Flashback, Michael Mann said this on October 5th, 2010:
Our efforts to communicate the science are opposed by a well-funded, highly organized disinformation effort that aims to confuse the public about the nature of our scientific understanding.
…
Scientists are massively out-funded and outmanned in this battle, and will lose if leading scientific institutions and organizations remain on the sidelines. I will discuss this dilemma, drawing upon my own experiences in the public arena of climate change.
Next time you get challenged on how much money is involved and whose side gets it, point out Mann is delusional by showing them this from 2009, Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova revealing that the federal Government has a near-monopoly on climate science funding.
The starting point was in June 1988 – James Hansen’s address to Congress, where he was so sure of his science, he and Senator Tim Wirth turned off the air conditioning to make the room hotter.
Then show them this from the Daily Caller:
The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on “climate change activities.”
Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe presented the new CRS report on the Senate Floor Thursday to make the point that the Obama administration has been focused on “green” defense projects to the detriment of the military.
The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.
Inhofe, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, argued that the expenditures are foolish at a time when the military is facing “devastating cuts.”
Video May 17, 2012 by JimInhofePressOffice
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took to the Senate floor today to put the spotlight on the far-left global warming agenda that is being imposed on the Department of Defense by President Obama, which comes at the same time the Obama administration is forcing devastating cuts to the military budget.
Senator Inhofe announced that he will be introducing a number of amendments during next week’s markup of the Defense Authorization bill in the Senate Armed Services Committee that will stop President Obama’s expensive green agenda from taking effect in the military.
As part of that effort, Senator Inhofe is also releasing a document put together by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) which reveals that the federal government has spent $68.4 billion on global warming activities since 2008 — and that’s just a conservative estimate. Instead of focusing on funding our critical defense needs such as modernizing our military’s fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles, the Obama administration’s priority is to force agencies to spend billions on its war on affordable energy; this is further depleting an already stretched military budget and putting our troops at risk.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@- Richard
Here is why everyone who follows the subject thinks Jaworowski is talking nonsense and explains why he gets no funding –
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
As you can see the mistakes are easy to find and hardly ‘rocket science’!
The other classic example of a Prof ‘gone Emeritus’ of course is Neils-Morner
Prof Mann has past history of getting figures upside down. When he cannot get it right in his scientific papers, there is little hope anything better outside of his area of expertise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/told-ya-so-more-upside-down-mann-in-his-latest-paper/
I might be getting a tad cynical, but no matter how much the errors are exposed, they will continue to be recycled and used as a basis for policy.
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/13/the-epa-and-upside-down-mann/
http://climateaudit.org/2009/10/29/upside-down-proxies-baffle-the-team/
izen says:
May 21, 2012 at 10:55 am
@- Richard
Here is why everyone who follows the subject thinks Jaworowski is talking nonsense and explains why he gets no funding –
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
As you can see the mistakes are easy to find and hardly ‘rocket science’!
The other classic example of a Prof ‘gone Emeritus’ of course is Neils-Morner
________________________
And there are several of us here at WUWT who do not believe Engelbeen. I see he finally gave up trying to push his views here at WUWT where he had to contend with those who were not push overs. Now he can sing to the chorus without fearing rebuttal.
Engelbeen is not fit to walk in Jaworowski’s shadow.
richardscourtney says:
May 21, 2012 at 10:27 am
@ur momisugly me: In particular, in your post at May 21, 2012 at 9:06 am you defend Jaworwski against the outrageous implication by Shore that Jaworowski was a creationist.
Thank you, sir, but I can’t take credit for that. My defense was aimed at Shore’s unfair comparison of the proposal of a man whose scientific work was not influenced by his inherent beliefs with an outline of Christian talking points.
am a socialist and a Christian who is proud to say that Jaworowski and I were friends. Any assertion that he was a creationist is an insult to the honesty of his adherence to atheism.
I am a knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, somewhat-to-the-right-of-Attila-the-Hun conservative and what’s known in my circles as a Roamin’ Catholic. It matters not what his religion was, or was not — judging from his proposal, he was an ethical man with a passion for doing what was right, and your defense of him confirms that for me.
* * * * * * * * * * *
Yanno, Joel, if it hadn’t been for your gratuitous insult, I’d never have read Dr. Jaworowski’s paper — thanks for the extra ammo…
izen:
Not content with supporting Shore’s untrue defamation of Jaworowski, at May 21, 2012 at 10:55 am you attempt to defame “Neils-Morner”. I assume you are trying to defame Nils-Axel Mörner.
Since you like the statements approved by Connolley on Wicki, I quote this from there.
Defamations and smears are the only response of ‘warmists’ when confronted with evidence refuting AGW-scares from world-renowned authorities. It is a method for them to put their fingers in their ears and to shout “La, la, la”.
