Dr. Spencer’s essay below reminds me of this famous cartoon:
Over at Lucia’s she wrote a post saying I had banged the Godwin’s Law “gong” by comparing the PNAS skeptic list paper as “stasi-esque”. For people that don’t know, the Stasi were the secret police of East Germany, post WWII, and post Nazism. So Stasi-esque doesn’t qualify for Godwins Law. They were famous for making lists of people and their associations, to use later for what could only be described as nefarious purposes. Their list making (like the skeptic list used for the PNAS paper) is what is the parallel here.
As for yellow badges, here’s what I’d like to see all skeptics wear. Maybe somebody can come up with a theme variation specific to climate skeptics.
We don’t need the negativism that is being fostered elsewhere.
Dr. Spencer has some interesting comments in his post below. – Anthony
===================================================
The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.
Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.
After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.
The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.
There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.
As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.
But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.
I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.
Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.
So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.
The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.
Surely, equating a belief in natural climate change to the belief that the Holocaust slaughter of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis never occurred is a new low for science as a discipline.
The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change.
At least I have lots of company.
“The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change.”
Reading the comments section over at the U.K. Telegraph certainly shows a “dwindling public belief”.
What I also noted over at PNAS was, “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”
One question for Mr. Prall, to quote the great scientist, Monty Python:
“Are you a pooftah?”
Rather than a happy face, what about a blank yellow or orange disk to represent a spotless sun. All the academic types love primitive tribes that worship the sun
Roy Spencer in 1990.
unfashionable disagreement
It’s summer in the N. Hemisphere, and the Warmist Inquisition is feeling it’s oats.
Come November, there will be much egg on the faces of the Judges.
The public will see to that, having been decried as ‘unwashed’ by the court.
bubbagyro says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:27 pm
“……I find it interesting, also, that the warm-earthers’ methods have and will cause worldwide famines, perhaps causing a second Dark Age, as the earth laughs, and cools.”
I find it disheartening. We’ve learned nothing. A few of us have, but most, no. The Farmers Almanac is usually correct in predicting the next few years of climate. Does one think they’ve been measuring the CO2 emissions all these years? But in the end, no, they won’t usher in a second Dark Age. There is too many people like you and me to allow it. I just wish they’d see the waste they are causing. While we concentrate on CO2 and we get in forms of advances the I-whatever, we could be focusing on something worthwhile. (for A) 🙂
btw where is the second Penn State report on Michael Mann which was due weeks ago?
22 June: WaPo: Rosalind Helderman: Judge stays Cuccinelli’s U-Va. climate change subpoena, sets Aug. 20 court date
The university faced a July 26 deadline for complying with the subpoena but Circuit Court Judge Cheryl V. Higgins stayed the demand after the university petitioned the judge asking her to set Cuccinelli’s inquiry aside. ..
Such a stay is common practice and was formalized as part of a scheduling order that has been in the works for some time (the judge seems to have signed it June 10) but has been circulated to lawyers just this week. The order, agreed to by both sides, also sets a schedule for the circuit court’s consideration of the university’s petition, culminating in the courtroom showdown of oral arguments on Aug. 20
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/06/an_albermarle_county_judge_has.html
There is limited value in comparing the length of lists of authors. The IPCC process with structured tasks was bound to lead to a rush of papers pre-2007, mainly by those supporting AGW. The playing field was not level, with huge grants from groups like energy companies going to AGW studies and virtually nil to others in opposition.
There is more value in comparing the relative weights of wisdom, breadth and philosophy of science in the AGW group versus those who question it.
Climate studies are quite new and narrow; some are known to be less than perfect as noted by Dr Wegman. Many are written by relatively young researchers. Points such as this are important to those older, wiser scientists who typically report less formally than by peer-reviewed publication. Often, they have retired from active writing of formal papers. The fact that the reporting is informal does not diminish its value. The value lies in the content.
It is quite disappointing to see the NAS taking this divisive line. It’s not a necessary or essential part of their charter.
