Wow. The Atlantic rips Penn State and Muir-Russell a new one.
Some excerpts follow:
He believes in the issue and likes the carbon tax:
I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax.
But he hates corruption:
I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.
He gets it, scientists behaving badly help nobody, least of all their cause. Penn State and the Muir-Russell fiascos only compound the damage:
In sum, the scientists concerned brought their own discipline into disrepute, and set back the prospects for a better energy policy. I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.
At least somebody in MSM is starting to see that whitewash affects climate science, and we aren’t just talking paint.
Rhoda R says: July 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm
…Is it possible that the amount of Carbon being sequestered naturally might, over eons of time, drop the amount of carbon available for CO2 below the level necessary to support plant life?
This would require that the earth stop being volcanic. Most people don’t realize that earth’s vulcanism plays a large part in maintaining the atmosphere we have. Yes, events like Pinatubo are devastating, but the alternative is worse.
Paul Richards says:
July 14, 2010 at 3:14 pm
I teach my kids: How long did the dinosaurs last? 365 million years.
How did they grow so big? Because of the large amount of plant life.
Why was there so much plant life? Because it was much warmer then.
===
Shhhh …. some of the alarmists might hear you, and next thing we know, they’ll glom onto this and they’ll add “dinosaurs will take over the planet if we don’t stop all C02 emissions NOW” 😉
Dr. Ware summarizes very well…Thank you…
“Dr. John M. Ware says:
July 14, 2010 at 2:27 pm
I am NOT for a carbon tax, nor indeed for more taxes of any kind; but a CO2-abatement tax is sheer nonsense. CO2 is necessary for plant life, and more of it means better crops, better growth of other plants, and a greener planet. That science has been known for a long time, and all of us who observe have seen the truth of it: bigger leaves on trees, better growth and bigger blooms on flowers, quite measurable change. Record crops have been reported. The idiocy of trying to sequester or stop production of CO2 would have been hard to imagine even a few years ago. That people are seriously pursuing it now, in spite of plenty of science to the contrary, is frustrating. Apparently they don’t bother to read the relevant literature, or even to think. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”…”
Upon understanding the long established CO2 evidence when combined with the completely fraudulent temperature data (some, the result of laziness and ignorance) 192 degree asphalt ! – exhaust heat from AC units – smoothing over 1200KM grids !
Being gracious, the AGW community needs to really wake up and start thinking, maybe nothing is really happening after all.
Darn … hit post too soon … wanted to mention that speaking of “really inconvenient press”, Newsweek offers a healthy dose of same as well. Excerpts:
Is the media tide turning? … an interesting view from Newsweek
So, doubt within the consensus is a possibility.
Perhaps a possible restatement is that consensus is a fickle ally when confronted by GrandMa Climate whose watchword is. “I do what I do ”
Another may sub-set the words that Nature gives not a fig for X-Factor intuitional voting impulses but will faithfully chant the twin mantras; Tricky, this Climate Stuff, really tricky but we can state with total certainty that because Man made CO2 is increasing AND because may be getting Hotter theb because our models (what we have done) tell us ? Then what’s the problem ?
Oh, and BTW, we’re really clever climatologists, and you lot are just oinks?
Apology accepted!
/sarc suspended
“Rhoda R says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm
OK here, a new scare: Is it possible that the amount of Carbon being sequestered naturally might, over eons of time, drop the amount of carbon available for CO2 below the level necessary to support plant life?
”
There is plenty of carbon stored in the Earth, and I doubt without the intervention of some cosmic event that it could reduce CO2 below that level. That is a good point, but I think that is besides the point, the bigger danger of carbon sequestering is it being released suddenly by accident. This could potentially be more dangerous then say a radiation leak. I wonder if this has happened in nature naturally? Does anyone know?
WHO in their right mind would be ALL for a tax?
They NEVER go for what they were suppose to be intended for.
We have an ECO-Tax right now that no one has a clue what is being taxed and the amount. Some poor smuck just paid 3.78 for a bag of cement and was slapped with a 3.99 ECO-Tax fee on top of the new sale taxes just implamented.
A place to stand, a place to grow, Ontareareareo (it’s a song).
How’s this for a circular argument from Martin Parry, (who in 2007 was co-chair of an IPCC working group).
(From The Economist)
1. [Parry] says there was not a conscious decision to highlight negative effects, but to highlight important ones.
2. [Parry says] The important effects are negative ones: this is why people are worried about climate change.
Well, perhaps they wouldn’t be worried about climate change if you’d stop publishing scare stories…..
