This can’t be good:
In last 24 hrs, correspondence w 3 multi decade members of The American Meteorological Society, we all quit due to AMS position on #climate
— Tim Kelley NBC10 Boston (@TimNBCBoston) June 21, 2013
It gets worse:
Officers of American Meteorological Society writing position papers based on dogma, not science. Members not allowed to disagree #climate
— Tim Kelley NBC10 Boston (@TimNBCBoston) June 21, 2013
h/t to Steve Milloy
Roy,
Just saw your post and understand your – difficulty with the “most distructive” label. Yes, 509 by last count homes burned, some 14,200 acres. This fire is the most distructive in dollars in state history because many of the homes burned were over $1 million in value. The Black Forest is not only close to Colorado Springs, it is probably the most affluent in the area. The Waldo Canyon fire that burned some 360 homes was a middle class neighborhood by contrast.
We’ve had four years of little rain and homes in timber areas are in danger from explosive fire activity – for real and true. We have some 9 fires burning in the state now, about half by my count are human caused like the Black Forest Fire. The rest are dry lightning…
Hope that helps.
Mike
The tide is most definitely changing. It will be interesting to watch the process as scientific organizations, scientists, and politicians abandon the AGW fiasco. After 16 years of no warming, there is now the first observational evidence of cooling.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/06/climate-change
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
A colossal amount of money has been wasted on green scams to fight climate ‘change’. Subsidizing green scams results in the loss of real jobs. The higher and higher cost of energy is one of the reasons why there is record unemployment in the EU and why the EU is no longer competitive.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/the-data-is-in-more-green-jobs-means-less-real-ones/
The comments made in this interview with IPCC lead author Hans Van Storch are an unprecedented admission of the failure of the general circulation models that were used by the IPCC to make alarmist predictions and the first public admission from a lead warmist that the climate ‘science’ was fudged.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/20/if-things-continue-as-they-have-been-in-five-years-at-the-latest-we-will-need-to-acknowledge-that-something-is-fundamentally-wrong-with-our-climate-models/
Hans Van Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn’t mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”
William: Less CO2 warming does not explain no warming for 16 years. As atmospheric CO2 continues to rise planetary temperature must increase in a wiggly manner as the CO2 forcing does not go away. It appears at least 0.45C of the 0.7C warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar modulation of planetary clouds. The latitudes where the warming has occurred are the latitudes that are most strongly affected by solar modulation of planetary cloud cover. There is a lack of warming to explain and the fact that the latitudinal pattern of observed warming does not match the AGW forcing pattern.
Hans Van Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more — and by the end of this century, mind you. That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
William: Give us a break. We will see less than 1C warming due to doubling of atmospheric CO2. ‘Skeptic’ scientific analysis puts the estimated warming at 0.3C. There is no need to ask people what their ‘instinct’ tells them. Enough is enough, the warmists propaganda has to stop and will stop, as the planet is cools.
Jai, if you believe that first video was a “very good discourse” then there’s really no point engaging any firther with you. Lutz is a pillock, and he was nicely set up by a TV company to score cheap points off.
As for the second one, no I don’t find the swearing offensive. But I do find the idea that members of my own species could consider that sort of banal diatribe worth wasting electricity (and fossil fuels) to broadcast very sad indeed.
Still, you obviously consider such trite mindless garbage worth watching, so I’ll let you crack on mate 🙂
When I was a kid my parents dragged me off to church every Sunday. One day that church took a political stand on an issue (no need to mention the issue). The majority of the church members were actually opposed to this political stand. They were counted as being “for”, even though they were “against”
The end result was about half of the membership, many of whom had put thousands of their own money and hundreds of hours into that church, leaving and forming a new church.
I see absolutely no difference between the two. Being a member of a science society has benefits beyond purely scientific, including the ability to get employment and/or grants. This is why so many members simply ignore the political stance of their organization and go with the flow, in spite of being completely against whatever political position the organization is promoting.
Thankfully, there are a few that don’t need the sheltering umbrella of their organization and are able to call it what it is. The end result may be new societies springing up to provide the same benefits for those who are opposed to the hijacking of science by the current political winds.
jai mitchell says:
June 21, 2013 at 1:32 pm
Only 14,000 more members to go.