Just when you think the AGW proponents have gone as low as they can go, they pull another stunt that reaches new depths of intellectual depravity.
Lucia says:
June 22, 2010 at 7:17 pm
“Yep. I screwed up on the Stazi bit; my readers all got me on that one! But the yellow badges did bang the gong.”
I thought it was “on the money”. You could have gone the Santa Claus route…….
“He’s making a list, he’s checking it twice, he’s gonna find out……..”
ROFL *** The ad right below the article was selling Online Theology Degrees. Maybe they have one in the “Global Warming” department.
Well, the AGW act a bit like Joe Btfsplk, Al Capp’s rain cloud character. Since they mostly deny any role for the sun in climate changes, adopt a smiley sun as the mascot of the sceptics, maybe with a wicked wink. Ridicule is always the most effective weapon.
This comment may be a little too long, even though, in my mind, it is not necessarily off-topic. It contains translations I did in 2003 from the original German of some essays that relate to political transformations from the conservative and moderate to radical extremism. Transformations like that are by no means a monopoly of NationalSocialism.
The last footnote quoted in the following illustrates the extent of the pervasiveness of Stasi surveillance in the GDR, that is, communist East Germany.
–Begin quote–
One of the essays in Politics of Transformation is by Bernd-A. Rusinek, Ph. D., appointed by the Commission for History to investigate the Schneider/Schwerte case. In his essay “From Schneider to Schwerte, Anatomy of a Change” (p. 143) Bernd-A. Rusinek explores the question of how it is possible for any intellectual in Academe to align himself with the radical ideology of the Nazis. One example that he uses to give an assessment of the attitudes of intellectuals in 1945 is that of Gottfried Benn, who was involved in Nazism on account of his essays on “selective breeding” (of humans, of course!).
A translation of an excerpt from the observations by Bernd-A. Rusinek in that respect is as follows:
“[Gottfried Benn] experienced the “second phase of his fame” in post-war times. His autobiography “Double-Life — The life experiences of an intellectual,” was published in 1949. The author declared himself in that to be contemptuous of the historical world and to be a theoretician of double-life. That the integrity of a person were a questionable matter; that our cultural cycle had begun with dual-figures: Sphinx figures, centaurs, dog-headed gods; that he now finds himself at the culmination of leading a double life. And, with slogans that remind one of the factual discourse of the ‘twenties, Benn delivers a vade mecum [sic] for perpetrators and collaborators. “Double-life, in the theoretical meaning claimed, and as executed by me,” so Benn, “is a deliberate splitting of the personality, a systematic, tendentious,” an “inner self” with its own convictions, and an outer self that gives the applicable contemporary system what is due to the system. About the main maxim of his “Ptolemarian” Benn explains:
“Recognize the situation — that is, adapt to the situation, camouflage yourself, no convictions at any price (…) — other than that, go calmly along with convictions, world views, syntheses in any direction of the compass, if institutions and offices demand it so, only: keep your head free, it must always leave space for [objectively philosophical?] constructs.”
People managed to live with such attitudes after 1945 — once they escaped from denazification and the court rooms — without being embarrassed at all. [p. 167]
Jochen Hörisch, professor for Germanistic and media analysis at the University of Mannheim, made a contribution to Politics of Transformation, through an essay titled “Arrest the usual people under suspicion, Sinister Dimensions in the Cases Schwerte/Schneider, de Man, Jauß.” In that essay he writes about three left-liberal and much-honoured researchers of literature of the ’60s and ’70s (Hans Schneider/Schwerte amongst them) who were given international recognition and who, over and above that, shared another terrible aspect: they were Nazi-collaborators or even members of the SS terror-organization. The last two paragraphs of his essay state:
“…Artists are — semi-exceptions like Storm and Fontane, Böll and Lenz may confirm the rule — with respect to demands for moral integrity, significantly inferior to the average population. 4 As a rule they are more egotistic, egocentric, narcissistic, arrogant, and ruthless than the likes of us.