And your link is useless because Ferdinand dismisses anything which suggests ice-core data is less than gospel truth. His ‘plumbing model’ of the carbon cycle relies on ice-core data.
Richard
Joel Shore said
“Richard, tonyb: I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…and so perhaps my words were a little strong. However, his views on this subject of CO2 and ice core measurements are still pretty far out there…and not accepted by the scientific community and even the more science-based “AGW skeptics”, like Willis Eschenbach and Hans Erren.”
Yeah come on Joel, I cant keep defending you when you’re not around. I still remember that time I sided with you regarding Hansen and his Mars program 🙂
You really ought to read Jaworowski. He is far more lucid on the subject than the dubious ice core material which has such severe problems with fractionation. As for Beck, he was also very lucid on the subject of co2. I had the privilege of him dropping in to an article I wrote on co2 when he was very ill, just a few months before he died .I have still never had a satisfactory explanation as to how Keeling (who I also defend here as a fine scientist) despite having no expertise in the field, managed to immediately get his co2 measurements correct whilst his peers had apparently been getting them wrong for the previous 120 years. Perhaps you can tell me?.
By the way, when you say Hans Erren are you sure you don’t mean Ferdinand Engelbeen? I will also have to defend him in his absence. I met him when we went to a talk given By Dr Iain Stewart (of Tv’s ‘climate wars’) Ferdinand is very knowlegable and very patient and a sceptic. I happen to think hes wrong on co2, but even then Ferdinand does not believe that the stuff can cause the problems that the warmists believe.
tonyb
Richard
I followed your link but then had to read the entire thread in order to get the full flavour.
I don’t know if you saw it but I think that Joel was (sort of) apologising by the end. Joel should perhaps not try to enter the diplomatic corp, is very blinkered and has a woeful grasp of historical climatology. He also gets names wrong.
However….I give him credit for turning up here in a hostile environment and defending his corner. . With the demise of R Gates we are in danger of all singing from the same hymn sheet and that can only be detrimental to debate.
.
You clearly won the debate but I note Joels change of fortunes over the last few years and perhaps that has an effect on the manner in which he debates.
tonyb
izen says: May 19, 2012 at 8:58 am
“…Do you think there is ANY prospect I will see a winter as cold as the years of my youth again?”
I have to agree with izen. In my youth I had to wear a coat, a hat, and boots (for the snow) to school. Now, I can’t even remember the last time I had to wear a hat!
Of course, then I lived in the Colorado Rockies. Now I live in Southern California. Regardless, it feels warmer! And there seems to be a reason I moved to from Colorado to So. Cal… what is it… it sure isn’t the idiot politicians!
joelshore says:
“I must admit that I tend to mix up Jaworowski and Beck and did so in this case. Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…”
Speaking of crackpots, Joel Shore is also mixing up himself with Dr. G.E. Beck, who was a diligent, detail-oriented scientist. Beck collated more than 90,000 independent CO2 measuremennts taken by internationally esteemed scientists, including Nobel laureates [from a time when the Nobel Prize really meant something]. Those scientists measured CO2 levels that were significantly higher than the IPCC’s numbers, therefore Beck must be demonized by crackpots like Joel Shore.
izen says:
“unless there is a physical explanation for specific date selection such arbitrary parsing of the data is meaningless.” [As izen arbitrarily selects specific dates in his WFT chart.]
Here is a WFT chart that goes back as far as the WFT data base goes. Note that there is no accelerating warming. Global temperatures remain within the same parameters since the LIA. The planet has been warming — naturally — since the LIA, along the same long term trend line [the green line] and within the same parameters. Thus, any putative effect from the rise in CO2 is too small to measure.
Smokey
Heres the thread on co2 I wrote that Beck joned in with and that Ferdinand also contributed to.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
I would really like to see the Beck measurements properly audited so we can see once and for all if they are credible .
tonyb
tonyb:
At May 21, 2012 at 1:06 pm you say to me concerning Joel Shore:
Yes, I completely agree. In fact, it is rare for me to not agree with anything you say.
However, nobody should be allowed to smear reputations of the recently deceased in a public forum without very good reason, and a desire to hear all view points should not lead to such smears going unchallenged. Shores presentation of such untrue smears of Jaworowski and Beck (with whom I was acquainted) offended me as it would all who knew them.
Richard
Richard
I agree. As I say, Joel is not destined for a life in the diplomatic corp.
tonyb
tonyb says:
Probably…Those are two other names that occupy the same brain cell for me! I seem to be a bit dyslexic with names today.
Richard S Courtney says:
Since there was no such implication, you are just posturing (or you have severe reading comprehension problems). What I was pointing out was that the claim that the scientific community is discriminating against scientists with certain views is a claim that is made by nearly all of the losers in scientific debates and I was noting how you can find the same sort of claim made by creationists.
