While Andrew Dessler suggests Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. can resign the AGU (for having a minority viewpoint on their recent policy update),
Ross McKittrick leaves this comment at Bishop Hill:
Here’s the list of scientific institutions and societies that have issued statements agreeing with CAGW, and that surveyed their members to find out how many agreed with the statement prior to issuing it, and published the results of the survey:
Anyone want to see the list again?
Aug 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM |Ross McKitrick
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Papertiger:
Thanks for that link to the brilliant post by Lubos Motl. Accurate and hilarious.
My favourite line was:
It never ceases to amaze me how this paper by Dessler is often quoted as authoritative on The Guardian Environmet website.
It’s as though they don’t care that it is debunked.
Andrew “Heat-Trapping Gases” Dessler – who thinks that CO2 in the atnosphere “traps” heat – seems to have snapped; suggesting that all people with a non-consensus opinion leave scientific societies; turning them into an equivalent of the SED in the DDR. Dear Dessler; please read up on Kirchhoff’s Law, and please, could YOU please resign from all your posts, as you have never advanced science and to this day obviously do not have the slightest understanding of thermodynamics. Please make room for a better man than you. Thank you, Dessler.
“Want to see the list again ?” – Very funny and spot on. Can someone please nail it ? Have been following WUWT for 3 years and spreading the word. But a game changer is needed. I wish I had the energy to nail this flimsy coffin once and for all. There is enough evidence and lack of CAGW etc evidence to do it. Why is it still alive?
The Ides of March have come.
Roger Pielke senior is paying the price of being an honest scientist and the assassins strike.
First blow from one of their toothless poodles!
I’m sorry-I couldn’t see the list…could you publish it again, please, this time in slow motion? 😉
From back in the past from Peter Sellars, Spike Milligan et al (The Goon Show and others)
“All in favour say Aye
All against shake your heads
The Ayes have it – there are two ayes to every head”
Andrew Dessler? I love his avatar, that of an impudent child. And the L337 spelling of “be”….classy. These people would pretend to know a wit about anything.
AGU “Science has left the building” .. and we are now filling it with fruit cakes instead!
Dessler is a fruit cake. And this is why:
He think that clouds only “trap heat” when their ability to is minimal [compared] with their ability to reflect sunshine aka “Feedback”.
He thinks that CO2 is the only forcing who decides the color shape or cover of clouds.
According to the fruit cake theory clouds are black and doesn’t do anything on their own without taking orders from CO2. If you feel the cold or heat when clouds change, you have to realize that co2 has sent its order to the clouds to change. Because they have no freedom to change the [radiation] by changes in them selves,. well according to another fruit cake theory they might change by other factors but they dont change anything on a global level … unless co2 changes!
If anyone tells him that his is totally wrong, he screams and kicks like a child.
As it happens to be changes in global cloud cover since 1983 fits the GMT curve like a glove even over the “hiatus” period. Im waiting for a fruit cake explanation on that as well!
http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/zD2BASICS/B8glbp.anomdevs.jpg
Maybe Dessler is onto something. Have every member sign an agreement saying they agree with AGU’s position on climate or they’re out. I wonder how many would sign?
Is there a textbook on deprogramming a society? Yes, it is the same textbook as the one on brainwashing a society with lies. Except you substitute the lies with the truth, as best as it can be ascertained. Keys to deprogramming? Humor and the use of language, ie the fungiblity of phrases like climate change deniers. New phrase “climate science deniers”. Just pump out that phrase and link, link, link-Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Twitter, LinkedIn, Myspace, Meetup (start a Climate Science Meetup in your town!)
There are hundreds of great scientists doing heroic work in this field under intense resistance that you can link to.
Dr. David M W Evans, former “carbon czar” in Australia gives up on CO2 and the climate science denial community:
Professor Robert M Carter author of “Climate-the Counter Consensus” torpedoes climate science deniers tenets
Michael Crichton one of the 20th centuries top authors on fundamentalist environmentalism.
Talk about it-on many occasions I will say to someone, right out of the blue, “You know that global warming is TOTAL BULLS**T, don’t you”? It’s a very broad, unscientific opening, but you will find that a very many people are influencable with very little effort, and many will already know about the real situation. Geologists, as a profession, seem to be very aware of long term cycles, physicists tend to quote the second law of thermo-dynamics a lot, etc.
There are many, many excellent videos on YouTube, search a few of your favorite terms according to your experience and predilections and post-link, link-post.
Learn how to use Twitter-how to search, how to get tweets seen using hash tags (#) eg in my city, people who follow (our radically green global-warming and ICLEI enamored) city council use #vanpoli, the provincial government #bcpoli, the federal government #cdnpoli etc. Noodle around a bit and you can easily find the key political hash tags in your area. @ur momisugly is used to identify users. Figure out who in your area has a very large following and use their @ur momisugly in your tweet, eg I often use @ur momisuglyVancanucks-the local hockey team, which has 250,000 followers. There are others that have even more that I use, but you get the idea. Link to a favourite WUWT article or to YouTube or any other real science source to take the steam out of the climate science deniers. Remember, very few of the general public really know anything about science, and they are hungry for the truth. Here’s a short tutorial on getting started on twitter. Hint-use a relatively short username, that leaves more characters for your tweets!
Dessler’s newest 2013 paper finds that the sum of all feedbacks was negative between 2000 and 2010. Of course, this is written in such obscure language that one might actually conclude the climate models are accurate but the results are completely opposite to what the theory predicts in terms of net feedbacks. Observed net feedbacks are -1.15 W/m2/K versus +2.0 W/m2/K in the theory.
