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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What Eisenhower did not warn against was that public policy might become the captive of a self-declared scientific-technological elite, one which is driven by its preferred policies first and last, and which is shameless in presenting its “science” to support them, even when it doesn’t deserve the name.
Londo says: August 29, 2013 at 11:55
All credit to Eisenhower but another (half) American put it well a few years earlier.
“But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties…”
Matthew Souders says:
August 29, 2013 at 7:10 am
“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??”
Unrelated? The issue is neither AGW nor medicine. It is science, or, more accurately, Normal Science, which includes both climatology and medicine. (Cf. Thomas Kuhn (1962), who may not have gotten the structure of scientific revolutions right, but he nailed “Normal Science” and “Paradigms” right on the head.) Indeed, what Lindzen addresses affects every scientific disclipine, or at least every discipline that receives outside funding. Therefore, his paper is entirely relevant to nearly every scientific discipline, and the various related journals.
Rabbett, how about when you do the dirty deeds of William Connolley on Wikipedia? Talking about the gutter…
It will be hard to turn this bus around when 17,000 attendees get their annual 2-week paid vacation to Rio, Copenhagen, Dubai, Durbin, or Cancun for toeing the line.
Tom J says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
– Russia vies with Saudi Arabia for ‘Biggest Oil Producer’ title.
but for much of the 70s and 80s [and perhaps later – my source was recycled in a house move two decades ago] Russia [~= the Soviet Union, then] was the biggest oil producer [not ‘exporter’ – that was Saudi Arabia].
USSR production roughly 600,000,000 tonnes/year
Saudi production roughly 480,000,000 tonnes/year
3rd place [then]
American production roughly 320,000,000 tonnes/year =
My sources – multiple BP Statistical Reviews of the Oil Industry – and memory.
My guess is those numbers are from about 1980-85.
And they are about producers, note.
Wikipedia “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness share the same address with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons “
Vincent Nunes says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 11:22 am
“Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.”
Oh no – does that mean that we all have to bear witness to Michael Mann in a sandwich board and not much else?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It could be worse it could be Al Gore!
Now what I want to know is when we will get ALL that money back. Just think we could pay off ALL the national debts!
richardscourtney says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 11:49 am
…Many climate realists have been fighting the pseudoscience of AGW purely BECAUSE we support science and oppose Lysenkoism.….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Beat me to it. Thanks Richard.
Margaret Hardman 12:45 pm, reply to richard.
AGW is a religion, it is comparable with lysenkoism (are governments putting you and your skeptical mates like Lindzen and Spencer in prison to rot away and die long and painful deaths?
It has been proposed by some.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/
Poor Margaret. The CAGW religion seems to have rotted her brain.
Another rational, spot-on and exposing contribution from Lindzen. For that, he will no doubt be further demonised by the CO²-centric, ’97% consensus’ expert, fund leeching, grant driven, gravy-train, corrupt AGW science cult.
Lindzen all over the hoax: “For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”
http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/bureaucratic-dioxide/
In fairness, this sort of thing happens in every field of science and academia. There are fashions, no matter how absurd, that come and go as political moods change. Climate science claim to fame is the brutal virulence of its need for the bizarre.
Margaret Hardman says: @ur momisugly August 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm
…..Why didn’t the beloved George W Bush (2001-2009) end the global warming conspiracy? He didn’t because there isn’t one. Climategate as pathology – that one is dead…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And why would you think there is any real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? That is a fairy tale for the brain dead masses, and even they are waking up to that fact. Politicians are bought and paid for by the elite. Top senate Democrat Dick Durbin even blurted it out on radio.
Elaine Dewar [Cloak of Green}
Or from the more liberal Mother Jones:
Or WIKI
[ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]
Margaret Hardman says:
August 29, 2013 at 11:33 am
“Anyone here understand the word “irony”? The science has been co-opted by both sides of the argument. Of course, when the message chimes with what we want to hear, it makes a louder, more mellifluous sound”.
