This is quite something. Sixteen scientists, including such names as Richard Lindzen, William Kininmonth, Wil Happer, and Nir Shaviv, plus engineer Burt Rutan, and Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmidt, among others, write what amounts to a heretical treatise to the Wall Street Journal, expressing their view that the global warming is oversold, has stalled in the last decade, and that the search for meaningful warming has led to co-opting weather patterns in the blame game. Oh, and a history lesson on Lysenkoism as it relates to today’s warming-science-funding-complex. I can hear Joe Romm’s head exploding all the way out here in California.
Excerpts:
No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:
…
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
…
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
…
Signed by:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Full letter is online here at the Wall Street Journal
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Doesn’t matter how many heretics speak. They’re still heretics who must be burned, not heard.
Academics and bureaucrats do not comprehend facts. They only respond to social status. Academics and bureaucrats will not change their minds until their High Priests recant. Their High Priests will never recant.
Therefore: No point in wasting time on the utterly pointless and fruitless task of persuading academics. They are beyond salvation.
The only thing that will change the actions of the bureaucrats is complete bankruptcy, and several Western countries have already reached that blessed and heavenly condition. We can finally see the dawn of an era without these grotesque tyrants, but only because the tyrants have eaten up their own food.
Good to see it published. I will enjoy the reactions and sputterings 🙂
Do they realize they are going to get kicked off the Team’s Christmas card list?
JohnH, minor correction, Kelly was on the Oxburgh whitewash not the Russell one. (The Oxburgh Report was the one that claimed that they looked at papers suggested by the Royal Society, when in fact the papers were suggested by UEA itself).
I have written to some of the authors of the letter to suggest they put it somewhere that others can sign it.
Note that the petition project was only USA, this letter is multi-national.
WRONG LINK. That’s to Australianclimatemadness’ article about the letter.
The actual WSJ link is: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
From the letter:
“If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data.”
Here, here, I second that motion. Public funds have already paid far too much and received far too little for our money in useless climate models and junkets and boondoggles for the well-connected.
Fad ideas come and go the Man-Made Global Warming fad is wearing thin. It has done enough damage and it is time we all came back to our senses.
Thanks Anthony,
This is a good editorial.
The original is at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
I wonder if Dr. Giaever was approached to sign.
The president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva! That’s a new one for me …
RTWT, and note to whom this letter is addressed:
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.
…
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
Many pols are still unable to name or identify any “real scientists” who are opposed to AGW/Warmism/Mitigation. This letter is specifically aimed at them.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Bah! Copy-paste error. Mea culpa (my bad)..
Should end after “aimed at them”.
as above- I wait for the screams of the “believers”
and claims the 16 are all mad etc etc.
but hot damn! it’s good to see it and in something approaching mainstream which may at least get some wider spread.
so many of the sheepies and converteds only read the msm views and nothing else.
WSJ is’nt exactly common reading but the other press will pick it up with luck.
even criticizing it will raise profile:-)
There’ll be a short delay while the BBC decides how to spin this news to its viewers/listeners as either a ringing endorsement of CAGW or the ravings of a minuscule minority of scientists who are “climate change deniers”. More likely, the BBC will ignore it altogether.
Jack Savage, one possible answer to your question can be found in recent (excellent, and much-discussed) WUWT posts by Willis Eschenbach and Robert Brown.
GHE
AGW, and the (very useful) upshot of these WUWT discussions is that skeptic and nonskeptic alike appreciate that the GHG
GHE
AGW relation is mathematically deep and physically subtle.
These WUWT posts discuss the foundations in mathematical physics of the relation GHG
Viewed in light of these recent Eschenbach/Brown WUWT posts, one evident problem with the WSJ letter is simply this: the signatories include zero first-rank mathematicians and/or mathematical physicists.
The reason for this lack isn’t clear, but the Occam’s Razor explanation is very simple: the world’s first-rank mathematicians and physicists simply disagree with the letter’s conclusions.
WUWT, indeed.
REPLY: “…the Occam’s Razor explanation is very simple: the world’s first-rank mathematicians and physicists simply disagree with the letter’s conclusions.”
Allow me (or rather, Dr. Freeman Dyson) to puncture your myopic world view bubble:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/25/freeman-dyson-speaking-out-on-global-warming/
I suppose now you’ll argue that because he wasn’t a signatory, he’s changed his mind. Occam’s Razor would suggest he simply wasn’t contacted.
I suppose the reason you don’t put your name to every comment is due to the strength of your own conviction, right? – Anthony
100% of the scientists are skeptics.
100% of the skeptics is greater than 97% of the extremists.
The hippie socialist extremists lost. But, of course, if nobody else turned up for the race they could’ve won. :p
The Koch brothers are at it again, buying mouthpieces to speak for them. It’s not the first time they did it either.
