about my allegation–and of course that paper contained substantiation. So Schmidt knows that what he is saying in false. Moreover, nowhere in his blog post is my paper mentioned. The post also grossly misrepresents the e-mails from Tom Wigley–e-mails that are not actually quoted by Schmidt, but are quoted by The Guardian.

    Etc. To get a true appreciation of Schmidt’s lack of integrity, I suggest reading The Guardian article and its annotations and then reading the RealClimate post.

    Consider too your article’s claim that “scientists feel compelled to support their findings with … replicable analysis”. If the analysis is supposed to be replicable, why do most scientists fight extremely hard to avoid releasing the data?

    The Guardian reported with integrity and competence on the problems, even though they are strong advocates for global warming. The NYTimes should do the same.

    Sincerely,
    Douglas J. Keenan
    http://www.informath.org

  80. I love that phrase “unauthorized release”. Will the NYT use it the next time security documents are published by them?

  81. What continues to annoy me no end is the patronizing tone of the scientists
    trying to explain the superior correctness and importance of their work
    to the pitchfork packing mobs screaming nothing more subtle than Liar!

    [snip – just a bit OTT]

    And, yep, I expect the Climategate disease may spread to other sciences…
    Read the Atlantic Monthly on flu vaccines, Tamiflu, etc. …sigh. …Lady in Red

  82. Many will remember how the word of these “scientists” was revered like the word of God. To criticise was to invite a barrage of abuse from an army of righteous activists and fawning politicians.

    That could never have been healthy for science, if indeed we can call it science. How corrupting to be able to summon up a legion of obedient journalists at the snap of once fingers to write the obituary of your enemies. Now, at last, reality has begun to intrude.

  83. Reed Coray (09:26:48) :
    (…)
    After all, climate scientists have their infallible “peer review”. And now Gavin has the gall to say “Their [climate scientists] job is not persuading the public.”
    ———–
    Reply:
    Good point, Reed. But think about what that statement really says. I believe it says that after all these years, Gavin admits his job at RC has failed. If they had decent “science” it would have been a cake-walk. It must really hurt considering all the time and effort he’s spent on that propaganda site.

    But here’s what I’d like to see: If these “climate scientists” really want to re-establish their mojo, they can start by showing us the “homogenization” algorithm(s) that convert raw to adjusted temp data. I dare them to do it. I double dare them to do it.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting.

  84. I think Gavin is brilliant. Which also makes me immediately understand that he is very dishonest since I believe he knows everything that is going on in the AGW world, scientifically and politically, and still publicly holds to the AGW positions that he does.

  85. Further to my prior comment, I’ve received the following reply.

    ===============================

    Thanks for your note. I’m not much versed in blogging but my colleague Andy Revkin has tried this open-source/annotation method and it’s quite instructive. Maybe it should become the norm . . .

    John B.

  86. JJ (9:22:06):

    My point was that Willis Eschenbach’s point was overly harsh. He seems, I hope, to want to restore public trust in climate science through good science, but it the quote selection (perhaps a fault of Broder) doesn’t smoothly lead to that point—instead, there is a lot of bashing involved.

    Allen (9:49:33):

    I am defining “arm chair climatologists” as folks who aren’t really deeply involved in climate research. Nevertheless, some of these types of folks aren’t bashful about throwing out completely wacky theories on why the climate has been behaving the way it has, using arguments that are a combination of some facts mixed in with some misapplication of other facts, and also some misinterpretations or mischaracterizations of other factual-sounding things. A knowledgeable reader realizes that the argument is impossible to follow, but the un knowledgeable reader (or reader who is want to agree with the conclusions), is quick to hold it up as a paradigm killer (in Kuhnian terms).

    PJJL (10:18:57);

    You are correct, I consider myself only an armchair meteorologist—not nearly qualified to be true meteorologist. So I prefer to stick with climatology.

    -Chip

  87. RockyRoad (10:45:00) :

    I agree with you. In essence, Gavin has said RC hasn’t accomplished what it set out to do. I wish this translated into the demise of RC, but like you, I won’t hold my breath.

    What galled me in the first place was Gavin’s implication that he and his ilk haven’t for years tried to sway the general public.

  88. “The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis,”

    If they had been doing so from the start, there’d be no “battle”!

  89. @ Mr Lynn (10:22:17) :

    “It’s style, not substance, but your headline, “Willis makes the NYT, Gavin to stop ‘persuading the public’” is ungrammatical. It could be ‘asks’, but it cannot be “make. . .to”. I know you’re rushed, but this kind of thing (like the still-uncorrected ‘has’ [for ‘have’] in the tornado post) makes WUWT look silly (not “makes WUWT to look silly,” unless perhaps you’re a non-native speaker).”

    Sorry Mr. Lynn, but even a non-native speaker like myself can figure out that the headline refers to two – quite unrelated – events (an impression that is reinforced y reading the full article, something I always recommend before posting in reply):

    1) Willis makes the NYT (colloquial for “he/his work is written about in the paper”)

    2) Gavin [intends] to stop persuading the public (that is, if he chooses to practice what he preaches)

    The fact that each of these statements has its own subject makes it somewhat difficult to assume “make … to” is a phrasal verb here.

  90. “Is your point that a scientist should not do both scientific research and run a commentary website? Do you consider that a conflict of interest of some sort? ”

    I don’t speak for the author of this post, but I think the problem is that folks like Gavin like to pretend they are not advocates when they really are.

  91. RE: Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) :

    **As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…” **

    Chip obviously misses the point made by Willis. Willis does not want confidence restored to the present state of climate science. First do some real science then promote it. It needed a ne sided smiley.

  92. I can understand them.
    Can you imagine… can you even begin to imagine, how much money is at stage? No wonder they are so frantic now.

  93. ” Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) :

    As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…”

    Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job.”

    Chip is at least honest about this.

  94. brazil84 (11:20:46) …I think the problem is that folks like Gavin like to pretend they are not advocates when they really are.

    advocates of what, exactly?

  95. From the NYT online article, some typical examples of Post Normal Science qua garden variety Propaganda Operation where the actual state of affairs involving Climate Science’s CO2 CAGW postulate is in fact cynically reversed so as to try to garner the all-important Vote of a relatively uninformed public as crucial to deciding “scientific” matters in the “more inclusive” Post Normal Science schema:

    “This is a pursuit that scientists have not had much experience in,” said Dr. Cicerone [president of the NAS], a specialist in atmospheric chemistry.

    The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent…

    …“Scientists must continually earn the public’s trust or we risk descending into a new Dark Age where ideology trumps reason,” Dr. Pachauri [head of the ipcc] said in an e-mail message…

    …”It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.” [‘Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.’]

    The answer is simple, he said.

    “Good science…is the best revenge.”

    No, it’s instead clear that “good science” would have avoided this largely writ Soap Opera to begin with, which is certainly one thing the objectivity of the Scientific Method is designed to avoid.

    [But which also raises the question of whether the Climate Scientists, enc., involved are not in fact cynically detached enough, but are instead deeply personally involved themselves as Soap Opera characters acting in their own – fairly psychoderanged – Soap Opera World, where the Scientific Method obviously doesn’t really apply very much either.]

  96. Re my comment on the grammar of the headline (10:22:17), I see now that I misinterpreted what is intended as two statements:

    “Willis makes the NYT” and “Gavin to stop ‘persuading the public’.”

    If you changed the comma to a semi-colon, it would be correct.

    I know, nits on an elephant, but someone has to scratch them.

    /Mr Lynn

  97. Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41)

    This is why I couldn’t receive any statement more openly than I do Gavin Schmidt’s that ended the Broder piece: ““Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    To Gavin, I say, let the revenge begin.

    Just my two-cents’ worth.

    Great! now if you wouldn’t mind telling gavin to share his work so his ( good science) can be proved i also have no doubt there are great climate scientists out there but sadly their work isn’t being used to form policy.

    Gavin and pals assume everybody will just take their word about AGW and not ever question how they came to their conclusions, it’s time to prove the work and until it is it will be concidered junk science so it’s in gavins best interest ( to share his work) infact i encourage it but iam not going to hold my breath.

  98. Herman L (09:57:07) :

    Given that there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW (five thousand in IPCC FAR WGI alone), the word “alarmism” does a superior job of accurately reporting the scientific facts than anything the “deniers” have come up with.

    We ask for only one peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves AGW. I’m sure among your many thousands of papers, one will not be so difficult to present.

  99. My comment to the piece in the NYT (number 197 in the stack) was this:

    Willis Eschenbach
    Occidental, CA
    March 3rd, 2010
    12:08 pm
    As one of the people quoted in the article, I’d like to commend the New York Times for several things.

    1. The article is generally well balanced.

    2. I am quoted directly, rather than paraphrased, and my original article is cited. This minimizes misunderstanding. I encourage people to read my article.

    3. The proper direction for the scientists is pointed out, viz: “Tentatively and grudgingly, [the scientists] are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.”

    Problems with the article?

    1. The claim is made that “The [CRU] correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests.” This is taking caution to the extreme. The CRU emails do not “appear to show” that, they spell it out repeatedly in unambiguous language.

    2. Vague claims are made. For example: “Some of the most serious allegations against Dr. Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia, and other researchers have been debunked …” Which allegations would that be? How were they “debunked”? (As an aside, anytime someone claims something has been “debunked”, odds on it is nothing of the sort.) Here, the NYT is making unsubstantiated allegations, not a good thing for a newspaper.

    Overall, however, it is one of the best articles on the climate science that I have seen in the Times.

    Let me close by quoting a bit more from my article cited by the Times:

    “You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. Call out the journals that don’t follow their own policies on data archiving. Speak up for honest science. Archive your data. Insist on transparency. Publish your codes.

    Once that is done, the rest will fall in line. And until then, I’m overjoyed that people don’t trust you. I see the lack of trust in mainstream climate science as a huge triumph for real science. Fix it by doing good science and by cleaning up your own backyard. Anything else is a coverup.”

    My best to everyone, and my congratulations to John Broder and the New York Times.

  100. >> Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    Maybe these bozos might try that on for size?

  101. After following the climate change debate as an amateur for about six months now, it seems to me that the #1 issue is that NOAA, NASA, and CRU do not release all the data, metadata, and code needed to replicate the results. Has anyone ever started a public petition demanding that they do so? This kind of thing could attract a large number of petitioners quickly, get some mainstream media attention, and could help the public focus on this issue. It seems like if there was ever a time to do it, it’s now.

  102. Well, I’ve got to ask this…

    “Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
    http://www.linkedin.com…”

    That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?

    REPLY: Willis works for the resort industry in the Pacific, not an oil company – Anthony

  103. Chip,

    “My point was that Willis Eschenbach’s point was overly harsh. ”

    No, that was not your point. Words mean things, Chip. The meaning of your words was patently clear. The simple fact of the matter is, you responded to Willis’ point by taking it out of context, assigning it a meaning of your own invention, and in doing so completely inverting what Willis said, claiming you ‘couldnt disagree more’ while agreeing completely.

    I concur that Broder’s choice of quotes was slanted against Willis, but even he provided enough of that context for you to understand that Willis’ point was that the rehabilitation of trust in ‘climate science’ needs to come from proper scientific practice rather than enhanced propaganda efforts.

    You were sloppy and biased in your analysis of Willis’ position, arriving at a conlcusion that was absolutely 100% wrong. And in true ‘climate science’ fashion, you refuse to admit that you were wrong, and instead tell a lie to spin your way out of it.

    Once again, you are part of the problem. No one is going to trust climate ‘scientists’ until you people start doing better work, gather sufficient data and explore the uncertainties before drawing conclusions, and develop sufficient humility to admit when you are wrong.

    That was Willis’ point, and both your misinterpretation of it and your response to be called on that minsinterpretation prove that point.

    JJ

  104. Way to hold their feet to the fire, Willis!

    Also….observe the religious overtones of John Holdren’s remarks where he actually uses the “H” word.

    What a shady, shady character.

    As days go by, and Holdren, Gore, and other Elders of the International Church of the CAGW get more desperate for their cause and pleads to convert people to their faith…expect the propaganda, rhetoric, and sophistry to increase.

    It is almost entertaining to listen to their newspeak:

    John Holdren to the NYT: “We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific HERETIC are very, very rare.”

    Wow. The Inquisition is alive and well.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  105. Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41), you haven’t done your homework. You should read my article in full before you comment on it. You say:

    As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s “I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…”

    Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job. Public trust needs to be won back through good scientific practices.

    This is why I couldn’t receive any statement more openly than I do Gavin Schmidt’s that ended the Broder piece: ““Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”

    To Gavin, I say, let the revenge begin.

    Just my two-cents’ worth.

    -Chip Knappenberger

    PS. And as far as Willis Eschenbach’s statement that “The solution is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.” He seems to be directing this at climate scientists, but hopefully he means that it should include arm chair climate scientists as well–on both sides of the issue.

    Chip, you are practicing more of the selective quoting that AGW supporters are famous for. My obvious point, so obvious that even the NYT got it, was that I don’t want trust to be restored by climate scientists using public relations tricks and by learning to disguise bad science as real science. I want trust to be restored by climate scientists doing good science. Do you really have that much difficulty understanding what everyone else finds obvious?

