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
Climate scientists actually believed the sun revolved around the Earth.
They called it a Hot House when it was hotter on the outside. Man could not survive the heat of the moon without atmosphere, what made them think the earth could be hotter with atmosphere?
As wrong, as the consensus in Galileo’s time.
The atmosphere protects us by cooling the heat from the Sun, not warming it.
Markus Fitzhenery.
“Robert Austin says:
January 27, 2012 at 8:55 am
“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
We are now approaching a 15 year trend…”
In my opinion, we will have hit the mark with two data sets, RSS and HadCrut3, once the January stats are in.
See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.17/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1997.08/trend
#Time series (hadcrut3) from 1850 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.17
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000101357 per year
#Time series (rss) from 1979 to 2012
#Selected data from 1997.08
#Least squares trend line; slope = -5.60668e-05 per year
So to the end of December, it is 14 years and 10 months for HadCrut3 and 14 years and 11 months for RSS that we have an insignificant negative trend.
And a very recent article on WUWT tells us what to expect in January. Brrr!
So I believe I can safely say that at present, we have reached the 15 year mark on at least two sets.
P.S. We are now going down the other side of the 60 years sine wave, so each month can add more than one month to the period in question. This has happened lately for both RSS and HadCrut3.
Claude Harvey says:
“Current temperatures are the lowest since such measurements began over three decades ago and, by implication, the lowest for over a century.”
___
Absolutely no foundation for stating this. There is no “by implication” from recent satellite measurements to what the entire last century of temperatures were.
I am glad that *somebody* finally had the nerve to make the connection to Lysenkoism. I feel I am watching a ‘cinema verité’ performance of the Life of Trofim Lysenko, starring Al Gore as Josef Stalin.
To “a physicist”
I read over the email exchange between Freeman Dyson and Steve Connor and I do not see where Dyson has softened his views at all. Computer simulations are inadequate representations of real world processes and their predictive abilities are notoriously suspect. The “belief” of the amount and severity of AGW is based on a tenuous set of theories that is not supported by the real world data.
I also was quite put off by the crass way Connor wrote his comments(questions?). Conner manages to get the attention of one of the top minds of our lifetime and then preaches to him versus actually trying to understand Dyson’s position. A pathetic exposure of Connors lack of ability as a journalist. How does this guy keep his job!
Robert Austin says:
January 27, 2012 at 8:55 am
“So saying that natural climate variability is hiding the background trend of rising temperature is a defense of the models that cannot be sustained for much longer. And your suggestion that these scientists produce models to refute the present models is just absurd. Come on, R. Gates, your partisanship is showing through your cloak of alleged rationality. Where is is the R. Gates that once claimed to be 25% (if I recall correctly) skeptical?”
____
Please refer back to my post and my complaint about the statement of scientific “fact” that these 16 scientists are attesting to in their WSJ article. They are claiming:
“…computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.”
And my point is, they can’t possible know this, nor can Lord Monckton, who has made a similar claim. If they can claim this with such scientific authority and certainty, then it means they know the equalibrium response to the current and future CO2 forcing, and this would mean that they know something that no one else in the world seems to know. (thus they’d better have the scientific proof as to how they know this). They are saying that they know how sensitive the climate is to CO2 forcing from the levels of CO2 we currently have and are likely to see in the upcoming century. As this sensitivity issue is the central issue of the climate change debate, of course they would like to know the answer to this, but they have no scientific proof to back up their claims that the models have exaggerated the amount of additional warming we are likely to get. The very best they can do, and most honest thing they could say, if scientific honesty was what these scientists cared about (and not political pundantry) is that computer models are doing a poor job at modeling short-term variability. This failure to model short-term variability has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of future warming to expect from the continual, long-term forcing from the geologically rapid rise in CO2, CH4, and N2O caused primarily by human activities.
