TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.
Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
Lindzen discusses key aspects of the global warming models, including their dependence on the “globally averaged mean temperature anomaly”—that is the average of the differences between the average temperature for the year at each weather station and the 1961-1990 average for that station. This metric is used to create an influential graph that resembles the daily chart of stock indices, but is of dubious significance. The change in the anomaly is tiny against the perspective of the temperature variations we experience daily, Lindzen demonstrates.
In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.
The highly oversimplified terms of the discussion in the policy arena “largely exclude the most interesting examples of historical climate change. The heavy intellectual price of the politicization of science is rarely addressed,” writes Lindzen.
Lindzen writes: “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?”
Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion. It has a global constituency and has coopted almost all institutional science. Nevertheless, he believes “the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”
The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943.
SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) www.aapsonline.org
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-221474241.html
…and surprisingly, published in the mostly liberal Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html
h/t to Marc Marano of Climate Depot
One of the great enablers of the corruption of science through funding Bart Gordon responded to Climategate in 2009 with “we need more research”
Senator Lamar Alexander another fully vested member of the congressional funding team makes a statement in preparation for his reelection campaign “we need more research”
They keep calling for it because they believe they can control the results. Marcott, Shakun et al being an excellent example of the genre.
Chris Riley says:
August 29, 2013 at 8:10 am (Edit)
I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.
——————————————————————————————————–
Out here they use the word “conscientise” which is really horrible. Having your conscience pricked is worse than being made aware even if the objective is equally nefarious. The spread of these methods to engrain “Climatology” into, especially, young people’s heads is a crime against humanity.
Jimbo says: “I hope Lindzen is wrong about CAGW taking longer than Lyshenkoism to disappear but I think he’s right.”
Even as long ago as 2008 I was aware that the evidence didn’t show a warming trend. Half a decade later there are still academics denying that the climate is not currently warming.
I’m afraid evidence doesn’t seem to have any sway on these people. E.g. when we take the period since the start of CO2 records (1958), we’ve had 5.5 decades. Of these only 3 have shown warming. That is not exactly fulsome backing even for the known physics of CO2 greenhouse effect (1C per doubling CO2) let alone the completely “pie in the sky” claims about feedbacks.
As for their predictions:-
In the 1970s they predicted global cooling … in the 1980s it warmed. (WRONG)
In the 1980s they predicted warming …. 1990s it warmed (RIGHT)
in the 1990s they predicted warming … 2000s it did not (WRONG)
In the 2000s they predicted warming … 2010s so far it has not (WRONG?)
So, the fact there is no real evidence of an unusual warming trend during the period of rising CO2 is incapable of altering their view that “something dreadful” is happening. Nor does the proven fact they cannot predict the climate shake their belief that they can.
If this were science, it would be fairly easy to set a test for when their theories are busted – that test has already been and gone when the global temperature fell below the 95% confidence interval for their projection. But this is not science, and not subject to scientific rules. Instead it is psychology and like you I would love to know the answer to this question: how much evidence over how long a time will it take to force people like this alarmists to confront their delusion and denial and change their views?
“A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
Quote of the week.
A so-called moderate, such as Alexander above, or any of several dozen “quasi-not-really-“conservative” members of the opposition party, can pretend to be “pro-science” (or more accurately) “not against real science” by calling for more spending on research. It becomes a campaign issue: “Look, I called for more research into global warming, so you can’t call me a flat-earth-anti-science-right-wing-religion-nut-denier” ….
Even though their liberal-socialist democrat opponents will anyway.
Another reason, besides those adduced by commenters above, for a physicians’ journal to publish criticism of climate alarmism, is the alarmist talking point that CLIMATOLOGISTS (at least many of them) ARE the PHYSICIANS for the rest of us to call and heed about the climate up to and including supposed urgent remedies that disempower and impoverish people globally. Now we see what a real physicians’ journal offers pertinent to that claim.
@philjourdan noted: “I thought it strange that he would publish in a Medical journal, until I realized it was probably the only one that was amicable to him publishing.”
@Matthew Souders asked: “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons?”
It’s possible, as some will assume or imply, that Prof. Lindzen had to ‘shop’ his paper for a place willing to publish it. Did he set out to make a contribution to the medical community?
Certainly, Dr. Lindzen does make a nominal nod to his medical hosts. The opening paragraph poses his thesis in terms of social institutionalization, which can be a matter of public mental health & well-being … and thus can come under the medical purview.
Certainly, when we’re talking about overt pathologies like Lysenkoism … we’re talking real “pathology”, and right up the Doctors’ alley.
Eugenics, which in fact is Richard Lindzen’s original ‘specialty’, is however much less clearly a pathology. It is now taboo, and certain actors on history’s stage abused it badly … but it was basically legitimate science.
Eugenics was/is, though, essentially a medical initiative & activity. It was & is ‘their baby’. We have several mildly eugenic activities currently in practice. Where eugenics ‘went wrong’, how it remains useful, and comparisons with major contemporary science-venues … are going to be relevant to the medical community.
The paper does devote the center section to hard-core climate-science science-arguments, but Prof. Lindzen does return to his treatment of the venue as a pathology, and to more than a fig-leaf extent.