    To assist you, I will requote what I just quoted above, from the article you didn’t bother to read:

    You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. Call out the journals that don’t follow their own policies on data archiving. Speak up for honest science. Archive your data. Insist on transparency. Publish your codes.

    Once that is done, the rest will fall in line. And until then, I’m overjoyed that people don’t trust you. I see the lack of trust in mainstream climate science as a huge triumph for real science. Fix it by doing good science and by cleaning up your own backyard. Anything else is a coverup.

    I note, as you do, that Gavin calls for half of the same thing, to do good science … which might be meaningful if he were not one of the chief culprits, up to his ears as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the CRU emails, and proprietor of a blog which ruthlessly censors scientific dissent.

    Of course, neither you nor Gavin want to touch the other half of what you need to do, which is to call out the miscreants in your midst. Since Gavin is one of the miscreants, of course, that’s his excuse for not doing so, but … what’s your excuse?

    For the NYT to quote him approvingly is understandable. For you to do so is unconscionable. As to your “two cents worth”, you have overvalued your opinion.

  106. Ed ……..Don’t you get it? We don’t give a weeks stay at Teri about where the logic comes from, who works for who, who is a scientist or not, whether man is causing global warming. The first issue and only issue is the falsification and
    perjury in the name of Science.

  107. Attaboy Willis E. !!

    And WRT Gavin’s statement, where he is quoted as saying:
    ”It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

    Gavin’s above is a perfect encapsulation of the arrogant and unbending attitude that principals in the politically-correct AGW church continue to hold on to; especially those who have a vested financial interest in maintaining a high level of climate alarmism.

    Good and objective science will indeed be the best revenge, but as demonstrated by this thread, Al Gore’s recent OpEd in the NYT, and a host of other events:
    The battle is very far from being over.

    But (hopefully) one of Winston Churchill’s famous sayings applies:
    “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.
    But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning”.

    However long the struggle might still go on, here’s hoping objective science wins a clear victory in the end. . . .

  108. “Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”

    ( that is my job )?

    Maybe Dr. Curry and others are getting off the reservation and need to be brought back into line.

  109. At least the article is saying the emails were an “unauthorized release” instead of calling them “hacked”. I guess that’s progress after a fashion.

    BTW, anyone can join the Union of Concerned Scientists. You are not required to have any scientific credentials at all, just send a check and you’re in.

  110. Ed Murphy (12:16:13)

    Well, I’ve got to ask this…

    “Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
    http://www.linkedin.com…”

    That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?

    REPLY: Willis works for the resort industry in the Pacific, not an oil company – Anthony

    OMG, not an OIL COMPANY!!!

    In fact, both Anthony and the NYT commenter are correct, I did both those jobs in the past. It’s all part of my motto, which is “Retire early … and often”. Right now I’m retired once again, so I’m sure the workers union or someone can attack my scientific work because I’m not employed at all. Of course, I’ll come out of retirement in a second for adventure and big bucks … or for increasing hunger for that matter. Always open for suggestions.

    Because I have retired early and often, I have also made my living as a psychotherapist, a commercial fisherman (yes, the Bering Sea is as cold as it looks on TV), a musician, a well driller, a commercial artist, a shipyard manager on a 100 acre South Pacific island, an international consultant in village level use of renewable energy, and dozens more. Heck, let’s cut to the chase, I just put my CV online here, it’s a journal of a life played for for fun and played for keeps.

    One advantage of having done all of those jobs is that it makes the ad hominem nature of such attacks obvious. The right hates me because I’ve worked as a musician and a renewable energy consultant and I support Obama, the left hates me because I’ve worked for a fuel distribution company and as a commercial fisherman, and none of them seem to notice that it doesn’t make the slightest difference to my scientific ideas — those are either right or wrong, regardless of what kind of work I’ve done.

    Thanks for asking, though, gives me a chance to once again slay the hydra-headed ad hominem monster …

  111. Herman L (12:36:15),

    Quoting the IPCC’s propaganda, eh? The very first page of your very first link lists Arrhenius’ 1896 paper, with his ultra-high climate sensitivity number — which Arrhenius recanted in his 1906 paper, bringing down his [still much too high] sensitivity estimate to 1.6°C. I’ve got news for you: on balance, a 1.6° warmer world would be beneficial, not catastrophic. More CO2 is good, since we’ll never see it double from here. There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world to cause that.

    But the 1906 paper is omitted. So your list is nothing but cherry-picked propaganda. No wonder Lord Monckton wipes the floor with alarmists like Gavin Schmidt, and Al Gore won’t ever debate anyone. They only have half the information — the wrong half.

    The alarmist contingent is wrong not because I say they’re wrong, but because our planet says they’re wrong: click

    That one graph trumps every IPCC political appointee with their marching orders to spoon feed the public alarming scare stories. And I have plenty more charts and graphs just like it. Just ask.

  112. Re: NickB. (Mar 3 08:55),

    Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
    Summary for Policymakers
    by Vincent Gray

    The absence of any form of validation still applies today to all computer models of the climate, and the IPCC wriggle out of it by outlawing the use of the word “prediction” from all its publications. It should be emphasised that the IPCC do not make “predictions”, but provide only “projections”. It is the politicians and the activists who convert these, wrongly, into “predictions.”, not the scientists.
    An unfortunate result of this deficiency is that without a validation process there cannot be any scientific or practical measure of accuracy. There is therefore no justified claim for the reliability of any of the “projections’
    http://www.pensee-unique.fr/GrayCritique.pdf

  113. Just like to add my “two cents” on Chip’s comments. I thought when I originally read WIllis’ article that if one were so minded one could quote mine a really damning looking line from it. Kudos to NYT for putting enough context in to get the point, but sure as night follows day someone had to pull a line out of context. And then when called on it try to defend. A climate scientist, of course. And they think the problem is one of presentation …

  114. Enron had jail time meeted out to execs who did not grand stakeholders:

    Intangible right to honest services.

    Gavin is equally crooked.

    1 He blogs instead of working
    2 His paycheck is from NASA GISS and while blogging he illegally denies granting FOIA requests.
    3 His group hides data. That is a sign of dishonesty
    4 Gavin participates in modifying data by using software to make the temps appear to increase.

  115. “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.” – Gavin Schmidt

    Good luck on that Gavin.

  116. Chrisz:

    Sorry Mr. Lynn, but even a non-native speaker like myself can figure out that the headline refers to two – quite unrelated – events (an impression that is reinforced y reading the full article, something I always recommend before posting in reply):

    1) Willis makes the NYT (colloquial for “he/his work is written about in the paper”)

    2) Gavin [intends] to stop persuading the public (that is, if he chooses to practice what he preaches)

    Since there are “two unrelated events” in the headline, the comma should be changed to a semicolon. MODS!!

    R. de Haan (09:58:56) :

    SO, NOW WE ARE CALLED “NUTTERS”!

    Some of us are also knitters, ala Mme. Dufarge.

  117. Willis Eschenbach (12:18:37):

    Thanks for the response and sorry for the misunderstanding. I erroneously mistook Broder’s quote from you as being part of an interview that he had done with you. Upon a more careful read, I see that he was only selectively quoting from your substantially more developed piece at WUWT. I don’t think that Broder gave full justice to the concept you more fully laid out in your comment (12:06:30) above.

    I suggested that possibility in my comment (11:05:04).

    I concur with you that climate science needs to regain the public trust through good scientific practice. We differ on some of the specifics (and tone) of how to go about that. Of course, as my opinion is not worth much, maybe any agreement with you means that we are both wrong. :^)

    -Chip

  118. Herman L (12:36:15) :

    Climate science is too complex a discipline to operate by the “one paper” approach.

    Well then, what rules does Climate Science operate by, Herman? I think you need to dissuade a number of people that, at its essence, Climate Science is no more than a massive Propaganda Operation – where the means, thought control, are also its ends, thought control – especially since Climate Science also appears to specifically deny the value of the Scientific Method, which is instead avoided by Climate Scientists much as a Vampire would Holy Water.

  119. James Taranto, Best of the Web in the Wall Street Journal On-line at

    online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html

    He often runs a small item “I Blame Glogal Warming” I left that in for laughs, also:

    “Climate Chutzpah
    The New York Times reports that climate “scientists” are “facing a crisis of public confidence.” Wow, stop the presses! “Tentatively and grudgingly,” the Times reports, “they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.”

    This paragraph sums up the paper’s skewed view of the subject:

    The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

    Yet the very first paragraph of the Times story contradicts this: “[Climate ‘scientists’] response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.”

    The “crisis of public confidence” is precisely the result of the failure of the climate “scientists” to behave like actual scientists. If they had supported their “findings” with careful observation and replicable analysis rather than making sweeping statements condemning their critics, their authority, to which the Times still tries to appeal, would not have been shattered.

    The Times complaint about the unfairness of supposed scientists having to live up to scientific standards, it reminds us of the old joke about the definition of chutzpah: when a guy murders his parents and blames global warming.

    We Blame Global Warming
    “Fat Rats Skew Research Results”–headline, Nature.com, Feb. 2″

  120. Herman L (12:36:15) :

    “But since you ask, here are reference links to the five thousand:”

    You really are the archtypical AGW’er, arent you, Herman!

    Now, one paper. Lets start with one paper, where measurements from the real world support the “AGW Theory”.

    Forget all the IPCC modelling, please.

  121. Smokey (12:59:52) :

    “More CO2 is good, since we’ll never see it double from here. There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world to cause that”.

    That’s quite a big statement. As a relative newcomer to most of the science here, I’d sincerely appreciate a link that supports it. Do you have one?

  122. The battle is asymmetric, in the sense that scientists feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis, while their critics are free to make sweeping statements condemning their work as fraudulent.

    Thus if there was no battle, the scientists would not feel compelled to support their findings with careful observation and replicable analysis? They would feel free to use other-than-careful observation and non-replicable analysis, perhaps even not worry about supporting their findings at all?

    We are beyond Post Normal Science. This is Post Rational Science.

  123. John Holdren to the NYT: “We have to do a better job of explaining that there is always more to learn, always uncertainties to be addressed,” said John P. Holdren, an environmental scientist and the White House science adviser. “But we also need to remind people that the occasions where a large consensus is overturned by a scientific HERETIC are very, very rare.”

    Stick around, Mr. John Holdren; you are about to experience history. But your description of “heretic” is correct–as one who has committed heresy. In this case, the heresy committed is against the orthodox religion of anthropogenic global warming, with all its alarmism and false fixes. BTW, if your orthodoxy is based on previously established opinion of scholars that includes such actors as Jones, Mann, and Hansen to supply the canon of AGW theory, you might want to reconsider your own beliefs.

    Now, would you care to address that homogenization algorithm I’ve been asking for? I recommend that it be done immediately so we can move forward with real science. And it would be the best job of explaining that I can think of.

  124. Maybe climate science will improve when research isn’t connected with a two-way umbilical cord to politics and desired policy changes to “transform” the world.

    When new advances in research aren’t accepted or rejected based upon whether they prove or disprove one’s current positions.

    And when presentation of facts and requests for data aren’t met with questions of what “camp” somebody’s in, or what jobs they’ve held.

  125. From Willis to Chip:

    “For the NYT to quote him approvingly is understandable. For you to do so is unconscionable.”

    Willis, your diction is surgical and appreciated.

  126. Hey, Gavin! Joe!

    The Sierra Club is hiring. Too bad you won’t accept any posts from me.
    http://www.sierraclub.org/careers/jobs-index.aspx

    Also see here. They are pondering why membership is down.
    Wheeler, Phil
    http://www.sierraclub.org/bod/2010election/candidateforum/question10.aspx
    Re: Membership decline: It has been said that “it’s the economy”. Perhaps this is too facile. We need to collect data to find out why our membership is decreasing. Are or have we acted to alienate long standing members?

  127. I’ve re-read both Judith Curry’s “experiment” in blog-relations:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/24/on-the-credibility-of-climate-research-part-ii-towards-rebuilding-trust/

    and Willis Eschenbach’s to-the-woodshed-with-ye response:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/

    I think Mr. Eschenbach has overlooked Dr. Curry’s soft
    advocacy for a slight but unsettlingly distinctive shift from
    the failed and flailing “it’s-science-by-consensus” ideology
    to a more obtuse “it’s science-by-opinion-polls” paradigm.

    The original appoach to get out “the message” or “the truth
    as seen [sold] by the IPCC” involved brow-beating, berating
    the perceived oppostion and pure bombast. The old AGW
    advocacy crowd doesn’t want to give up on the framework
    they’ve erected.

    Dr. Curry’s softer and gentler direction seems to be one
    that sends AGWers (current climate science advocates)
    and reseachers off to cheerleading camp with a bit of
    group therapy and sensitivity training tossed in. Then the
    rejuvinated kindly old guard can do more research and
    sell the new and improved product line to politicians and
    citizens alike.

    Mr. Eschenbach is right in pointing out that it’s the selling
    of one scientific viewpoint over all others that’s had a
    corrupting effect on the scientist who does both the research
    and the selling. In order to have a message to sell, the
    underlaying science has been corrupted to comport with
    message selling.