( /sarc)
Great day.. one senses that even MSM is now giving up on global warming reuters huffington post etc are mentioning climategate and uncertanties as well as Nature published a letter stating that model have grossly exagerrated warming. Also UAH temps are certainly pushing the cart! LOL
The AGW debate cannot be decided by a signature count, but even a low number of “official” dissenters is very important. I am reminded of the Challenger disaster, the o-ring expert engineers at Morton Thiokol were adamant that the o-rings would not seal at low temperatures, but we’re overruled by their management for reasons beyond the physical limits of the o-rings. When NASA was informed of the decision to launch, they asked if anyone disagreed and they were met with total silence on the conference call. Unfortunately, sIlence to this question was assumed to be tacit approval when in fact it represented engineers bullied into submission. One voice would have changed everything.
Global Skepticism and Global Change
http://www.berfrois.com/2012/01/the-editorial-climate-pilkey/
I think 16 is about the right number. You want quality, not quantity.
Well, they could have added my name as well,
but heeeh,
who am I?
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Meanwhile, Obama backed electric car company, Ener1, files for bankruptcy. Another massive waste of money at the altar of gaia.
Whether this is 16 or 31,000 signatures is not important. What is important is that the letter which is signed by some respected scientists has been published in the WSJ. This is a newspaper with wide circulation even extending outside the USA.
The important fact is that many will read this letter and a few people who are undecided may become even more skeptic or even to now conclude that AGW is overhyped and not of real concern. Eventually, drip by drip, the public’s perception of the validity of AGW and the need to do something about it will wane, and with this waning the public’s acceptance of green taxes and subsidies will decline until such time as they openly oppose the idea of green taxes and subsidies. As this happens, the political agenda will change since politicians will see being ‘green’ not as a vote winner but as a vote loser. The politicians will then distance themselves from the green agenda.
Slowly the tide in public opinion is beginning to change. The Daily Mail today published an article on how those who were convinced that climate change was real and happening has fallen since 2006 from 86% to 76% and those who were fairly concerned about the issue has fallen from 81% to 65%. See further http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092375/Climate-change-No-people-willing-green-change-way-live-falls-10.html
Of course, UK political policy is still firmly behind the AGW myth and the need to do something about it. As oldgifford says: January 27, 2012 at 2:24 am the UK government is still peddling the scare tactics with a view to justifying policy and expenditure. As usual, they exaggerate. They give the impression that the UK will become like southern Spain when any school boy should know that southern Spain is about 10 degC warmer than the UK, not 3 to 5 deg C warmer as the IPCC computer projections would have one believe will occur. IF (and as we know this is a very big IF) the UK warms by about 3 to 5 deg C then what will happen is that Scotland will become more like the midlands, the midlands more like southern England and southern England more like the Channel Isles. This would in practice be a very pleasant shift in climate. Materially, for geographical reasons rainfall patterns will not change that much over the UK. For sure, there may be less rainfall in the South and even in the midlands. However, the UK is a small island surrounded by lots and lots of water. Its weather and rain is dominated by the Atlantic and the mountainous regions of Scotland, North West England and Wales. These mountains will not move, nor will the Atlantic and there will always be rainfall as weather fronts coming off the Atlantic meet these immoveable mountain ranges. There will always be rainfall here as any geography student would recognize.
What will kill AGWism is the present economic problems which for ordinary people is of far more significance and concern, and a continued period of cold weather with unaffordable energy/heating costs. The UK has had at least 3 cold winters in a row. This has severely dented confidence in AGW despite the PR being put out by one of AGW most committed believers, the BBC. However, this year, the winter has been mild but it appears that this might now change and winter will close with a cold spell which may last for a month. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092487/UK-weather-Siberian-snow-storm-bring-5C-temperatures-Britain.html
Regrettably this is what is needed, the realities and problems of a severe financial crisis combined with a series of cold winters. It is only this that will make the wider public and the politicians smell the coffee and appreciate that nature rules, that you cannot fight nature and must work with it. Most importantly, you should not throw away good and hard to earn money on socialist dreams which in reality were worse than dreams because in stark reality they are the stuff of nightmares; how many of us would truly wish to wake up in 18th century poverty with all industry and with it hope exported to China, India and the other fast developing nations.
I fear that that, although the realist case is at last getting a better airing, the Catastrophe theory has a great deal of momentum behind it. Not easily eradicated from the spirit of the times and the mind of man.
There may well be a crack in the dam; but the dam may take years to break; and even when it does, we will be very wet for quite a while afterwards.
There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. (From the frequently mentioned “Petition Project”
Whoa!
There really is a consensus!
In cases like this, the QUANTITY of the signatures is irrelevant. It is the QUALITY which counts. For example, had we seen the name, Sir Paul Nurse, at the end of the paper, this would, have been the equivalent of a magnitude 20 earthquake.
The signature that was missing, and which I would dearly have liked to have seen there, was that of Dr.Judith Curry. I mean no disrespect to Judith, for whom I have tremendous admiration, but had her signature been there, it would have only been the equivalent of a magnitude 10 earthquake.
With billions of dollars in government Climate Ca$h ™ at stake, you can bet your tree rings that the climate science rapid response teams will be swinging into action!
Sadly for them, their cabal will be coming to an end (in the U.S.) in November…