_____________________________________________________________________________
It’s exciting to see you posting here as I only know you by reputation. Margaret Hardman’s wild eyed, mouth frothing hysteria has turned rather predictable so I’m looking forward to your brand of lunacy for a change of pace. Dazzle me!
Wait… what if Jai Mitchell = Margaret Hardman…O…M…G…mind blown!
All, as a post script to my message to Roy,
Please don’t read into my statements that “Climate Change” other than a time of dry weather has anything to do with the current fires. If anthropologists have it right the ancient peoples who inhabited Mesa Verde left during a dry spell that lasted a decade or better. That was 800 years back or so…
Mike
Have lived in Colorado my whole life.
We’ve always had forest fires, but not building booms in the mountains.
It has really changed over the decades. Places once empty of human habitations are now filled with very nice homes.
I don’t want to see anyone lose their home, but it takes very little imagination to see the risks one runs when building that romantic home in the midst of nature.
I feel so very bad for individuals losing all they have. It is upsetting to see the color of the sky take on the hues of another conflagration pouring its ash into the sky and seeing the ash settle on the hood of the car.
It is obvious, from the way the authorities are behaving this was an arson. All fires are considered arson until proven otherwise but the investigation is going far beyond that. Because we have deaths, it is now a murder investigation.
One of my closest colleagues serves as a peace officer in one of the local jurisdictions. Last year during Colorado Springs last nightmare, he was out looking for arsonists. Someone, or several someones, was setting fires in campgrounds. Yes, there are evil and wicked people in our midst. These types are actively working against our safety.
How do you treat them when caught? Another ethical challenge our society struggles with.
So sad.
milodonharlani says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:56 pm
A settled scientific conclusion is that the Earth orbits the sun.
————————————————————————————————————————
Sorry, got to take issue with that seeing as the whole universe revolves around my left little toe. Granted, the maths to describe that me-centric universe are a little more complicated than other versions, but it’s still scientifically valid given the right frame of reference 😉
That aside (and I only mentioned it to bolster your point about “settled science” btw) all good points, which will be met (if at all) by jai using an appeal to the consensus and / or models, with possibly a wiki quote thrown in for veracity.
MarkW says:
June 21, 2013 at 3:09 pm
jai mitchell says:
June 21, 2013 at 2:18 pm
1) Micro evolution has been proven.
2) Macro evolution is the best explanation for what we see in the fossil record, but that still doesn’t make it proven.
3) The evidence is in, gravity exists. As to what causes it, that’s still under debate.
4) That AGW exists is also not under debate, whether 1% or 99% of the warming that may have been measured over the last 100 years is caused by it, is till a matter of debate.
————————–
Perhaps quibbles, but I feel scientific expression requires both linguistic precision & accuracy.
Proof is more of a mathematical than scientific concept. Showing a prediction false means that the hypothesis upon which it’s based isn’t true, or has been invalidated, but technically does not “prove” it wrong. Maybe this sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it’s important in the philosophy of science, & sometimes practically as well.
Both micro- & macroevolution have been observed & are hence “facts”. Macroevolution is microevolution working over a longer time (usually but not always). The body of theory to explain how they work is always being refined, just as are the theory of gravitation, germ theory of disease & other generally accepted theories.
IMO anthropogenic global warming might well exist, but the hypothesis is debatable, since if it occurs, its miniscule effect falls within the margin of experimental error. Urban heat islands surely do exist, for instance, & skew global average temperature, but the contribution to 20th century observed (to what degree questionable) warming of man-made CO2 is so tiny it might not be statistically significantly measurable.
@ur momisugly jai mitchell says: Do I believe Bill Maher or the fact that there’s been no statistically significant warming in the past 20 years? I have to go with the facts. No choice. Which means global warming by humans is a hoax.
It’s laughable that anyone even remotely thinks that significant global warming caused by humans is possible considering the fact that there is no warming. How do you get warming without warming? That’s what I don’t get from pro-CAGW proponents.
