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.
Running out of “gas”, the Global Warming Fame & Gravy Train has been shunted off the mainline and is being re-routed into a marshaling yard for some much needed re-thinking.
The conferences in Bali, the interviews on local and national news shows, the fast promotion and tenure tracks . . . all going bye-bye.
The last battle in this war for the soul of honest & real science will be fought by all those who jumped on the train for a free ride and now will have to fight like hell to salvage tarnished, varnished and ruined reputations.
Pull My Finger says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:18 am
“Meanwhile, Obama backed electric car company, Ener1, files for bankruptcy. Another massive waste of money at the altar of gaia.”
Whoa! Another Solyndra!
Ener1, Parent of U.S. Subsidized Battery Unit, Seeks Bankruptcy
January 27, 2012, 8:25 AM EST
By Phil Milford and Dawn McCarty
Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) — Ener1 Inc., which owns a company that received a $118 million U.S. Energy Department grant to make electric-car batteries, filed for bankruptcy protection after defaulting on bond debt amid Asian competition.
—
I want everyone to realize that these “green” companies (along with our climate science elites) got millions of dollars in “stimulus” cash while our economy was tanking. Now they are bankrupt. And what did YOU get? YOU got stuck with the bill!!
All will change in November…
To those who haven’t noticed, there’s good reason why “global warming” is unmentionable in Washington these days. How many times did you hear it referenced in the latest State of the Union speech? They KNOW! “Knowing” and “admitting you’ve been had”, however, are two different things. Politicians as a whole have never been interested in truth. They are interested mostly in things they find useful to their political ends. Recall how AGW got political “legs” in the first place. Margret Thatcher (of all people) dredged up the then obscure theory and used it in her battle against the U.K. coal miner’s unions’ resistance to nuclear power.
AGW theory has been so useful to so many on such a multitude off fronts that I would not expect “the story” to go quietly into the night.
@ur momisugly Paul Westhaver
Research some of these names Paul, they have been doing a lot of work arguing against AGW, and for many years. Including my Heroes Harrison Schmitt and Burt Rutan, real men in a world of chickens.
“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?
The core group of scientists and politicians that started the grant money machine may have initially believed the AGW science was sound. Now that there are serious questions about the soundness of the science, the money has corrupted their moral compass and they can not bring themselves to pull the IV from their veins (wallet). The public at large has been sold global warming as a moral imperative. This sales job has created a new religion that people now dogmatically follow. Well intentioned friends, family and neighbors are under the spell of this religious experience and getting them to “see the light” will be a slow process. People will have to confront the realization that they followed a false religion and reconcile all the emotions and trauma that goes along with an experience like this. I feel it’s critical for those of us that believe in science to treat family, friends and neighbors, even politicians to some extent with compassion. They did nothing wrong but were duped by this false religion and the corrupt scientists and politicians on “the team”. We must get people to reject the dogma of “global warming” and once again embrace the scientific process of measuring and analyzing the climate one step at a time.
“Shooting the Messenger” appears to be standard operating procedure for climate “scientists”.
In the recently released email, (1625.txt) we find Phil Jones discussing with senior University of East Anglia (UEA) staff, the idea of giving Professor Jonathan Jones (not to be confused with Phil Jones!) and I the same treatment as he (Phil Jones) gave another UK academic, for us having the temerity to send a FOI request to UEA.
Subsequently (1812.txt) Phil Jones asks the Head of Communications at UEA “The thought is whether we should follow the same course with these two”
Fortunately wiser council prevailed with UEA Head of Communications replying on the same day “Do you know the heads of department at (their universities). Are you sure that they would dissociate themselves from their colleagues who have written? We want to avoid any accusation that you are trying to get people fired because they disagree with you. This (Keiller) chap appears to be deputy head of department and could, I think, cause a huge stir if he got wind of it.
As it happens I did.
[Thank you for the courage of your reply. Robt]
Recently met a senior climate scientist at CSIRO in Melbourne who jets around the world to climate change conferences. He assured me that none of his team actually now believe the man made bit any more but with families, mortgages etc what can they do? He has to remain in the ‘priesthood’ until he either retires or gets offered a job elsewhere.
‘How many Imams get to survive if they come out as Christians?’
“BargHumer says:
What is the objective in providing this special group letter to this journal?”
When warmistas know they’ve lost on the message, they attack the process. When they can’t attack the process, they attack the source.
As Ghandi said,
“First they ignore you,
then they Laugh at you,
then they Fight you,
Then you Win.”
Henry@RichardVerney
True. Increasing coldness is far worse than increasing warmth.
But the AGW crowd have already come up with a solution, to that problem,
when it comes.
They changed names from AGW to ACC and if it gets too cold, then they will say:
it is man made climate change.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/the-term-climate-change-is-hiding-the-fact-that-global-warming-has-stalled
Philhippos says:
January 27, 2012 at 6:10 am
“Recently met a senior climate scientist at CSIRO in Melbourne who jets around the world to climate change conferences. He assured me that none of his team actually now believe the man made bit any more but with families, mortgages etc what can they do? He has to remain in the ‘priesthood’ until he either retires or gets offered a job elsewhere.”
Got a name for this guy? What could he do? He could have the balls to say enough is enough. But he chooses to perpetuate the fraud.
