Gerald North Andrew Dessler
Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr.
“I did worry that my comment on my not being willing to sign on to Kyoto right now got into the [Houston] Chronicle and in our local paper. I do not like being too public on policy matters. It ain’t my thing.”
– Gerald North (email communication, October 2, 1998)
“In his article Sunday, Rob Bradley reminds us of the errors made about dire climate predictions proffered by some climate science outliers…. Virtually all of these dire predictions were never made or endorsed by the mainstream climate community of researchers in the field.”
– Gerald North, “Fringe Predictions,” Letter to the Editor, Houston Chronicle, April 1, 2008.
“So what is the argument about? The answer is policy…. [W]e both support balanced action to address the clear and present danger of climate change.”
– Andrew Dessler and Gerald North, “Climate Change is Real and Denial is Not About the Science,” San Antonio Express News, October 6, 2013.
If Texas A&M scientists calculated that an asteroid was heading our way, we would likely head for the hills with a lot of pills. But when Texas A&M climatologists warn of dangerous man-induced global warming and call for government action (think new taxes and regulation), many of us roll our eyes and watch our wallets.
We live in a postmodern world where emotion and desire substitute for reason and scholarship. With climate alarmism in deep trouble on a variety of data fronts, from temperature increase to sea-level rise to hurricane frequency and intensity, elder Texas A&M climate scientist Gerald North joined climate scientist/campaigner Andrew Dessler to write (sign on to?) a disingenuous opinion-page editorial for the San Antonio Express, “Climate change is real and denial is not about the science.”
The Dessler/North wolf cries of recent years have been made in the face of growing contradictory evidence. While alarmism may have once gotten attention, the two are are now like the Enron carnival barkers of 2000/2001, proclaiming surety and shouting ‘you just don’t get it’ at the skeptics. Andy Dessler and Jerry North are, indeed, the smartest guys in the climate room.
Emotional Scientists, Bad Science
The tight-knit climate scientist-activist community was exposed by the Climategate emails to be to be working from a Malthusian, alarmist script. Instead of going from science to real-world implications, the cabal was caught going from an agenda to ‘science.’ Remember “hide the decline”? Remember the chatter about keeping their critics out of the peer-reviewed journals? Even physically attacking a critic at a forthcoming climate conference?
Climategate’s mendacity and trash talk have made many thousands of non-climate scientists skeptical and disappointed in academic and government climatologists who are, indeed, giving physical science a bad name. Critics might say that a few dozen scientist/activists are turning a hard science into a soft one.
Take Gerald North, who I hired as Enron’s climate consultant in 1997. I pressed him on the what and why of climate alarmism. He explained that the climate community was a very close group with personal relationships valued greatly. Some top scientists were husband/wife teams. Others were close friends. The buddy system went far and deep.
North did not need to tell me that most of the same considered modern society as ‘unsustainably’ intruding on ‘optimal’ nature. And that this community was dependent on government grants for research dealing with problems–so climate change needed to be a problem.
But it was Dr. North who privately said a lot of things to me that he did not want repeated in public. And in a number of emails, indeed, he questioned the great climate alarm. I made these emails public when North inexplicably went political several years ago at the urging of his activist colleague Andrew Dessler. I value truth over political power, and the Internet gives truth a powerful voice against professional misconduct.
North Goes Strange
Funny thing: Global temperatures have not increased since North was back at Enron, frankly telling me about the excesses of his profession. He was cautious, even skeptical, about high climate sensitivity estimates—and climate models in general (see the Appendix below for some of his quotes).
Now, he and Dessler write an editorial that assumes (rather than debates) a coming climate crisis–and jumps to political ad hominem to explain why the public does not agree on either the ‘problem’ or the ‘solution’.
So a question to Dr. North: what has changed in the last 15 years to make you more, rather than less, concerned about a catastrophic warming?
And just where do you get your expertise to tell us in this op-ed that there is a cost-effective solution for the United States and the world from governmental caps or taxes on CO2? Why aren’t you sticking to the physical science rather than jumping to other disciplines (economics, political science, public policy) far removed from your area of expertise?
