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
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…
‘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.
Herman L (12:36:15) :
So, where is your reference list?
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf
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.
I have told Gavin at RC on at least two occassions this month alone to stick to the science and leave everything else alone.
Willis Eschenbach (20:49:48) :
Patrick Davis (20:27:15)
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).
“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.
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.
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.
Only in Climate Science is science based on consensus instead of consensus based on science.
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.
Willis Eschenbach (12:37:09)
Now I’m confused. I thought Lazarus Long was a fictional character 😉
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.)
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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”.
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.
http://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.
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.
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.
Herman L (06:05:23) :
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/ci/31/special/may01_viewpoint.html
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/MyStory.htm
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S021797920904984X.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
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?