But not one of the scientists is a climatologist, so we can ignore their statements. (sarc)
“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.”
Of course they’ll ignore it – it’s not news. What exactly do you think they should say – “a group recognised for their skeptism today made another skeptical statement…”
I’ve learned much by reading this blog. I’m not necessarily fond of distilling arguments down to bumper sticker size, but the most telling statement about AGW I’ve read here goes something like: “AGW is about taking the money from poor people in rich countries and transferring it to the Swiss bank accounts of the rich people in poor countries.” That really is it in a nutshell.
LOL. This is an opinion piece. Notice the scientists. Only one of them can be considered an expert published climatologist – Richard Lindzen. Lindzen published the “Iris hypothesis” which proposed that, like the iris of an eye, the earth’s cloud systems will act to lessen global warming. Other climate researchers believe that further research has not supported this hypothesis (see below). Lindzen also has claimed how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. I encourage you to check out the rest of the scientists on your own. Burt Rutan, for instance, is aerospace engineer and the designer of Voyager Mars Probe and SpaceShipOne. So does that mean that inversely a climatologist is qualified to design the Voyager Mars Probe? I think not.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1164
They wrote:
“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.”
_____
That anyone who would call themselves a scientist would sign their names to this kind of declaration is such a shame. This is not science, but politics. The flattening of temps (at high levels) over the past decade is not at all an indication that the models have exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause, but rather, is an indication of how poorly the models can capture the natural variability of the climate. No one, in fact, is certain what the equilibrium response will be to a doubling of CO2, and certainly no one therefore knows if the models have “greatly exaggerated” how much warming will occur. Where are these scientists models that refute this? Are they basing their judgement (and that’s what it must be as it is not science!) on the level temperatures of one decade? (Despite the fact of course that it was the warmest decade on instrument record!). Numerous attribution studiies have all shown the underlying forcing from the buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is still there once the natural variability is removed. These attribution studies represent the real science. This diatribe these 16 scientists have signed their names to is nothing but poltical rhetoric.
Frame this WSJ article on your wall, and look at it in twenty years. It will be a good lesson as to the extent that the politics of our era had mixed with quasi-scientific thinking. I think these scientists, and or their descendants might be a bit embarassed.
Philhippos says:
January 27, 2012 at 6:10 am
“Recently met a senior climate scientist at CSIRO in Melbourne who jets around the world to climate change conferences. He assured me that none of his team actually now believe the man made bit any more but with families, mortgages etc what can they do? He has to remain in the ‘priesthood’ until he either retires or gets offered a job elsewhere.”
OK, I’m calling this a highly unlikely. The statement is outrageous, and you’d be doing the world a favour if you named him/her. But I’m betting that you won’t…
Harrison Schmitt has previously spoken out too.
Loved the succinct description of the attachments of alarmism to climate science in the last paragaraph. Metaphorically, sunlight on vampires. When you still have large sections of the press promoting the alarm and settled science*, educational activists attacking scientific skepticism in the same breath as creationism, and Al Gore and Jim Hansen posing in summer in front of metling ice, you need the truth to be restated time and again.
* e.g., Chicago Tribune front page article 1//22/2012 – Carbon dioxide expose of power plant complete with water vapor smoke stack image. Carbon dioxide makes a location the “worst polluter by far”? Not so very long ago, CO2 was the ecologically desired benign product of combustion. Papers selling climate alarmism turned a desirable outcome into false danger and destroyed the meaning of the word “pollution.” That’s just plain dangerous and unhelpful to more important enviornmental concerns.
Fred Allen says:
January 27, 2012 at 6:27 am
And that’s what gives it 10 times the credibility than had it done so. (Does anybody believe anything those “climsci” say anymore?)
R. Gates says:
January 27, 2012 at 6:54 am
“It will be a good lesson as to the extent that the politics of our era had mixed with quasi-scientific thinking. I think these scientists, and or their descendants might be a bit embarassed.’
You can’t see that you are talking about ‘The Team’ here?
“LOL. This is an opinion piece. Notice the scientists.”
Address their arguments, if you can, Fred.
“Where are these scientists models that refute this?”
What’s the fascination with models? Blunt fact: the “climate models” have failed to be predictive. They are failures. They are falsified. Continuing to cite them is not a scientific response, but a political and/or religious one.
No alternative model is necessary.
Sixteen scientists? Sixteen?
Holy God. That’s incredible. This changes everything.
The Sceptical Science site, mentioned by Fred, has brought ‘1984’ to life. Altering the meaning of real sceptic comments to suit their anti-sceptic bias has been revealed, and supposedly corrected. i remain sceptical!
Readers beware this is consensus site!
Mr Gates, nobody has to refute that CO2 causes significant warming. The onus on proof is with those who maintain that it does and it really looks now that there isn’t a lot of evidence to support it theoretically or in practice. I’m sure you’ll agree that the concept is taking a bit of a pasting everywhere now? I note you add the bit about levelling off at a high level but temperature does oscillate and what we are seeing is just typical of the curve reaching a maximum. The interesting thing is what it will do next.
BargHumer says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:38 am
What is the objective in providing this special group letter to this journal?
*****
The objective of the letter is conveniently defined in the letter. You just have to read it.