Margaret, you are correct if your meaning is that scientifically illiterate cheerleaders exist in large numbers on both sides and the affiliations are political. Indeed, they tend to be the noisiest of the lot. But you are gravely wrong about the central scientific content in this and other skeptic blogs. Follow the money, a well-worn cliche for very good reasons, should instruct the brighter ones among us. Why would well educated scientists and engineers go against the gravy train, or horrors, self-preservation if one is among those poor sadsacks at risk of losing their employment and tenure for their beliefs? The answer to that is most don’t – only the bravest or those who have safely reached retirement do. There is certainly no money in skepticism. I’m going to believe that you don’t accept that WUWT or Climate Audit or the other precious few scientifically skeptical bloggers are in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal or whatever. Having heard Obama out on the subject and the gag order in DOE and Energy against saying anything against global warming, hiatus in temperature, etc. you have to agree that funds from that rich source aren’t available to the likes of those at WUWT.
You joined us here fairly recently and may not be aware that many of the “new” discoveries in climate science that are toning down a 25-year hysteria on warming rates, climate sensitivity, and even more recent retractions of scientific papers because of their shoddy math and science came out of work by skeptical scientists that is unacknowledged by the proponents of CAGW. The movement is terrified of Steve McIntyre a courtly, gentlemanly mathematician who single-handedly has trashed scientific papers supported by bad math and conclusions not supported by the data. Lindzen of MIT, that I hope you weren’t referring too in your statement was calculating a climate sensitivity of ~ 1 when IPCC was talking 5 to 8 over a decade ago (temp effect of a doubling of CO2). You are a guest (as am I) on a magnificent, history-making site and the best example of the phenomenon of electronic exchange of thought. That there is light material and lampoonery going on as well as serious science, that there is an open door to commenters as long as they adhere to a simple code that is basically courtesy-based, is a testimony to the dedicated-to-truth, democratic, tolerant, mild-mannered and welcoming host here at WUWT. Try to say anything critical on any of the consensus blogs and you will electronically disappear, most often without comment.
Don’t look for the lowest common denominator on the site to engage yourself. Suspend belief a tad. Critically absorb the good stuff, ask interesting questions, dangerously avail yourself of a different education. This venue is history in the making.
Lindzen mentions eugenics, and it is important to note that eugenics was part of a larger movement called Social Darwinism, which had many variations but essentially advocated forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies. Of course, what ‘natural law’ is, can be ambiguous, often politically convenient, and also often becomes co-opted for political reasons to justify e.g. wars, racism, and forced sterilisation. One of its common assumptions was that what occurred naturally was ‘good’ and right, and most of what occurred in society that was ‘bad’ could therefore be blamed on humans and human societies.
But it is a undeniable fact that not all that occurs ‘naturally’, or in nature, is good for humans: e.g. radioactivity (e.g. people used to wear ‘naturally glowing’ blue thorium around their neck, until they found out it killed them), lightning, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanos, allergic reactions, poisonous and addictive plants and vegetables, most but not all genetic mutations, cosmic rays, viruses, spontaneous cancerous cells etc etc.
But the important thing is this, just because something occurs in nature, doesn’t mean humans should follow it, or that it is ‘good’ for humans in any case (see examples above). What ‘is’, is not necessarily what ‘ought’ to be, for humans of otherwise. We take, share and use those things in, and from, nature that are good for us, and we reject those that are not, taking into account the available science and our socio-economic values. Getting this balance right is an issue that faces every generation. It is something that we have been doing for thousands of years.
It often seems that climate alarmism is in danger of assuming one of the major mistakes that social darwinists also made, that is, it tends to see nature and what occurs naturally as essentially good and stable, and therefore things that occur in nature that is unstable and ‘bad’ for humans (e.g. hurricanes, floods etc), can therefore be blamed on humans. It also sees nature as being essentially stable and unchanging, whereas nature always changes. It also seems to sometimes advocate forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies, the same sort of way social darwinists did; that is, ‘natural law’ that is defined politically, not in nature as it is-an example being forcing an unchanging climate onto human societies, rather than seeing nature and climate as in a constant state of change. (Interestingly, this is also what anti-evolutionists tend to do, they regard species as constant and unchanging and in ‘balance’ with each other and nature, whereas species are always changing (albeit often very slowly in terms of human time frames) and in constant competition).
