By Harold Ambler
A new editorial in Nature is startling for what it reveals, especially the fact Paul Ehrlich is a go-to figure about how hard scientists have it when it comes to media access.
Ehrlich is an individual who became an international celebrity by spinning one frightening story after another (about the death of the oceans, for one thing) who maintains, with a straight face, that he and his fellow scientists have an unfair disadvantage in communicating their side of the climate debate.
He is quoted by Nature as saying, regarding the aftermath of Climategate and the fact that skeptic scientists are finally getting a hearing,:
“Everyone is scared shitless, but they don’t know what to do.”
People often forget: Goliath, right before the end, sensed that something was amiss.
For, ironically, among the most pervasive myths attending global warming is the one pitching David against Goliath, in which those touting the risks of damaging climate change are cast as David and Big Oil is Goliath.
The story requires observers to ignore the facts: Media, most scientists, and governments the world over have spent and received so much money on their version of events that they have collectively become Goliath. Observers must ignore, too, the reality that skeptic scientists maintain their intellectual freedom at significant risk. Funding routinely dries up; tenure is denied them; ad hominem attacks of the most vicious variety are launched against them from the Ivory Tower of academia, from the studios of multi-billion dollar news organizations, and from the bully pulpit of government.
read the rest at Talking About the Weather
Herman L,
“Just out of curiosity, Vincent, I’d like to know your take on some verifiable numbers here: how many “errors” are we talking about “under the glare of scrutiny” have been identified, and how many pages are there in the IPCC FAR”
Ok, here’re a few:
1) Ocean heat anomaly failed to appear as predicted by Hansen and required by the AGW hypothesis. There has effectively been no increase in ocean heat as measured by the Argo network since 2003. This correlates with about 1 * 10^23 Joules unaccounted for.
2) Predicted tropical mid troposphere hotspot as predicted by GCM’s has not been observed.
3) Earth radiation budget does not show a decreasing outgoing radiation when lower troposphere warms – Lindzen & Choi.
4) Lack of statisically significant warming since 1995.
5) Recent revelation that NSDC have dropped the majority of stations from their surface data record, where these stations are predominantly at higher lattitudes or altitudes, which raises the likelihood of warm bias.
6) Growing acceptance from alarmist scientists that the MWP was real and global and the hockey sticks studies are garbage ( sceptical scientists have always known this anyway).
7) Doomagedon predictions from IPCC WGII have been shown to be false:
Himalayan glacier disappearance by 2035; African crops to plumet by 50% by 2020; Amazon rainforests especially sensitive to climate change; 55% of Holland is beneath sea level; Glacier retreat studies pulled from climbing magazines; Worsening hurricanes and storms.
Of course, you can then play your silly game of counting pages. How many pages are there in the IPCC report? Does it matter? I thought science was based on ideas not pages, and most of them have been found wanting.
So, how many pages? How many sheets on a roll of toilet paper?
Wyndham Dix (03:47:15) :
Nice. Science is not the only source of truth. Thank God.
Others: Re the debate over carpentry: does the origin of the word have to predate the practice? What happens is the opposite. Consider that the word “engineer” was coined to refer to 12th century French cathedral builders – i.e. the men who oversaw the design and technical challenges. Does this mean Vitruvius in the 1st century, or the unknown designers of the Pantheon and other architectural marvels were not engineers? Also, consider that the word “scientist” was coined in 1833. Where does that leave Newton if you are going to be so formalist? Thanks to Anna V for pointing out that in ancient dwellings the roofs were made of wood – at least for the supports; and to Behemond to pointing out that carpentry involved activities other than making dwellings. P.S. – there is still no word in English for one who “does” technology i.e. becomes an expert in the use of and modification of technology (as opposed to engineers or inventors, who design but do not use specific technologies for their livelihoods). ‘Technician’ has different connotations.
Vincent (06:43:39),
I don’t understand Herman’s question about the number of pages. What does that have to do with anything?
