Vincent Gray advises me via email:
Dear Folks
I have been a subscriber to the “Scientific American” for as long as I can remember. I have been bitterly disappointed at there persistent embrace of the climate change fraud and the publicity they have given to its promoters.
I have still kept subscribing for the occasional genuine scientific articles.
I just received the issue for November 2010 and I almost fell off my chair at two of their articles. They now admit for the first time the sceptics might be right and they invite discussion on their website.
The first article, page 8 entitled “Fudge Factor” tells of a scientist who always found the results which fitted theory when they did not, how this sort of thing happens all too frequently and includes a sentence questioning whether proxy temperatures measured from tree rings are not an example..
The second article, page 58 has a full page photograph of Judith Curry, Climate Heretic who has been consorting with the likes of Chris Landsea, Roger Pielke Sr, Steven McIntyre and Pat Michaels, who has doubts about the entire IPCC process. I had noticed her intelligent letters on the various blogs.
There is a diagram showing how ridiculous the Hockey Stick becomes when you put in the uncertainties.
I have only just finished reading this so I have not so far commented, but I thought you should know that when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change it must mean the beginning of the end.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
==========================
Direct link to Judith Curry’s article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1
The fudge factor: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fudge-factor
I considered that Climate Change/Disruption’s days were numbered last week when David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) announced during the UK Government Spending Review that the greatest threat to the UK is now…. cyberwarfare. We have a new “State of Fear” subject as Michael Crichton put it.
So these so-called “experts” say they
Yet the cost estimate the world will require to do it is:
$40 Trillion! . And that’s for a $3 Trillion benefit!
BTW, most estimates of TOTAL WORLD GDP is around $50 Trillion. Anybody here willing to invest nearly a year’s worth of global productivity to “avert disaster”.
Gosh, I’d wish they’d give us some solid evidence regarding this disaster they’re talking about (operative word here is “SOLID”).
I have no idea why some people on this site like Judith Curry. The Climategate evidence of scientific misconduct speaks for itself. Anyone who can’t see that at this late date doesn’t have the courage necessary to be a scientist. Judith is just such a person, according to this Sci. Am. article.
She is positioning herself to speak for people who oppose IPCC and the scientific fraud of CAGW. This is very dangerous to allow her to do, as she is very much an establishment figure. Fairly soon, CNN might employ her as the resident climate skeptic, when she is nothing of the sort. It’s an old trick that continues to work. I would like to see her denounced instead of congratulated.
Then comes the backlash from the “climate science” community. By next issue it’ll be business as usual, I’ll bet.
The Curry piece sure uses enough of the disparaging language to make me doubt there is any real “breakthrough” present:
Anyone here who doubts the climate changes? These are opposed to “insider blogs” like UnRealClimate and Climate Regress?
At (C)AGW-proponent blogs where the disproving has been debunked at the “outsider blogs”, not that SA can be bothered to keep track of such events.
Offhand I think we skeptics are running far better that 1 or even 10 percent, and getting better all the time.
The “In Brief” sidebar gives some nice insight:
If they’re going to get that legislation passed now, they need to quiet the skeptics down quickly lest they be heard by too many more and belief in (C)AGW falls unacceptably low. How do you quiet down protesters? You talk to them. Give them a hearing, a meeting, engage them in some dialogue so they think they are being heard and their views considered. That might get the “climate science community” a year of relative peace, during which their louder and more publicized voice can rebuild support, basically calling a truce for talks to get time to resupply and reload. When the skeptics realize there never was any real intention to listen and walk away, the “climate science community” gets to declare they tried dialogue and the
science denyingskeptics didn’t want it.Yup, despite the IPCC reports saying we are “committed” already to centuries of increasing temperatures, any sort of “carbon” limiting having to be done globally, any global “carbon” limiting agreement most certainly having exceptions for “developing” countries, with it clearly being at least a half a century until the “developed” world can limit “carbon” emissions in a practical economical manner with the “developing” countries already ramping up emissions, The time for serious action to reduce carbon emissions is NOW.
As opposed to ten or even five years from now, when climate science may have actually matured to where they make realistic predictions based on sound and proven theory that might actually pan out. Provided by then we still find there is a reason to be alarmed about small increases in concentration of a certain trace atmospheric gas.
I think they decided not to go down the road of Nature and other media as a tool of crazy environmentalists.
That thud I heard and felt here was Vincent falling out of his chair. Now I know what that was.
I was reading through the comments on the Judith Curry article and noticed a comment that Anthony may want to respond to:
10. ThePowerofX
02:04 PM 10/23/10
“Also consider the type of ‘skeptic’ blog Judith is venturing out onto. Anthony Watts misrepresents the content of scientific papers on a regular basis, only emphasising uncertainties, while ignoring main body conclusions, often pretending the paper says the opposite of what it actually does. Christopher Monckton is a guest contributor to Watts Up With That (WUWT). This is the chap who thinks NASA sabotaged a Taurus rocket in order to prevent the Orbiting Carbon Observatory from reaching space. Judith is giving oxygen to people who are beyond reason.”
REPLY: Meh, IMHO, not worth the effort. This is another of the Romm clones. People can come here and see for themselves, and trying to convince Romm followers otherwise is a wasted effort, they are not reachable. – Anthony
Last time I visited SciAm (about a week ago), I was presented with this. Quite annoying.
nofate says:
October 23, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Is Scientific American in danger of returning to real science? Does this mean there is no longer a consensus? What would Al Gore say?
Scientific American is in no danger by re-engaging in rational scientific reporting.
Al Gore and his like have never been in touch with rational scientific debate, and I don’t expect he will voluntarily retreat from that limb prior to politically falling out of his tree.