In fact, climate economists such as Robert Mendelsohn of Yale might just tell you that the social cost of carbon dioxide, the green greenhouse gas, is positive, not negative, given the lower climate sensitivity that even the politicized, alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now accepts in its forecast range.
Spencer Weighs In
Fellow climate scientist Roy Spencer called the two out on their false analogies and postmodern view of: Assume a problem, imagine a governmental solution … Assume market failure, but not government failure in solving it….
Spencer complains:
… Dessler and North [hide] the fact that global temperatures stopped rising 15 years ago, in contradiction to most, if not all, IPCC climate model forecasts.
They could have said, “The lack of warming is good news for humanity! Maybe global warming isn’t a serious problem after all!” Or even, “We have more time to solve the problem!” But, no.
Instead, they do exactly what they accuse Republicans of doing…letting their views of the proper role of government (and their desire for more climate research funding) determine what they believe (or profess to believe) about the science.
Spencer concludes:
So, stick to the ivory tower, guys. Better to let the people who work to support you wonder about your cluelessness, rather than open your mouths and remove all doubt.
This is a hard rebuke, but Dessler/North picked the fight … again. (And Dr. North, how many times do I need to resurrect the level-headed, less emotional North of old to counter the new, politicized you? Don’t we both have better things to do?)
Let’s hope that good science can continue to drive out bad despite the effort of some climate-turned-political scientists to keep the great false climate alarm going for more research grants and more and bigger Government.
Appendix: North on Climate Models
“We do not know much about modeling climate. It is as though we are modeling a human being. Models are in position at last to tell us the creature has two arms and two legs, but we are being asked to cure cancer.”
– Gerald North (November 12, 1999)
“[Model results] could also be sociological: getting the socially acceptable answer.”
– Gerald North (June 20, 1998)
“There is a good reason for a lack of consensus on the science. It is simply too early. The problem is difficult, and there are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”
– Gerald North (July 13, 1998)
“One has to fill in what goes on between 5 km and the surface. The standard way is through atmospheric models. I cannot make a better excuse.”
– Gerald North October 2, 1998)
“The ocean lag effect can always be used to explain the ‘underwarming’…. The different models couple to the oceans differently. There is quite a bit of slack here (undetermined fudge factors). If a model is too sensitive, one can just couple in a little more ocean to make it agree with the record. This is why models with different sensitivities all seem to mock the record about equally well. (Modelers would be insulted by my explanation, but I think it is correct.)”
– Gerald North (August 17, 1998)
and on Climate Politics
“I did worry that my comment on my not being willing to sign on to Kyoto right now got into the [Houston] Chronicle and in our local paper. I do not like being too public on policy matters. It ain’t my thing.”
– Gerald North (October 2, 1998)
– See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2013/10/political-science-north-dressler/#sthash.XSOtpSJW.dpuf
dbstealey — “But at a current concentration of ≈400 ppm, the “heat trapping” effect of CO2 is too small to measure.”
I keep seeing that log curve around. Any pointers on the basis of it? I’ve no idea how it was derived, and it keeps pricking me the wrong way every time I see a claim of eleventy celsius per CO2 doubling flying around. If it’s legit it really needs to be hammered in. If it isn’t it really needs to be hammered in.
W.w.wygart, the “Guest Blogger” is identified near the top of the article:
(He runs the master resource.org blog)
Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr.
Also, this:
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/08/enron-wind-memo-1998/#more-26301
(I don’t know anything about Robert Bradley, Jr. except what he states in some of his blog articles)
No warming since North was at Enron? Robert Bradley seems to be joining some chorus of people claiming no warming in 15, 16, or 17 years. 1998 was a spike – global temperature indices don’t show the hiatus beginning then, but in 2001. I think a 3 year moving average is enough smoothing to show well when the hiatus actually started, for those who need any smoothing at all to see this.
Pippen Kool says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm
dbstealey says: “But at a current concentration of ≈400 ppm, the “heat trapping” effect of CO2 is too small to measure.”
Too small to measure?
Since “mainstream” Climate Science has not been able to make even one correct prediction based upon its hypothesis that “CO2 drives climate”, its “heat trapping” effect is not measurable.
What I say is, “The temperature’s been flat for a decade and has only slightly warmed for the past 17 years–i.e., much less than predicted by the IPCC.”