@Alfred Ledner Clayton – I appreciate the analysis and find a lot of truth in it.
It is difficult to imagine anything more direct and correct than this description of climate science.
Leave it to mafia judges and doctors to stand up to thugs. Bravery tends to have a predictable lineage to it.
It wonder how receptive Dr. Lindzen’s audience was. The medical profession should be filled with skeptics, and it may have some. But, the ones I know are devout believers. Call me a cynic, but it appears to me that most docs’ pragmatic training makes them real hesitant to pee in their own private feed trough. Why would they? Consider the range of health abnormalities and diseases that remain a source of public funding: .
acne, anxiety, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cholera, dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, frostbite, heart attacks and strokes, kidney stones, malaria, prostitution, suicide, yellow fever (from: “A Not Quite Complete List Of Things Supposedly
Caused By Global Warming”,)
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Anthony’s and Dr. Lindzen’s presentations notwithstanding, I think the medical profession will be a tough nut to crack.
“Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??”
Because there are some 1000x more members intelligent in the sciences than shoddy climatologist journals and they all know this affects us all. High priced energy affects the health of real people and doctors and surgeons see it… that’s the real world. It’s an excellent place to be published.
BTW: Excellent article Dick.
“A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
That one sentence describes every major player on the alarmist side.
Is there even one supporting hypothesis of the warmist agenda which hasn’t been shown to be incorrect and more often than not, derived through corrupt practice?
It reminds me of another doctor still being held in Pakistan.
“ascendancy of incompetents”
I love that!!!! It makes me smile.
Richard Lindzen, you are always a pleasure to listen to and read.
I’m not sure we needed a paper to tell us AGW is politically motivated. Whenever you have political groups taking sides you should now what you have,
Physicians might be interested in the predicted high mortality rate as a consequence of global warming. Think of the malaria mosquito allegedly migrating north etc.
It seems the IPCC and associated governments will now emphasize the prophesized terrible consequences of global warming. As former UN climate chief (what is that) Yvo de Boer put it, based on the ‘leaked’ 5th Assessment Report (AR5): it “will scare the wits out of everyone”.
Risk = Probability x Consequence
In the anticipated AR5 the probability of (runaway/unprecedented/etc) global warming is being scaled down while the consequences are simultaneously being blown up. Giving politicians a fine excuse to state that “considering the potentially disastrous consequences we can’t afford the risk not to act” and such.
In this story the amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, unless it becomes obvious that it will remain below their self-defined danger threshold of 2 C. The water cycle will probably take care of this, as it always appears to have reliably done.
Most people don’t understand statistics; therefore, statistics can be used AGAINST most people. This gives credence to the old quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics.
I found this to be particularly interesting http://nautil.us/issue/4/the-unlikely/sciences-significant-stats-problem
It’s not surprising physicians are more rigorous in their science than the junk peddled by “climate scientists”, as their judgment directly affects patient outcomes, eg. life and death. Also, they have been very badly burned pretty in the past by powerful self interest from within their profession. I’m thinking of surgeons’ long/fierce resistance to accepting peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and are best treated with cheap antibiotics rather than expensive surgery.
An arrest for public indecency?
@richard D –
Let’s also not forget the Duke University cancer cure scam two years ago – that had to have been a wake-up call for physicians. Like you say, people die quickly if doctors get it wrong, but the deaths from global warming alarmist policies can take years to become evident.
The environmental movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-war movement …. have all been of political in nature. While the low level adherents may actually believe what is espoused, the leadership is acting from a political motivation, that of bringing down capitalism.
This is an extremely important article. It is running in some major news papers and may be picked up by more. Basically we are seeing that there are ‘behind the curtain’ discussions among the directors and editors of some prestigious scientific organization as they realize that climate science has been dominated by extraordinarily poor science. Not to say a political agenda designed to siphon money out of gullible politicians that are offered the opportunity to tax without limit. And that it would be best to remove oneself from the ridicule sure to come as study after study, often undertaken by intrigued specialists whose interest was sparked by outrageous predictions, fail to confirm data, much less the hypothesis.
Well worth reading.
Forget the religion metaphor. Lindzen is too easy on the people occupying the appropriately-coloured green box, who are essentially corrupt. Big Green organizations purposely exaggerate, twist and misreport the equivocations of the people in the yellow box to keep the story scary because their multi-billion dollar operations require it to be scary to keep them relevant and keep the cash flowing. The same goes to a lesser extent for their journalistic sycophants who wouldn’t have a news story if it wasn’t scary and overhyped.
As for Matthew Souders’ question, any corruption in one scientific area will quickly spread to corrupt other areas of science. I want my doctor to be concerned about any movement that is corrupting the scientific process since my health depends on the science being correct, accurately reported and fact-based.
Incompetents, whoo boy, climsci sure has a lot of manns, menn and womenn including the loopy shrink, glieckk water specialist and numerous wacked CAGW weaving web religious.
Well, of course Dr. Lindzen published in the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’! Where else would he find an uncorrupted publication addressing a large customer base of science educated citizenry. It’s quite clear that the AGU, Nat Geo and Nature constituents are among those coopted by the eco-nut money troughs with their dumbed down discussions loudly echoed by the journalistic imitators.