(Note: The is a reply to Warren S. Warren’s guest post here – Anthony)
By Roger Cohen
First I would like to say that I respect Warren greatly. He has been very energetic in his support of the APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate (GPC) and contributed substantially to its development. There is no doubt that he “owns” the GPC, and it is very reasonable that he would try to defend it. We have certainly strongly disagreed on some matters, but I have been impressed by Warren’s openness to new data and new evidence.
Here are a few problems with his post.
First, after all is said and done, the fact remains that non scientific activities were routinely used to exclude proposed speakers whose findings do not support climate doctrine, while known public advocates were given a pass, and that consequently the program reflects this imbalance. Whether it was religious belief, or an endorsement of the “wrong side” in a newspaper OpEd, or the vague charge that a person was simply “too adversarial,” any stick that could be used to beat on an opposition speaker was suitable ammunition to exclude that speaker. This despite the fact that the science in question had been peer reviewed and published. But advocates sailed through without so much as a question. Indeed if notable IPCCers such as Susan Solomon and Kerry Emmanuel had not declined their enthusiastically proffered invitations, the advocates would have run the table. In that case Israeli physicist Nir Shaviv, who finds results in opposition to the doctrine, would not have made the roster from his position as “back up speaker.” Even so, he is the only one of seven invited speakers chosen by GPC whose science does not conform to the doctrine, and even he was proposed under the condition that he present “both sides,” a requirement not applied to any other speaker. The old saying applies here: “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then… it’s a duck.” Plenty of quacking in the GPC.
Then what should we make of the notion that, well, I am not a real “skeptic” because I may be associated with a decidedly non skeptical activity in carbon control. Here again I am at a loss to understand how this bears on the quacking. But Warren’s diversions into this arena and all manner of other irrelevancies are an object lesson in how some of my former compatriots reflexively cloud the real issue with unrelated fog; in this same fashion, all manner of extraneous non scientific objections were raised against proposed speakers with a skeptical inclination. The fact is that my criticisms of GPC bear on what science is exposed – and what isn’t — in a matter of great scientific controversy, not on whether one is a skeptic.
But yes, a few years ago I helped an old friend and colleague launch a privately funded start-up in CO2 air extraction technology. He and I, along with a few other principals even published a paper on it in that bastion of climate skepticism, “Energy and Environment.” (regular commenter Richard Courtney may recall that he reviewed it). But why do this if the CO2 issue is a non problem? Well, I am quite sure that that it is a non problem, but there is a small but finite probability that I am wrong. Thus, it might make sense to have a viable, cheap insurance policy on the table. However, the favored government measures of cap-and-trade and carbon taxes are absurdly expensive; the policy premium is larger than the risk being insured. Geoengineering is also absurd. The air extraction venture could be such a cheap policy, though much R, D & E remains to be done, and right now none of your tax dollars is paying for it. Thus it is a hedged strategy – something one does a lot of in industrial research and planning, where I spent my career.
Finally in order to claim some measure of balance in a completely imbalanced GPC program, Warren seeks to take credit for the GPC for inviting the well known skeptic Richard Lindzen. In a comment he writes, “In addition, Richard Lindzen (MIT) will be speaking at the March meeting, having earlier accepted an invitation to speak in a different session.” Warren neglects to mention that the “different session” was in fact set up by a completely different APS group which GPC had nothing to do with. Professor Lindzen’s invitation came from the Forum on International Physics (FIP), not the GPC. Without anyone in GPC knowing it, this separate and independent group developed an excellent diverse speakers program of international scope, including Professor Lindzen. When GPC Executive Committee members learned of this session, it explicitly refused the opportunity to cosponsor it. Thus we have the spectacle of the Topical Group on the Physics of Climate refusing to formally acknowledge another APS group’s efforts within the field of climate physics. The good news is that there is indeed a spark of objective science focus alive within the APS, but it is not in GPC.
Warren is right when he writes that the GPC “has the potential to dramatically improve the scientific discourse in this field.” Alas, what we have right now is a deeply flawed and biased APS Topical Group on the Physics of Climate. It desperately needs real oversight to ensure that fairness prevails. Until then it will lack credibility. Perhaps this incident will provide the impetus to bring about such a course correction. Let us hope.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve:
At October 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm you say
I am really interested to know of the “much more recent results that bolstered the statement”.