The assessment report page counts:
1990: 423
1995: 317
2001: 3387
2007: 2846
My question: why do page counts matter?
from dictionary.reference.com
carpenter
early 14c. (attested from 1121 as a surname), from O.N.Fr. carpentier (O.Fr. charpentier), from L.L. (artifex) carpentarius “wagon (maker),” from L. carpentum “two-wheeled carriage, cart,” from Gaul., from O.Celt. *carpentom (cf. O.Ir. carpat, Gael. carbad “carriage”), probably related to Gaul. karros (see car). Replaced O.E. treowwyrhta
drjohn (05:18:10) :
When was Paul Ehrlich ever right about anything?
I seem to recall from my early years in zoology, that Ehrlich was known for butterfly taxonomy. Since taxonomy is being ripped asunder by genetic analysis, most of the old methodology is vanishing. In short, ever since he stopped studying Lepidoptera, he’s been full of shirt.
The simple truth is a far more powerful weapon than the failed cargo cult science produced by the IPCC cabal. Despite the support of politicians, big business, the MSM and the handful of people who have the ‘old money’ – who dream of having an unelected world government.
The shift in public opinion regarding this debate shows the truth is getting out.
I guess you have to be a native german speaker to see the irony.
“Ehrlich” is the german word for “honest”. Seems to be a clear case of “nomen non est omen”.
This is a little OT, but too many of you are so f’n rooted in ‘science’ that NOTHING but provable analysis (by humans) exists.
Let me just say this: I’ve had many experiences that cannot be explained away because you cannot ‘prove’ them (foresight is one of them, and it is NOT deja-vu… I’ve had both).
Gamma Rays, X-ray, Infra-red, UV, etc. were ALL in EXISTENCE BEFORE science ‘discovered’ and named them, correct? Yes. Ancients often attributed ‘findings’ to the gods, but did, in fact, use various findings in a sort of ‘science’ of the day.
If, for example, I go into the sun for extended periods of time, my skin turns red, hurts and starts to peel… If I stay in the shade, it doesn’t happen. Does it take a genius to figure out that something within the sun is causing this, or to make some sort of correlation? No. You don’t need to know it is what we call UV to make it real or to make it happen. Of course, it helps to know and I am not against findings.
I believe we are so f’n arrogant to actually believe that we can detect (and/or alter) everything in existence–not saying most believe that, but many do. I believe that there is SO MUCH more playing a role and acting upon us that to think we could actually say what we find is ‘settled’ or ‘fact’ is foolish. There are probably ‘elements’ that we have no clue even exist… so, we can’t even begin to look for them.
My point is this: Do not dismiss what you have not experienced, or believe, because humans are taught that they are only blobs of skin and bones and nothing more… I believe humans are MUCH more, just by observing the percentage of our brains used vs unused–you don’t need to be hooked up as a cyborg to access it, in fact, that whole scenario of transhumanism is quite the opposite; remember, the only real, major threat to all life in Star Trek was the BORG and their assimilation.
I don’t believe in religion, but that does not mean there is nothing more–and after my experiences, I know there is more than this 3D world as seen through our eyes and our basic senses. I don’t believe in evolution, or creationism as presented because they are both full of holes. In this universe earth is FAR from downtown, and in fact, we are WAY out in the boonies, so, to say that there aren’t humanoids in our universe that were/are capable of bringing us here long ago, again, is not taking into account the sheer magnitude and likelihood that life is abundant and thriving.
I love this site and the contributions of scientists, but that doesn’t mean science CAN prove everything… it cannot, and in many, if not MOST cases, science is just theory based on our current findings, not taking into account the forces that we don’t understand yet.
Again, thanks to all the contributors here… I do learn quite a bit, and some of it is even over my head, being just an MBA with a specialization in Marketing.
wws said:
“Credibility is like virginity – once it’s gone, you don’t get it back.”
