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
A Physicist. Bit rich claiming intimidation as as excuse for hiding behind a pseudonym!
I don’t think there has ever been a credible threat to a consensus pscientist! I’m not sure there has been a credible threat to a non-consensus scientist either, (apart from CG1 & 2,).
As I recall. Richard Lindzen was refused a valuation on some damaged art for insurance purposes because of his views. Does that count as intimidation?
DaveE.
Better watch it now A Physicist, Davo’s a real scientist.
Fred Hillson says:
January 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Dan, when you take into consideration the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past AND the output of the sun in the past, you get an excellent correlation. Instead of getting your information from the likes of Bob Carter, who is a retired paleontologist, you should be referencing the peer-reviewed scientific papers written by the expert climatologists. You proved my point with your question.
Actually, you pretty much just shot yourself in the foot. Recent analysis has shown the mass of the atmosphere was very likely much higher to support large flying reptiles. So, once again your correlation just bit the big one. Maybe your “expert climatologists” aren’t expert in enough fields to actually be expert climatologists. In fact, that statement is really an oxymoron as climate covers so many different fields of study it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to be an expert.
You really need to understand how skepticism works. If you did, you wouldn’t have fallen for the BS that you accepted so readily.
Presumably, this open letter appearing at this time is intended to influence debate around the Republican primaries.
I don’t have any particular problem with scientists going public with their views in an attempt to influence people’s thinking – even a rather blatant attempt to nudge the party political process. Scientists have a right, possibly a duty, to do so.
However, such public airings are scarcely “quite something”. They’re a rather ordinary part of the political process, and certainly should not be misinterpreted as the beginnings of a watershed or similar.
The letter’s reference to “growing” numbers of publicly dissenting scientists is in part an attempt to boost the writers’ case, partly an attempt to keep up the spirits of the troops, and partly an attempt to embolden any dissenters out there to go public.
In other words, they don’t really know the extent of dissent. So this is pretty much a shot in the dark.
In the land of the free, they coward and scorned, with a big red dragon, to ward off the horns.
Markus Fitzhenry.
Fred Hillson: “Dan, when you take into consideration the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past AND the output of the sun in the past, you get an excellent correlation. ”
Utterly false. Where do you get this nonsense from?
And “Instead of getting your information from the likes of Bob Carter, who is a retired paleontologist, you should be referencing the peer-reviewed scientific papers written by the expert climatologists.”
What peer review? The corrupt “pal review” of the Hockey Team has given us Upside Down Tijlander, Yamal, short-centered PCA, ad nauseum. You seem to be a fan of the philosophy of Phil Jones: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”
Here’s a question for you, it’s one Willis Eschenbach asked of Judith Curry last July 25th: “What should my scientific response be when a prominent scientist says “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”?”
Anyone with an open mind and an understanding of the requirements of the Scientific Method know that your “expert climatologists” aren’t scientists. They are corrupt Lysenkoist frauds.
As Brendan H makes clear, when lacking the scientific facts, discuss the Republican primaries instead.
David A. Evans says:
January 27, 2012 at 4:26 pm
As I recall. Richard Lindzen was refused a valuation on some damaged art for insurance purposes because of his views. Does that count as intimidation?
*******************************
Personally, I wouldn’t have denied Lindzen a valuation based on his character because of his views on global warming. I would instead have refused to give Lindzen a valuation based on his character because he claimed how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.
Some Guy says:
“William Happer
Likened environmentalists to Nazis”
Some Guy and a ‘physicist’ neglected to mention:
William Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
at Princeton University.
Richard Lindzen has by far the best scientific credentials among the WSJ-16. To my mind, a debate between James Hansen and Richard Lindzen would be well-worth attending, and (assuming it could be arranged) would benefit the skeptic and nonskeptic communities alike.
Of course, this debate *is* happening in the scientific literature (but very slowly). James Hansen has pushed a considerable stack of chips onto the table, with his new prediction that sea-level rise will accelerate sharply in coming years.
Partly, Hansen’s prediction is pure debate tactics: sea-level changes are smoother and easier to measure than sea-temperature changes, sea-temperature changes are smoother and easier to measure than land-temperature, land-temperature changes are smoother and easier to measure than stratosphere temperature.
Thus, my view is that Hansen is playing to win the AGW scientific debate outright, by a strategy whose pay-off period is 10-20 years — sooner if sea-level rise accelerates sharply, and is accompanied by temperature rises too.. Of course, by this win-all-lose-all prediction strategy, Hansen can lose the debate outright too.
