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.
@- tonyb says:
“You do realise that Ferdinand is a sceptic don’t you?”
Yes.
Thats why I cited him rather than the many more mainstream peer reviewed sources that refute Beck, Jaworowski, and Morner. I thought that might overcome the resistance that some here have to ANY view contary to their own! {grin}
I find his analysis of Jaworowski, and Beck, cogent and convincing, certainly much more so than Jaworowski and Beck, published {but not peer reviewed!} opinions.
Morner of course confirms his ‘crackpot’ status without the need of close scientific analysis. The water and metal divining and the racial/archeological beliefs put him in with the cranks.
Becks claims about high CO2 levels, interpriting local measurement as global, fail on the ground of the consevation of mass. Unfeasible amounts of carbon would need to appear and vanish by ‘magic’ if those numbers were accurate global levels.
Jaworowski claims fractination and diffusion processes which are dependent on physical parameters just happen to give the same results for ice cores with very different physical parameters which would have very different fractionation and diffusion rates – if these were altering the data.
Its reliance on the sort of easily refuted nonsense that comes from people like these that destroys the credibility {such as it is} of much of the ‘skeptic’ side.
Izen
Richard makes a very good point. Why don’t you actually-in your own words- cite some valid and meaningful scientific criticism of the work of the three people you mentioned?
I don’t agree with Engelbeens analysis either, and whilst he holds those views on ice cores etc he is sceptical of the devastating effects of co2
tonyb
izen says:
May 22, 2012 at 6:06 am
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.
You *do* realize that you just said “when the subject is AGW, opinion trumps science,” don’t you?
…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!
Place your opinions in one hand and spit into the other one — see which fills up first.
That’s how much opinion counts for when you’re discussing *facts*.
Izen
So, as you are so fond of quoting Engelbeen you must therefore agree with his analysis that co2 doesn’t have much of an effect. You wouldn’t want to be inconsistent would you?.
By the way, as well as Morner, we can also presumably discount Arrhenius because of his racial views? Is Hansen extreme enough for you in quoting a 15metre rise by 2100?
tonyb
Izen:
You have come here spreading smears and falsehoods like confetti but have not substantiated any of them despite my calls for you to provide some justification of them.
For example, part of my response to your assertion about Exxon’s “influence” asked you:
Since then you have provided two more posts which each provides more smears but does not answer my question.
I now write to address your latest smears.
You say;
Bollocks! Stupidity is an inadequate description of your assertion.
Whatever Morner thinks and/or believes about “water and metal divining and the racial/archeological beliefs” says nothing about the quality of his scientific research.
Isaac Newton believed in astrology but that says nothing about the quality of his scientific research. But, according to you, that makes Newton a “crank” so his Laws of Motion and his Principia must be wrong and should be ignored.
As Einstein pointed out, Aryan science does not exist but science does.
Then you write;
More bollocks!
It seems to that your desire to proclaim your ignorance has no bounds. To begin to remove some of that ignorance you can read the excellent discussion in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/
Here I merely refute your silly assertion of “carbon” (i.e. CO2) needing to “to appear and vanish by ‘magic’ “.
For each year the annual rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is the residual of the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (~1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to ~3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere, as is often stated. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = ~2% of all emissions “accumulate” in the air.
The most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data (not really his, but he collated it) is the fall from 440 ppmv in 1942 to 320 ppmv in 1952. That equates to a fall of 240 GtC over the ten years or 24 GtC/year.
In each year of the Mauna Loa data the natural emission and the natural sequestration is each observed to be over 150 GtC/year.
So, the most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data would result from a variation of natural sequestration or natural emission of less than16%. And if both varied to create the fall then the needed natural variation would only be 8%.
That is not “magic”.
And similar variation in the opposite direction would induce faster rise than is observed in the Beck data.
A scientific argument would be a discussion of any possible limits to the variability of the seasonal variability of the carbon cycle. It would not include blatantly untrue claims about “magic”.