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler2013.pdf
It would appear that Bishop Hill has whitewashed McKitrick’s comment from their site claiming it’s from an “anonymous user”. That he doesn’t have a personal account with them.
Perhaps a technical difficulty? Seems odd.
OT: What’s up with the Climate Depot website?
If the feedbacks in earth’s climate were inherently positive, then earth’s climate would be inherently unstable, regardless of any CO2 added by humans. This inherent instability due to positive feedback would mean that natural variability was HUGE. Anything that changed the earth’s temperature, be it volcanoes, or solar activity, or aerosols for example, would lead to wide swings in temperature.
Since both volcanoes and solar activity are naturally occurring, this means that if water feedback is positive, natural variability must be very high. That even the smallest change in solar activity or vulcanism that results in the smallest change in atmospheric temperature must change the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, making the temperature change much larger than it would have been otherwise.
This means that if water vapor feedback is positive, then natural variability must be much higher than calculated from first principles. Water vapor would serve to amplify the smallest natural change in temperature, leading to natural variability being much higher than predicted.
So what is it? Is water vapor feedback positive, in which case natural variability must be high, which means the late 20th century warming could be due to natural variability plus feedback, or is water vapor feedback negative, in which case CO2 cannot have much of an effect on temperature?
OK! Climate Depot is back up. I was afraid that the loonies had taken it down with some sort of attack.
Regarding resignation, the Chair of the Committee did try to get me to resign (several times) when I did not go along with his viewpoint. I refused.
My comment on the AGU Statement (and link to my alternative Statement) will appear in the next issue of EOS. I will have more to say about this process in a couple of weeks,
“I’m kind of surprised at Dessler’s snark”
Dressler is part of the leftist cabal. You can never UNDERestimate the “standards” of a leftist.
The AAPG doesn’t even poll the membership on the society’s climate change statement. Although, they did tone it down a bit in response to a few warmist complaints.
The AGU is an extension of the National Academy of Sciences. So it should be no surprise that they toe the line regarding policy positions. I’ve thought about joining a few times, they have some very good publications. But, it really doesn’t have a direct application to work.
I am only aware of one actual, somewhat scientific, global warming survey of earth scientists: Kendall-Zimmerman, 2008.
This paper (summarized by Doran in Eos) asserted that 97% of climate scientists accepted the IPCC version of AGW. That 97% is from a sample of 79 people and none of the poll questions referred to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
Kendall-Zimmerman, never mentioned AGW” or greenhouse gas emissions in the two key questions…
Kendall-Zimmerman only invited 10,257 academic and government earth and atmospheric scientists to participate, 7,111 of which didn’t respond. Over 100,000 earth and atmospheric scientists with real jobs were left out of the survey. I belong to three AGI member organizations (AAPG, SEPM and SEG). The AGI directory was used to select the academic participants. I wasn’t polled and neither was any other earth scientist working in the non-academic private sector. They only surveyed academic and gov’t earth scientists.
How do you define “climate scientist”? Of the ~3,000 respondents to Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman, only 79 described themselves as climate scientists. About 36% of the meteorologists and 53% of the economic geologists polled answered, “no” to the second question – And these were all academic and gov’t meteorologists and economic geologists. Had they included industry earth scientists, the percentage of “yes” answers to question #2 would likely have been a lot lower.
If I had been polled, I would have answered “yes” to the first question and I might have answered “yes” to the second question… Land use changes have had a significant impact on regional and possibly global temperatures. While GHG and aerosol emissions have had some effect, albeit minor. Although, I think I would have recognized it as a “push poll” and answered, “no” to the second question.
This is an important perspective concerning how atmospheric dynamics might actually operate. What would Brian Soden’s, Isaac Held’s, and Andrew Dessler’s counter-arguments be to this viewpoint, were they to step up to the challenge and address the issue directly?
And this is why I stopped giving a single dime to any society that wants to speak for me, e.g. GSA.
This is the shameful end of a great system of observation, ‘science’, that has advanced mankind for over three hundred years. Once it was thought that there were immutable laws of nature. Now science has demonstrated that all is chaos. As we know, one cannot predict the future state of a chaotic system, yet alarmists persist in pretending to do just that. It was fun while it lasted, but now all is in ruins. Science, at the hands of her own great institutions, is self-desrtructing before our eyes. We are privileged to live to watch a paradigm shift to ‘post-normal’ science – an historic period! But such a pity that so many will suffer poverty, illness and premature death at the hands of charlatans who portray themselves as scientists.
Tim Groves says:
August 12, 2013 at 8:33 pm
—
Tim,
Remember that Fascism was a name the Allies applied to national socialism to differentiate it from international socialism, i.e. communism. But NO difference in either’s behavior toward the populace. So in truth, what we are dealing w/ here are really Climate Socialists, not fascists. Let’s call a spade a spade, nothing more.
Dr. Pielke,
I applaud you for this, well done and thank you!
It appears that there is still much confusion as to what a feedback mechanism actually is.
This planet has two predominant warming and cooling cycles: Daily warming and cooling and yearly warming and cooling.
A feedback mechanism cannot switch from a positive to a negative or from a negative to a positive feedback mechanism at will. It can only ever be one, or the other. Either positive or negative. It can never be both.
Therefore during the warming phase of the day/year, a “positive” feedback mechanism would increase the warming. Just as during the cooling phase of the day/year a “positive” feedback mechanism would increase the cooling.
Does that sound like water vapour? Humidity? Maritime climate, anyone?
All free flowing fluids, be they liquid or gas, are without exception, at all quantities above 0 ppm, negative feedback mechanisms.