  128. Chip Knappenberger (13:33:17)

    Willis Eschenbach (12:18:37):

    Thanks for the response and sorry for the misunderstanding. I erroneously mistook Broder’s quote from you as being part of an interview that he had done with you. Upon a more careful read, I see that he was only selectively quoting from your substantially more developed piece at WUWT. I don’t think that Broder gave full justice to the concept you more fully laid out in your comment (12:06:30) above.

    I suggested that possibility in my comment (11:05:04).

    I concur with you that climate science needs to regain the public trust through good scientific practice. We differ on some of the specifics (and tone) of how to go about that. Of course, as my opinion is not worth much, maybe any agreement with you means that we are both wrong. :^)

    -Chip

    Thank you for your reply, Chip, which was more gentlemanly than I likely deserved. And kudos for coming back to defend and explain your posting.

    One point, not minor. I don’t think your opinion is “not worth much”. I think that particular opinion of yours was not worth much. Big difference.

  129. Holdren uses the word ‘heretic’ to describe people who have questions on global warming. Ah yes, I remember now, he’s in politics. That explains it.

  130. {Stacey (08:06:47) :
    “The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
    Willis, Harsh but Fair}

    Hi Stacey – I disagree. It was not harsh – it was fair.

  131. the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which compiles the climate research of hundreds of scientists around

    No mention of the politicians who formulate the policies and public statments of the IPCC. Only talk of hundres of scientists. And no mention that among those so called ‘hundreds’ are scientists who don’t agree with the global warming scenarios described by those politicians.

  132. I would like to see an intelligent explanation from the climate ‘science’ crowd how such a fundamental error as averaging an instensive variable like tempature, as M & E have pointed out, can possibly lead to any meaningful result. Until they get the fundamentals right, no progress is possible.

    Bravo to Willis for pushing for real science against junk.

  133. Hal (08:09:06) :

    “Good science,” he said, “is the best revenge.”
    ………………………………………………………………………….
    His last sentence will hopefully come true, but not in the way he wishes.

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    It had become clear to me when I began to look in to ‘global warming’ for myself a few years ago that Gavin Schmidt is an advocate for political ‘global warming’ and not for the real science. What was revealed in ClimateGate emails about him only confirmed to me what I already saw in him.

    So I agree with you. Science is not important to him. The real science will ruin him, and the website he watches over, RealClimate.

    Gavin Schmidt is only trying to persuade the public that science is important to him.

  134. Willis,
    Slightly OT – I’m fascinated by your CV! A life of adventure indeed!

    And congratulations on the (IMO way too short) quote in the NYT. Seems Gavin agrees with you. Looks like the 2 sides of this scientific puzzle are finally agreeing on some things. Now all they need to do is release all their data and workings…

    I suppose NYT had to bat for the team by letting Gavin say that good science is the best revenge. But at least we now know he agrees with us.

  135. “advocates of what, exactly?”

    Of the hypotheses that (1) CO2 emissions are responsible for late 20th century warming; and (2) CO2 emissions, if unchecked, are likely to cause dangerous future warming.

    Duh.

  136. Willis,

    I am truly fascinated by your CV too!

    It takes a very impressive, intelligent and energetic person to do all the things you have done in your very full life. That is just amazing. You are the man!

  137. Sometimes I wonder why we are so easily duped? And for the psychology I’ve read I can’t pin it down.

    Why does insane like people like Schmidt, Hansen, and Mann, escape the blame in the long run? They’re not exactly politically smart or what ever. Yet they seem to escape while the rest of us go for the easy prey like Jones et al. Not that the Jones et al deserve their bad choice, they choose it after all, but as far as I can tell they’re not the ones that deserves most of the blame, which is the people like Schmidt, Hansen, and Mann, et al. and all their blind followers, think about it, why defend people’s theories and the people them self unless you actually understand through and through what your defending? Why care about the person at all? We shouldn’t care about the person in the first place right?

  138. PaulH from Scotland (14:11:47),

    There has been considerable past discussion here regarding the amount of fossil fuels consumed so far, and what remains. This will give you an opportunity to use the WUWT archives, which I would have to do otherwise.

    In the mean time, allow me to answer you graphically. Atmospheric physicist Dr S. Fred Singer shows how much CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere by human activity, vs the amount emitted by natural processes: click [source]

    You can see that even if as much additional CO2 were emitted as has been emitted from using fossil fuels over the past century, including world wars and massive industrialization, natural emissions would still predominate.

    Here are the IPCC’s own numbers, which are essentially the same as Dr Singer’s: click [note that for every 34 CO2 molecules emitted in total, 33 come from natural processes such as ocean outgassing and vegetative decomposition, while only one (1) molecule out of 34 comes from human activity.

    Even though the burning of fossil fuels will never come anywhere near to emitting the amount of CO2 that is naturally produced, the oft-stated contention that fossil fuels are fast running out could turn out to be false [and past predictions of the end of fossil fuels have always turned out to have been wrong]. Here’s an opinion you won’t hear from petroleum companies: click

  139. WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views.

    The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research.

    As a faithful reader of American press I ask, what the hell are they talking about?
    What vicious beating?
    What media reported this?
    How can it have been going on for months? ;) sarc

    At least they got “the unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages” part right.

    Three cheers for the dead tree media!

    Hip hip hu – – – ah, the hell with it.

  140. “It is therefore possible that Piltdown man does represent the early Pleistocene ancestor of the modern type of man, He may well be the ancestor we have been in search of during all these past years. I am therefore inclined to make the Piltdown type spring from the main ancestral stem of modern humanity…“

    1931, New Discoveries Relating to the Antiquity of Man, Sir Arthur Keith, MD, PhD, JD, Royal College of Surgeons, Royal Institution, London

    “Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” Jefferson

    .

  141. Willis, One of the recommendations in your comment: “(…) Archive your data (…)” should be written in letters of gold – along with “Phil, please keep your desk tidy”.

  142. “Ed Murphy (12:16:13) :

    Well, I’ve got to ask this…

    “Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
    http://www.linkedin.com…”

    That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?”

    Of course, oil companies do have a vested interest in making CO2 a monster which needs to be buried in the ground, but only in their ground (Read their part-used oil wells).

  143. Judith Curry (14:31:48) :
    Willis’ essay has inspired a cartoon, check it out at http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

    Glad you are still around Judith. I had a pop at you after your post but in my book, you are always welcome here. Sorry Gavin was a bit mean to you! He seems to tend to be more excitable by the day!

    The cartoon of you in the dustbin is now printed and stuck on my office wall :)
    Wondeful!

  144. Smokey (12:59:52)

    More CO2 is good, since we’ll never see it double from here. There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world to cause that.

    Another of those statements that’s too vague to assess. Depends on how much fuel there is, how fast it is burned, and how fast the “excess” carbon is removed from the atmosphere (called “e-folding time”).

    Total recoverable fossil fuels? Unknown. New resources are discovered daily. How fast will it be burned? Who knows? The numbers are all over the map. In addition, we don’t know enough about the e-folding time to do anything but make assumptions about what burning them would do.

    The IPCC uses something called the “Bern Model” of e-folding time. I can’t explain to you how that works physically, but it assumes that part of the atmospheric CO2 decays at 2.5 years, part at 18 years, and part at 171 years. I think this is just a heuristic formula, as I’ve never found a reasonable physical explanation. My own research gives an e-folding time of 32 years. Jacobson gives a slightly larger figure, between 30 and 42 years.

    The question of doubling is intimately related to e-folding time. Current emissions are on the order of 10 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) annually . Assuming that this rises to 16 GtC by 2100, the Bern e-folding time gives a final atmospheric concentration in 2100 of about 570 ppmv. Using my/Jacobson’s e-folding time, it is only 480 ppmv.

    Note that neither of these are a doubling of the current value, which would be 770 ppmv.

    OK, lets look at a higher rate of increase. If emissions raise by 1% per year, we end up 26 GtC in 2100, which gives 650 ppmv (Bern) or 550 ppmv (Jacobson). Still no doubling. To get the Bern model to a doubling, we’d have to end up burning 42 GtC annually. However, this kind of continuous exponential increase is very doubtful, it generally doesn’t happen in nature.

    So, to review the bidding … is there enough fossil fuel on the planet to double the atmospheric CO2? Sure, if we burn it all tomorrow. Under any reasonable scenario, however, it’s not going to happen. Everyone who thinks that we will not have major new sources for energy in the year 2100 raise your hands …

    Short answer? The truth value of the statement “There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world to cause [a doubling of atmospheric CO2]” can’t be determined, it depends sensitively on your assumptions.

  145. Patrick Davis (19:22:06)

    “Ed Murphy (12:16:13) :

    Well, I’ve got to ask this…

    “Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
    http://www.linkedin.com…”

    That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?”

    Of course, oil companies do have a vested interest in making CO2 a monster which needs to be buried in the ground, but only in their ground (Read their part-used oil wells).

    Asked and answered here. Also, it’s an “ad hominem” attack, which only serves to show that whoever makes it has no real arguments against my ideas.

    Finally, as you will note from my CV, I have also worked extensively in promoting renewable energy … does that make my claims more believable?

    In no way. My scientific claims stand or fall on their own, regardless of whether I’m a saint or a sinner.

  146. “Willis Eschenbach (20:18:30) :

    Patrick Davis (19:22:06)

    Asked and answered here. Also, it’s an “ad hominem” attack, which only serves to show that whoever makes it has no real arguments against my ideas.”

    Not sure you interpreted my post in the manner intended however, my post certainly wasn’t an ad hominem at against you (Or anyone else for that matter). With regards to oil companies, CO2 and CO2 sequestration, my comment stands.

  147. Blog all you want, Gavin.

    You might as well because your stinky “climate science” is a contribution to nothing.

    In fact it is harmful to the public, and it is based on nothing but your own wishful thinking and egged on by the profound shortcomings of your manager, Hansen.

    Absolutely nothing that Hansen has projected over the past thirty years has materialized, yet he still gets paid to make up some more of it …

    Your and his day of reckoning have yet to come.

  148. Judith,

    I am truly grateful that you returned. Welcome.

    Our climate related sausage making ain’t always pretty but . . . . .

    John

  149. Patrick Davis (20:27:15)

    Not sure you interpreted my post in the manner intended however, my post certainly wasn’t an ad hominem at against you (Or anyone else for that matter). With regards to oil companies, CO2 and CO2 sequestration, my comment stands.

    My apologies for my misunderstanding. Your point about carbon sequestration is a good one. For those that didn’t understand it, CO2 can be pumped into fading oil fields to force out remaining oil. If the oil companies can get paid for sequestering CO2 and also get more oil out of the ground, it’s definitely a win/win for them.

  150. Chip Knappenberger (08:24:41) :

    “As a climate scientist, I couldn’t disagree with any statement more so than I do with Willis Eschenbach’s ‘I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored…’

    Of course I want it restored, otherwise I am out a job.”

    ================================================

    Seems you have a personal interest in the rest of us buying your climate astrology?

    Guess what? The company I work for would deem me to be “not a team player” if I questioned your dogma in the office. We actually have to take a “green quiz” each year as part of the company training. If I speak out on this issue using my actual name, I risk getting fired as the company’s HR staff routinely searches the tubes ensuring we aren’t making disparaging comments that could effect the company’s image. Our name is well known, and we are green. This is not hyperbole, I am not simply constructing a counter argument.

    We’re stalemated Chip. And this is your side’s doing, having whipped the hysteria into a frothing mass that trickles down through international senior management.

    I can reuse my paper plate as often as I revisit the food line at company functions, I can participate in every adopt-a-road program day, I can walk every soda can to the recycle bin, I can power down my workstation each night, but if I dare to talk about a trace gas that nourishes plants, every conversation in ear shot stops.

    Best wishes to you and yours, we are all in this together.

  151. Willis,

    Your CV reads like an Italian Renaissance man from the 15th century.

    Are you related to Leonardo da Eschenbach-Vinci [half brother of Leonardo da Vinci]?

    Yo, Renaissance Man, has a nice ring to it.

    Forget the word Climate Skeptic, lets go with Renaissance Climatists.

    I love it.

    John

  152. Why doesn’t Gavin admit that RealClimate is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services?

    The Truth about RealClimate.org

    Nothing is more ridiculous than Gaving pretending that his site is objective scientific research when it is funded by far left activist environmental groups.

  153. “Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”

    Is this the same Gavin Schmidt who spends his days on http://www.realclimate.org
    “persuading the public” that all is well in the AGW camp? By the way, who’s paying his salary while he’s doing that “persuading”? I suspect it might be me.
    Incredible, if true.

  154. “Willis Eschenbach (20:49:48) : ”

    As we say downunder, no dramas.

    Some oil companies already use CO2 to extract more oil from wells however, as you quite rightly point out, it’ll be win/win for oil companies if CO2 sequestration is persued in the “fight against AGW”. Of course at the moment the oil companies have to pay for it the CO2 to be compressed and transported. If sequestration is establised, not only will oil companies be paid to stick that nasty CO2 stuff in the ground (Their part-used oil wells) we’ll all have to pay more for the stuff to be extracted, pay more taxes for our nasty “planet destroying lives” and pay more for everything else too etc etc too.

