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.
We have been already psychologically tortured by some fanatic post-normal scientists/inquisitorial dominican priests believers, who, once in a while appear and take over posts here, and with their repeated offences force the rest of us to leave.
It is like when a drunk guy, in the middle of a nice party, begins to shout and to behave improperly, all guests leave.
moderators have been very tolerant of villabolo
villabolo,
would you put your feet back on the ground. i hope you don’t talk like that at the dinner table. please don’t do it on Thanksgiving Day or you’ll be that relative that everyone has to put up with.
Ironically, the Spanish Inquisition was perhaps one of the fairest tribunals of its time which emphasised rules of evidence and procedural fairness. The accused had to be fed and housed in decent quarters. Of course, this could include torture but torture at the time had been acceptable judicial practice from time immemorial. For example, under Roman (pagan) law, a slave’s evidence could be accepted in court only after s/he had been tortured.
Secular tribunals at the time of the Inquisition were far more barbaric.
Interestingly, speaking of procedural fairness, the Gestapo were far prefereable to the Cheka of Lenin’s time and its various successor organisations under Stalin such as the NKVD. The Gestapo for all their nastiness were interested in establishing the ‘truth’ – is this person genuinely an enemy of the regime? Its communist equivalent ran a quota system (key performance indicators anyone?) caring not a whit whether a suspect was guilty or innocent.
Different times – different standards – thank God we don’t live under either.
I guess it’s all relative – let’s just rejoice in our freedom to debate and dispute – either way sooner or later we’ll either freeze or fry.
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.
It was done on Andrew Bolt’s blog last year…..it is Pink Dots:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_strike_me_pink/
This was a pink dot T shirt designed by blogger “Spot the Dog” for the occasion:
http://tizona.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/pinkdot.jpg
“The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.”
No, they didn’t. The vast majority of them, in fact all of them, assumed CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increase of its concentration had to have calculable consequences. The source of this extra CO2 has no bearing on the model results.
http://weerwoord.be/includes/forum_read.php?id=1171935&tid=1171935
Thomas Kuhn modeled the cycle of paradigm change or scientific revolution. Kuhn quoted Max Planck:
Unintentionally, Anderegg’s PNAS paper provides evidence that such an opposed scientific paradigm change over anthropogenic global warming is under way:
1) Anderegg et al. appeal to authority, rather than address “inconvenient” discrepencies between models and facts.
2) Anderegg et al. use “anthropogenic climate change” rather than “anthropogenic global warming”. They have already given up on trying to defend “global warming” and retreat to “climate change” to allow for the current decline in rate of growth or even “global cooling”.
3) Anderegg et al. do not account for the massive funding bias of almost all climate science funding coming from governments. This funding bias is amplified by being controlled by politicians driven by global warming alarmists. This both drives funds into research and consequent frequency papers.
4) Anderegg et al. do not account for the severe “bullying” or gatekeeper bias against climate “realists” (“skeptics”) in peer review and publications as exposed by ClimateGate etc.
5) The requirement 20 climate publications eliminates most scientists who would most likely provide the paradigm changing evidence and models. E.g., Einstein’s first two papers transformed physics. Only the little child dared declare “The emperor has no clothes”.
6) Their “climate” publication criteria eliminates the mathematical expertise most lacking in climate science and most evident in those challenging the tenants of “anthropogenic climate change”. Their 20 “climate” publication cutoff eliminates Steve McIntyre who is has been most effective in exposing the emperor’s vanity, and does not recognize his non-climate expertise for his critiques.
7) They resort to ad hominem “contrarian” and “denier” rather than “climate realist”.
I encourage the next generation to have the guts and insight to expose the hubris and emptiness of “anthropogenic climate change”.
Christopher Hanley:
‘That result doesn’t surprise me any more than a survey of, say, psychiatrists practicing electroconvulsive therapy, (a controversial treatment, I understand), would show that most of them are convinced of the efficacy of the treatment and publish papers confirming it.’