Would they be
(a) the global temperature measurements still showing no trend – so no global warming – since 1997,
(b) the absence of the “committed warming” asserted in the IPCC Report,
(c) the failure to detect the ‘hot spot’ which the IPCC Report said is the ‘fingerprint’ of warming from greenhouse gases,and
(d) the recent record amount of Antarctic ice?
Or perhaps you had some other “recent results” in mind?
My questions would seem to be of interest in the light of your defensive final sentence.
Richard
Steve says:
I find it telling that your original post that led to this thread clearly misrepresented the APS statement on climate change.
No it doesn’t. The APS statement is clearly a piece of engineered text, designed to strongly advance certain propositions while retaining ‘plausible deniability’ through deceitful parsing. It is that second component that you are attempting to work right now.
But let’s look at what the statement ACTUALLY said ” The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring. ” Note the word “incontrovertible” refers to evidence, i.e. observations – not to science or any theories or models.
Interesting assertion, that “science” does not encompass “evidence, i.e. observations”. Is there an official APS statement to that effect as well?
The statement does not even ascribe the warming to anthropogenic causes.
BS!
The two statements that immediately follow the “incontrovertable” one are:
“If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”
That incontrovertably ascribes the warming to anthropogenic causes. It is patently dishonest to claim otherwise.
Those interested in the arcane world of the APS Statement may be interested in this bit of history. After the 2010 additions for the purpose of clarification, the APS did quietly modify the Statement itself. In footnotes accessible through the small print in this link http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm certain “copy edits” entered in February 2012 suggest that the word “compelling” is more suitable than “incontrovertible.” However, there is no mention of the most significant change to the Statement: the insertion of a paragraph break between Paragraphs 2 and 3. In the original Statement, these two paragraphs were combined. This new separation is intended to create the appearance that what is “incontrovertible” is only the fact of global warming, not its attribution to human activity and the consequences of inaction. The original Statement made it clear that the fact of global warming, and its attribution and consequences were “incontrovertible.” This sleight of hand suggests a desire on the part of APS to distance itself from its own Statement without going through the formal step of revising or rescinding it and publicly announcing what it had done.
— Roger
Steve;
You may still disagree with the statement as it was written, as many readers of this site will,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You make the same error as Dr Warren made in his comment in the other thread. You and he both seem to know what readers of this blog think. This to me is as egregious as any of the other blatantly misleading statements made by the two of you to date. I challenge you, as I did Dr Warren:
Show up.
Show up and participate.
I refer to myself as a raging skeptic, but I’ve spent as much time on this site debunking bad science by skeptics as I have being critical of poor science by alarmists. I’ve spent enough time explaining that “back radiation” in fact exists, and how we know it exists, that I’ve been accused of being a warmist on multiple occassions. That’s just a single example. There’s plenty of skeptics out there with poor or outright wrong understanding of the science, and many of us go out of our way to set the record straight. Robert Brown shows up. Richard Courtney shows up. Leif Svalgaard shows up. Roy Spencer shows up. Clive Best, Roger Pielke, Paul Homewood, Ryan Mau….the list goes on and on and on.
Get something wrong in regard to the science on this site and you will get pummeled in a hurry (I speak from experience on this also). If you’d engage, you’d discover that your assumption that this audience is a single shade of white is not just wrong, it is hopelessly wrong. Will you and Dr Warren’s comments be poorly received? Yes. But the reasons for this are far more diverse than you can possibly imagine.
So far, in my opinion, both you and Dr Warren have come out looking rather poorly. Manipulative in fact. I suggest that your best shot at redemption is to leave your attempt to defend the indefensible behind and instead do something that is actually positive for the debate and the discussion, which is to show up in this and other forums, and participate in a positive fashion.
The year is 2012 Dr Warren. Science is not longer restricted to ivory tower discussions facilitated by member’s only journals. Newspapers and magazines (and a journal is no more than a niche market magazine) are increasingly irrelevant. The days of the printing press are over. Absent any government control over what can and cannot be published on the internet, the days of committees of “interested parties” formed for political purposes inside of otherwise credible science societies are similarly numbered.