Kristian Berg says:
January 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
“Leading Scientists” eh. Let’s just look at the first name on the list – Claude Allegre. Here’s a blast from his past: French Researchers Ask Science Minister to Disavow Climate Skeptic
2 April 2010, 5:08 PM
PARIS—More than 400 French climate scientists want science minister Valérie Pécresse to take a clear stand against the country’s most vocal climate skeptic, geochemist Claude Allègre of the Institute of Geophysics of Paris (IPGP). On Wednesday, the group sent Pécresse a letter denouncing Allègre’s latest book, L’imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud), and asking her to express confidence in the climate research community. Allègre was science minister from 1997 until 2000.
Do we need to go any further?
Are there really 400 climate scientists in France? Who pays their salaries and what exactly are they doing? What would they be doing for a living if the alarmism went away?
Do we need to go any further?
Time you answered me, R. Gates
State it now, or leave this place;
Do you believe the Sun revolves around Earth.
Markus Fitzhenry.
I’m sure that you appreciate, Anthony, that on forums where courtesy and respect are the norm, I invariably post under my own name. Otherwise, not.
This turns out to be a matter of family safety. My sons, my wife, and I have had unwelcome dealings with strangers whom we had good reason to regard as less-than-stable mentally, in contexts relating variously to teaching, scientific opinion, civil rights, and USMC service in Iraq and Afghanistan … the far-left and the far-right extremes of the political spectrum have both been represented in these incidents. The protection that anonymity provides is the sole protection that my wife (in particular) has from these persons.
Anthony, although your post used the word “hilarious” in regard to these matters, please let me remind you of what I am sure you appreciate, and everyone else appreciates too: when these events happen within a person’s own family, they are not hilarious.
WUWT is far from the worst forum when it comes to incivility and ad hominem attacks, and should it happen that (what I perceive to be) a welcome trend toward greater civility and objectivity continues here on WUWT, then I will consider posting under my own name.
Needless to say, you yourself, Anthony, are by far the most important person when it comes to exemplifying WUWT standards of civility and objectivity.
Having posted your question publicly, please let me express the hope, Anthony, that you will see fit to post this answer too, as these issues are relevant to every citizen who posts here on WUWT, or on any public forum.
[REPLY: WUWT recognizes that some people may have a legitimate reason for anonymity and unreservedly condemns stalking and attempts at intimidation for expressing views. At the same time, intellectual honesty and moral courage require critics to face their targets in their own name and face. Anthony has also had the experience of unwanted visitors. All the commenters using their real names face the same risks and in many cases are more visble and prominent than you. Your call, but don’t whine. -REP]
Kristian Berg says: January 27, 2012 at 11:04 am
So, instead of demolishing Allegre’s shoddy work in the literature, 400 French climate scientists resorted to political pressure to try and discredit him. Why does this conjure up the image of 400 torch-and-pitchfork-armed peasants chasing the only real scientist in the picture?
Kristian, your argument-from-authority refutation is sooooo-o-o-o-o compelling.
These 16 “scientists”, are not necessarily qualified. Who these people actually are:
Roger Cohen
retired from ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company.
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=252
Edward E. David
President of Research and Engineering for Exxon Corporation, serving until 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_E._David_Jr.
Claude Allègre
discredited by 500 of his peers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Allègre
Scott Armstrong
professor of marketing, not climate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Scott_Armstrong
Jan Breslow
a doctor, not a climate scientist
http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/labheads/JanBreslow/
William Happer
Likened environmentalists to Nazis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Michael Kelly
Electrical engineer, not a climate scientist
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~mjk1/
William Kininmonth
Can’t find much on him, but appears to be a legit meteorological scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kininmonth_(meteorologist)
Richard Lindzen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
A real climate scientist Lindzen’s graduate students describe him as “fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak.”
James McGrath
Ethyl Chaired Professor of Chemistry – Ethyl Corp was formed by General Motors
http://www.files.chem.vt.edu/chem-dept/mcgrath/
Rodney Nichols
his career appears to have little to do with climate science
http://www.atlanticlegal.org/person.php?conid=2433
Burt Rutan
Literally, a rocket scientist, not a climate scientist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Rutan
Harrison Schmitt
Former astronaut, and Republican politician, likens environmentalists to Communists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt
Nir Shaviv
A scientist with an alternative theory that warming is caused by cosmic rays
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv
Henk Tennekes
supported this decisions by referring to biblical texts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Tennekes
Antonino Zichichi
Nobel Prize laureate Hans Bethe has been quoted saying about Zichichi “eccellent organizer, mediocre physicist”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonino_Zichichi
“”Some Guy says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:25 pm
These 16 “scientists”, are not necessarily qualified. Who these people actually are:””
They do not believe the Sun revolves around Earth.