I did not smear them…I gave my opinion of their work that is relevant to the current discussion, an opinion that is likely shared by most of the scientific community. (And, to be honest, I haven’t kept track of whether they were recently deceased or not.) If you want to see smears, I suggest you look at any thread where commenters mention Michael Mann or Jim Hansen (which, come to think of it, doesn’t narrow things down much!), where you will find all sorts of nasty things stated , and the ones of which that make specific factual claims (including claims of fraud and what-not) are almost invariably completely unsupported by evidence.
By contrast, I haven’t said that Beck and Jaworowski are frauds. I have just said that their work regarding CO2 measurements was nonsense.
Regarding the $4 billion that the military spends, it could be that they’re wasting a lot less money than it seems. After all, that’s a category that would include both climate boondoggles and research on lighter batteries for soldiers’ gear. My guess is they’re being nice team players and looking for things to include in this category.
joeldshore:
I read your post at May 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm and this post says all that is needed as a response.
Richard
joeldshore says:
May 20, 2012 at 5:47 pm
Actually, the media have given way more “play” to people like Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen than they get through legitimate scientific means. It is because of the media’s desire for “balance”. If most scientists argued that the moon was composed of what it is composed of and Patrick Michaels and Richard Lindzen argued it was composed of green cheese, many of the media stories would be written as “Scientists disagree about composition of the moon”.
You can’t be serious. The vast majority of the stuff they write is pro-CAGW. Any mention of the opposing side or of a skeptic is to create the illusion of balance, when in fact what they really are doing is some sort of hatchet job with loads of smear and ad hom thrown in.
The climate “scientists”, in your moon analogy would actually be the ones claiming the moon is made of green cheese. The article would say something like “the overwhelming majority of scientists, backed by years of research and countless peer reviewed scientific papers states unequivocally that the moon is almost certainly made of green cheese. A few, with the backing of Big-oil funded think-tanks such as Heartland have tried to make the case that perhaps it isn’t. Meanwhile, though, the moon does appear to be becoming cheesier at an alarming rate, so it is important that we act now before it is too late.”
joeldshore says:
May 21, 2012 at 7:45 am
Jaworowski is probably not as far out on the “crackpot scale” as Beck is…
And then
joeldshore says:
May 21, 2012 at 2:18 pm
“Richard S Courtney says: … a desire to hear all view points should not lead to such smears going unchallenged.”
I did not smear them…I gave my opinion of their work that is relevant to the current discussion, an opinion that is likely shared by most of the scientific community.
That first quote wasn’t an opinion of their work, it was an opinion of their mental capacity. And kindly point me to the link for the announcement that *you* had been appointed spokesman for “most of the scientific community” — I missed that in the thread.
Joel said
‘What I was pointing out was that the claim that the scientific community is discriminating against scientists with certain views is a claim that is made by nearly all of the losers in scientific debates and I was noting how you can find the same sort of claim made by creationists.’
Come on Joel, you have been around long enugh to know that equating creationists (and tobacco lobbyists) with climate sceptics makes us just roll our eyes. However you did say something very interesting in the quote I excerpted above.
I suspect that like in many industries there are fashions in thoughts and research, for example my brand of historical climatology-and here I am standing on the shoulders of giants like Hubert Lamb-are highly unfashionable. Indeed much of the carefully recorded contemporary observations of our ancestors are routinely dismissed in a sneering fashion as ‘anecdotal’. as is touched on here;
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/lambs-science-to-the-slaughter/#more-3254
it is surely no coincidence that hard graft desk research (or in situ at such places as archives) have become displaced by computer modelling, and if the data doesnt exist in digital form it doesnt exist at all fror some modern model based researchers. So for ‘losers’ perhaps read ‘currently unfashionable.’
You do seem to have a blind spot with the historical aspect of climate science and I suspect only read material that relates to your particular viewpoint and automatically reject everything else. Can I respectfully suggest you read one of Lambs books? ‘Climate History and the Modern World’ would be a very good start point, which might give you renewed respect for the very wide breadth of climate related matters someone like him had?
In my own modest way I try to bring that type of material to a wider internet based readership, as otherwise we would focus entirely on trying to rationalise a still very unknown climatic process by way of dubious modelling and manipulation of statistics. What I wouldnt give for some serious research money, but alas the generous funding from Bg Oil seems to have dried up before it even reached me.
By the way, I was sorry to hear of your change of fortunes. Hope the economy picks up soon, but judging by the way that the lunatics are in charge of the asylum on this side of the pond as regards the nonsensical Euro, it may take some time before we are all in the comfortable place we would like to be.
Ps Just a friendly tip-you might find it useful to hone your diplomatic skills a little. to suggest that someone like Richard has severe reading comprehension prolems is nonsensical, especially when you mixed up your names and didn’t know the demise of important sceptical players. I do agree however that more respect from all sides would help, as soon as certain names are mentioned there is an immediate knee jerk reaction eg Beck and Mann..
tonyb
@- theOtherJohninCalif says:
“I have to agree with izen. In my youth I had to wear a coat, a hat, and boots (for the snow) to school. Now, I can’t even remember the last time I had to wear a hat!