Crook finds something in the Penn State whitewash that he calls “indefensible.” He quotes as follows: (three paragraphs)
“This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research…”
“Had Dr. Mann’s conduct of his research been outside the range of accepted practices, it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions…”
“Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”
This should be studied carefully by aspiring scientists. If you are good enough at bringing in research funds then you attain a status that renders you free from any questions about your means. Blackbeard the Pirate followed the same principle and taught it to all his men. Given that some Penn State authorities are willing to invoke Blackbeard, I suggest that we should be very wary indeed.
I like how his conclusion is but we really need to tax carbon in order to save the Earth.
Still, give him marks for intellectual honesty in recognizing that the inquiries were not inquiries, they were corrupt cover-ups.
So if he wasn’t in favor of a Carbon tax, nothing he has said about Climategate would be valid? How sad it is that in order to have credibility on certain subjects one has hold certain views on the related subjects.
What I find remarkable is the parallels between the whitewashes by the Penn State and Muir Russel “investigations” of ClimageGate, and the recent bailouts of financial institutions. Clive Crook, who comes from the perspective of believing AGW represents a true call to policy action, had hoped that the perpetrators of crimes against the integrity of science would be held to account, so that confidence in the institutions could be restored, and that both science and public policy to then move forward. Perhaps the AGW academic grant machine was “too big to fail”. This argument parallels the criticism by many, including me, that the various bailouts of financial institutions prevented an honest repricing of the assets involved, which would have created a sound floor from which growth could proceed. Instead we have a climate of uncertainty, stagnation, and future collapses virtually assured now that the moral hazard has become policy.
Whitewashes are a kind of moral bailout. The hidden cost is the creation of a mushy foundation upon which all future endeavors are suspect and at risk of future collapse. While I disagree with Mr. Crook that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses represent a major environmental threat, I can respect and support his desire to maintain the integrity of the academic institutions that purport to inform public policy.
I think the evidence is already substantially in that if climate science were to be done with integrity, it would not support the policies that Mr. Crook advocates. It would look more like the science that Anthony and others present here.
Pharmaceutical interests have bombarded the medical literature for so long, and so cleverly, that the medical profession has developed finely honed instincts and tools for detecting when somebody is “hiding the decline.” As a result, most studies in major publications, even those sponsored by the big pharmaceutical companies, are done with integrity today. It was not always so, and even now a few clunkers slip through. I would guess that the integrity of climate research publication is where medical publication was thirty or forty years ago.
Rhoda R says:
July 14, 2010 at 4:25 pm
OK here, a new scare: Is it possible that the amount of Carbon being sequestered naturally might, over eons of time, drop the amount of carbon available for CO2 below the level necessary to support plant life?
____________________________________
Sure looked as though we were headed in that direction. Things get real dicey at 220 ppm and below. We were getting a bit too close for comfort, certainly close enough to slow down plant growth and interfere with harvest in marginal areas.
It seems that plants grab all the CO2 available and reduce the levels to about 200ppm in their immediate vicinity.
CO2 depletion
“Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the CO2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm… I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) … photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm… (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion… “ http://books.google.com/books?id=eEy9ftsCqtoC&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=co2+depletion+canopy+photosynthesis&source=bl&ots=dq3VDah8tK&sig=4EHJKS5C03VfrI8ZrUGiz4mg_AI&hl=en&ei=bK8KTKfNBoGdlgf64_isDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAzgU#v=onepage&q=co2%20depletion%20canopy%20photosynthesis&f=false
WHEAT:
“The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values. “
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B757B-4894VM5-8T&_user=10&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1973&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1359890856&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2f572559d85a36b56134f8af6e06db91
UnfrozencavemanMD writes:
“Perhaps the AGW academic grant machine was “too big to fail”. This argument parallels the criticism by many, including me, that the various bailouts of financial institutions prevented an honest repricing of the assets involved, which would have created a sound floor from which growth could proceed.”
Exactly. Many will suffer greatly because the banks were not allowed to fail. I count my losses daily, so to speak. Most people do not understand. Moral rot has set in deeply with a lot of upper-middle-class families walking away from their mortgage(s). The same exists in science.
The Penn State statement says directly that if you are a member of the Team then you will be protected from any investigation of your work or other acttivites, such as policy advocacy. The global warming scam is truly a nightmare. The truth of the matter is that there is no climate science at this time. There is an effort to gather a lot of factual information about Earth’s climate, but the number of confirmed hypotheses that can be used for prediction can be counted on one hand. But our citizenry knows too little about science and scientific method to appreciate the fact. So, we are at the mercy of scam artists.
I really like your last paragraph. It is quite hopeful.
As much as we hate these boys being covered in whitewash, we would hate the alternative even more, right? Would you really like to see them in latex?