Wonderful comment! It is so wonderful to see this David vs Goliath fight: Big Media, Big Academia & Bureaucracy with all their $trillions are being defeated by a bunch of bloggers with integrity and thirst for truth. This is one of the most beautiful things that we have ever seen. David will win, of course, he already almost won! BEAUTIFUL!
ctm,
As always, we appreciate your work.
You moderate with a light and fair hand, unlike some people who are, “You must agree with me or you must die!!!!” (Well, not die, but be humiliated by the other person’s awesome power and ability to afford a $7.95 month shared hosting account, and therefore be the ruler of his (it’s usually a he) hosting account.
As far as the Bible thing goes, well that was interesting. I did learn some ways of looking at aspects of it I hadn’t previously considered, and I certainly don’t think they were necessarily wrong; I was only unpersuaded that the level of certainly claimed could be backed up.
Anyway, not every Bible story gets my interest to that degree. It’s just that even as a kid I could never understand how putting an extremely accomplished deadly expert with a missile weapon up against a man without a missile weapon at a distance was a moral lesson.
It seemed more of a lesson showing the value of stand-off weaponry.
😉
Vincent (06:43:39) :
Ok, here’re a few:
1) Ocean heat anomaly failed to appear as predicted by Hansen and required by the AGW hypothesis. There has effectively been no increase in ocean heat as measured by the Argo network since 2003. This correlates with about 1 * 10^23 Joules unaccounted for.
—————-
Sorry, your “criticism” is out of date:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php
The oceans have been warming quickly:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
In a short comment, you only get to make one error.
If you wrote a report thousands of pages long, I would allow, and respond to, 4 or 5 errors.
And unlike virginity, one misses it.
KDK (09:17:27)
“I love this site and the contributions of scientists, but that doesn’t mean science CAN prove everything… it cannot, and in many, if not MOST cases, science is just theory based on our current findings, not taking into account the forces that we don’t understand yet.”
There is something in what you say, but science is also a journey of discovery – a discovery of the way the universe works. While it is true that there must be much that remains to be discovered, and what we think we know may be wrong on many different levels, I believe that at the physical level, there is nothing that must lie forever beyond scientific understanding.
Theologists are keen to keep a permanent separation between science and the divine, as if the divine, if it existed was somehow beyond science. But since to be be beyond science is to be beyond the universe, then by that argument, the divine is beyond the universe as well. Anything beyond the universe by definition cannot be part of our lives and therefore not real. It becomes subjective – an idea.
“Smokey (07:07:17) :
I don’t understand Herman’s question about the number of pages. What does that have to do with anything”
———————–
That was something I tried to elucidate in my reply. My understanding is that his thought process goes something like “these IPCC retractions only run to a few dozen pages but the whole IPCC report is thousands of pages. Therefore whatever number you give me I will retort that only x% of the IPCC science has been refuted. Since x is very small I can confidently argue that nothing has changed – the science is still robust.”
Of course, the logical absurdity of such an argument is breathtaking, even from a propaganda perspective. As I tried to explain, science is based on ideas that have to stand scrutiny, not on the number of pages in a report. It should be obvious that anyone with a different agenda could easily pad the report with sceptical papers, so what does it prove?
The other counter to the paperweight argument, is that most of the criticisms of AGW have been known long before climategate, as I listed in my post, and undercut a lot of the foundation. This is true regardless of what other mistakes are discovered in WGII, and how many pages we can salvage for our hypothesis.
Paul Erlich was right about…moving to Stanford, in the lap of the Santa Clara Valley with its wonderful year round weather, great local politics, great local economy. Is it any wonder that one of Al Gore’s companies is located near by as well as his San Francisco beach front condo ? These guys certainly know where to preach from not some hard scrabble existence somewhere.
Gee, you want pick on the idiot guru who stated flatly that nothing would be alive in the vast Oceans by 1975 or 1976 at the absolute outside. It was Erlich and his good buddy, Jonnie boy Holdren, the JEn-OO-INE, JUNK SCIEnCE Advizer to the Clueless One.