Lindzen’s strategy is fuzzier (to me); his status as (arguably) the world’s foremost critic of climate models is unlikely to change much, no matter what future data show. The point being that models are always imperfect, and so there is always some “worst feature” of models to criticize.
Speaking personally, I have plenty of respect for both scientists, yet it seems to me that Hansen’s science and his prediction strategy both are stronger than Lindzen’s.
Fred Hillson,
Bearing false witness again, I see. What you just posted is no different than if I posted that Fred Hillson has pictures of naked boys on his hard drive. So what if they’re pics of his sons when they were a month old, that doesn’t matter. What matters is that I could assassinate Hillson’s character by leaving out pertinent facts. That would make me a despicable vermin, wouldn’t it, Fred?
In Lindzen’s case, he never argued that smoking does not cause lung cancer. He questioned whether second-hand smoke was as deadly as claimed by some. But you left that part out, didn’t you, Fred? Were you being an ignorant busybody? If so, an apology is in order. Or were you being deliberately mendacious, in which case there will be no apology from you.
Brendan H says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:09 pm
In other words, they don’t really know the extent of dissent. So this is pretty much a shot in the dark.
Since you obviously must know “the extent of dissent”, why didn’t you tell us? Oh, you don’t know? In other words, your claim “is pretty much a shot in the dark” …
I really find it humorous to listen to true believers and their complete lack of logical skills. Amazingly, they have no problem demonstrating these skills to the world.
Kelly’s masters is in applied math & physics and PhD in (solid state) physics.
Which scientific item does this op-ed discredit????….
Oh wait….none so he attacks character and makes false claimes….
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_01/wsj_offers_climate_change_deni035040.php
A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Maybe I should call myself “A biophysicist” and spout off grandiloquently as well. Nah. I chose my handle specifically because I’m not claiming credibility by title. I just want to talk about ideas and let the arguments stand on their merits, or not.
I only came by to report the WSJ piece is getting attention in academia.
[Moderator’s Query: If you’ve got a link to that attention we’d all be grateful. -REP]
“A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm Speaking personally, I have plenty of respect for both scientists, yet it seems to me that Hansen’s science and his prediction strategy both are stronger than Lindzen’s.”
You are clutching at straws, pal.
Where we have our hands tightly gripped on the handle of reality.
A physicist wrote;
“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.”
KevinK (Kevin J. Klees, Rochester/Hamlin NY, USA, Easily found in the US Patent Department Database, BSEE 1980 Univ. of Delaware, MSEE 1981 Georgia Institute of Technology, MSEE Optics 1986 University of Rochester) says,
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD; are you really telling us that there are a bunch of “climate change deniers” stalking your wife and family………….
This might be some news for you, but all of my family members do not wake up every day and spend all of their daily moments worrying about climate change. For the most part they are worrying about how to pay their bills, shovel the snow out of their driveway (as appropriate for those of us in the Northern hemisphere), when do I have to mow the lawn, when is the next paycheck going to clear, what nice fancy restaurant should we try next, can we afford that fancy new car, etc. etc. etc….
Good Lord Man, I have absolutely no interest in knowing who you are, where you live, or how big your family is. I certainly wish all the best for you and your family. And even though I disagree with your scientific conclusions, I would never wish any harm to ANYBODY who disagrees with me. Eventually the truth will be revealed, and I do hope that I have learned to admit when I was wrong, and to learn from the experience. I am only interested in the truth; I have absolutely no interest in stalking you or your family.
Oh, by the way we all see some “suspicious” characters around as we go through our daily errands, I think that jumping to the conclusion that they all mean to harm you because of your climate science beliefs may just be “jumping the shark” a little bit.
In my particular case, my employer, which I currently enjoy a healthy relationship with (let’s just summarize it by saying that the paycheck clears when I cash it) has among their customers those FINE folks at NASA. This is in fact a very good collection of folks who are correct most of the time. But, they do indeed make mistakes. Rather than embarrass them, I choose to post with a subset of my name so it’s not so apparent that I am throwing darts at a (very) few of them.
Cheers, Kevin.
@physicist
It is disturbing to see James Hansen compared with Freeman Dyson.
Dyson is one of the greatest thinkers and physicists ever.
Hansen and other “prominent” climate scientists, coauthored a bizarre paper like this – and that tells you so much more about their expertise on sea-levels than anything else.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/
“”A physicist wrote;
“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.””
Put your name on a page, or leave none.
A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm
Of course, by this win-all-lose-all prediction strategy, Hansen can lose the debate outright too.
