An open letter to the U.N from climate skeptics

David Ball says:
December 1, 2012 at 11:33 am
trafamadore says:
December 1, 2012 at 10:57 am
“The other trouble is that it’s hard to get scientifically sound evidence for preliminary results against AGW”
Really? You cannot even use spell check and you expect to carry credibility on a statement like that?
___________________________________
David, He is correct. If you can not get funding for the project then you can not get the evidence. This is main way scientific results are controlled by the politicians.
Remember what happened to Dr. Jaworowski.

….Dr. Jaworowski has devoted much of his professional life to the study of the composition of the atmosphere, as part of his work to understand the consequences of radioactive fallout from nuclear-weapons testing and nuclear reactor accidents. After taking numerous ice samples over the course of a dozen field trips to glaciers in six continents, and studying how contaminants travel through ice over time, he came to realize how fraught with error ice-core samples were in reconstructing the atmosphere. The Chernobyl accident, whose contaminants he studied in the 1990s in a Scandinavian glacier, provided the most illumination.
“This ice contained extremely high radioactivity of cesium-137 from the Chernobyl fallout, more than a thousand times higher than that found in any glacier from nuclear-weapons fallout, and more than 100 times higher than found elsewhere from the Chernobyl fallout,” he explained. “This unique contamination of glacier ice revealed how particulate contaminants migrated, and also made sense of other discoveries I made during my other glacier expeditions. It convinced me that ice is not a closed system, suitable for an exact reconstruction of the composition of the past atmosphere.”
Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be “immoral” if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.
The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute’s director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that “this is not the way one gets research projects.” Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, “this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute.” Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski’s science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding…
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=25526754-e53a-4899-84af-5d9089a5dcb6

Unfortunately this story has played out many many times when ever a honest scientist gets crosswise of $$$ or a political agenda. Lying and cheating pays, honesty gets you fired and ultimately blackballed. BTDT and have the T-shirt.

David Ball says:
December 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Wtf is “trafamadore”? I am familiar with Tralfamadore. Cannot spell, cannot get a reference correct, why is anyone even bothering with this clown?
__________________________________
For the silent majority who read this site but never comment. I always try to keep in mind that WUWT has a large audience.

The reason there are periodic scares throughout history without much reference to any data, is the same reason as any other attempt to overthrow an existing order, to gain and control power and resources.
If any group wishes to re-model a society, their evidence and reasons have to be pretty darn good, but first and foremost they generally need the backing of the larger portion of society to do it.
Elements of the climate change movement have specifically targeted and attacked natural resources, in order to gain and control power and resources. Communists targeted economic resources, the old religions targeted social resources, and climate change alarmists target natural resources.
This tendancy to attack the existing order with threats or doom and gloom is so pervasive throughout history it has probably become ingrained into the collective consciousness, where dropouts and misfits instinctively resort to ‘end of the world is coming billboards’ regardless of the current situation or evidence; these people represent the lower end of the social tendancy, (whether at high levels and sophisticated, or at lower levels of the social stratum and rudimentary), of the constant Darwinian internal struggle for power and resources within societies and cultures. The important point to know, is that this tendancy to prophesise doom and gloom isn’t confined to the local village misfit or the daily spam email, it can even pervade high level science and other institutions, such as the world bank. And the people who seem the most prone to believing and promoting it, can be intelligent and otherwise worldly, but they are usually blissfully naive and unaware of the flaws in both human nature and the tendancy to this historic pattern, which makes it all the more likely for them to continmue to be deceived and to self-deceive themselves.
The climate change movement could be onto something true and relevant, if they adopted the methods of verifiable and reproducable empirical science , but their methodology and style reveal that some high level alarmists have abandoned science and prefer to tap into a deeper revolutionary social instinct that is mechanistic and therefore has little to do with external reality, to gain control of natural resources through prophecies of doom and collapse, in order to subvert the broader social system.
Call me paranoid, except that history and the local village misfit attests to it; it has always been the same, different age, different words, but the same underlying desire to fabricate information to control through fear and distortion.

pax says:
December 1, 2012 at 2:32 pm
So show that he is wrong. Should be easy.

He is saying there is no science to go up against the AGW meme.

“trafamadore” says:
“So, by analogy, you mean to suggest that carbon based energy might be replaced?”
No. I was not making an analogy. I was pointing out the fact that you are alarmed by something that has no convincing supporting evidence. A self-serving climate witch doctor cult has you convinced that a tiny trace gas, which has failed to cause any global warming for a decade and a half, is about to cause runaway global warming and climate disruption. That is crazy.
“trafamadore” also responded to RA Cook, again incorrectly:
“…you are the one betting against the scientists, not me.”
Wrong again. There is no scientific “consensus” that CO2 will cause climate disruption and runaway global warming. There is a tiny but loud clique that uses that scare tactic to enrich itself by frightening scientifically illiterate true believers.
The real scientific consensus is reflected in the 31,400+ co-signers of the OISM Petition, which states in part:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

The climate alarmist clique has tried repeatedly to get more signatures on its many counter-petitions to the OISM Project. They have failed miserably, getting a total of only a small fraction of the OISM numbers [and many are duplicate signatures]. Thus, they are not the ‘consensus’. Most scientists know the truth: the catastrophic AGW scare is fueled by grant money and status, not by scientific evidence.
The OISM Petition co-signers are from the U.S. only; all have professional degrees, specifically in the hard sciences, and co-signers include more than 9,000 PhD’s. They are mainstream scientists who know and understand science and the scientific method. Furthermore, they did not have the option of emailing in their petition signatures; they had to download and print out their petition forms, sign them, pay the postage and mail them in. The fact that tens of thousands of American scientists went out of their way to take a stand — stating that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial — means more than all the evidence-free climate alarmist nonsense put together.
“trafamadore” is simply a sheltered Chicken Little in his academic ivory tower, who has mindlessly bought into the pseudo-scientific global warming scare. He gets no traction here at the internet’s “Best Science” site because WUWT readers are much more knowledgeable and educated than most blog readers. We have debated every aspect of AGW, and we know all the arguments inside-out. We know that Planet Earth is not cooperating with the relatively small climate alarmist clique, and we know that the planet doesn’t lie. Neither the planet, nor science, nor empirical observations support the catastrophic AGW scare. It is a false alarm. Those perpetuating that false alarm use name-calling and emotion, because they do not have the science or reasonable arguments to support their belief system.
Sixteen years, and counting…

One of the “scientists” who signed this letter is Anthony Watts. You guys crack me up.

mbw says:
“One of the ‘scientists’ who signed this letter is Anthony Watts. You guys crack me up.”
From my handy desktop dictionary:
scientist |ˈsīəntist|
n. a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.
Thus, Anthony Watts qualifies as a true scientist.
Pretty sure you’re not, though.
.
psion says:
“Once again, you pretend you know what you’re talking about. Are you a geospinologist with recent scientific publications, Mr. Watts regarding what makes the world go ’round? No?”
As a matter of fact, Anthony Watts is a published, peer reviewed author in the field of climatology. So thanx for the opportunity to expose your pathetic ignorance.
Run along now back to your thinly trafficked echo chamber alarmist blog. You need some new talking points, because it’s clear you can’t think for yourself.