Numerous organizations, not just the AMS, have lost members and magazines have lost subscribers over this issue. Most folks simply do not renew. Unless a person is well known and has a way of reaching an audience there is little else to be done. Well, a person could go to a national meeting and make a scene – and be called a crank and get arrested. That’s hansenian – no thanks!
—————————————–
Regarding the Black Forest fire:
Last fall forests fires in our area (east of Cle Elum, Washington) started in Ponderosa Pine forests. Houses were burned. We had the pickup hooked to a loaded trailer but did not have to leave. Ten miles from us trees ignited and fire shot up through them. Natural wind was 35 mph and the updrafts carried burning material a half-mile in seconds. One simply gets out of the way. If you don’t know, Ponderosa pines are adapted to dry habitats and frequent low intensity fires. Houses and one’s property can mimic the adaptation, with effort and expense.
Here are the coordinates for where Shoup Road (move east) enters such a forest.
39.012749, -104.753009
Move around this area. Use Google Street view. Try to find a house with a “Firewise” perimeter.
http://firewise.org/about.aspx
I’ve read it. it looks to me that it’s from a blog operating under the Economist’s umbrella, not part of the magazine itself.
I allowed my membership in the AMS to expire about 25 years ago when I realized it’s executives and officials and procedural committees frequently acted in support of political rather than scientific objectives. The highlight of my professional life was being named Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year by the AMS in 1982. But, still I just could not handle the conduct of the society at its Annual Meetings and and its policy statements that followed. For me, there is plenty of good professional life after the AMS.
Jai, in response to your absurd consensus argument here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/21/members-quitting-the-american-meteological-society-over-stance-on-climate/#comment-1343593
I have to wonder why you make a complete fool of yourself with that list because there is no evidence that the FULL memberships of all those organizations ever voted in support of declarations you are so fond of.
You wrote this: “Only 14,000 more members to go.” yet you fail to realize they did not vote on the declaration as shown in your wikipedia link:
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2012 concluded:”
Notice that it was the COUNCIL that adopted the statement not the membership.
You are another consensus moron the rest of us rational people have to put up with.
Jai Mitchell,
Did you know that the word “it’s” is a contraction of “it is?” I think you were looking for, “its.” And by the way, still waiting for that fossil-fuel-industry check, as are virtually all here. Where do you get your checks?
==================================================================
Many organization have been subverted or diverted from their original purpose by the leadership being, for lack of a better word, infiltrated by or succumbing to those with a different purpose.
There is a problem! Yes, they are doing everything based on money and political motivation. The problem is that I like it warmer. If we are correct [no question that we are], to have correct climate science prevail: the climate must stay the same, or [horrors] cool. If it is based on the Sun, then we are in for years of cold, very cold, and extremely cold weather.
If we, I don’t want to say the word “win”, prevail; the entire planet will cool making life more difficult. But true science will always prevail.
Isn’t it fitting that the ones who caused this mess are going the be the ones who suffer the most, i.e., England, East Anglia University. As the Gulf Steam cools, enjoy your peat stoves, since there will be no coal.
jai mitchell says: “millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to promote baseless scientific theories”
More than 99.9% of money spent on climate is by warmists, to promote their baseless scientific theories.
In order to make a bit more of an impact, disgruntled members should not merely let their memberships lapse, but (if the option is available) CANCEL their memberships by going to the organization’s website and finding the place to do so. It may even be that they’ll be given a text box to explain your resignation.
The planet warms, the planet cools,the planet warms, the planet cools. We are just starting a cooling trend, so where does this leave the hockey stick that the warmists still believe in and have their governments act on? Next thing, the warmists are going to come up with some poppycock that global warming causes global cooling! It is quite plain to see that the science is certainly NOT settled. It is totally fake. CO2 levels continue to rise(lucky plants) and the planet is about to go the opposite way, so the hypothesis blaming human recycled CO2 for catastrophic planet burning hell-on-earth inferno is totally wrong.
Fame, Fortune and Funding drives the Fakery. Those pulling the strings are high up. The IPCC, a political wing of the UN are the chief promulgators of the AGW scam, so the buck stops with the UN and its string pullers(eg Maurice Strong.) There are some who propose the end of Democracy itself to deal with the AGW problem, but hang on, they are from the UN. Looks like the UN is using the concocted AGW fraud to end Democracy itself and form a One World Government(led by themselves of course)- pretty heavy incentive to lie. Come on Jai, don’t be lazy, look this up for yourself.