    And (Question not directed directly at you) can anyone name one person who is in the oil (Maybe not directly any more, but his family wealth is partly derived from oil) and carbon trading businesses might gain hugely from this? Why the inventor of the internet of course, Mr Al Gore.

  155. Willis Eschenbach (20:49:48) :
    Patrick Davis (20:27:15)

    “If the oil companies can get paid for sequestering CO2 and also get more oil out of the ground, it’s definitely a win/win for them.”

    Yeah, right. And a loose, loose situation for the tax-payer.(Where will the money come from?)

    It would have to be compressed to a liquid first.

    May I suggest to all AGW’ers;
    Please try to compress at least one Coke bottle of CO2 at home.Just as an experiment. Just to get a feeling of real life, you know. Put away all papers, and the TV and the PC. Make a compressor-setup, and start compressing!

    Oh, and then you must pump it down there into the ground.

  156. Well I made this NYTs page on the same subject by the same author:

    http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/the-credibility-of-climate-science-cont/

    In the corner at the bottom “Around the Web” they referenced this article:

    http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate-science-is-ruining-everything.html

    Where I connected bad drug war science to bad climate science. i.e. the government gets the results it pays for.

    ====

    I must say it surprised the heck out of me. My traffic runs about 400 hits a day. I must add that the link from them did nothing noticeable for my traffic. Unlike one from Instapundit.

  157. MartinGAtkins (11:53:39:) SAID: “We ask for only one peer-reviewed scientific paper that proves AGW. I’m sure among your many thousands of papers, one will not be so difficult to present.”

    Herman L (12:36:15) : SAID: “Climate science is too complex a discipline to operate by the “one paper” approach. (And If you don’t believe me, then please find a climate scientist who does and ask Anthony Watts here to post it.) But since you ask, here are reference links to the five thousand:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-references.html etc……..etc….”..

    Besides using the appeal to authority fallacy with nothing but IPCC papers…..you made another logical jump by just citing papers which do not address his request.

    Maybe I can ask it more clearly: Produce the definitive study that identifies the mechanism and proves, beyond falsification, that man-made GHG are the cause of CAGW.

    Show it. Let’s see it. IPCC list. Where is the study? Where is the evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt?

    As far as what he or we have to produce? Exactly NOTHING. For us it is science business as usual.

    You want to posit that an outlandish theory that a trace gas is responsible for the climate forcing? Then that automatically puts the burden of proof on YOU!

    Prove it. Show it forth. Where is it. We are waiting.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  158. Climate scientists…are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.

    I think I’ll suspend my overwhelming urge to gambol o’er the lea until I see how that pans out — say, until 2050…

  159. ‘Good Science is the best revenge’
    Thank you Mr. Schmidt all though all the public wanted all along was revenge and not the blatant Al Gore or BBC or even UNFPA type persuasion of the public.

    ‘Our job is not to persuade the public’
    Tell that to the climate scientists who appeared and appear in the COP15 disaster-if-we-don’t-seal-the-deal-advert that were on TV screens.

  160. RealClimate is just another perfect indication of the Orwellian society we are see being developed around us. Of course thinking people know that site is anything but about real climate.

  161. I have told Gavin at RC on at least two occassions this month alone to stick to the science and leave everything else alone.

  162. “Geoff (23:55:58) :

    CO2 injection is probably useful for enhanced oil recovery (see http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/) but probably not useful for sequestering of large volumes of CO2 (see “Sequestering carbon dioxide in a closed underground volume” here).”

    There’s the rub. It’s not about stuffing CO2 into the groud to save the planet (Sequestration, supposedly). It’s about getting “us” to pay the Govn’t and oil companies to compress and pump it underground to extract as much of the remaining oil as possible from existing wells. Call me a synic if you like, but that is my opinion.

    “kwik (22:41:07) :

    Willis Eschenbach (20:49:48) :
    Patrick Davis (20:27:15)

    Yeah, right. And a loose, loose situation for the tax-payer.(Where will the money come from?)”

    Of course it will be lose/lose for taxpayers. But it will be in the form of a consumption tax based on the carbon footprint of consumer goods and services (Already available I believe on products in the UK and as emissions infrmation on energy bills here in Australia).

    There is already a form of this tax in the UK, it’s called VAT (Ignoring the carbon taxes in the EU already). And in Australia and New Zealand we have a GST at 10% and 12.5% respectively.

    And like VAT and GST, you won’t have a choice (Well you will, Govn’t approved products and services of course) and producers and suppliers will collect this tax for the Govn’t as they do currently for VAT and GST.

    WOW! I bet politicians could not believe their luck when someone thought up a way to tax the air we breathe. A secure and unending revenue stream.

  163. Media+Science=over hyping to persuade the public

    Came across a headline like this yesterday:
    ‘Day feels shorter? blame Chile quake’

    Only to learn today that the quake MAY have (or is LIKELY to) increased the earth’s rotation by a fraction of a millisecond.

    This is the kind of reporting that has contributed to this mess in climate science.

    My take is that the media people are bored (or are not getting enough) with celebrity gossip and political sleaze and have focused on science as a source of ‘alarming’ news persuading scientists (who may want to boost their ego with an appearance on CNN as ‘experts’) to persuade the public.

  164. Herman L (12:36:15) :

    Climate science is too complex a discipline to operate by the “one paper” approach. (And If you don’t believe me, then please find a climate scientist who does and ask Anthony Watts here to post it.)

    I’ll grant you that one paper that proves AGW would be perhaps not a reasonable expectation. You however stated that there were many thousands of papers that support AGW and then post links to reference papers that are a grab bag of climate observations, models and speculative outcomes should the AGW hypothesis be true.

    There is nothing there that proves the A in AGW. The climate has been warming since the little ice age and if you can’t explain why it started warming before industrialization then you can’t rule out that the same processes are still at work now.

    It’s a piss poor hypothesis that tries to explain the warming over the last half century or so by attributing it to anthropogenic production of CO2 just because Phil Jones et al can’t think what else it could be.

  165. Only in Climate Science is science based on consensus instead of consensus based on science.

  166. Herman L (09:57:07) :

    “Given that there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW (five thousand in IPCC FAR WGI alone), the word “alarmism” does a superior job of accurately reporting the scientific facts than anything the “deniers” have come up with.”

    No there are not, there are thousands of papers that support climate change but few that explicitly support AGW theory. There are hundreds that support skepticism however,

    500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

    “I have been asking for more than two years for a scientific rebuttal from the “deniers” to the 900 pages of the IPCC FAR Working Group One report. No one has produced one.”

    I don’t know who you asked but here it is,

    Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF)
    Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF)

    Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC)

    Looks like skepticism is backed up by science.

  167. Willis Eschenbach (12:37:09)

    I just put my CV online …

    Now I’m confused. I thought Lazarus Long was a fictional character ;-)

  168. I can’t read all these comments… Setting the AGW “science” aside.

    The irony in Gavin’s quote is… dripping. Gavin is an advocates advoate and RC is a propoganda machine.

    If scary AGW is true, you can spin his actions as good. If not, then not. But, for heavens sake, call it for what it is.

    (BTW, Gavin won’t post my comments, so perhaps I’m just bitter.)

  169. Herman L (09:57:07) :

    “Given that there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW.”

    Only chapter 9 of WG1 deals with the question of “attributing climate change.” Here I have counted about 500 papers. When I look closely I see this includes well known sceptics such as Christy, Spencer, Douglass, Zorita and Lindzen.

    So basically, you overestimated the number of these peer-reviewed scientific papers by an order of magnitude, and a lot of these don’t even support AGW anyway. Shame.

  170. Willis, congratulations. Something truthful in the NYT might even revive its sinking numbers of readers — for a short time. The owners are incapable of supporting investigative journalism as they are part of the AGW scam.

  171. Sorry I didn’t have time to respond sooner. Here are my replies to everyone. Too bad Anthony Watts did not pipe in on this. I really would like to know from him what is the authoritative “rebuttal” to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, or at least the list of the “tough questions” that he asserts have not been answered.

    Smokey (12:59:52) :
    Quoting the IPCC’s propaganda, eh?

    At the starting gate your response is political — not-scientific. On what basis of fact do you determine that the IPCC produces propaganda and not scientific reports? (For greater clarity, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is essentially a scientific literature review.)

    derek (13:13:33) :
    Herman L where the heck have you been living in a hole?

    I’ve been reading scientific literature. Have you?

    J.Peden (13:34:46) :
    Climate Science is no more than a massive Propaganda Operation

    See my response to Smokey: at the starting gate your response is political — not-scientific. On what basis of fact do you determine that the IPCC produces propaganda and not scientific reports?

    Herman L (12:36:15) :
    You really are the archtypical AGW’er, arent you, Herman!

    No, I read what actual scientists research on, write about, and publish along with their peers. And You?

    savethesharks (22:54:56) :
    Besides using the appeal to authority fallacy with nothing but IPCC papers…..you made another logical jump by just citing papers which do not address his request.

    And just what is an “IPCC paper?” If you read the bibliography I offered the links to, you will see that the articles are almost exclusively published in scientific journals. They are the science. Are you defining those as “IPCC papers?” The IPCC plays no role in their publication.

    Maybe I can ask it more clearly: Produce the definitive study that identifies the mechanism and proves, beyond falsification, that man-made GHG are the cause of CAGW

    That would be the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, where the papers I list are cited, the findings analyzed and addressed, and conclusions reached. Have you read it?

    Gilbert (23:44:20) :
    So, where is your reference list?
    http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf

    Just so there’s no confusion, I want to be 100 percent certain, so let me ask: is it your claim that this document, produced by the Heartland Institute, constitutes the definitive scientific rebuttal to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report?

    Anthony, will you back up this? Is this the genuine, bone fide scientific rebuttal of the entire IPCC FAR?

  172. When did AGW suddenly become Climate Change? Who did that?
    That was when they overplayed their hand, IMHO. I would think that would be obvious to the paid scientists.

    I did notice in the article they provided a link to WUWT by calling it a skeptic blog, which I would correct to “science blog” :)

    Gavin just couldn’t restrain himself from name calling, “nutters” replacing “deniers”. Controlling the “agenda” ? You mean there is an agenda, Gavin, and that you are no longer in control of it? Agenda 21? LOL! Nutter yourself!

  173. Willis Eschenbach (12:37:09) :
    Your CV reads a bit like Louis L’Amour, been there, done that, so you can write about it with authority.
    Nice One.

  174. Vincent (05:11:00) :
    Only chapter 9 of WG1 deals with the question of “attributing climate change.” Here I have counted about 500 papers.

    I’m glad someone has bothered to look beyond the links. However, I disagree with your assertion here. Every chapter addresses important subjects of climate change, and are relevent. I never made a claim that the science of climate change was purely limited to the subject of “attributing climate change.”

    Let’s look at what each chapter addresses:

    1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
    2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
    3. Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
    4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
    5. Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
    6. Palaeoclimate
    7. Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
    8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
    9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
    10. Global Climate Projections
    11. Regional Climate Projections

    Each of these topics addresses issues that are relevent to climate science and are active areas of scientific research. If you make the claim that they are irrelevent, then you and the “deniers” (or “skeptics,” a term I will not use as I have stated elsewhere) have no foundation to challenge AGW on the basis of topics such as the Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (chapter 6), or Artic Ice levels (chapter 4), or carbon dioxide’s radiative forcing (chapter 2) or the models are invalid (chapter 8) or the temperature measurements are wrong (chapter 3).

    As you are aware, every one of these topics is challenged by one or more prominent deniers,and sometimes even in this forum. Therefore, if, as you claim, they are not relevent to the defense of science behind AGW, then they are also not relevent to the attacks on it.

    Now, if you personally want to tell me that you agree with the conclusions of particular chapters in the IPCC report, then tell me what parts of the science we agree on and we can revise our questions (and scientific citations) on that basis. However, as I’ve stated before, I still don’t know what the “tough questions” are that Anthony Watts claims have not been answered. But right now all I have to address is the broad “climate science is wrong” assertion, so I will challenge that with the full list of scientific research that I am aware of.

    When I look closely I see this includes well known sceptics such as Christy, Spencer, Douglass, Zorita and Lindzen.

    So basically, you overestimated the number of these peer-reviewed scientific papers by an order of magnitude, and a lot of these don’t even support AGW anyway. Shame.

    And if you want to take out certain scientists who you claim do not support AGW from the list — be my guest. I did a rough count of the number of citations in the WGI bibliography. Please offer a revised figure. I haven’t had the time.

  175. Gavin is typical of so many college professors and certain overpaid government employees these days. I believe it comes with the title “Dokter” and the PhD after their name. Over time they come to believe that if it weren’t for them the place would fall apart. There does seem to be a trend.