In short: the moral integrity of artists and theoreticians is a bonus-achievement that hasn’t got anything to do with the internal constitution of their artistic or theoretical works. There is a theory, which well may be frequently viewed with hostility on account of that, because it comprises and expresses this simple insight: the deconstruction. In short: de Man is the theoretician amongst the three literature researchers that were discussed here, who after 1945 didn’t pick up anymore on the traditionalist rhetoric of the relationship between the beautiful, truth and good. That makes his writings more interesting and informative than those of Schwerte and Jauß.” [p. 195]
The clincher comes in the footnote indicated in the first paragraph of that quote shown above. It should dispel the illusions of anyone who thinks that intellectual prostitution is an aspect of Academe that existed only during the totalitarian regime of the Nazis. Here is the translation of the footnote:
_________________
4 Joachim Walther: “In the Stinking Underground” – The GDR-author Joachim Walther about the total control of the GDR-literature through the Stasi [State Security Service]; in: Der Spiegel 39/1996, p. 231: “The astoundingly high readiness especially by authors to collaborate with the State Security Service can be explained only with the capability of intellectuals to ennoble historic-philosophically even the betrayal of close friends.” Of the 123 co-workers of the central management of the GDR-Authors-Association, only 19 were not connected with the Ministry of the State Security Service. 49 had become stoolies for the Stasi, as opposed to 17 who were under surveillance. And again, of the 19 members of the directorate, 12 had sold themselves to the Stasi — amongst them, naturally, the Association President Hermann Kant. But the various GDR districts too were under the control of the IM [sic, I assume what is meant by that is the Ministry of the State Security Service; it is not clear whether IM stands for Minister of the Interior or that of the State Security Service, or whether the terms are interchangeable. —WHS]: In Halle, 39 authors who were members of the association opposed 14 unofficial co-workers.” (K. Welzel: The Literature of the GDR-Turning Point, Siss Mannheim 1997, p. 57).
—end quotes—
The quotes, in their original formatting, are accessible at http://fathersforlife.org/culture/ideology.htm
That web page contains a discussion of radical extremist ideologies. That discussion is definitely off-topic here, but I feel that the observations quoted above are not. Intellectual prostitution of moral integrity and the collaboration of intellectuals with totalitarian regimes or ideologies is far more often the rule than the exception.
Regardless of the sector of Academe, the sciences or social morals that is involved, totalitarianism, by any other name, still is totalitarianism. It seems that, whether totalitarianism affects sociology or the hard sciences, it always involves an all-pervasive loss of objectivity.
22 June: Scientific American: David Biello: Experto Crede: Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
A mathematician in Alberta, an oceanographer from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a darling of climate change contrarians share a rare distinction in a new analysis of expertise about global warming. The three scientists are the only ones, on the basis of their work, to appear on two lists: both among researchers who are convinced of the scientific evidence for climate change and on a roll of those who are unconvinced.
Gordon Swaters of the University of Alberta, Carl Wunsch of M.I.T., and climate scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville all qualify for both lists thanks to various efforts to canvas the scientific community for those who dissent from the consensus on climate change as well as efforts to build that consensus…
Climate scientist Stephen Schneider of Stanford, who worked on the new analysis, admits that it is born of frustration with “climate deniers,” such as physicist Freeman Dyson or geologist Ian Plimer, being presented as “equally credible” to his peers and granted “equal weight” as science assessments from the IPCC or U.S. National Academy of Sciences, both of which ascribe ongoing climate change to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activities. “We wanted to ask by objective measures, ‘Who publishes the bulk of the new science in the refereed literature and gets cited the most: those who accept anthropogenic global warming or those who deny it?'” Schneider says…ETC
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-expertise-lacking-among-global-warming-contrarians
Hah, Spencer calls Schneider a tyrant, Pielke Pere calls Stott a liar, and a Louisiana judge calls Ken Salazar a liar. Ah, progress. We are finally getting somewhere.
===================
This is burgeoning of soft tyranny. Marginalizing, character assassination, then silencing opposition is always the first steps.