Actually, electroconvulsive therapy is a long established and highly effective treatment which has been subjected to numerous double blind placebo controlled trials. It’s a life saving treatment in many instances – particularly for severe melancholic depression which has failed to repsond to medication, patients who have stopped eating and drinking, or who are highly suicidal.
Psychiatrists ‘believe’ in the treatment because of evidence. By contrast, other treatments such as insulin coma therapy have been long discarded because properly conducted clinical trials demonstrated their inefficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is controversial principally because we don’t understand how it works and because of the stigma associated with psychiatric illness.
In all too many circles, expressing even a smidgeon of doubt about any aspect of the AGW ‘consensus’ is tantamount to emitting a very loud fart in the midst of a solemn eulogy at a funeral.
Stigma strikes again.
Indeed.
A veritable ad hominem (known as argumentum ad hominem, Latin for “argument to the man” or his horse, or the day he was born on) against all those who would raise one sceintific fact in opposition to the ‘church’ of AGW …
.
.
For now, maybe this can substitute for the yellow badge: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/hey_im_a_reverend.html
The only resort that dogma can take is totalitarian overwhelm, when it isn’t believed. This is the opposite of the scientific method, as we all know.
This is what Galileo faced when he dared to tell the truth. He faced the wrath of ideology who had the aptitude to be galling and atrocious when faced with a outlier.
Galileo won the arguments from then on, in the longer term, and thanks to him, the world is a very different place than it would have been had he not lived. (He began the modern scientific technique that the western world banished under Aristotle and the Church)
Sadly, it looks like this era is closing and that science is being sold to advocates for reasons of a new totalitarianism, similar to that which ruled Europe ruled when the Church was a straightjacket.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
– Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
I am not “without faith”, but I do dissent from certain dogma. I am a “Heretic”, and proud of it! What better field than climatology requires “A man for all seasons”?
The “Flat Earth Society” (aka- The AGW Mob) contends it’s “ALL ABOUT THIS” and nothing else. The “Round Earth Mob” (aka – Society in General) contend it’s not just “ALL ABOUT THIS” but many things as well AND Mother Nature’s Little Old Fickle Finger of Fate, and it’s insane to spend money we don’t have on one stupid simple minded issue. For the past few decades, within the hallowed halls of Academia, the ‘Flat Earth Society” has been getting all the money and publication space they wanted from the coffers of the realm and the mickey mouse academic press. But, alas, the coffers -like Mother Hubberd’s once ginormous cubberd– are now bare and the screams of pain and suffering in Academia have been frightfully loud of late. What’s to be done? Can no one save us?
Slowly, quietly, out of the darkness, comes a shadowy figure dressed all in black…
Tune in again in a hundred years or so to find out what happens next. The Shadow Knows!
The Resilient Earth blog has a breakdown of the PNAS methodology:
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/pnas-climate-change-expert-credibility-farce
“…the study is devoid of factual significance and possibly purposely misleading. More propaganda from the sinking global warming ship.”
What about ‘heretic?’
In my opinion, “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” is spot on.
Contemporary heresy relates to the dispute of “ideas that are in fundamental disagreement with the status quo in any practice and branch of knowledge.”
Heresy confronts established Dogma where the tenets of the Dogma are considered to be clearly demonstrated and beyond refute.
The problem, the CO2 portion of the AGW debate isn’t clearly demonstrated and beyond scientific refute. As far as I can tell, a very small percentage of the Scientific Community is actually willing to openly support this aspect of the AGW debate. Yet, CO2 is the tenet for the Carbon tax and trading exchange.
The term Climate Heretic seems far more appropriate then Climate Skeptic or Climate Denier as no one is denying the presence of Climate and its natural cycles of change.
My 2 cents, efficient use of resources and Stewardship are easy to support. They simply decided to make the solution harder for some unknown reason.