Ezra Levant interview with Patrick Moore – Greenpeace co-founder
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/green-gone-good-part-1/1416496328001
“A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:31 pm
“To my, both Hansen’s view and Dyson’s view are reasonable, the WSJ-16 view not so much.”
But you are blind and cannot see, so you will never agree.
A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
[SNIP: Markus, I fully understand, but site policy does prohibit name calling. -REP]
To repeat my broken record impersonation,
What evidence do you or anyone else have that the climate models work the way the real climate works?
“These 16 “scientists”, are not necessarily qualified. Who these people actually are:”
Still can’t address their arguments, eh?
To follow R. Gates’s argument you must understand that to believers natural climate variability works in only one direction viz. to mitigate the harmful warming due to human CO2 pollution of the atmosphere.
“As for the science, it’s evident that if James Hansen’s sea-level rise numbers are right, then Freeman Dyson’s humanitarian concerns are wrong, and vice versa. In this regard, Hansen is on-record as predicting that global sea-level rise and global temperature rise both will accelerate markedly in coming decades.”
Physick, Hansen’s on record predicting that Manhattan would already be experiencing flooding. It didn’t happen. His prediction was WRONG. FALSIFIED. SHOWN TO BE IN ERROR.
He’s no different than the guy who predicts the Rapture every six months, yet we’re supposed to reorganize all civilization because of this doomsaying?!
Sorry it’s three parts.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/green-gone-good-part-2/1416501197001
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/green-gone-good-part-3/1416497175001
R. Gates: “And my point is, they can’t possible know this, nor can Lord Monckton, who has made a similar claim. If they can claim this with such scientific authority and certainty, then it means they know the equalibrium response to the current and future CO2 forcing, and this would mean that they know something that no one else in the world seems to know. ”
It means no such thing. If you predict than an object dropped in a vacuum here on Earth will fall with an acceleration of 100m/s^2, then when tested your prediction fails, it does not mean the person who said you’re wrong knows the actual value. They just need to know that your prediction failed.
The climate models have failed to be predictive; they have been falsified and treating them as the truth no longer qualifies as “scientific”.
Thank you sincerely, REP.
Should you ever observe that I (or for that matter any WUWT poster) am mainly criticizing persons, rather than opinions, then it would be fully appropriate to require that personal criticism to appear under my own name, or not at all.
This is in accord with my own strongly-held view, that best kind of science, and best kind of skepticism too, are both of them concerned with the rational criticism of ideas, not of persons.
“A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 12:16 pm
[SNIP: Markus, I fully understand, but site policy does prohibit name calling. -REP]”
It is they, who smite me.
[REPLY: Don’t worry, Markus, I’ll try to keep “them” from calling you bad names, too. -REP]
Rob Crawford says:
January 27, 2012 at 1:30 pm
R. Gates: “And my point is, they can’t possible know this, nor can Lord Monckton, who has made a similar claim. If they can claim this with such scientific authority and certainty, then it means they know the equalibrium response to the current and future CO2 forcing, and this would mean that they know something that no one else in the world seems to know. ”
It means no such thing. If you predict than an object dropped in a vacuum here on Earth will fall with an acceleration of 100m/s^2, then when tested your prediction fails, it does not mean the person who said you’re wrong knows the actual value. They just need to know that your prediction failed.
The climate models have failed to be predictive; they have been falsified and treating them as the truth no longer qualifies as “scientific”.
———-
Rob, if you think that climate models are dealing with the same simple non-chaotic system as the dropping of a object under a simple gravitational field you really ought to do a bit more reading about complexity, nonlinear systems, and chaos theory. No model will ever be able to fully incorporate natural variability, and thus all models are wrong in the sense of being incomplete. But they can still be quite useful. So you probably ought to throw in study of what models can and can’t do as well.