It’s a start, and positive comments to SA may be helpful in the long run to make them see there are other intelligent, informed and scientific individuals and groups that deserve equal time to move our understanding of climate science (is that an oxymoron?) forward.
However, I would say we all still need to keep our guard up and let them know when they stray in order to keep them honest.
It’s gonna be a long war…
I get the the feeling that Dr. Curry “plays for both teams” a little, judging by her statements below
Or could it be she *has* to do this in order to be taken seriously by the MSM?
I find the below statements quite contradictory:
“So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic.”
“Curry asserts that scientists haven’t adequately dealt with the uncertainty in their calculations and don’t even know with precision what’s arguably the most basic number in the field: the climate forcing from CO2—that is, the amount of warming a doubling of CO2 alone would cause without any amplifying or mitigating effects from melting ice, increased water vapor or any of a dozen other factors.”
Guys; before everybody breaks out the champagne please remember:
If the previous thousand year North Atlantic cycle just repeats itself, with no help from people, then we’re in for another 150 years of global warming! They can continue to tell people who don’t know any better that this warming trend is “unprecedented”. Just try posting a skeptical argument on digg or reddit and see what happens. I very much appreciate the difficult and often tedious work that many of you all have done. I hope you guys are ready for a long battle.
These people have hijacked the legitimate environmental movement. They have hijacked science and many academics are afraid to speak out. They hijacked wikipedia. I think WUWT just had an article about that. There is more going on here than a few scientists trying to get their names in scientific journals. These AGW people are not going to give up without a fight.
SA, Nature, etc, who cares. They shot themselves in the foot. WUWT is the beacon, nay Lighthouse, of reason in this cloudy discussion. They may try to regain some believability, but they have crushed our hearts and minds with essentially meaningless drivel. I am not sure a very large apology would even have meaning at this point.
Scientific American in the 60’s and 70’s [and before] was an outstanding magazine serving a unique niche.
Since that time it progressively went downhill as science continued to be replaced by various so-called progressive agendas including the belief in MMGW.
From what I have just read here I hope they are ready for a real hockey stick in their sales! great news, is it sold in Canada?
When SA changes its editor and the editorial board and (leftist) funding that took it over approximately 10 years ago (when AGW went main stream), then we might have a chance for the Scientific American of the preceding 40 years. It was great, and my love of science was nurtured by its articles. I can almost guarantee that the tiny change noted above is because its CIRCULATION IS DECREASING. Too many people know that it has become a phony. The motto must be: prove it, prove it, prove it before re-subscribing.
The comments above demonstrate that its “empathy” for skepticism is mostly hot air for show. Besides, skepticism is not a position; it is a necessity of the scientific method. The position can only be “the science”; if the proposed science is fraudulent or secretive and policy decisions are proposed from that “science”, then it is politics and power, not science.
I see no cause for rejoicing. Certainly, Judith Curry deserves praise when she acts in a manner consistent with a true scientist. But I agree with JDN. Her statements are still largely consistent with someone who endorses CAGW in all its glory, and so is the SA article. A very small step, admitting that there are still skeptics. Other than that? Not much. I won’t rush out and buy the latest issue.
At last a blow of fresh air in Scientific American’s usual biased position and unscientific attitude on Climate Change matters!
I hope and wish a more open minded and enrichening debate on these maters will be encouraged here from now on, for the sake of science and all of us, long time readers of SciAm.
The idea that SA might be softening their position a bit might be appealing, but, when I clicked on the direct link to the article, I got a popup that said the following (with boxes to tick where I have placed dashes and a button with the word “VOTE” in it):
Looks like they are softening about as much as the “rotten” arctic ice.
Uncertainties in climate:
Here is Richard Lindzen talking about temperature uncertainties and scale exaggerations that are part of global warming:
3:00 minute video:
The BBC is also changing it’s direction on global warming reports. This 1:28 minute video might surprise you:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11574503
Am I missing something??
Anthony says:
Direct link to Judith Curry’s article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1
=================
Said article, infers Judith Curry may be causing more harm than good, by consulting with “skeptics”.
Said article ends with this:
…”But the COP15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen last December ended in a watered-down policy document, with no legally binding commitments for countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Following Copenhagen, the U.S. Senate was unable to pass even a modest “cap and trade” bill that would have mandated reductions. And in the wake of Climategate a year ago and widespread attacks on the IPCC and on climate science in general, the public may be more confused than ever about what to think. Is Curry making things worse or better?”
So, now it is Judith Curry’s fault?
Just what are the “things”, she may be making worse (or better) ?
I wouldn’t hold my breath on Scientific American easing up from the dogma and allowing any two-sided debates any time soon.
This article is completely biased: One minute they shake skeptic’s hands, then they slap them upside the head, then they shake skeptic’s hands, then they slap them upside the head, and so on.
The only thing I see going on here is lip service in preparation for possible future damage control/back-peddling just in case the AGW prosthelytizing worshippers are found out to actually be wrong… because the science really is starting to fall under heavy scrutiny these days and has been found wanting in far too many areas to ignore any more.
Scientific American is just now catching on to this fact.
Scientific American used to consist of articles written by scientists for the educated public. It was brilliant and a wonderful source of real scientific insight.
It was bought by a German publisher and the articles came to be written by “science writers” in the manner of New Scientist. The quality went down hill in one precipitous step. I stopped buying it. I have no intention of resubscribing. One swallow does not a summer make (especially when it is only a swallow’s flea).
For those who don’t know Vincent, he is a PhD (Cantab) chemist who is an IPCC reviewer and was an early critic. His website is well worth visiting (just Google). He is one of the giants of the “denier” community.