Reminds me of a T-shirt slogan I saw – “The Spanish Inquisition – expected by nobody since 1517”.
So what is the point of this paper? Isn’t it more or less a formal ‘appeal to authority’? Is it the authors contention that, since he knows more scientists that believe in AGW than don’t, AGW must be true?
I can just imagine the authors sitting in front of Congress holding a folded piece of paper saying, “we have here a list of known agents who do not accept the tenets of AGW.” I can see McCarthy and Goebbels nodding in approval. That and after he session I expect some of them to point at a skeptic and shout, “He is not of the body!”
Oddly enough 10,000 scientists saying they believe in something does not make it true.
Consider poor old Ed Parker (discoverer of Solar Wind) who was told by numerous scientists that the tenets of astrophysics held that, “anybody who knows anything about this subject knows that space is empty”.
pure advocacy by CBS…as usual….
CBS: Charles Cooper: Climate Change Researchers: Not all Expertise is Equal
The report also alludes to the media presentation of both sides in the climate change debate, which it says has helped foster public misunderstanding…
A recent Gallup survey carried out for Yale University found that 40% of Americans believe scientists remain of two minds about global warming. (At the same time 68% favored the idea of an international treaty binding the United States to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90% by the year 2050.)
After unusually heavy snowfall earlier this year, some Republican politicians said the weather pattern undermined the argument for global warming. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin described studies supporting the existence of global warming as snake oil …
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20008404-501465.html
“both sides” from the media again!
21 June: Deutsche Welle: Sandra Petersmann: Global Media Forum tackles ‘greatest challenge of the 21st century’
In his introductory speech at this year’s Global Media Forum, Werner Hoyer, Germany’s Deputy Foreign Minister, emphasized that climate change is not just a scientific and environmental topic. The Forum in Bonn is organized by Deutsche Welle and runs from June 21 to 23.
According to Hoyer, climate change is also related to foreign affairs, security and defense.
“Climate change has everything a story needs to make headlines around the world,” said Hoyer. “Everyone has heard of it and has an opinion on it. It is discussed extensively and emotionally. It directly influences many people’s lives and can further escalate existing conflicts or even cause new ones.”..
According to Swiss adventurer and balloonist Bertrand Piccard, the stale state of this issue is a problem for journalists right now…
“This is your challenge in the media – to show it as the most interesting and exciting adventure that we can have in the 21st century,” said Piccard….
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5717769,00.html
How does the PNAS article control for the conspiracy revealed in the leaked emails, which showed Mann & all pulling strings in journals to prevent sceptical articles from being published? (Remember his fury at one journal actually beginning to air doubts about global warming.) The correspondence left no doubt that the publication record does not reflect the impartial, scientific merit of the sceptical argument. I’m fairly certain the same “selection bias” can be found in academic appointments.
How many papers someone has published or their credentials doesnt make them any more right or smarter than anyone else – this is a pointless list!
Plus, if you look for papers that attempt to demonstrate man is driving climate change, you will not find many. Nearly all assume the IPCC’s position is right, and their position is based on a hand full of papers and un-tested models, plus a lot of faith – there are probably just as many papers contradicting global warming as there are geniunely making a case for it!
Unfortunelty, someone who studies the mating habits of the lesser spotted wood pidgeon will add in the sentence “impacts of climate change” and secure funding, and as they assume it is real and happening, they are considered to support the hypothesis, but they dont, they merely consider what effects it may have and get funding to do what they love at the same time
The Inquisition has a setback.
James Sexton writes:
“Or is right might?”
To paraphrase Socrates, “Is the Right, right, because Might makes it or, instead, made by Might because it is right?”
The question no one will answer—— WHAT IS CLIMATE CHANGE? This may sound silly but it is the only question I have posed that unsettles a confirmed alarmist. We should demand the list of requisite beliefs (the levels of confidence would be too cruel to ask). And does believing in AGW but not in a green economy make you a skeptic?