Pippen Kool;
Either you are joking or being so obtuse that I don’t understand. Saying CO2 is a heat trapping gas is like saying HOH is a liquid. Get over it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pippen, you are wrong. CO2’s heat capacity is very small, and the concentration relative to the rest of the atmosphere also very small. The heat trapping capacity comes out so close to zero that it isn’t even a rounding error. The poorly named “greenhouse effect” does NOT change temperature at earth surface by trapping heat at all. It changes the mean radiating level which in turn alters the temperature profile from earth surface to TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Upper atmosphere becomes cooler, lower atmosphere becomes warmer, but the average temperature from surface to TOA remains identical. In fact, Stefan-Boltzmann Law requires that, at equilibrium, energy in and energy out at TOA remain exactly the same.
So before you get all condescending about the “settled” science, I suggest you first learn what it is.
For those that don’t realize it, Methanol is commonly referred to as racing fuel. Its available in quite a lot of places but costs about $10.00 a gallon. Its available straight and blended. Most racers using blended mix their own fuel. It is harder on engines and the fuel system needs to avoid certain plastics that are common on most production cars. Overall the possible performance is greater but I wouldn’t expect it to be used as a street fuel as the actual BTU’s is lower than gasoline and diesel. So Methanol is not particularly practical for a daily driver type fuel even if you could get the cost down to a more reasonable level.
JPeden says:
October 11, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Pippen Kool says:
October 11, 2013 at 7:21 pm
dbstealey says: “But at a current concentration of ≈400 ppm, the “heat trapping” effect of CO2 is too small to measure.”
Too small to measure?
Since “mainstream” Climate Science has not been able to make even one correct prediction based upon its hypothesis that “CO2 drives climate”, its “heat trapping” effect is not measurable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Two different concepts are being conflated here. Heat trapping refers to the amount of energy that can be absorbed and retained by a given material. Radiative effects which can be loosely measured as a change in energy flux in watts per square meter (w/m2) are what we are talking about in terms of the greenhouse effect. They are two different things.
Sun Spot says: October 11, 2013 at 12:41 pm
I call BulllSh**t on your assessment of socialism ruining education, that’s pure bunk !!
_______________________________________
It has in the UK. The socialists destroyed our selective education system, because it was ‘elitist’** and not socialist. the result was a catastrophic lowering of education standards. And a recent report has just confirmed what we already knew – that where selective education hung on, the educational results are streets ahead of the new communist education system.
** I though the whole point of education, was to create an educational elite. But the socialists wanted everyone to dumb downfu the lowest common denominator.
Dirkh
So why don’t you tell us the “doctrine of atheism”.
–
Perhaps you would cite references where atheism equates humans to animals?
Or even for: ” the goal is not to elevate animals but to bring humans down to the level of animals; soulless and rightless both. ”
My apologies for taking the thread so far off topic, but the politics seem to be interfering with the
basic scientific issue.
The arguments of crowd control and subjugation of the individual can be made as easily or better for most religious groups (Buddhism seems to be an unusual case). The CAGW movement seems to display more of the unpleasant aspects of religion than of atheism, especially in the persecution and villifying of “heretics” and where doubt is a punishable offence.This blog seems to be a collection of skeptically minded people who do not accept statements merely on the basis of appeal to higher authority.
My view is that when personal beliefs become an obstacle to the search for truth, mankind is regressing.
Jquip
Thank you for making the point more clearly than I could.
One point I do not follow: ” … and making moral claims as to culpability. Up to and including the punishment by law. But if made law, and once accepted as moral, they would reject it.”
I cannot picture the linkage of the ideas. Could you perhaps give an example?
The next thing you’ll tell us is that National Park Service employees will go beyond their jurisdiction to inconvenience citizens in an effort to influence policy.
Pippen Kool says:
I think the general tone for “whats up” of the evil scientists being in a conspiracy is so over done and so stupid, that it degrades your entire “skeptic” argument.
To believe scientists are conspiring in a grand scheme going back decades is only for those who cant think straight or are drunk. opps, I repeat myself.