Chad Wozniak says: August 29, 2013 at 10:15 am.
@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.
____________
Exactly right. If only global warming advocates would adopt a “do no harm” mindset.
The link to the Sacramento Bee site is wonked out.
I can hardly wait to begin nominating CAGW believers for a nice 3-year stint of psychiatric observation and intense interventionist remediation.
Which do you prefer when revealing a scientific truth – reasoned logic and objectivity or blind allegiance to invalid modeling, compromising gray literature, identify theft, and e-mails “taken out of context?” Of course, you could (as some have done) employ fallacious reasoning via argumentum ad hominem instead of addressing certain points (e.g., behold, the religion of warming), but where’s the challenge in that?
The promulgation of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is similar to a religion because its followers (a/k/a warmists) believe in or partake of the following:
(1) Revelation – warmists know the peer-reviewed papers of “deniers” is anything but sound let alone objective. This knowledge is revealed by summarily dismissing denier criticism of any and all warmist papers, provided the appropriate web sites (the Cannon of the Cause) are quoted as supportive scripture. While the denier messaging may be well-managed and include some… impact on public opinion, neither are good enough for the cleverness of warmist speculations on wide-ranging aerosol variables in climate models or deep ocean heat transfers.
(2) Reminiscence – warmists often gather in communal settings entitled “climate conferences” to listen to each other speak the truth about CAGW, as represented by a “consensus.” While these may be compared to locust swarms due to the ridiculous number of attendees, the conferences are a perfect setting to reminisce about their cleverness at having revealed the “truth” or the… Cause, while deniers remain ignorant. This sharing allows warmists to integrate their shared thoughts into daily thinking and, ultimately, the public lexicon.
(3) Ritual – warmists use constant repetition of self-labeled truths (e.g., 97% of scientists agree that climate change is… man-made and dangerous, the Earth has a fever, and temperature lags CO2) and common terms (e.g. denier) to reinforce their revelations. The repetitive use of these truths and terms lends comfort to warmists through their ritualistic use. Similar and consistent approaches are taken against those who disagree with the warmists (a/k/a skeptics) in a thoughtful and considerate manner, ensuring that the denier’s points are not addressed but their character is questioned openly – and repeatedly.
(4) Reverence – warmists give great weight to “enlightened” and “embattled” scholars (e.g., Gore, Hansen, and Mann) as verification that the Cause is not only valid but “just” (morally anyway vis-à-vis Gleick). How could someone like Dr. Michael E. Mann be… wrong?
(5) Restrictions – warmists place opposition to the consensus alongside other conspiracy theories. Accepting deniers as conspiracy theorists is a gateway through which warmists must pass to be accepted by other followers. If a person cannot or will not pass, then they are likely a denier or shill for the same – ignorant of the consensus and Cause.
(6) Repentance – warmists who have passed through the gateway but falter in the “faith” (a/k/a luke-warmers) must be shown the error of their ways or thoughts. If they repent of their misdeeds, then they are permitted to return to the warmist fold but under a renewed watch for repeat lapses (e.g., wherefore art thou, Lovelock?)
(7) Reliance – warmists are optimistic and rely on the belief that once the public (especially in carbon excessive nations) fully accepts the consensus, then hope for a greener and sustainable humanity is possible (the planet might even heal). However, things may (some warmists would argue – must) get worse before they get better (e.g., submerged coastlines, vanquished polar ice, and angrier people).
(8) Resurrection – warmists assert that full acceptance of the consensus will reawaken humanity from its slumber of ignorance and yet again attain its magnificence but as a kinder, gentler, and more globally-conscious and focused species, willing to share its wealth equitably.