1) If you have a much larger population of believers than sceptics, then the most cited believers will of course have more publications than the sceptics, purely as a sampling artifact. Only the mean number of publications should be compared across the 2 groups (even if 2 groups can be objectively defined).
2) Many times, “believers” publish papers which in fact poke a hole in some cherished part of the global warming edifice, even if the paper does not loudly shout this out. This black list ignores this.
sorry, 2nd paragraph should say:
Contemporary heresy relates to the support of “ideas that are in fundamental disagreement with the status quo in any practice and branch of knowledge.”
Slowly, quietly, out of the darkness, comes a shadowy figure dressed all in black…
♫♫♫
As I watched in sorrow, there suddenly appeared
A figure gray and ghostly beneath a flowing beard
In times of deepest darkness, I’ve seen him dressed in black
Now my tapestry’s unraveling, he’s come to take me back
He’s come to take me back…..
♫♫♫
The question I have is “how do you [~SNIP~] sleep nights. The science may not be in and no actual scientist ever says that it is. However, all the evidence of Global Warming and its anthropogenic causation that any rational thinker could want, is in. It is incontrovertible and there is not a single peer reviewed paper that can contradict that.
Given the evidence of the suffering that many areas of the world are already experiencing due to the Climate Change, the smallest amount of conscience would lead you to take the path that every unbiased scientist; every scientist who is not beholden to some financial or ideological interest, says is essential to the preservation of this Planet in a state in which humanity can still flourish.
Religion has been brought into these comments. Is it not pertinent than to ask Dr. Spencer about his affiliation with the Southern Baptists? Is he perverting his “science” to conform with that branch of that Church that demands its adherents deny Climate Change. Is it not pertinent also to raise the question of a certain graph since he persists in his attempts to distort known and irrefutable science?
His denigration of the whole scientific community to further whatever his real ends are is not something to applaud. The study merely confirms what many others have found: what surveys of media coverage have shown. That a handful of what were once called sceptics and now more accurately known as deniers, have for two decades received as much publicity for their “views” as the whole world of science. That, contrary to Dr. Spencer’s claim, every possible alternative theory has been thoroughly researched and found wanting.
And Spencer knows that!
The state of Climate science now is that everything other than the CO2 emissions of mankind has been eliminated and that therefore, unless this is some Divine Plan, AGW is the only possible answer.
All that remains to discover that is of consequence is how soon and how serious. There is little argument among scientists that the bad is coming soon and that it will be bad. The long term, without serious action, is unthinkable. Some of the bad is here now and unstoppable.
I just received a request for a donation to the AAAS for the purpose of “educating the public” about global warming. It seems they are “concerned” that 40% of the public does not drink the “kool aid”, up from 30% last year. I have better use for my money than trying to save the earth from hypothetical sequele.
What would you use to warm your feet?
A) A bottle filled with hot air.
B) A bottle filled with hot water.
Gobal warming believers prefer “A”
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
“”” The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
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. “””
Glad you chaps are finally on the case Dr Roy.
The problem with the cloud modulation theory, is that it can be understood completely by any 8th grade High School Science Student. Well these days it would make a good question for “Are You Smarter than a Fifth grader ?”
Frank Wentz et al’s paper “How much more Rain Will Global Warming Bring ?” in SCIENCE July 7/2007; which we have talked about previously points the way to the clouds. That is if you believe; as a respectable Scientist that it is quite acceptible to have precipitable clouds with your precipitation; and that a 7% increase in Evap/Precip for a one deg C rise in mean global surface temperature; could very well happen along with about a 7% increase in (precipitable) cloud cover; well in the form of increased cloud area; increased cloud optical density, and increased cloud persistence time; in some mix of course.
Dr Roy, it’s time to get off the “Climate Sensitivity” train, and board a vehicle which is much more likely to go somewhere.
” IT’S THE WATER !! “
Amused. says: June 23, 2010 at 10:04 am
LOL. Too funny.
Your supporting documents for that rant are missing, as is the unsupported leap from a simple correlation to causation.