For good or ill, the real debate is moving to forums such as this one. Does that mean we need to put up with a lot of chaff mixed into the wheat? Absolutely it does. But the science will prevail for the simple reason that the forum is open, and nobody can form committees that purport to represent the opinions of others when they do not.
So what shall it be Steve? Dr Warren? Will you join us in the 21st century? Will you descend from your ivory tower, participate, teach, and learn? Will you find out for yourself what we think and why?
Will you show up?
Roger Cohen says:
This new separation is intended to create the appearance that what is “incontrovertible” is only the fact of global warming, not its attribution to human activity and the consequences of inaction.
It is much worse than that. Above, we have a purported member of that committee claiming that attribution of the warming to human activity was not asserted at all, let alone as incontrovertable.
It is a surreal experience, watching people tell lies like that.
You don’t say!? We’re shocked! Shocked! /sarc
So, let’s see; Warren is a true CAGW cultist in spite of education that should’ve limited blind AGW faith and hatred of those who might be better scientists than him.
Steve; is a raging CAGW cultist who wants the open minded scientists and their ilk under
control, er, thumbs of the faithful. You wouldn’t be the minion assigned to read the WUWT posts for Warren would you?Both Warren and Steve have clearly demonstrated:
Complete lack of science
Complete lack of professional civility
Complete absence of nobility and honor
Absolute ability to twist facts to meet your needs. Faith before sscience eh?
Expressed desire to reign as masters over APS and subgroups
Absurd notions of how people work together (reason for the minion assumption, only one lord and master)
What both of have clearly expressed and demonstrated is that the APS people think they joined is not the APS you’re building/contriving. Both of you have made a mockery of science and APS.
I believe it is now time for members of the APS that still believe in science and the scientific method to consider a new APS type society. Perhaps start a WUWT type blog for APS ex- and soon to be ex-members.
Alternatively, APS members who care could try to take back APS and again make it a society of brilliant scientists. Though given what we see here as venomous snakes in the grass subverting science, it will not be easy.
In either case, or other alternatives, someone needs to spread the word and expose all of these machinations for ‘your good’. Facts nor method, apparently, do not matter to these cultists.
Basically, it appears that APS has definitely joined the ranks of societies and publications that used to be scientific.
Gerald Kelleher says:
October 26, 2012 at 12:36 am
http://drtimball.com/2012/what-causes-el-nino-la-nina-ipcc-doesnt-know-but-builds-models-and-makes-projections-anyway/
Are you up for some reading?
David,I look at current climate issues as a minor element of a much larger historical and technical picture by pushing climate temporarily into the background and the idea that our species can control the planet’s temperature – something that gets lost amid assertions and counter-assertions
here and what is really an assault on the eyes.
I look at where the modeling/predictions agenda originally arose and specifically the technical details surrounding its acceptance in the late 17th century with the idea that there is no perceptual boundary between the behavior of objects at a human level on one side with the motion and behavior of objects at a planetary and solar system scale on the other side.
What they did in the late 17th century was bundle the separate AM/PM system and the Lat/Long system, which together contain the information that the Earth turns once in 24 hours,into a calendar based clockwork system known as Ra/Dec hence the clockwork solar system beloved of modelers and why today it is close to impossible to find a scientist who can keep one 24 hour day in step with one rotation.Without that basic fact,our era can’t explain why the temperature goes up and down daily in response to the rotation of the Earth but we can,with the Ra/Dec system,predict when a star or the moon will rise and set,when a lunar or solar eclipse will occur and things like that.The price for being able to predict the locations of celestial objects within a rotating celestial sphere (Ra/Dec) is terrible as we lose cause and effect between planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects.
That men would eventually predict that humans can control planetary temperatures was inevitable given the priority of predictions/modeling over the stable narrative of interpretative sciences.I try not to give into dismay that the issues here have descended into personal animosities mostly falling along the lines of political/social concerns when the genuine issue is what we inherited from previous generations through the centuries.We are the first generation to have the capacity to actually do something productive with celestial and terrestrial sciences but iconic historical characters and their iconic theories are initially hard to overcome and especially when jobs and reputations are relying on them.
Although, I agree with Warren’s views, you’ve raised some valid points. While reading his post, I also felt that Warren was unnecessarily trying to take credit for inviting Richard Lindzen.