    Since we have more phd’s than at any other time in history (the trend line looks like a hoo-key stick), the law of diminishing returns must be applicable. Now, in my humble opinion, the solution is to do one of two things:

    a. Do not award phds the way we do now. Save phds for individuals who have at least 12 masters degrees in 12 different fields (6 in the sciences and 6 in the arts).

    b. Award phds the way we do now but institute higher titles above today’s ‘phd’: phd-ba, phd-bs, phd-ma, phd-ms, phd-da, phd-ds, phd-ba2, phd-bs2, phd-ma2, phd-ms2, phd-da2, phd-ds2, then… when they have their 12 phd’s (6 in science, 6 in arts) they can use the Ph.D (with caps) and change the spelling of Dokter to Doctor.

    I’m sure there are other equally good solutions.

    Now a BA/BS takes 4 years, an MA/MS take 2-4 years, and each of the phd’s takes 2-4 years so it would seem that we would have a lot less folks wandering around ‘nasa’ (lower case reflects current status) and on campus, on the web, and in the media making an ass* of themselves.

    I don’t think we should “grandfather/mother” anyone who is under the age of 60 when this goes into effect. Regarding honorary doctorates, all of these ought to be trashed. Give these people an ‘Oscar’; each school should design their own trophy; silver for arts, gold for sciences, bronze for everything else. MD’s should keep their Dr. as an artifact, medics, corpsmen, PA’s in the military should retain their title of ‘Doc’, as should pharmasists over the age of 40.

    Since AGW is a field of snake-oil medicine and rip-off theaft, not even a valid subscience, and is not related to Geology as is Climate Change, anyone advocating this gorey little quasi-religous belief should assume the abbreveation for ponzi quack, “pq” or madoff quack “mq”.

  176. Sadly, the NYT appears to have reduced itself to advocacy instead of reporting news. They must read the Guardian (still staunchly in the AGW camp, but at least critical of some of the actions exposed in the CRU leaks) but doggedly persist in defence of Schmidt, Mann, et al., with their selective quotes and nuanced phrases. The last computer I bought came with a desktop shortcut linked to the NYTimes, which I deleted without using. Maybe I should read it more and post my opinion there instead, but who has the time?

    Willis made another post to WUWT that I read recently when he referenced it.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/
    This is very significant, and I hope he does follow up on developing the hypothesis. I had mused about the capacity of clouds and thunderstorms to reflect and dissipate energy while flying over the Gulf of Mexico recently. The clouds were so abundant and reached so high it was quite apparent they were filled with energy. If thunderstorms can bypass the greenhouse effect with a direct connection to the stratosphere, it is just like a thermostat turning on a fan to cool a greenhouse. Weather makes climate.

  177. Herman L (06:05:23),

    You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that the IPCC is composed entirely of political appointees. That makes their conclusions political, not scientific.

    They are carefully pre-selected. That is why very few of them turn down all expense paid, taxpayer-financed trips to Bali.

  178. Herman L (06:05:23) :
    Each of these topics addresses issues that are relevent to climate science and are active areas of scientific research. If you make the claim that they are irrelevent, then you and the “deniers” (or “skeptics,” a term I will not use as I have stated elsewhere) have no foundation to challenge AGW on the basis of topics such as the Glacial-Interglacial Cycles (chapter 6), or Artic Ice levels (chapter 4), or carbon dioxide’s radiative forcing (chapter 2) or the models are invalid (chapter 8) or the temperature measurements are wrong (chapter 3).

    Interesting that every single item that you have quoted, except maybe (chapter 6), has been proved wrong by later research.
    The models do not live up to reallity at all.
    radiative forcing (chapter 2) has shown to be much too high by other papers by leading AGW scientists.
    So when your own scientists refute the IPCC you are in big trouble.

  179. The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”

    Dont you in the least bit find this funny and ironic?

  180. Herman L

    J.Peden (13:34:46) :
    Climate Science is no more than a massive Propaganda Operation
    See my response to Smokey: at the starting gate your response is political — not-scientific. On what basis of fact do you determine that the IPCC produces propaganda and not scientific reports?

    I already told you, Herman – to which you did not respond, another Propaganda Operation Tactic itself. QED

  181. Herman L – Read the following (if you dare), and see if you still support the claims of the IPCC:
    Why the IPCC should be disbanded

    “Introduction
    The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias. One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how wrong this impression is. The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its
    misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.
    Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate. It’s time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.”

  182. I can’t believe all the comments praising Willis Eschenbach. I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. My undergraduate students can write better and more clearly than he. Besides which, pieces of two of his graphs were missing.
    What are his credentials? In what area of climatology did he get his doctorate and where? How many years has he spent gathering and analyzing climate data? In what reputable scientific journals has he published? Does he even know the difference between weather and climate? How does he account for the uncommonly rapid melting of the polar ice caps?
    Too bad the NYT bothered to quote him.

  183. PJB (08:42:23) :

    Your conclusion may be right. Gavin Schmidt utilizes the carefully honed bulldog tactics of insurance companies: Deny, Defend, and Delay. The strategy can be applied to any adversarial issue. Synthesizing your analysis, the standard attack is:

    Disavow validity of claim
    Discredit claimants
    Appeal to authority
    Disinform by obfuscation e.g. “climate is too complex for you”

    These tactics are also at the heart of the mythical “Debunker’s Field Guide” used by corrupt governments, agencies and crime syndicates the world over. Back in 2007 CNN’s Anderson Cooper did an expose on the auto insurance industry use of Deny, Defend, and Delay:
    http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2007/02/insurance-companies-fight-paying.html

    The antidote? Pure sunlight. It gets brighter every day.

    Diminish the importance of the accusations.
    Deflect the issues. Blame the problem on the weather!!!
    (Weather is NOT climate, remember?!)
    Relegate the proof of malfeasance to one among many specious propositions.
    Reconfirm the unusual nature of the accusations
    (perfect storm…AGAIN with the weather!!)
    Finally, discredit the accusers by comparing them to LHO, CT

  184. I have scanned the original version of Broder’s article, as it appeared on the front page of the International Herald Tribune on Tuesday

    http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/the-climate-article-the-new-york-times-editors-did-not-want-you-to-see/

    They actively stopped the article from going to the website, hatcheted it around, mixed it up, called at least two more interviewees, picked up Willis’ words…

    Why did they feel compelled to do that? One can only guess. The main difference I can see is that in the original there was no word from GISS or the UGS, and there was instead plenty of prominence for Prof Curry. Overall, it was probably not of Joe Romm’s liking.

  185. Not a Carbon Cow (20:54:17):

    Why is it that you (and others) think what I do for a living (i.e. a climate scientist) is so distasteful (and not worthy of me defending it)?

    Can you (or anyone else) find one single example of when I have hyped death and destruction from human GHG emissions?

    Google away…

    -Chip Knappenberger

  186. Alexandra Skidmore

    From your post, I suspect you do not operate in any of the fields of science. Could you confirm?

  187. Ref – Alexandra Skidmore (08:37:41) :
    “I can’t believe all the comments praising Willis Eschenbach. I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. My undergraduate students can write better and more clearly than he…”
    _________________________________

    I find your claim to be oximoronic. Undergrads can’t write better than anyone, and they haven’t in over 40 years.

    PS: If you say anything about u-know-who he tends to respond with rather long dissertations. Be careful, you’re pushing the envelope.

  188. A C Osborn (06:58:46) :
    Interesting that every single item that you have quoted, except maybe (chapter 6), has been proved wrong by later research.

    Of course, it depends on what you mean by “research.” I toss aside the self-published internet pages. There’s so much of that out there that you can find whatever you want to support your opinions; they do not count as scientific research. Maybe it does to you, but if it’s good enough for other scientists to accept, it’s good enough to be published. These have not been published in scientific journals.

    By my calculation only two of your links reference actual scientific articles that resemble published research in scientific journals:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
    which reports on an article in Nature, a very well respected journal. I’m not sure you read it fully, because the article includes this: “The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises. Further, they say their concern about man-made climate change remains high.”

    This, of course, only addresses future temperature rise. It does not address that past CO2 emissions are contributing to the greenhouse effect. For that, I turn to the other published article you cite:

    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
    (International Journal of Modern Physics B)

    The abstract states: “The atmospheric greenhouse effect … essentially describes a fictitious mechanism.”

    I’ve never heard of this journal and have no idea how the editors chose to publish it. But the abstract is fascinating and, if true, would turn science on its head. So the greenhouse effect is a lie? Well, if true, then you win and I give up — problem solved.

    Unfortunately, it’s not true. I doubt very much that many (if any) scientists in the world will come to the defense of what I understand these authors to be writing here. In fact, Gerlich and Tscheuschner have already been refuted by Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society. You can find his paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

    When Anthony Watts writes an article here that supports Gerlich and Tscheuschner (and can scientifically dismiss Smith’s findings), I’ll consider joining the denier camp. Until then, I’ll put this down as proven wrong and not supported by all the other research. That probably won’t convince you, but I’ve left Anthony an opening to return to this point and prove, as Gerlich and Tscheuschner assert, that there is no greenhouse effect.

  189. Alexandra Skidmore (08:37:41)

    I can’t believe all the comments praising Willis Eschenbach. I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. My undergraduate students can write better and more clearly than he. Besides which, pieces of two of his graphs were missing.
    What are his credentials? In what area of climatology did he get his doctorate and where? How many years has he spent gathering and analyzing climate data? In what reputable scientific journals has he published? Does he even know the difference between weather and climate? How does he account for the uncommonly rapid melting of the polar ice caps?
    Too bad the NYT bothered to quote him.

    Alexandra, assuming you are now done with the ad hominem attacks, do you have anything scientific to contribute?

    You seem to think that the “credentials” of the author are what is important in science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientific truth written anonymously on a bathroom wall is still true. Ad hominem attacks by a PhD with graduate students are still meaningless.

    Your focus on the person rather than the science doesn’t become you, Alexandra.

    PS – if you had bothered to read the thread rather than foolishly jump in at the end you would have seen that I have posted my CV online, specifically so that ad hominuts like yourself would have something to chew on.

    PPS – You say “How does he account for the uncommonly rapid melting of the polar ice caps?” The Arctic ice caps are recovering. The Antarctic ice caps have been increasing for years. Before uncapping your electronic pen to attack someone, you really should check your facts, otherwise you just look petulant …

  190. Willis Eschenbach (10:54:57)

    Alexandra Skidmore (08:37:41)

    … I read his article on temperature readings in Darwin. … Besides which, pieces of two of his graphs were missing.

    Alexandra, intrigued by this comment, I just went back and looked at my article on Darwin. All of the graphs looked complete to me. Which parts of which graphs were missing?

    w.

  191. Willis:
    You are way more polite than I would be with Ms. Skidmore. She appears to be a mathematician – but I can find no recent publications nor any trace of her on any faculty currently. In any case, a PhD in Cimate Science and a string of articles would not make her comments more accurate.
    Keep up the great work and the great tradition of basement and garage scientists.

  192. Willis, don’t expect to hear from Ms Skidmore anytime soon. She’s likely having her undergrads craft her response.

  193. “Ummm…Is this the Willis Eschenbach who works for an OIL COMPANY???
    http://www.linkedin.com…”

    That’s a quote from the comments section of the NYT article. Seems there’s a CFO of South Pacific Oil with the same name. Uh? Anybody?”

    SPO surely isn’t Big Oil, or Medium Oil, or even Little Oil. So it must be Baby Oil.

  194. Herman L (10:31:41) :

    You conveniently ignored my post, interesting.

    What I posted was scientific research. Climate Change Reconsidered of which you so easily ignored because of who published it is an over 800 page report fully and extensively sourced to the scientific peer-reviewed literature.

    “Unfortunately, it’s not true. I doubt very much that many (if any) scientists in the world will come to the defense of what I understand these authors to be writing here. In fact, Gerlich and Tscheuschner have already been refuted by Arthur Smith of the American Physical Society. You can find his paper here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

    Arvix is not peer-reviewed but that has been refuted,

    Comments on the “Proof of the atmospheric greenhouse effect” (PDF)

  195. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA… Gavin and the team are getting so desperate that they are all resorting to name calling

  196. Poptech – “http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0904/0904.2767.pdf”

    I would only add to your comment this way – Check and Mate!