That’s just an idiotic strawman argument put forth by mindless trolls such as yourself. No grand conspiracy was ever needed for the CAGW ideology to succeed. Warmism, which morphed into Climatism became an industry. The framework for that industry was the UNIPCC, which was and is a political organization using only the trappings of science, since it always just assumed that man was causing warming/climate change. What scientists were aware of problems with the “science” underpinning CAGW kept quiet about it, for fear of losing their jobs. In some cases, as the Climategate emails showed, problems were deliberately covered up. With some of the more high-profile “scientists” such as Mikey, with their entire careers on the line, and T-Rex-sized egos, lying became SOP.
Dirkh
I hope Jquip’s definition of an atheist satisfies you. If not, google is your friend.
The best informal definition of an atheist I found in the work of an author whose work I regard very highly. I think it has great relevance to the CAGW and all other progressive movements:
” It occurs to me that the man and his religion are one and the same thing. The unknown exists. Each man projects on the blankness the shape of his own particular world-view. He endows his creation with his personal volitions and attitudes. The religious man stating his case is in essence explaining himself. When a fanatic is contradicted he feels a threat to his own existence; he reacts violently. ”
” Interesting! ” declared the fat merchant. ” And the atheist? ”
” He projects no image upon the blank whatever. The cosmic mysteries he accepts as things in themselves; he feels no need to hang a more or less human mask upon them. Otherwise, the correlation between a man and the shape into which he moulds the unknown for greater ease of manipulation is exact. “
negrum:
re your so-called “definition” in your post at October 12, 2013 at 6:18 am.
OK. I ‘get’ that. It says
(a) a person who believes in a God or Gods is defined by that belief
but
(b) a person who believes there is no God and no Gods is not defined by that belief.
In short, it is nonsense. And I fail to understand why anyone would regard such twaddle “very highly”.
Can we please return to the subjects of this thread now?
Richard
negrum says:
October 12, 2013 at 6:18 am
“” He projects no image upon the blank whatever. The cosmic mysteries he accepts as things in themselves; he feels no need to hang a more or less human mask upon them.””
Nihilism.
DirkH
It is a common fallacy to equate atheism to nihilism. I notice you have not bothered to to substantiate your claim regarding atheism that ” the goal is not to elevate animals but to bring humans down to the level of animals; soulless and rightless both. ”
richardscourtney
A good way of prolonging an off-topic discussion is to reply to it. The term twaddle obviously doesn’t help.
My understanding of the quote is a bit different from yours. I consider your post a good example of handwaving. If my posts bother you, nobody is forcing you to read them. I suggest you just skip any post with my handle as I can do with yours.
negrum:
re your post to me at October 12, 2013 at 8:13 am.
My post to you at October 12, 2013 at 6:43 am was not “hand waving”: it was a blunt rebuttal of the illogical rubbish you had posted. Those who want to check the matter can jump to my post with this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/11/political-scientists-gerald-north-and-andrew-dressler-double-down-on-climate-alarmism/#comment-1445529
This thread is about politics and NOT your religion. Proselytise somewhere else.
Richard
Dr. North lost credibility several years ago, in my opinion, when he headed the North Panel of the NAS, which tended to whitewash the Mann Hokey Stick Fiasco.
Then, under oath, Dr. North agreed with the conclusions of the much more objective and candid assessment of Dr. Wegman’s panel.
My old boss Chuck used to talk about people sucking and blowing at the same time…
Regards to all, Allan
Some history:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/video-john-christys-stellar-testimony-today-the-recent-anomalous-weather-cant-be-blamed-on-carbon-dioxide/#comment-1050623
Phil Clarke says blah blah blah. : August 3, 2012 at 3:37 am
I already covered this point elsewhere Phil, at comment-1050435, excerpted below.
Dr. North, in my opinion, veered widely off his task to say that even though Mann’s methodology was incorrect, that did not mean that Mann’s results were incorrect. North was an inappropriate choice for the task, imo, because he was clearly supportive of Mann’s conclusion (even though Mann was demonstrably false).
Wegman responded directly to North’s nonsense by saying:
“[Mann’s] decentred methodology is simply incorrect mathematics …. I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway.