Of course, then I lived in the Colorado Rockies. Now I live in Southern California.”
Haha
If you had not moved you might have noticed less warming, but as this data shows you would have noticed some…
http://nature.nps.gov/ClimateChange/docs/NCPN_CC.pdf
I see the defenders of the ridiculous are emerging. Jaworowski, Beck, Morner…. Next it will be Virial theory, G&T or the bary(ec)centrics. It shows a lack of discrimination of judgement. Or perhaps a judgement that only measures the degree of contradiction it has with mainstream AGW theory and uses that as the criteria.
To try and drag things back to the thread topic, however tenuously, the same lack of discrimination is apparent in the judgement of what is spent on ‘promoting’ AGW. The 60billion claim obviously includes things that are not AGW promotion, posters here have already mentioned the military use of solar and wind turbines for mobile power for infantry. Comparing like with like would clearly take a good deal more discrimination to identify the ‘promotional’ elements from the research, development and implementation aspects.
While something like Heartland has none of those costs.
Just as a matter of perspective, the 60billion total mentioned is around 2 months of exxon profits. Thats the relative magnitude, and influence, of the interests against AGW compared to the total spend researching it.
Izen:
Your post at May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am is another example of your misdirection and misinformation. Every statement in that post is mendacious. I cite some for illustration.
You say;
It is hard to imagine a more clear example of psychological projection than that!
Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner each conducted excellent work. Indeed, the scientific community recognised the worth of their work by showering Jaworowski and Morner with honours. And you claim to value the opinion of the scientific community when it fits your purpose. So, it is clear that any “lack of discrimination of judgement” is being exhibited by you.
Can you explain any significant fault in the work of Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner? No, you can’t, and that is why you apply the unfounded and unjustifiable smear of them being “ridiculous”.
And there is no “mainstream AGW theory”. There is merely the AGW-hypothesis which is refuted by all – yes, all – empirical evidence.
As for your saying;
I remind that it was you who introduced a smear of Morner (whose name you got wrong) so requiring a rebuttal of that smear.
Then having said you wanted to “drag things back to the thread topic” you say;
That is not “perspective”: it is a falsehood.
The oil industry funds e.g. the infamous AGW-promoting CRU. And the oil industry funds pro-AGW NGOs as ‘protection money’ to avoid another Brent Spar incident.
If you think that Exxon has $billions to oppose the AGW-scare then perhaps you could tell me how I can get some of it? I would take every cent.
Richard
izen says:
May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am
The 60billion claim obviously includes things that are not AGW promotion, posters here have already mentioned the military use of solar and wind turbines for mobile power for infantry.
Major League FAIL. The post clearly states, “The report revealed that from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 the federal government spent $68.4 billion to combat climate change. The Department of Defense also spent $4 billion of its budget, the report adds, on climate change and energy efficiency activities in that same time period.” My emphasis.
Which brings the total to $72,4 billion spent on solely on “climate change and energy efficiency activities.” The solar and wind projects for the ground-pounders are *projects* and are separately funded.
@- richardscourtney says:
“Your post at May 22, 2012 at 2:04 am is another example of your misdirection and misinformation. Every statement in that post is mendacious. I cite some for illustration.”
Thank you for all the effort you put into critiquing my posts. I find your meretricious comments most supportive.
Probably because the greater our disagreement the more confident I am in the validity of my position.
@- Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner each conducted excellent work. Indeed, the scientific community recognised the worth of their work by showering Jaworowski and Morner with honours.
True to a point. However the excellent work for which they are recognised is NOT the opinions they express about aspects of the evidence for AGW which get them so extensively quoted by those rejecting AGW. Here are some links that show what the scientific opinion is of their contrarian positions. –
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
http://womm.leolincourt.com/crikey-climate-change-deniers-also-believe-in
I know it can be difficult to accept that people you rely on for information have feet of clay, it is the reason it is wise to look at ALL opinions and discriminate on criteria other than conformity with your own prejudices.
One reason for attending to blogs and sites that conflict with your own views!
izen
You do realise that Ferdinand is a sceptic don’t you?
tonyb
izen:
Please at least try to be more sensible than your post at May 22, 2012 at 6:06 am.
It again smears Jaworowski, Beck, and Morner (i.e. they “have feet of clay”) and claims to dismiss their excellent work by linking to the blogs of Engelbeen and some blog I have not heard of.
Both Gail Combs and I previously rejected your assertions about Engelbeen’s views, and I see no reason to bother reading a blog from some nobody whom you commend.
If you have a valid criticism of the work of any of them then state it, otherwise go away.
Richard