He promised to bring his brand of Lysenko ‘Szyense’ to the gov’mint…
He is working hard too. No NASA shuttles and we have no way to get to the Space Station that we spent 150 Billion on, without hitching a ride. So we have no Space Program.
We have NOT made our few hundred million a year contribution to the ITER Fusion Experiment even though it is responsibility of a International Treaty Obligation. So we have no real Energy Research Program.
We decided to close the Yucca Mountain Waste Repository after spending 20 $ Billion on it, and are obligated by $200 billion in pre-payments by the Utilities, to take their waste. All for a handful of NIMBY votes for Reid, for whom it won’t save his seat, anyhow. So much for building new Nuclear Power Plants.
We did spend money to reinvigorate the unreproducible and self-admitted lies and fabrications of Dr. Suk’s embryonic stem cell papers. But its justification for Planned Parenthood and they provide lots of illegal campaign cash, So we are killing valid Stem Cell Research Programs .
Ain’t the Clueless One’ s Lysenkoist Science just wonderful!??
Anu,
“The oceans have been warming quickly:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
In a short comment, you only get to make one error.
If you wrote a report thousands of pages long, I would allow, and respond to, 4 or 5 errors.”
Your link exactly proves my point. The graph shows a slight decline from 2003 until present. I was being generous when I said no warming. The fact that there has been no increase in ocean heat anomaly is accepted by climate scientists. Nobody is disputing it. Hansen claims the heat has been sequestered somewhere else. Roger Pielke sr. has put this question to Gavin Schmidt: “What in your estimation is the expected amount of accumulated ocean heat in joules since 2003.” He never received a reply.
You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but not your own facts.
Historic note: Nature Magazine
They sold out to the anti-hunting and anti-gun crowd long ago, at least back before the Spotted Owl fraud. Why would anyone regard them as credible on any subject?
vigilantfish (06:55:55) 12 March:
Thank you. I suspect you will allow that science is the conduit of truth, not the ultimate source of it.
Sadly, as painful revelations of the past four months show only too well, some so-called science is the source of untruth. This happens when people imitate Narcissus, the figure from Greek mythology who fell in love with his own image in a well. Some were so in love before embarking on their careers.
Anu, you are asking for evidence to prove a negative. I didn’t answer you because it is a silly question, and also completely irrelevant. Belief in guardian angels is completely beside the point. See: Obi-Wan is my master. Or, to put it even more simply, if a doctor believes in guardian angels, do all his patients die?
Now, I would love to hear your opinion on how the head of IPCC being a Hindu (polytheistic, which means not just one God and angels, but many gods, over 3000 in Hinduism, acutally) affects their work, since you seem incapable of addressing any other real issues. If you are now beginning to see why I think your point is irrelevant, I accept your apology.
Theo Barker (18:39:10) :
You say of my post at (15:35:06):
Interesting conspiracy theory. However, it has little support, much like Ehrlich’s many assertions…
[snip]
As a French translation (La Bible du Semeur) points out, it may have been a copyists error on which your theory is based…
*******************
I choose to ignore the Ehrlich insult because I assume it was inserted in hope of distraction, and I refuse to be distracted by it.
No conspiracy theory was stated and/or implied in my post at (15:35:06). I said there that the story of David and Goliath is pertinent to the issue being debated here, and I explained its pertinence.
I know there are people who try to put a literal meaning to everything in the Bible, but no serious Biblical scholar does.
The scribes collected and wrote the oral tradition of ‘the people’ during the Second Exile in Babylon because they feared the religion and culture were being lost. Each item they wrote was selected for a reason.
I said we cannot know the reason they chose to record the story of David and Goliath when – elsewhere – they said it was a fabrication. You suggest that this is a result of “a copyists error”. Perhaps, but that transfers the problem to one of finding a reason that they bothered to include the other story which you suggest has been mistranslated.