  197. Our only newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal continues to publish misinformation on man-made global warming. The latest OPED, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes,”March 4,2010. We have an obligation to remind the editors of newspapers that the “science is not settled” by opinions made on behalf of science. While the article is not worth the read, I would appreciate any comments about my reply to the Journal Editorial staff. Surely, there is a climate scientist within the Albuquerque area that could write an OPED explaining the current situation better than I. If you are out there, please write to the Journal.
    Below is my response to the OPED. The author admits that she is not a scientist but she presents a group called the New Mexico Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics. I wonder how she got that job. Jon Shively
    In a recent Journal OPED piece, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes”, Eva Thaddeus made several statements that should not be left unchallenged. “It is not difficult to arrive at an informed opinion about this issue. It’s a question of knowing what sources to trust”. For those who are not educated in the physical sciences this would seem to be a valid principle to determine the truth, unless the scientific sources that serve as a basis for the opinions of professional scientific academies have been duped by a few science leaders in the field of climate research who faked the evidence to make it appear that global warming is caused by a particular mechanism, carbon dioxide. While is true that some professional scientific academies have endorsed the basis of global warming aggravated by the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently a significant number of academies have withdrawn their support for man-made global warming, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal Chemical Society to name three prominent science groups. Others have questioned whether the science is really “settled”. The question I ask is whom do you trust when professional societies have been compromised or duped by scientific leaders in climate research.
    Scientific dishonesty in climate research has recently been revealed. In November 2009, a large number of e-mails were released or high jacked between the leaders in climate research at East Anglia University Research Center under Dr. Phil Jones and other prominent climate scientists in the US and UK. It is apparent from the e-mails that the scientists were less than straight forward. They were unwilling to share the data or the basis of their pronouncements with other scientists despite the fact that the university in under Freedom of Information law. More damaging to the credibility of climate research on global warming is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made several major errors their 2007 report, AR4, in predictions about the consequences of man-made global warming. One prediction is that the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035. It turns out that the prediction did not come as a result of scientific inquiry. Other predictions such as the disappearance of the rain forests in Brazil, droughts in Africa, rising sea water levels, and ice disappearance in the artic have also be tied to unreliable sources of scientific evidence. These errors have been summarized in an editorial by the UK Telegraph in “The Perfect Storm is Brewing for the IPCC”, by Christopher Booker. While small errors could be overlooked, the extent of the lack of scientific rigor combined with a lack of checking the validity of sources of evidence that the climate is warming due to carbon dioxide calls into question the validity of the whole IPCC report. In fact, Dr. Phil Jones who was asked to stand down as director of the CRU at East Anglia University because of the e-mails has now admitted that the planet has not gotten warmer since 1996 despite a significant increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also admitted that the planet was probably much warmer during the medieval warming period around 1000 CE than now. Finally, Dr. Rajendra Pachuari who is heads the IPCC has earned millions of dollars through his research institute TERI including 17 lucrative contacts with the EU.
    Ms Thaddeus asks, “What mechanism would operate that could allow these people to work together to defraud the rest of us”? The answer is; self preservation. Research is funded by governments. Scientists are required to compete for the research funds to support their work at universities. However, in the last 20 years the vast majority of the government funds available for climate research from US, UK, and EU governments and private source have been limited to proving that carbon dioxide causes the climate to warm. By the way, funding for climate research from government agencies out paced the private sector by 100 to 1. Most of the industry funds, especially from the oil companies, actually went to support the governmental funded research. The skeptics are essentially unfunded.
    Since Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the IPCC and governments have blamed the heating of the planet on combustion of carbon based fuels, especially from fossil fuel consumption by industrialized nations. To discourage the use of fossil fuels a system of carbon trading fees was established that are given to undeveloped nations by the industrialized nations and several EU governments have been paying these carbon trading dollars and have sought to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Naturally, those involved in trading stand to make a lot of money, i.e., Dr. Pachauri and Al Gore to name two. Thus what started out to be a scientific investigation of climate mechanisms that may explain some of the warming the planet has experienced since 1900, have become an industry and a culture of scientists only interested in self preservation. This sad result is that a culture has formed in the dominant, man-made climate, science community that cannot stand to be questioned and which vilifies skepticism. It has also created feeling of mistrust to the extent that a dialog between scientists on each side of the issue is extremely labored. The few skeptical scientists who did question the results have been chastised by politicians, media, and the “insider” scientists as a bunch of “deniers” and “flat earth” scientists.
    Global climate science has significantly lost credibility along with the scientific organizations that endorsed the mechanism of global warming from the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now we can no longer trust the academies, the IPCC, and the government to speak candidly and honestly about what is known about anthropological global warming. Maybe the science on global warming was settled but it isn’t now. Science now says I don’t know!

  198. Our newspaper, the Albuquerque Journal, has published another OPED that conveys misinformation about our skepticism of man-made global warming. The OPED is titled, Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes. I have drafted a response to the OPED. Note the author admits that she is not a scientist but she heads the NM Coalition for Excellence in Science and Mathematics. She is a teacher.
    If you happen to encounter this input under this issue at the late date, please comment on my response to the Journal OPED

    In a recent Journal OPED piece, “Human-Caused Global Warming? Science Says Yes”, Eva Thaddeus made several statements that should not be left unchallenged. “It is not difficult to arrive at an informed opinion about this issue. It’s a question of knowing what sources to trust”. For those who are not educated in the physical sciences this would seem to be a valid principle to determine the truth, unless the scientific sources that serve as a basis for the opinions of professional scientific academies have been duped by a few science leaders in the field of climate research who faked the evidence to make it appear that global warming is caused by a particular mechanism, carbon dioxide. While is true that some professional scientific academies have endorsed the basis of global warming aggravated by the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, recently a significant number of academies have withdrawn their support for man-made global warming, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Statistical Society, and the Royal Chemical Society to name three prominent science groups. Others have questioned whether the science is really “settled”. The question I ask is whom do you trust when professional societies have been compromised or duped by scientific leaders in climate research.
    Scientific dishonesty in climate research has recently been revealed. In November 2009, a large number of e-mails were released or high jacked between the leaders in climate research at East Anglia University Research Center under Dr. Phil Jones and other prominent climate scientists in the US and UK. It is apparent from the e-mails that the scientists were less than straight forward. They were unwilling to share the data or the basis of their pronouncements with other scientists despite the fact that the university in under Freedom of Information law. More damaging to the credibility of climate research on global warming is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change made several major errors their 2007 report, AR4 in their predictions about the consequences of man-made global warming. One prediction is the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035. It turns out that the prediction did not come as a result of scientific inquiry. Other predictions such as the disappearance of the rain forests in Brazil, droughts in Africa, rising sea water levels, and ice disappearance in the artic have also be tied to unreliable sources of scientific evidence These errors have been summarized in an editorial by the Telegraph in the UK, “The Perfect Storm is Brewing for the IPCC”, by Christopher Booker. While small errors could be overlooked, the extent of the lack of scientific rigor combined with a lack of checking the scientific validity of sources of evidence that the climate is warming due to carbon dioxide calls into question the validity of the IPCC report. In fact Dr. Phil Jones was asked to stand down as director of the CRU at East Anglia University because of the e-mails and has now admitted that the planet has not gotten warmer since 1996 despite a significant increase in the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He also admitted that the planet was probably much warmer during the medieval warming period around 1000 CE than now Finally, Dr. Rajendra Pachuari who is heads the IPCC has earned millions of pounds through his research institute TERI including 17 lucrative contacts with the EU.
    Ms Thaddeus asks, “What mechanism would operate that could allow these people to work together to defraud the rest of us”? The answer is self preservation. Research is funded by governments. Scientists are required to compete for the research funds to support their work at universities. However, in the last 15 years vast majority of the government funds available for climate research from US, UK, and EU governments have been limited to proving that carbon dioxide causes the climate to warm. By the way, funding for climate research from government agencies out paced the private sector by 100 to 1. Most of the industry funds, especially from the oil companies, actually went to support the governmental funded research. The skeptics are essentially unfunded.
    Since Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the IPCC and governments have blamed the heating of the planet on combustion of carbon based fuels, especially from fossil fuel consumption by industrialized nations. To discourage the use of fossil fuels a system of carbon trading fees was established that are given to undeveloped nations by the industrialized nations and several EU governments have been paying these carbon trading dollars and have sought to reduce their use of fossil fuels. Naturally, those involved in trading stand to make a lot of money, i.e., Dr. Pachauri and Al Gore to name two. Thus what started out to be a scientific investigation of climate mechanisms that may explain some of the warming the planet has experienced since 1900, have become an carbon industry and a culture of scientists only interested in self preservation. This sad result has generated a culture has in the dominant, man-made climate, science community that cannot stand to be questioned and which vilifies skeptics. It has also created feeling of mistrust to the extent that a dialog between scientists on each side of the issue is extremely labored. The few skeptical scientists early on who did question the results have been chastised by politicians, media, and the “insider” scientists as a bunch of “deniers” and “flat earth” scientists.
    Global climate science has significantly lost credibility along with the scientific organizations that endorsed the mechanism of global warming from the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Now we can no longer trust the academies, the IPCC, and the government to speak candidly and honestly about what is known about anthropological global warming. Maybe the science on global warming was settled, but it isn’t now. Science now says I don’t know!

  199. Taipei update on yesterday’s 6.4 southern Taiwan earthquake.

    None of my friends and family in southern Taiwan were impacted by it. But my feeling do out to those who were hurt.

    The earthquake levels in Taipei [northern end of Taiwan] were quite moderate and there was not much potential for damage up north here. I blogged here on WUWT right through them with losing a keystroke, just a higher number of spell-check/grammar errors.

    John in Taipei

  200. Herman L (09:57:07): You wrote, “I have been asking for more than two years for a scientific rebuttal from the ‘deniers’ to the 900 pages of the IPCC FAR Working Group One report. No one has produced one.”

    I’ve illustrated in three posts how the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955 has been driven by natural variables (ENSO, AMOC, NAO, NPI) not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases. Here are the links:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/enso-dominates-nodc-ocean-heat-content.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/north-atlantic-ocean-heat-content-0-700.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/north-pacific-ocean-heat-content-shift.html

    I’ve also shown that the rise in Global SST and TLT anomalies during the satellite era are responses to ENSO events and not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases. Here are those links:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html

    I’ve shown how and why the IPCC GCMs use outdated TSI data when they attempt to reproduce the 20th Century rise in global temperatures:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/ipcc-20th-century-simulations-get-boost.html

    And I’ve illustrated how climate scientists misrepresent the impacts of ENSO:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-studies-misrepresent-effects-of.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/09/relationship-between-enso-and-global.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/08/multiple-wrongs-dont-make-right.html
    AND:
    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/regression-analyses-do-not-capture.html

    While I could understand how you might’ve missed those posts at my website, many of them were also co-posted here at WUWT. Just enter my name into the WUWT search above and you’ll find them and other posts discussing similar topics.

    BTW: I’m a skeptic, not a denier. I understand the Earth has warmed and will be happy to use data to illustrate why. One simply has to break the data down into subsets.

  201. Poptech (17:25:47) :

    Since Herman likes to ignore posts, I will post it again,

    No, Herman has a paying job that takes time away from this. I will respond later …

  202. Poptech (17:25:47) :

    Since Herman likes to ignore posts, I will post it again,

    Scientific literature that supports skepticism

    I have not been ignoring posts. As I stated elsewhere, I do not have all the time in the world to respond to everything. Also, Anthony has put me in the “penalty box” which causes a delay (and sometimes outright omission) in my posts. Ask him to remove it.

    I only have time now for some responses, so I will start at the top.

    The title of the webpage you cite is “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming.” First, you’re saying “Scientific literature that supports skepticism,” not “denying the existing of AGW” — right? Are you skeptical of some recent scientific findings regarding climate change, as all scientists are, or do you deny AGW entirely? I don’t know which you purport to claim with this list, because the two are very different. And if you’re “skeptical” of some scientific findings, my question is: which scientific findings specifically? Do you want to go all the way back and deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as the Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper claims? Where in the scientific findings do you draw the line?

    I’ll turn to the list you cite, which has numerous problems that lead me to question how the author compiled it.

    For example, the abstract for one of the papers in the list reads: “This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source.” Whatever the paper is trying to demonstrate, it’s not denying AGW.

    However, here some problems with the list you cite:

    Many not scientific papers
    As a prime example, the list includes “A scientific agenda for climate policy?” It is a Commentary by Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. A commentary is not a scientific paper.

    There are papers, but not related to climate science
    A perfect example is “When scientists politicize science” by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. This is a social science paper, having nothing to do with the natural sciences.

    Many not peer reviewed
    There are ninty (90) papers from Energy & Environment, which is a trade journal, not a peer reviewed scientific journal listed by the Institute for Scientific Information.

    Some are not “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming”
    Two examples here:

    “Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World”
    The abstract reads: “Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. … Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.”

    In this case, the authors clearly recognize that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. In reading this abstract, I do not understand why someone would classify this paper as supporting “skepticism.”

    Similarly, another paper:
    “Cold–an underrated risk factor for health”

    The abstract reads: “The strong indirect epidemiological evidence coupling cold climate to mortality may be related to indoor rather than outdoor climatic conditions.” Reading the abstract one realizes it says nothing about climate change, much less AGW. I have no idea why it was included in the list.

    These points I raise — non-science papers, non peer-reviewed articles, abstracts that do not support the claims of the person who compiled the list — lead me to question the relevence of the entire list. I’d like the author of the list to come forward and defend his definitions of “peer-reviewed” and “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming” against the points I’ve raised, because I have no idea what he means by that based on my reading of the material in the list.

    Sure, I’m sure you can find some papers that are in support of your arguments. However, the point I make is that the IPCC reference list was used by the IPCC authors to produce their report. I’ve put the two together: 5000 peer-reviewed papers and a comprehensive report based on those papers. What comprehensive report is based on this list of papers? I bet there isn’t one.

    That’s all I have time for now. More later …

  203. Bob Tisdale (03:54:05) :

    I’ve illustrated in three posts how the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955 has been driven by natural variables (ENSO, AMOC, NAO, NPI) not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases.