Not content with your ludicrous twaddle about “magic” concerning Beck’s data, you assert a magical effect when you say;
Say what!?
Ice is ice. Air is air. And water turns to ice at its freezing temperature. So, diffraction and diffusion properties of the gases in air are subject to the same physical parameters in each ice core.
Unless, of course, you are claiming the different physical parameters are induced by magic.
I have had enough of you. Your nonsense is a waste of space on this thread. GO AWAY.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
Really?!?! Would you care to share with us the details of these honors that were showered upon them for the work that we are discussing. That should be a fascinating read!
tonyb says:
Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.
I think you need to do a little soul-searching and ask yourself, “Why are we being equated with creationists, not just by some members of the scientific community like Joel, but also by the most important group that was working to fight to defend the teaching of evolution in our schools and has recently expanded their work to include fighting to defend the teaching of climate science (as understood by the scientific mainstream) in the schools?” ( http://ncse.com/news/2012/01/ncses-climate-change-initiative-launched-007149 )
I am really trying to help you guys turn away from pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to make coherent scientific arguments that won’t be laughed off by the scientific community. Unfortunately, there seems to be great resistance to this.
richardscourtney says:
Newton was a product of his time. I think in the modern era, when people say things like “Intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism” (http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2005/08/faith-based-evolution.html), it is quite sensible to use this as piece of evidence in considering the person’s scientific judgment. This is particularly true when many people around here’s belief system rests on the notion that this particular scientist is right and nearly everyone else in the field is wrong, and that we should thus elevate his work above all the other work by all the other scientists who get reach different conclusions.
Richard S Courtney says:
That’s quite the impressive variation given that nothing nearly like that has happened once Keeling starting measuring CO2 accurately! I guess this is the quantum theory of CO2 in the atmosphere: It varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!
Basically, what you are saying is this: If we abandon everything we know about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, based on a half century of good empirical data and 3/4 of a million years of ice core records…And, if we believe measurements that we know for a fact were not taken in ways that make them accurate measurements of background CO2…And, if we believe that the CO2 variations magically average out in ice cores to give a very flat signal, on multiple time scales (since the various ice cores have very different snow accumulation rates and thus very different times over which they average)…Then, one might be able to justify Beck!
Yes, I will now apologize for comparing such arguments to those of Young Earth creationists. The Young Earthers that I have interacted with actually have some more compelling arguments!
joeldshore says:
May 22, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.
You’re rather conveniently ignoring the fact that the Climategate e-mails validate the argument for discrimination. You’re also conveniently forgetting that Mann et al. do, in fact, duck public debates — most recently illustrated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/a-first-hand-report-on-dr-michael-manns-embarrasing-disneyland-episode/
I am really trying to help you guys turn away from pseudoscientific nonsense and at least try to make coherent scientific arguments that won’t be laughed off by the scientific community.
Says the primary proponent for pseudoscientific nonsense on the thread.
Joel said;
‘Well, if AGW skeptics don’t want to be equated with them, then they ought to stop stealing the creationist arguments, i.e., arguments like, “The scientific community is discriminating against us and so that is why we can’t get published in the peer-reviewed literature” or “They refuse to publicly debate us”.
There you go, putting all of us who disagree with the cagw proposition into one large box you conveniently like to label ‘mad sceptics-do not open.’
Have you EVER heard me say this about peer review etc? No. The variety of views sceptics hold is at once our greatest strength and our greatest weakness, but the majority of us are not knuckle dragging neanderthals. We are rational people-many of whom once held your views-who have actually taken the time to examine the evidence.
Where have I been recently trying to do this in order to research my next two articles? Sitting reading reports about creationsust or admiring the tactics of the tobacco lobby? No. I have breen spending my time and my money visiting the Met office library. The Met office archives. The library of Exeter Cathedral. The excellent records office which has documents back to the 12th Century. Next month I am off to the Scott Polar institutre in Cambridge. Plus there is a massive amount on line. Indeed, I have accessed some 500 polar articles over the last few months and had to pay for some of them. I’ve been in contact with the librarian of Universities in the polar regions and talked to explorers out there. When I was researching my sea level article, did I sit here wondering about creationism or did i actually visit several sites to look at what was happening?