The Christmas 2012 revelation by the UK Met office that there has been no warming for at least 16 years should have been cause for mass celebration “we are not all going to burn in hell on earth” but no, it was greeted by being denied and swept under the carpet. Think about that, Jai Mitchell. Don’t you get a bit suspicious? The end of AGW would be the end of the gravy train for those scientists, so their continuing lifestyle drives them to continue the lie. There are plenty of paid liars out there, such as lawyers, politicians, salespersons…..
It would be wise for more scientists to come out before the cooling trend becomes established.A lesson from history- in cooling trends with the subsequent crop failures, witch hunts begin, but this time, those who were so certain of the wrong result will have the blame thrown at them. Do you really think humanity has miraculously and permanently evolved out of its retribution seeking roots simply because we are told this is the case? The trickle of scientists abandoning the sinking ship will hopefully soon become a flood, leaving just a few diehards to “Mann” the ship as it sinks.
Are we seeing an AGW Spring? Open defiance of the “97% Consensus”? Professory “Lewny” Lewadowsky must be feeling another paper coming on! “The Explosive Spread of Virulent Denialism in a Scientific Community in the Face of Proven Science: Exploring Possible Epidemiological Based Control Methods including Legal Sanction and Psychiatric Confinement”
Think about that. What other scientific theory forbids questioning and outlaws dissenting? Quantum Theory? Tectonic shift? String theory? Relativity?
@ur momisugly Jai Mitchell:
SRI is a respected institute usually doing expert and precise work, so I took a look at the PDF paper you referenced @ur momisugly
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf
A highlight:
“Using the JASON climate model shows an increase of average temperature of 2.4 deg. for a doubling of CO2, equatorial temperature increases by 0.7K while the poles warm up by 10 to 12K.”
Scary stuff….. However, the model used has a few problems (except for JASON, all caps are mine):
“The JASON climate model suffers from a number of FUNDAMENTAL WEAKNESSES. The role of clouds in determining the albedo is not adequately taken into account nor are the asymmetries between the northern and southern hemispheres.”
“ASSUME the atmosphere is everywhere in radiative equilibrium…”
“ASSUME that in addition to radiative processes, heat is transported meridionally from equator to pole in the oceans and atmosphere by eddy diffusion.”
“ASSUME that the basic equation describing atmospheric motion can be solved numerically”
Concerning Global Circulation Models:
“but of necessity approximate VERY ROUGHLY cloud formation, air-sea integration,and albedo change.”
At least they are honest but this might as well be GIGO for that computer model and I don’t think that the models have improved much since then.
Hallelujah! I think Jai Mitchell has finally realised what’s going on.
Quote
“But I am sure that the hundreds of thousands of scientists and members of these professional societies are all just in it for the research grant money. . .”
The old pay-cheque is a very persuasive tool!
jai mitchell says: “millions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry to promote baseless scientific theories”
Jai, would you kindly name the skeptics who have gotten funding from the FFI & the amounts they received. Show me the millions!
You can put Anthony down for, what was it, 40 grand from the Heartland Institute, which gets some small fraction of its financing from the FFI. Please correct me if wrong, Mr. Watts. Then please compare that with Jimmy Hansen & Mikey Mann’s millions, to say nothing of hypocritical, seashore-dwelling Al “Manatee” Gore’s hundreds of millions from Big Oil & other environment-ravaging commercial sources.
You are aware, are you not, that the charlatan perpetrators of the CACCA fraud get tens of billions every year from governments & organizations, including Big Oil, to fund their lies, hypocrisies & hoaxes, mostly at taxpayer & energy-buyer expense?
Thanks.
REPLY: Actually Heartland didn’t provide that money, they connected me with a donor who ran a technology company.
The work that was funded to make the NOAA data for the CRN easily viewable (since they NEVER mention this new state of the art network in the monthly state of the climate reports) is still in progress here http://climatereferencenetwork.org
– Anthony