    I am not familiar with the science behind ocean heat content. As you write “I’m a skeptic, not a denier,” that suggests to me that you are (at this juncture) only taking issue with one area of climate science. My question for you is: How does what you write differ from what the IPCC says, and where in the IPCC report would that be?

  204. Herman L: You wrote, “I am not familiar with the science behind ocean heat content.”

    Then you may wish to start with Chapter 5 of AR4 and the references it contains.

    You wrote, “As you write ‘I’m a skeptic, not a denier,’ that suggests to me that you are (at this juncture) only taking issue with one area of climate science.”

    Incorrect. I advised you that I’m a skeptic simply because I am skeptical of what has been passed off as the science of anthropogenic global warming. And I advised you that I’m not a denier because I accept that global temperatures have risen. In fact had you read the entire paragraph, you may have grasped that point.

    Also, had you read my entire 03:54:05 reply to you and had you clicked on and read the links I provided, you would have noted that my reply to you did not only deal with the topic of Ocean Heat Content. My reply also dealt with the rise in SST and in TLT, and with the use of outdated TSI data so that the IPCC climate models could reproduce the rise in temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The posts about how scientists misrepresent ENSO illustrate significant errors in the hypothesis of AGW.

  205. Herman L (09:47:48) :

    If you cannot read then maybe you should not respond to posts. The over 500 papers are skeptical of either AGW theory or the environmental or economic effects of. Nothing has anything to with denial. To deny something would first mean it has been unequivocally proven, something AGW has not been.

    “For example, the abstract for one of the papers in the list reads: “This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source.”

    That was In a reply to a comment on a paper,

    Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
    (AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
    – Lee C. Gerhard

    Full context,

    “Little correlation exists between the smooth and steady rise in carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere, the almost imperceptible rise in temperature measured in the lower stratosphere by balloons and satellites, and the multidirectional and multidecadal rise and fall of Earth’s temperature over the last 150 yr (Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2004). Interestingly, the NASA graph of United States temperature documents that the United States has cooled 0.7°C since 1998 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2005).

    In contrast, correlation exists between solar and orbital variations and the Earth’s climate over the last 150 yr and before (Reid, 1991; Hoyt and Schatten,1997; Bond et al., 2001). We are about 1100 yr beyond the medieval warm event (Lamb, 1995) and likely near the cusp of the modern warm event. Khilyuk and Chilingar (2004) have summarized many of the arguments for nonanthropogenic climate drivers. New studies (Scafetta and West, 2005; Usoskin et al., 2005) demonstrate the function that orbital and solar variations may have in climate change.

    This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source. But the data and the correlations negate carbon dioxide as the single major driver of climate change. It is the responsibility of computer modelers to revamp their algorithms to acknowledge solar and orbital correlation and reflect recorded climate history.”

    Yes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has effects such as increasing forestation.

    Many not scientific papers

    Some are not natural science papers but all are in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the papers are related to policy and very relevant to the debate.

    There are papers, but not related to climate science

    They are related to the “economic effects of” AGW which is why that paper is under the socio-economic section.

    Many not peer reviewed

    ALL THE PAPERS ARE PEER-REVIEWED.

    * Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
    – Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and Scopus
    – Found at 41 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 81 in electronic form.
    EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)

    ISI (Institute of Scientific Information) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”.

    Scopus incorrectly lists Energy & Environment as a “trade” journal, which is illogical as it is not associated with any specific “trade” such as “chemical engineering”. EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal.

    Some are not “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming”

    No they are supporting skepticism of the environmental effects of climate change,

    Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World
    (Science, Volume 320, Number 5874, pp. 336-340, April 2008)
    – M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.

    This shows that ocean acidification will not reduce calcification of marine organisms.

    Cold—an underrated risk factor for health
    (Environmental Research, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp. 8-13, May 2003)
    – James B. Mercer

    This shows that cold temperatures kills more people than warm temperatures. Whether this happens indoor or out is irrelevant as the paper is directly related cold winter deaths. This is in direct response to the notion that warmer temperatures will be deadly.

    All of you criticisms are invalid. I am the author of the list. It is quite clear what the list supports as it is stated quite clearly and no one except those attempting to refute the list have a hard time understanding it – again it says,

    “The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.

    You again just repeat your same propaganda about “5000 papers”. I have linked to rebuttals of the IPCC report.

  206. Poptech (16:11:52) :

    You again just repeat your same propaganda …

    When you write the above (it’s from your latest comment), it suggest to me that you are displaying a political bias and are not genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change. Compare the citation list in the IPCC with the list of journals compiled by Jim Prall at U-Toronto (http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html). You will find a lot of overlap. When you use such a charged word as “propaganda,” I have to ask you: In your opinion, is this or is this not legitimate scientific research?.

    Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal

    Peer Reviewed by whom? I can find nothing in E&E’s that suggests it has any expertise in evaluating scientific papers on climate change. Let’s look at the editorial board, where we find not a single climate scientist in the group. Here’s a breakdown of the editoral board:

    Social Sciences (11)
    1. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen – geography
    2. Aynsley Kellow Political Science
    3. Bjorn Lomborg Political Science
    4. Benny Peiser studied Political Science
    5. Dr. Maarten J. Arentsen – Political Science
    6. Julian Morris MA in economics
    7. ZhongXiang Zhang PhD, Economics
    8. David Ball Risk Management
    9. Atle Midttun Management
    10. Steve Thomas Business
    11. Mithra Moezzi Anthropology and Folklore

    Engineering (4)
    12. Yousef S H Najjar Mechanical Engineering
    13. Professor B W Ang Engineering
    14. Max Beran Engineer
    25. Hilary I. Inyang Engineering

    Unknown (3)
    16. David Cope Industry Railroad Manufacture
    17. Richard S Courtney independent consultant (not known if he has a degree)
    18. Dr Wolfgang Eichhammer, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ??

    Misc Energy/Technology (2)
    19. Horace Herring Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology The Open University
    20. Jim Skea Ph.D Energy Research

    It’s revealing that so many “peer reviewed” articles on climate science that you stand behind appear in a single journal that has not a single climate scientist on its editorial board. Who are the climate scientists who are peer reviewing any of these articles? Who on the editorial board has qualifications to state of the science is the articles is sound, that there are no errors, and to find peers qualified to address the science?

    Finally, as for your links to the Fraser/Heartland documents, two points:
    1. They are long and therefore require a long time to read, so be patient, and
    2. Do you stand behind these as solid scientific reports that accuratelyt describe the current state of climate science?

  207. Willis, I couldn’t find your phone number or e-mail address, so I hope this reaches you. I thought you might find the enclosed website useful in understanding the dynamics of moment resistant joints in engineered reinforced concrete post and beam structures in seismic events If I read you correctly, you appeared to dismiss the shear strength available in these joints out of hand, while I contend that properly engineered, these joints can accommodate all the forces to which they may be subjected in a seismic event. If you have the time to look into it, I would be pleased if you wish to comment on any structural failings you find in my planned submittal for mass housing in Haiti to Architecture for Humanity after reviewing the enclosed article. Please believe me that when I am wrong, I always appreciate getting at the truth, and the sooner, the better.

    http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-GSDMA/EQ31.pdf

    By the way, congratulations on your mention in the New York Times. Your work in the climate science field has clearly vaulted you to a position where you are being heard, and you deserve kudos for your dedication to the issue, and the fame that accompanies it. It takes a lot of courage for an amateur to challenge the dominant scientific thinking of the era. We have the dissidents of bygone eras to thank for their contributions to our understanding.

    It takes even more courage to cast such blanket condemnation on the integrity of legitimate, peer reviewed science, while you demagogue from a highly prejudicial viewpoint. It is hard to understand how your agenda-based methodology is superior to the flow of understanding that evolves from a neutral based enquiry that lies at the heart of science. You say, “I don’t want faith in climate science to be restored.” Really. How then are we ever to get at the truth, or are we simply to look forward to the intellectual anarchy that so many ill-informed seem to so desperately want in their search for legitimacy!!!!! Which is more important to you Willis, being thought right, or getting to the truth? Your Blogs suggest the former, but what do I know. I’m just another amateur whose well being depends on the accuracy of science every day. Look forward to hearing from you. Harlow

  208. harlow jones (12:20:57) : edit


    By the way, congratulations on your mention in the New York Times. Your work in the climate science field has clearly vaulted you to a position where you are being heard, and you deserve kudos for your dedication to the issue, and the fame that accompanies it. It takes a lot of courage for an amateur to challenge the dominant scientific thinking of the era. We have the dissidents of bygone eras to thank for their contributions to our understanding.

    It takes even more courage to cast such blanket condemnation on the integrity of legitimate, peer reviewed science, while you demagogue from a highly prejudicial viewpoint. It is hard to understand how your agenda-based methodology is superior to the flow of understanding that evolves from a neutral based enquiry that lies at the heart of science. You say, “I don’t want faith in climate science to be restored.” Really. How then are we ever to get at the truth, or are we simply to look forward to the intellectual anarchy that so many ill-informed seem to so desperately want in their search for legitimacy!!!!! Which is more important to you Willis, being thought right, or getting to the truth? Your Blogs suggest the former, but what do I know. I’m just another amateur whose well being depends on the accuracy of science every day. Look forward to hearing from you. Harlow

    Harlow, thanks for the information. I have not condemned legitimate science anywhere in my piece. I condemn garbage science, which is unfortunately too common in climate science. From my article, here is my take-home message to climate scientists who wish to restore trust in climate science:

    You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. Call out the journals that don’t follow their own policies on data archiving. Speak up for honest science. Archive your data. Insist on transparency. Publish your codes.

    I fail to see how that is a condemnation of legitimate science in any sense. It is a call for legitimate science.

    w.

  209. Herman L (05:55:18) :

    “When you write the above (it’s from your latest comment), it suggest to me that you are displaying a political bias and are not genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.”

    Anyone who uses the word “denial” or “denier” has a political bias and can drop their false pretenses of being “genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.” What a crock!

    Your attempted use of all the references of the IPCC report as support of AGW theory is propaganda. This works on the ignorant not here. There are thousands of papers on climate change but few explicitly endorse AGW theory. All those thousands of papers in the IPCC report support climate change not AGW. I used the word “propaganda” because that is what you are doing.

    “Peer Reviewed by whom?”

    Do you even understand how peer-review works? The editors of a journal are not the reviewers. As with any other peer-reviewed journal relevant credentialed scientists to the paper would review it not the editorial board. Go find who the reviewers are for any other major journal and get back to me. E&E is not a pure natural science journal. It is an interdisciplinary academic journal serving both natural and social sciences. This is quite clear from the journal’s home page. Regardless it is a peer-reviewed journal and the papers relevant.

    There are papers from many other journals in the list but you think that by attacking one journal you can discredit the list. Except E&E is peer-reviewed and thus you failed. Here are the journals you missed,

    AAPG Bulletin
    Advances in Geosciences
    Advances in Global Change Research
    Advances in Space Research
    AIP Conference Proceedings
    Ambio
    American Scientist
    Annales Geophysicae
    Annals of Glaciology
    Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
    Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
    Applied Energy
    Arctic and Alpine Research
    Area
    Astronomical Notes
    Astronomy & Geophysics
    Astrophysics and Space Science
    Astrophysics and Space Science Library
    Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
    British Medical Journal (BMJ)
    Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
    Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
    Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
    Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
    Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
    Central European Journal of Physics
    Chemical Innovation
    Civil Engineering
    Climate Dynamics
    Climate of the Past
    Climate Research
    Climatic Change
    Comptes Rendus Geosciences
    Contemporary South Asia
    Earth and Planetary Science Letters
    Ecological Complexity
    Ecological Modelling
    Ecological Monographs
    Ecology
    Economics Bulletin
    Emerging Infectious Diseases
    Energy & Environment *
    Energy Fuels
    Energy Policy
    Energy Sources
    Energy The International Journal
    Environmental Geology
    Environmental Geosciences
    Environmental Health Perspectives
    Environmental Politics
    Environmental Research
    Environmental Science & Policy
    Environmental Science and Pollution Research
    Environmental Software
    Environmetrics
    Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
    Futures
    Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
    GeoJournal
    Geology
    Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
    Geophysical Research Letters
    Geoscience Canada
    Global and Planetary Change
    Global Environmental Change
    GSA Today
    Hydrological Sciences Journal
    Il Nuovo Cimento C
    Interfaces
    International Journal of Biometeorology
    International Journal of Climatology
    International Journal of Environmental Studies
    International Journal of Forecasting
    International Journal of Global Warming
    International Journal of Modern Physics B
    International Journal of Remote Sensing
    International Quarterly for Asian Studies
    International Social Science Journal
    Irish Astronomical Journal
    Irrigation and Drainage
    Iron & Steel Technology
    Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
    Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
    Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
    Journal of Chemical Education
    Journal of Climate
    Journal of Coastal Research
    Journal of Environmental Sciences
    Journal of Environmental Quality
    Journal of Fusion Energy
    Journal of Geophysical Research
    Journal of Information Ethics
    Journal of Lake Sciences
    Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
    Journal of Scientific Exploration
    Journal of the American Water Resources Association
    Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
    Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
    Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
    Lancet Infectious Diseases
    Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
    Malaria Journal
    Marine Geology
    Marine Pollution Bulletin
    Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
    Meteorologische Zeitschrift
    Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
    Natural Hazards
    Natural Hazards Review
    Nature
    Nature Geoscience
    New Astronomy
    New Concepts In Global Tectonics
    New Phytologist
    New Zealand Geographer
    New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
    Nordic Hydrology
    Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
    Oceanologica Acta
    Paleoceanography
    Paleontological Journal
    Physical Geography
    Physical Review Letters
    Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
    Physics Letters A
    Physics Reports
    Planetary and Space Science
    PLoS Biology
    Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
    Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
    Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    Proceedings of the Royal Society A
    Progress in Physical Geography
    Public Administration Review
    Pure and Applied Geophysics
    Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
    Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
    Quaternary Research
    Quaternary Science Reviews
    Regulation *
    Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
    Science
    Science of the Total Environment
    Science, Technology & Human Values
    Social Studies of Science
    Society
    Solar Physics
    South African Journal of Science
    Space Science Reviews
    Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
    Surveys in Geophysics
    Technology
    Tellus A
    The Astrophysical Journal
    The Cato Journal *
    The Electricity Journal
    The Holocene
    The Independent Review
    The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
    The Quarterly Review of Biology
    The Review of Economics and Statistics
    Theoretical and Applied Climatology
    Topics in Catalysis
    Weather
    Weather and Forecasting
    World Economics

    2. The Fraser reports are a solid scientific critique of the IPCC report. Yes, the NIPCC Report is a solid scientitic report of the state of climate science. The Heartland Institute just publishes it.