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/01/pielke-jr-demolishes-ipcc-lead-author-senat-epw-testimony/#comment-1050435
(excerpt)
The good Dr. North was rather mealy-mouthed in his public comments about the validity of Mann’s hokey stick, UNTIL he was placed under oath.
UNDER OATH, Dr. North stated that his committee’s conclusions agreed with those of the Wegman Committee.
Quelle surprise!
“Nothing focuses the mind like being shot at dawn.”
_______________
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg31362/html/CHRG-109hhrg31362.htm
CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
______________
more from the same session (full text above) …
MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
There’s been some contention evident on this thread between those who favor methanol as a fuel to power our vehicles and those who don’t. May I humbly offer a suggestion that may bring both parties together in a spirit of love and harmony. May I suggest using methanol but, to make all sides happy, at about 10% Nitromethane (Nitro for short) to the mix. We’ll all smile when we fire our vehicles up in the morning.
I read the editorial. What a pile of baloney. Being a climate skeptic correlates with being a Republican who is in opposition to Obamacare and supports gun rights, hence makes one anti-science?
First off, I’m skeptical of the stated correlation. I personally am not a member of any political party, and I have few committed stances on things like Obamacare, abortion (either pro or anti) etc. I am close to being totally apolitical. I do support gun rights, but not to the point of engaging in any heated arguments over it. I tend to be able to see a degree of validity to all the various sides of any particular issue, and there are usually more than two sides. Politicians tend to be so irrational that I can’t stand paying much attention to them, and I find it difficult to take any of them seriously.
On the other hand, I suspect that one could just as easily conger a correlation between being a climate alarmist and being a pro-choice, pro-Obamacare Democrat. Former VP Al Gore is the high priest of alarmism, for cryin’ out loud! Per the stated argument, one would hence conclude that alarmism is anti-science.
By the way, I like Tom J’s idea of being able to buy nitro-laced methanol at the corner gas station. We could have a lot of fun with that indeed!
dbstealey says:
October 11, 2013 at 11:06 am
“They gradually gained control of institutions, professional societies, education, etc. They promoted and gave grants, and otherwise rewarded those like North and Dessler who parroted their narrative. Those who didn’t were denied the grants, the promotions — and worse: some were actually fired for arguing against the “AGW” narrative.”
———
I don’t agree with many of the stated reasons of “how they gained control” …… but I sure agree with the stated “results” of them having gained control.
So “YES”, they put the “fear of God” in anyone who didn’t “parrot their narrative”. And a prime example of said “fear” is, to wit:
Now I first read the following cited commentary probably 12+ years ago and saved the url link to it, to wit:
“The Little Ice Age in Europe”
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
And I would noinfrequently “re-read” parts or portions of it over the past years because of the historical data contained within its content. And a couple months ago I did the same, ….. but “WOW”, guess what I found.
I found that the author had included a “disclaimer” about his own published commentary that had been “added” since my previous visits. And his “disclaimer” states, to wit:
——————
“Note to general public:
My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to “prove” the current global warming is due to a natural cycle.
Please view “Global Warming: Man or Myth” which addresses many of the questions asked about the human impact on the current climate change in a very simple format. The climate change being observed today is unprecedented in modern times and can only be explained by the rapid increase of greenhouse gases by human activities. There are no known natural forces that could have caused the modern climate change.”
———
T’is a bad day for science when one is forced to discredit their own commentary.
Why does this remind me of when I lived in a southern city for 8 years, and had to have the exterminator come out a couple times a year for the cock-roaches? He told me how to approach the grass up against my house at night, without signaling the roaches. (walking on the driveway as it went near the house.) He told me to hold a flashlight over the grass, near the house. TURN IT ON SUDDENLY (3 AM) …he was, alas CORRECT. the green grass was BLACK. Yes, COVERED, with the roaches. However, within seconds of TURNING THE LIGHT ON THEM, they buried themselves in the ground.
Somehow, no matter what “correct…” or “contrary” science comes out, through the IPPC, they will do their DAMNDEST to bury it.
Sorry, too allegorical, I imagine. (Editor – you can remove if it’s found in bad taste to imply the IPPC folks remsemble the likely sole survivors of a nuclear holocast.)
Even funnier thing: There is no global temperature, much less multiple global temperatures.