So, I stand by what I said in my revious post: i.e.
“So, the lesson to be learned from the myth of David and Goliath is to recognise the true strengths and weaknesses of opponents, and to avoid being fooled by their spin. It is important to remember those lessons when considering the Editorial in Nature by Paul Ehrlich.”
Richard
davidmhoffer (19:35:45) :
Please see my response to Theo Barker. I wrote my post at (15:35:06) to say that the story of David and Goliath does indeed provide lessons that are perinent to the subject of this thread.
There are responses to each of your points (e.g. dyes may not have been invented then but brown, black, and white(ish) sheep and goats probably existed).
And I do not dispute the possibility of translation/transcription errors.
But I do not see this forum as the place for detailed textual analysis of Biblical texts. My point was that the story of David and Goliath and the probable reason for its inclusion in the Canon are directly pertinent to the subject of this thread: they provide a useful lesson that needs to be kept in mind.
You may want to denigrate such ancient scriptures, but they exist because they tell about the human condition so powerfully that they have stood the test of time for millenia.
Richard
Vincent (12:49:55) :
Anu,
Your link exactly proves my point. The graph shows a slight decline from 2003 until present. I was being generous when I said no warming.
No, you were being “incorrect”. Learn the difference.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Since you have trouble eyeballing where the year 2003 lies, look at this graph from another WUWT contributor Bob Tisdale:
http://i38.tinypic.com/zxjy14.png
Find 2003 on the x axis. Now follow the vertical column to see the ocean heat content anomaly values for that year. Now find the year 2004 on the x axis. Look at the corresponding heat content. Quite a bit of warming. Now find 2005. 2006. 2007. 2008. 2009. Overall, warming.
Good. That’s called “reading a graph”.
The fact that there has been no increase in ocean heat anomaly is accepted by climate scientists. Nobody is disputing it. Hansen claims the heat has been sequestered somewhere else. Roger Pielke sr. has put this question to Gavin Schmidt: “What in your estimation is the expected amount of accumulated ocean heat in joules since 2003.” He never received a reply.
Dream on.
Not only can’t you read a simple graph, you are missing the point that the top 700 meters of the ocean have a more variable heat content than the top 2000 meters (and keep in mind the deepest part of the ocean, the Marianas Trench, goes down 10,900 meters).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/ocean-heat-2000m.gif
This graph is based on this paper, which uses Argo data (subscription required for full text):
Global hydrographic variability patterns during 2003–2008 (Schuckmann 2009)
This upper slab of the oceans is absorbing energy at the rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2 for the years 2003 to 2008, inclusive.
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) showed that 94.4% of the global warming heat goes into the oceans (the rest into the land and atmosphere). If the ocean is absorbing 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm−2, this puts the total energy imbalance at around 0.82 ± 0.12 Wm−2. This is a slight underestimate as Murphy 2009 included ocean heat down to 3000m, not 2000m.
Earth’s Global Energy Budget (Trenberth 2009) examined satellite measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation for the March 2000 to May 2004 period and found the planet accumulating energy at a rate of 0.9 ± 0.15 Wm−2.
All these estimates are consistent with each other, and more importantly, all find a statistically significant positive energy imbalance.
The oceans are warming.
Deal with it.
FYI, Gavin Schmidt’s reply to Roger Pielke Sr. came in the form of a group reply on the website he contributes to regularly, entitled More Bubkes:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp/
You are entitled to your own opinion of course, but not your own facts.
Good advice.
You should take it.
Dave F (14:43:20) :
Do you have any proof that a belief in guardian angels does not correlate negatively with an understanding of science ? Strong correlation is much more important than “mutually exclusive”.
Anu, you are asking for evidence to prove a negative.
Here, learn your way around the Internet with an easier one:
Do you have any proof that driving while intoxicated does not correlate negatively with car accidents ?
KDK (09:17:27) : I liked your post. It was authentic. Genuine. Civil.