Hang on… were we talking about paint? I’m confused now…
UnfrozencavemanMD,
Right on the money. Thanks for your hopeful last paragraph.
The writer is really complaining about the lack of a sacrificial lamb, or two, in regards to the whole Climategate affair. He is upset that because of the whitewash going on, the political momentum has been lost.
It seems the writer doesn’t realize that the whole issue is based on a lie. Tear at the lie, even sacrificing two lambs, and the whole thing will come tumbling down. The only thing keeping AGW going is the constant repairing being done by the “believers.”
Several volcanic lakes in Africa released a wall of CO2 killing many villagers… over 2000 in one case and a few hundred in another.
David, Uk says:
July 14, 2010 at 3:40 pm
“I believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption.”
Ironic, isn’t it. I mean: ironic, because this journalist who is capable of recognising “groupthink” in others, fails to recognise it in himself.
Hence he begins with the apology: “I think climate science points to a risk that the world needs to take seriously. I think energy policy should be intelligently directed towards mitigating this risk. I am for a carbon tax.”
So the same guy who recognises that so much of climate “science” is weak and based on “groupthink” nevertheless takes pains to stress that he places himself squarely in that very same group!
Groupthink is clearly a powerful force.
Yes, have to agree with you on that. I think personally think that Groupthink is perhaps the most significant contributing factor to the continued acceptance of the AGW religion/delusion. But then I have long held (admittedly arrogantly) that 95-99% of people are essentially stupid, or just don’t know how to question/think for themselves. (And I happily include graduates, professionals, doctors, journalists etc. in that sweeping generalisation). But it still astonishes me how many otherwise intelligent people (and many of them professional scientists) have gone along with the CO2 AGW thesis, despite the long accepted and strong evidence of previous warm/cold periods in the Holocene, which clearly had nothing to do with levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence Ibsen’s “the individual is always right” quote from ‘An Enemy of the People’ often springs to mind. (And not just with regard to climate science; there are major problems with peer reviewed medical science, particularly in regard to vaccine safety and efficacy; and as for the official explanation for the near free-fall collapse of the three towers, well let’s just say that I give more credence to Newton’s Laws, rather than NIST’s computer models).
Leftgatekeeper:
Be a pretend friend of liberty then casually drop-in the insidious global tax based on the very lie you pretend to oppose. Nah – won’t work . . .
July 14, 2010 – 23:10 EST
After reading the post by Clive Crook “Climategate and the Big Green Lie” from your post “Uh-oh, really inconvenient press”
I went to Wikipedia – specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/
and searched for ‘Clive Crook’.
I was prompted,
‘Did you mean: Clive Brook’,
below which was listed various entries embeded here and there with the highlighted name ‘Clive Crook’.
I did not see a dedicated reference to a biography of ‘Clive Crook’.
So I searched http://en.wikipedia.org/ for
‘Ron Jeremy’
and found that the first entry of my search was a dedicaterd biography to the porn star ‘Ron Jeremy’
I wondered why ‘Ron Jeremy’ the porn star was given a dedicated biography
and Clive Crook, whose resume would include,
Deputy Editor and Chief Economics Commentor of ‘The Economist’ magazine, Columnist for the Financial Times, Senior Editor at The Atlantic Monthly, among many other literery achivements as well as,
author of ‘Climategate and the Big Green Lie’
wasn’t.
ClimateGate, the gift that keeps on giving! 🙂
I am for a carbon tax.
I wonder for what reason he would want such an oppressive thing?
13 July: WaPo: Rosalind Helderman : Cuccinelli uses court filing to dispute Mann climate research
The University of Virginia holds documents relevant to an ongoing fraud investigation–which is the only standard that should govern whether the university must respond to a subpoena for those documents, lawyers for Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli argued in a 41-page brief filed in Albemarle County Circuit Court Tuesday….
The university must respond to the attorney general’s brief by July 20 and oral arguments have been set for August 20
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/the_university_of_virginia_hol.html
link to the 41-page brief
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/AG%20Mann%20file%20July%2013.pdf
I suppose this article represents progress, a dim awakening, lit by Climategate, that all is not quite what it seemed in ‘climate science’, that there were some shenanigans going on that if unpunished might cause people to doubt the great danger posed by ‘climate change’.
And I suppose it is too much to expect that an editor of The Atlantic could possibly suspect that the academics are circling the wagons and protecting their own because their alarmist claims are entirely hollow and without empirical foundation.
Writes Crook,
But of course the voters should believe this, shouldn’t they?
There won’t be any real progress until the liberal elite like Mr. Crook actually begin to realize that there is no anthropogenic global warming, hence no problem, and that he and his fellows have had the wool pulled over their eyes for a generation.
/Mr Lynn