Joel, the problem I have is that-despite the expers saying otherwise- what we are experiencing is not unprecedented, sometimes its not even unusual. There is a load of evidence out there -anecdotal and scientific- that says otherwise.If the physics are so sound why do warnists persist in trying to redraw the past?
Way up the thread I asked you this, perhps you could answer it now as you have touched on it with Richard in your last post.
” As for Beck, he was also very lucid on the subject of co2. I had the privilege of him dropping in to a (thread) 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?’
Ps For the record I do not believe in creationism, the tobacco arguments, the conspiracy theories surrounding Princess Diana and 9/11.That the moon landing was faked or that aliens create crop circles. I am an entirely rational modern person who has taken the trouble to read and research widely and who thinks that tree rings should never have been used to create a climate story not borne out by many other sources.
tonyb.
joeldshore:
At May 22, 2012 at 2:13 pm you ask me:
Would you care to share with us the details of these honors that were showered upon them for the work that we are discussing.
Well, as an example, Morner was awarded the ‘Golden Contrite of Merits’ by Algarve University in recognition of his work on sea-level change in the Maldives. But such examples are not the point.
The fact is that these gentlemen are highly respected scientists whose scientific achievements are acknowledged by the awards they have been given by the scientific community. You assert the authority of the scientific community when it suites your purpose. But when it comes to the scientific credibility of these gentlemen then you claim that authority is not relevant.
Instead, you smear the work of these gentlemen “that we are discussing” without any stated reason except that you do not like its findings.
And your post at May 22, 2012 at 6:14 pm is plain daft. It accurately quotes me as saying;
In each year of the Mauna Loa data the natural emission and the natural sequestration is each observed to be over 150 GtC/year.
So, the most rapid change indicated by Beck’s data would result from a variation of natural sequestration or natural emission of less than16%. And if both varied to create the fall then the needed natural variation would only be 8%.
That 150 GtC/year is the variation (+ and – ) of the CO2 in the air during each year (i.e. it is the seasonal variation). Therefore, the natural emission and the natural sequestration could vary – but probably does not – by up to double that during each year.
And you say;
That’s quite the impressive variation given that nothing nearly like that has happened once Keeling starting measuring CO2 accurately! I guess this is the quantum theory of CO2 in the atmosphere: It varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!
But something much greater than that happens during every year. It is the seasonal variation.
And you abandon both reality and veracity when you write;
“It [i.e. atmospheric CO2 concentration] varies like crazy when we don’t look at it but all of a sudden settles down and behaves completely differently once we start measuring it!”
Beck’s data is a collation of measurements of it. His data shows that most of the time (e.g. from 1865 to 1930) the variation over decades is similar to that observed at Mauna Loa since 1958. But in some decades (e.g near 1820 and near 1940) atmospheric CO2 makes excursions up to 440 ppmv.
So, Beck’s data and the Mauna Loa data show similar atmospheric CO2 concentration over decades except that the Mauna Loa data has not been obtained for a time which includes an excursion.
And your comments about the carbon cycle and ice cores are stupidity based on ignorance. You say;
Basically, what you are saying is this: If we abandon everything we know about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, based on a half century of good empirical data and 3/4 of a million years of ice core records…And, if we believe measurements that we know for a fact were not taken in ways that make them accurate measurements of background CO2…And, if we believe that the CO2 variations magically average out in ice cores to give a very flat signal, on multiple time scales (since the various ice cores have very different snow accumulation rates and thus very different times over which they average)…Then, one might be able to justify Beck! “
That is so wrong that it would require writing a book to explain all that is wrong with it!
I provide a few comments sufficient to show it is daft.
