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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
243 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RockyRoad
March 3, 2010 4:17 pm

Judith Curry (14:31:48) :
Willis’ essay has inspired a cartoon, check it out at http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/
————-
Reply:
Judith has inspired her own cartoon: http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/page2.html
Welcome back, Judith.
Maybe keeping it above the plane of levity will encourage the scientific process. I’m hoping.

March 3, 2010 4:53 pm

“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.

Ed Murphy
March 3, 2010 6:13 pm

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!

1DandyTroll
March 3, 2010 6:39 pm

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?

March 3, 2010 6:45 pm

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

papertiger
March 3, 2010 6:47 pm

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.

Pragmatic
March 3, 2010 6:51 pm

“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
.

John Wright
March 3, 2010 6:59 pm

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”.

Patrick Davis
March 3, 2010 7:22 pm

“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).

Pete H
March 3, 2010 7:56 pm

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!

Editor
March 3, 2010 8:11 pm

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.

Editor
March 3, 2010 8:18 pm

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.

Patrick Davis
March 3, 2010 8:27 pm

“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.

Brian G Valentine
March 3, 2010 8:44 pm

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.

March 3, 2010 8:46 pm

Judith,
I am truly grateful that you returned. Welcome.
Our climate related sausage making ain’t always pretty but . . . . .
John

Editor
March 3, 2010 8:49 pm

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.

March 3, 2010 8:54 pm

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.

March 3, 2010 8:57 pm

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

March 3, 2010 8:59 pm

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.

Rod E.
March 3, 2010 9:27 pm

“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.

Patrick Davis
March 3, 2010 10:24 pm

“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.

kwik
March 3, 2010 10:41 pm

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.

March 3, 2010 10:42 pm

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.

March 3, 2010 10:44 pm

Let me add that a link to my blog her in the comments at WUWT generates more traffic.

savethesharks
March 3, 2010 10:54 pm

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