No he can’t. Mainstream Climate Science’s Propaganda Operation “science” is not falsifiable. The Climate Scientists simply won’t let it be falsified – by using their Propaganda Operation’s excuse and diversion generating mechanisms, including its neverending 10-20 yr. “pay off” periods, which play to the psychological needs of people such as you.
Otherwise, Hansen has already lost at least once, given his and Climate Science’s 1988 10-20 yr. “strategy”, when the street Hansen’s office occupies did not flood 10-20 years later.
But given Climate Science’s perfect record of relevant prediction failure in the world of real science, which has already falsified the Propaganda’s CO2 = CAGW “science” on its own particular terms, Lindzen can’t lose either.
On the bright side, though, the recent two feet of snow in your Seattle “region” will probably help you to “prove” the glaciers in your region are really really really melting like crazy when the blue berry picking season arrives and you go out and hear it yourself!!!
Fred Hillson says: January 27, 2012 at 3:49 pm
“Why does CO2 concentration affect the temperature now, when it clearly did not in the past?”
********************************************
Dan, when you take into consideration the amount of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past AND the output of the sun in the past, you get an excellent correlation. Instead of getting your information from the likes of Bob Carter, who is a retired paleontologist, you should be referencing the peer-reviewed scientific papers written by the expert climatologists. You proved my point with your question.
—————————————————————-
Fred, it’s my turn to be offended. I do not get my information from “the likes of Bob Carter” or any other 10 sources. I watched that video and did some independent digging. The first 10 minutes look like an excellent example of confirmation bias. “The geological record says this, so here’s a plausible explanation. Must be true”. But the last minute completely drove me away from the commentator. He uses the temperature history of the past 1000 years as an example of CO2 forcing. But the history he uses is the IPCC AR3 report that includes the hockey stick which rewrote temperature history. The AR1 report showed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both well documented historical facts. An argument that needs bogus temperature data does not convince me or other knowledgeable skeptics.
With respect, Manfred, James Hansen’s reputation rests on forecasts like this:
Thirty years later, Hansen’s 1981 prediction looks pretty solid. In particular, there’s no doubt among hard-nosed shipping company CEO’s that Hansen’s “fabled Northwest Passage” is now a reality.
What is conspicuously missing in the track records of the “WSJ-16” is any thirty-year scientific prediction that is comparably successful to Hansen’s (unless someone can point to one?).
If in the next thirty years, Hansen’s predictions remain similarly accurate as they have been in the past thirty years, then (with good reason) Hansen will enter into history as one of humanity’s greatest and most foresighted scientists.
Dan in California says: January 27, 2012 at 3:37 pm
. One of my favorite examples is the temperature and CO2 concentration plots over geologic time. Here’s a link http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html showing global temperatures varying widely while CO2 concentration also varies widely (certainly higher than now) and the two plots show no correlation.
==================
here we are – we cannot even agree about LIA MWP RWPs yet the site referenced has plots of temperature and CO2 going back 600My. And these are of course to be believed, without question.
The CO2 of course is derived from a MODEL (we don’t believe in models – do we?)
The temperature are obviously just indicators of hot/cold periods – they should not be taken seriously!!
KevinK says January 27, 2012 at 6:19 pm
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD; are you really telling us that there are a bunch of “climate change deniers” stalking your wife and family………….
All I did was a simple letter to UEA which got published with my private email address in the second release of emails. We do not have private emails in our family and these could have been read by my wife or daughters.
No death threats but I got a couple of obnoxious emails from Aus and the US. There are true loonies at the end of the WWW. Email addresses of these obnoxious people are available on request!
An example:
… Much worse, he [dellingpole] published the man’s name and home address.
Delingpole’s bootboys took the hint and immediately swung into action. Within a few minutes of the comments opening, they had published the man’s telephone number and email address, a photo of his house (“Note all the recycling going on in his front garden”), his age and occupation. Then they sought to tell him just what a low opinion they had of “stalking” and “bullying”.
One commenter wrote: “I tried to telephone *** *** on the number helpfully posted in this blog, but he’s out until tomorrow. Perhaps he is out ‘tackling climate change’? – anyway his missus didn’t seem to know where he was.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jan/27/james-delingpole-climate-change-denial
A physicist says:
January 27, 2012 at 7:00 pm
Take a closed container of air at room temperature and inject into it sufficient CO2 to raise the CO2 concentration to 5,000 PPM. After two weeks time what will be the temperature inside the container? After one month? One year?