Firstly, I object to your putting words in my mouth. If you really want to know what I am saying then read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
We know ‘sweet FA’ about how CO2 transfers between different reservoirs, but we do know that the sizes of the reservoirs and the flows between them both vary greatly but in unknown ways.
The ice core records are “smoothed”. The firn (i.e. the top of the forming ice) takes time to seal to become solid ice: the IPCC says this takes 83 years. During that time the firn contains open porosity. Therefore, variations in atmospheric pressure will mix the air in the firn while diffusion will reduce high concentrations and increase low concentrations of gases in that air.
Assuming the IPCC 83-year closure time is correct, then the smoothing is equivalent to conducting an 83-year running mean on data obtained from ice that sealed in a single year. This very large smoothing means it is not possible for ice cores to show variations similar to those indicated by Beck’s data. Indeed, it means the ice cores cannot show a rise such as that in the Mauna Loa data if that rise is a fluctuation that has duration less than ~167 years.
And the “multiple time scales” of formation of different cores only affects the degree of the smoothing. The very-fast-formation ice only provides very recent data so tells nothing about Beck’s data.
That is physics: it is not “magic”.
Importantly, I do not need “to justify Beck!“ His data has no known flaw.
You need to explain a flaw in Beck’s data but you cannot so, instead, you have tried to say it must be wrong because it does not fit other data which you prefer. That is NOT science: it is prejudice. And, as I have shown, Beck’s data DOES fit the other data.
Richard
Richard
I was interested in your earlier comments on the potential amount of outgassing and the specific examples you gave of a peak co2 reading in the 1940’s and 1820’s
I don’t know if you ever caught the article I wrote on co2 some 3 years ago which was carried over at the Air Vent? The article was primarily intended to look at the historic and social background to co2 readings from 1820 to the advent of Mauna Loa rather than their accuracy.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Ernst himself eventually participated in the discussion although even at the time he must have been very ill. Although my interest initially was in the background to the measurements it soon became clear the measurements were considered to be so accurate that British legislation was passed in the 1880’s in order to regulate co2 levels in cotton factories. References were also made in popular novels of the time and patents on the measuring equipment passed. The levels were also considered matter of fact in science journals of the time (which at the least demonstrates that science is never settled)
That so many people apparently managed to get it so wrong for so many years until Keeling came along and did it right first time (even though he had no prior expertise in the subject) has never been satisfactorily explained to me. That the start point of the pre industrial era levels of co2 were cherry picked to be on the low side was abundantly clear from reading Callendars archives.
I came to think that the methodology, equipment and people were often so good that large mistakes were unlikely, and believe that an audit of the more credible scrutinised readings would be worthwhile and dispel the queries either way once and for all.
Going back through my article again with your comments uppermost I was struck by two items in the bloggers responses
“NASA/GISS is broken down by hemisphere, and several latitude bands. Graph them all and it is spaghetti. So here’s just global and another graph showing just arctic zones. The scale on the left is temperature anomaly in 100′ths of degrees:
http://knowledgedrift.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/arctic-zones-vs-global.png “
So, unusually in the record, both the polar regions warmed at the same time which presumably would have an effect on outgassing. This period was exactly around the time –the 1930’s- that the high measurements were recorded .
Someone else commenting after I announced Becks death on the thread said;
“I also wanted to send him some interesting links:
For example, this with: ‘Global and European temperature (CSI 012) – Assessment published Jun 2010’,
showing that the land (Europe) temperature changes during the period 1910-1950, were “shockingly” abrupt (this a propos: “cannot explain the rapid decrease after 1940”).
Sure enough this abrupt spike in temperatures can be seen.
As for the 1820’s co2 spike, this is surely connected with the rapid warming of the arctic around that period that I wrote about here?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
tonyb
Tonyb:
Thankyou most sincerely for your post addressed to me at May 23, 2012 at 5:16 am.
Your article in your first link (i.e.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/ )
is fascinating and contains much historical information which I did not know. It is an interesting, entertaining and informative read for anybody. In my opinion it deserves a wider audience.