  210. First sent five hours ago and Mr. Watts has yet to put it up my response. Here it is again:

    Poptech (14:54:53) :
    Anyone who uses the word “denial” or “denier” has a political bias and can drop their false pretenses of being “genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.” What a crock!

    I define a climate change or global warming “denier” as a person who denies the central finding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I, namely: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (SPM, p. 15). If you accept that finding, then I apologize for calling you a denier.

    Do you even understand how peer-review works? The editors of a journal are not the reviewers. As with any other peer-reviewed journal relevant credentialed scientists to the paper would review it not the editorial board.

    I’m fully aware of that. I just don’t know the names and affiliations of any “credentialed scientists” for Energy and Environment — either editorial board or reviewers. Do you? Please reply with their names here. That is the specific point I am challenging here. I see no evidence from the editorial board of E&E that anyone affiliated with the journal is even qualified to be a peer for a review of a scientific paper on the topic of climate change.

    There are papers from many other journals in the list but you think that by attacking one journal you can discredit the list.

    No, I am challenging the value of the most prominent one on your list.

    REPLY: You know what Herman Lxxxx? Making the assumption that your post isn’t showing up is directly my fault is a pretty broad assumption. We have a team of moderators, we get hundreds of spam messages a day, and yes once in awhile posts get deleted with the spam. Get over it. But specifically fingering me when you have zero evidence to support personal action on my part is not something I appreciate. I’ve been off for a Rotary meeting the last two hours and I’ve never seen your comment. You’ve been hostile to me, and to the members of this blog since your fist post, so yes, your posts earn penalty box status (because they often require immediate responses – like this one) and that’s the way they will stay. Don’t like it, tough noogies. Find another blog to comment on.

    I suggest that in the interest of demonstrating that your are fair and rational you might consider an apology in your very next posting. I’ve asked for apologies before from you and you refused. Here’s your chance to elevate yourself if you really think you deserve to get out of the penalty box. Following that, do your own research, ask E&E to send you the information, you can write email just as well as the next person. We aren’t here to cater to your needs.

    Of course, if you really want to get out of the penalty box immediately, put your full name to your comments. If what you have to say is so important, so factual, step into the light, and I’ll applaud you for doing so.

    -Anthony

  211. Herman L (14:02:21)

    Poptech (14:54:53) :

    Anyone who uses the word “denial” or “denier” has a political bias and can drop their false pretenses of being “genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.” What a crock!

    I define a climate change or global warming “denier” as a person who denies the central finding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I, namely: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (SPM, p. 15). If you accept that finding, then I apologize for calling you a denier.

    Herman L, perhaps you are just being deliberately obtuse. A number of people, myself included, have repeatedly objected to the word “denier” because of its obvious correlation with “Holocaust denier”.

    If you continue to use the word after so many have made their objections plain, you are an impolite and uncouth person. Pick some other word, it’s childish and unproductive to come in to a man’s blog and insult people. All you’ll do is get your vote cancelled, no one wants to listen to someone who insults them.

    Do I “deny” the IPCC statement that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” I neither affirm nor deny that statement, I’m a scientist. Instead, I either accept or reject the null hypothesis.

    The null hypothesis is that what we are seeing in the climate is due to natural fluctuations. The 20th century is in no way unusual, the earth has been warming for centuries. So I don’t think that the evidence supports the IPCC claims, see my posts here and here.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion of those ideas, join in on an appropriate thread, you will be welcome. But if you just want to call people names that they have repeatedly told you they find offensive, I fear you’re in for a rough ride.

  212. “I define a climate change or global warming “denier” as a person who denies the central finding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I, namely: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (SPM, p. 15). If you accept that finding, then I apologize for calling you a denier.”

    Typical propaganda like Willis said the connotation is to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. Yes I reject that statement from the IPCC and find it unsupportable with empirical evidence.

    “I see no evidence from the editorial board of E&E that anyone affiliated with the journal is even qualified to be a peer for a review of a scientific paper on the topic of climate change.”

    So? They don’t review the papers, credentialed scientists in the appropriate field do.

    “No, I am challenging the value of the most prominent one on your list.”

    Of which you failed to do because E&E is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal,

    E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

    Herman you still have nothing.

  213. Responding to several posts here:

    If you don’t like the word “denier” because you associate it with the holocaust (BTW, something I have never done), then what word do you prefer I use to describe someone who does not accept the conclusion “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” ? I reject use of the term “skeptic” to describe that because all scientists are skeptical. While you are at it, why not post a list of forbidden terms, so we can avoid these issues?

    2. You’ve been hostile to me, and to the members of this blog since your first post.

    Care to repeat back to me the words I have used that you define as “hostile?” That’s a strong term.

    I suggest that in the interest of demonstrating that your are fair and rational you might consider an apology in your very next posting. I’ve asked for apologies before from you and you refused.

    For calling people here “deniers” because they associate the term with the holocaust? Yes, I apologize now to everyone who finds the word “denier” offensive. I did not know that you were offended by that and I promise to never use that term again. But please recognize that I have never made that association. And please give me a workable term we all can agree on.

    … you are an impolite and uncouth person.

    And may I ask the moderator why THIS does not count as hostility towards me, worthy of an apology as well?

    So I don’t think that the evidence supports the IPCC claims…

    Good, and what word would you use to describe your rejection on that claim?

    Typical propaganda like Willis said the connotation is to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. Yes I reject that statement from the IPCC and find it unsupportable with empirical evidence.

    While we are at it, I object to the description of the work of the IPCC as “propaganda.” I find that word offensive because has a serious negative connotation associated with Nazi Germany and Stalinism.

    OK, so now I will start calling you and others “rejectors?” Is that acceptable?

    They [the editors of E&E] don’t review the papers, credentialed scientists in the appropriate field do.

    Finally, back to the science! Isn’t this what this website is supposed to be about? Perhaps I have not been clear enough, so I will repeat: I am fully aware that the editors do not necessarily review papers. (Depending on the journal, some may, but that is a side issue). But they do have to find qualified reviewers. Since the only names I have found affiliated with E&E have no climate science credentials, the peer review process there raises an important question. To properly review a paper, one needs to find the credentialed scientist in not just the larger discipline, but also with some expertise in the details of the topic of the submitted paper. (A good example of this is with the journal Climate Research, where its editorial board lists not just the review editors, but their detailed areas of expertise for review purposes.)

    Given that Energy and Environment has no names of climate scientists on its editorial board, I am at a loss to understand specifically how its editors can first find qualified climate scientists in general and then at the level of detail necessary to evaluate the finer nuances of technical manuscripts. Perhaps some respected, recognized climate scientists have come forward and say “yes, I peer reviewed a number of papers for E&E and found them all acceptable for publication.” But, as is clear from the above, there is no visible trail of qualified scientist on the editorial board to even begin with to find those individuals. That helps explain why E&E is carried in so few libraries. So, you may accept the science in its papers, but I see no evidence that the larger world community of climate scientists do.

  214. Not all scientists are skeptics, far from it. In fact, very few scientists in the IPCC, CRU, Penn State, NASA/GISS, NOAA, etc., are skeptics. They prostitute themselves for grant money.

    Richard Feynman on scientific skepticism:

    It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards.

    For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid — not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results…

    Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can — if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong — to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.

    In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information, to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.”
    ~~Prof Richard Feynman

    Contrast scientific skepticism with the pre-ordained judgements of today’s AGW promoters who fancy themselves as honest scientists. They are not, because they are not skeptics. The truth is not in them.

    When have we ever heard the likes of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, or James Hansen say, “…on the other hand, today’s climate is well within the historical parameters of natural variability, so we cannot state as a matter of fact that CO2 is the driver of the climate”? Instead, every utterance leads toward the imposition of the control and taxing of “carbon.”

    Their conclusions are already decided upon, and they hammer their massaged data into a form that supports their CO2=CAGW conjecture, while discarding any inconvenient data. That makes them non-skeptical scientists.

    And because every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost, we cannot trust the conclusions of these non-skeptical scientists with an AGW agenda, who have traded scientific honesty and integrity for money and status.

  215. Herman L (06:38:22) :

    “While we are at it, I object to the description of the work of the IPCC as “propaganda.” I find that word offensive because has a serious negative connotation associated with Nazi Germany and Stalinism.

    No it is not associated with them. The word is associated with anyone who uses selective information to promote a position usually dishonestly.

    “But they do have to find qualified reviewers. Since the only names I have found affiliated with E&E have no climate science credentials, the peer review process there raises an important question. To properly review a paper, one needs to find the credentialed scientist in not just the larger discipline, but also with some expertise in the details of the topic of the submitted paper. “

    Finding qualified reviewers for a paper is not hard and has nothing to do with the credentials of the editors. Finding qualified reviewers is what the editors of the journal do now unless you can prove otherwise you still have nothing but an attempted smear on a reputable journal.

    The editorial board consists of qualified scientists for the mission statement of the journal. It is not a pure natural science journal nor a pure climate journal. It does however publish papers relating to climate science and the environment. E&E is Found at 43 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 79 in electronic form.

    The science in journals is not a popularity contest. This is about peer-reviewed journals – E&E is peer-reviewed and thus you still have nothing.

  216. Herman L (06:38:22) : edit

    Responding to several posts here:

    If you don’t like the word “denier” because you associate it with the holocaust (BTW, something I have never done), then what word do you prefer I use to describe someone who does not accept the conclusion “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” ? I reject use of the term “skeptic” to describe that because all scientists are skeptical. While you are at it, why not post a list of forbidden terms, so we can avoid these issues?

    If you have not heard of the contention surrounding the use of the pejorative “denier”, don’t blame us.

    Next, you say

    If you don’t like the word “denier” because you associate it with the holocaust (BTW, something I have never done), then what word do you prefer I use to describe someone who does not accept the conclusion “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” ?

    How about “scientist”? Have you been following the IPCC revelations? They lied to get certain papers included. They cheated to keep certain papers out. They ignored the recommendations of their own reviewers. Despite Pachauri and others saying it is built 100% on peer-reviewed science, about 40% of their references are to newspapers, books, press releases, and propaganda. When asked to follow their own guidelines on transparency, they refused. They treat model results as if they were evidence.

    But the real problem is that they don’t have any evidence to support their conclusions. So I have a word for those who do accept the IPCC conclusion … unscientific.

    Since the hypothesis is that humans caused the warming, the null hypothesis is that the warming is within the natural variation. If you are so convinced of their conclusion, please point me to some evidence that it is true. Not model results, but you know, facts. Data. Measurable stuff. Because as near as I can see, there is nothing unusual about the post-1950’s warming. It is neither longer, nor larger, nor steeper than past warmings. Nor do we see anything unusual in the arctic warming, the number of hurricanes, the snow area, the outbound longwave radiation, the number of floods, the sea ice, or the sea level rise.

    See my post here, and then come back and give your evidence in rebuttal.

  217. Herman L (06:38:22) : edit

    … you are an impolite and uncouth person.

    And may I ask the moderator why THIS does not count as hostility towards me, worthy of an apology as well?

    Here’s a protip, Herman. When you come in to a blog and immediately start calling people unpleasant names, they are not likely to describe you in glowing terms. And if you expect them to then apologize to you for describing your actions accurately, you will continue to be disappointed.

  218. Herman L (09:57:07) :

    “… there are thousands upon thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers that support AGW (five thousand in IPCC FAR WGI alone), ….”

    Rather, most of them presume AGW. They talk about the effects of a warmer global temperature on the Sahara, on the reefs, etc.

Comments are closed.