(9) Rebellion – warmists are in opposition to objectivity (a necessity of the scientific method) because it is the denier that perpetrates the “crime.” Naturally, this requires a high level of devotion and dedication to the Cause or “rebellion” because of the possible consequences… if caught (e.g., 10:10 the Eco-terrorists, Gleick the Liar, and Mann the Climate Warrior).
(10) Removal – warmists who now understand they have been deceived by the consensus must be removed and disassociated with the Cause (Curry). The best vehicle for accomplishing this removal is to claim the violator was a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along – meant to split the unity of the consensus.
(11) Relevance – warmist thoughts and actions are critical to the times in which they live – extreme weather is climate… now. With the presumption that carbon excesses are tantamount to environmental injustice, a global immorality exists within Western culture that only the Cause via the consensus can reverse – thank goodness for the UN IPCC; let’s award them a Nobel Peace Prize.
(12) Relationships – warmists share: knowledge via a multiple of web sites (e.g., SkS, Real Climate, and even *gasp* HotWhopper – big wave to Sou), subjective articles, false papers, bloated conferences, etc.), which create social and emotional relations that only strengthen the consensus to the Cause
(13) Reality – warmists promote the Cause as its own “reality” not by evidentiary examination via the scientific method but by the collective will of the consensus – 97% cannot be wrong because… even dictatorships achieve such numbers – whatever. The reality is the inertia that IS the collective will of the individual warmist, and surely, this many people cannot be wrong. “We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves,” – George Orwell.
(14) Righteousness – warmist leaders have established rules (e.g., communicating the evils of CAGW by all possible vehicles and paying lip service to the scientific method as a matter of necessity) by which those within the consensus must operate. Adherence to these rules is required and assists the leaders by ensuring that the consensus is aligned to their wills (schisms are not tolerated, Lewis – ever).
(15) Retribution – Prior to repentance, a former denier or luke-warmer must understand that there are consequences for not following the rules. These consequences include a diminishing of the former denier’s words, close association to a leader to learn more of the truth (or be watched more closely), and use as a public image of the Cause (Muller).
I believe that an adherence to the scientific method, with a healthy dose of Occam’s Razor thrown in, is a better approach with sounder results to reviewing the global surface mean temperature anomaly rather than a religious-like movement and its multiple and complex (sometimes conflicting) components. In this case, the path to the truth is as important as the truth itself.
Please note that this comment has been adapted from an online diary entry I posted in 2007, regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement. Lindzen is spot on to label the Cause as a religion.
MojoMojo says:
August 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm
Wikipedia “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness share the same address with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons “
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So?
I did a search for ‘Doctors for Disaster Preparedness’ and the first thing I click on gives me a video of Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968) professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
This is the guy whose paper, Bafflegab Pays, on how to write a peer-reviewed paper, I often link to along with several other of his papers.
So some how I am supposed to thing it is BAD to have a speaker like him instead of liars like Peter Gleick, buffoons like Al Gore and lawsuit happy little Mann?
[ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]
Correct. Sorry I meant to indicate that in the first use of the initials.
@Lance of BC –
I just visited the Sac Bee website a little while ago, and was able to read Dr. Lindzen’s piece on it – and unfortunately, also some incredibly stupid comments by one “Smithers72” who had the crust to call the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons “not credible”, and further to falsely and slanderously accuse Dr. Lindzen of being in the pay of Big Oil.
“Hoya Skeptic says:
August 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm
Anthony,
You write: “In normal science, . . . ”
This seems to be a statement in a press release that quotes or closely follows the words of Richard Lindzen. I don’t see an attribution to the actual press writer but will go out on a limb here and say I doubt the person is named “Anthony.”
That I can think for myself, the intended insult notwithstanding, means I can see through things like CAGW is a religion, an assertion designed to convince those that don’t think for themselves that there is no evidence for CAGW (or evolution or effective vaccines or HIV as the cause of Aids). It is cliched d-speak and reading around science might educate you and your fellows here to know what path you are truly being led down.