Is it possible for you to get Anthony to put it up as a Guest Post on WUWT?
I did know the information in its ‘Section Two’ titled ‘How 280ppm became the accepted pre industrial norm’. But your account of that is lucid and is part of why I think your paper deserves a wider audience.
I thought this aside was notable;
Clearly, real science was being conducted by scientists who were challenging each other on their methods and results.
And this is very informative;
[snip]
These results provide a demonstration of the limitations of Greenland ice-cores as indicators of short time periods when high atmospheric CO2 concentration existed.
And your defence of Jaworowski is good. (Erren’s fly-by in the comments was roundly – and rightly – rejected by other commentators).
Your second link is about Arctic ice; i.e.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
It looks good to me, but I think commentators on that thread have more knowledge of that than me so I am not willing to add to those comments on it.
However, you ask me a specific question; viz.
I think you are right: but the “spike” and the Arctic warming may be coincidental.
Similarly, as you observe, it is interesting that both polar regions warmed around 1940 when the data collated by Beck also shows a “CO2 spike”.
But – with the present state of knowledge of the carbon cycle – the mechanisms responsible for these “spikes” cannot be known. *sigh*
Richard
Richard
Thank you for your kind comments. As I say I was initially interested in the historical and social background to co2 and started to write it on that basis . It became clear that there were many other issues all mixed in with the subject which meant anyone writing about Beck without being extremely rude about him was automatically a crackpot. It was consdered so highly controversial that I understand that the Air vent was advised not to run it.
I thought the input from supporters and enemies alike was fascinating and I subsequently added links to other threads on the subject which i think makes the article an invaluable resource whichever side of the fence you sit.
Ernst was not always good at expressing himself-not surprising as he wrote in a foreign language- and I think he came to regret launching his papers as he did, complete with some rather old fashioned looking graphs and some bold assertions that were guaranteed to get up the nose of the climate establishment.. He very substantially upgraded hs presentation in later years but by that time the damage was dome. Ernst rowed against the tide and I hope that someone out there is continuing his work and pushing for an independent audit of the material. I for one would make a small financial contrubtion to that end, as I think this matter needs to be settled once and for all, one way or the other.
Incidentally I am currently writing Part two of ‘historic variations in arctic ice’ and it is clear that through the Holocene there have been some seven substantial arctic meltings and no doubt many minor ones. Whether they coincided with the antarctic warm phase I dont know, but clearly the relative steadiness of the co2 in the atmosphere seems somewhat at odds with nature, which normally progresses in fits and starts rather than a slow steady predictable change.
tonyb.
Follow the Money says:
May 22, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Left wing, blah, blah; socialism blah blah. . Obama’s crew is both in the pocket of cap and trade wall street AND Nat gas and nuke industries. Industries use the government to gain competitive advantage … increased profits. That’s business. Follow the Money. Who profits by the actions?
___________________________
Correct.
I some times think “Marxism” was the biggest hoax ever foisted on the masses by the would be ruling classes intent on turning a profit. WAR is a big money maker for banks and certain corporations. Politicians will follow the dictates of the big bucks funding their campaigns and ideas.
Let’s face it “Marxism” with its anti-property, anti-capitalism, pro-big government, pro-big taxes is ready made for those who want maximum control and the minimum competition. The world as it is today is a great example with its consolidation of industry into the hands of a few and vertical integration within business sectors. Meanwhile attention is diverted from what is actually happening by various “socialist” activism like “green Energy” “Sustainability” and other idiocy.
[snip]
To the moderators:
So let’s try this again… You can post unsourced information and as soon as someone provides an alternative view from a non-mainstream source that refutes all points made you just censor it because you have no rebuttal? Wow, glad to know that rather than trying to have an intelligent conversation about the issue we are now reduced to selective censoring to support your points of view. How very conservative of you.
Again… The truth is all around you if you only understood the scientific method.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/