A WUWT reader from NCAR sends this but wishes to remain anonymous. I verified the IP address as coming from NCAR. Bold mine.
============================================================
Hi Mr. Watts,
I come to your website nearly every day. Working here at NCAR, we rarely ever get to hear the other side of the CAGW argument, so I greatly appreciate your balanced and very informational website. I’m a young scientist and am too afraid to speak out at work, because I fear repercussions. Anyway, I thought you might be interested in reading an announcement for a seminar coming up soon here at NCAR. It came in our “Staff Notes” that everybody here at NCAR receives every day in our inbox. Some of these folks are getting really bitter that they are losing ground in this all-important argument.
Speaker: Thomas E. Downing, CEO of the Global Climate Adaptation Partnership
Date: January 7, 2014
Time: 2:00pm
Place: FL 2 Room 3107
Title: Change-making in the Adaptation Landscape
Abstract:
Action on climate adaptation, a wicked problem, requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known, using wayfinding aids that are problematic at the best of times, in company with often recalcitrant partners. Beginning with this metaphor, Tom Downing traces recent thinking and emerging prospects for climate change adaptation. He draws upon a toolkit that spans theory of change to multi-attribute metrics. Case studies from Africa and Latin America illustrate key principals of practice.
=============================================================
Here’s the actual announcement from NCAR:
http://www2.ucar.edu/for-staff/daily/calendar/2014-01-07/ral-seminar-series-change-making-adaptation-landscape
2013. The year CAGW was discredited.
2014. The year climate science grows up.
Hoping.
“Principals” should be “principles” in the abstract for Downing’s talk. I know it’s a little thing, but it always makes me wonder what else was done sloppily. And there’s an irony here; “principles” would be objective standards and measures that define and enable the scientific method, but instead we get personalized ego-driven agendas from the Climate Change bosses, or “principals.”
Dear Young Scientist from NCAR – be afraid, be very afraid – they might catch you with the WUWT ip address in your web browser history!
How can it be that in the “land of the free” people are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs?
Having just recently visited the US and stood in the room where Thomas Jefferson and his associates drew up the Declaration of Independence – I am very sad when I contemplate this state of affairs.
Has any actual “climate change” been measured in the last 50 years at all? Other than normal droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, etc. Is climate change just something they fantasize about or has there really been some, somewhere, that both sides could agree upon having happened and persisted?
James from Arding says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Dear Young Scientist from NCAR – be afraid, be very afraid – they might catch you with the WUWT ip address in your web browser history!
How can it be that in the “land of the free” people are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs?
Having just recently visited the US and stood in the room where Thomas Jefferson and his associates drew up the Declaration of Independence – I am very sad when I contemplate this state of affairs.
===================================================================
Yes, it is sad.
PS “Gunga Din” is not my real name.
They don’t have a clue what bitter means. Wait until they’ve lost the argument and the politicians are on the hunt for the guilty.
I used to work at NSF as an IT Security Officer. NSF allows all employees to sit in on presentations of research results from grants by NSF. It’s a science geeks dream job. I sat in on presentations of research in to Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the occasional AGW related research. I sat in on a presentation by a ‘junior’ scientist about his research into temperatures in Antarctica. His conclusion was that over all temperatures were falling. He concluded his presentation with, “I know this isn’t more senior scientists are saying so I must be wrong.”
At the NSF, even down to the support staff levels, we were given clear indications that we had better believe in ‘Climate Change’, being skeptical was not acceptable because they were doing ‘good work’ and ‘helping humanity face this crisis’. Expression of skepticism was not welcome.
I’m a young scientist and am too afraid to speak out at work, because I fear repercussions.
Says it all really, same as when Caspar Amman(?) refused to write a joint paper with Steve McIntyre because it would be “Bad for his career”.
This is the true problem with this area, step out of line & you’re career’s behind you.
When a religion, such as AGW, fails to attract adherents and remains well outside the mainstream of a culture’s mores, the few that hold onto the religion become bitter and closed off from society while the more realistic and better grounded of that belief system look to slowly split from Al Gore’s church.
Uh – oh. Seen a lot of this …
“Action on climate adaptation … in company with often recalcitrant partners.”
Mr Downing, the reason why many of us are recalcitrant is that we have been working on climate adaptation for decades, and have made substantial progress: fewer deaths, reduced destruction following extreme climate events. Real events, that have happened in the past and will happen in the future. Yes, we get annoyed when newbies turn up to teach us how to suck eggs.
We are truly living in an Orwellian world and that’s what I find more alarming that the so called CAGW claims.
The UK is at the same point and is going for ‘let’s pretend we’ve won the science battle and act as if everyone’s behind us but don’t want to act’. This report is a good primer on where they plan to go next.
http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1536844/J1530_RSA_climate_change_report_16.12_V51.pdf
To be fair on the authors, they are finally admitting that the public have gone off the boil and try to work out why. Denial is mentioned as a wider problem than us naughty, oil funded deceivers. They too use the words wicked problem but in fact it’s ‘super-wicked’.
Unfortunately much of their cunning plans can be countered with a simple ‘no’.
‘Let’s assume CAGW is real and talk about solutions’…’no’.
‘We must stop investing in fossil fuel companies’…’no’.
‘Stop listening to merchants of doubt’…’Hell no!’
OMG Anthony it will take a NCAR security wonk about 5 minutes to trace this brave kid – the admission of viewing your site regularly, the use of department assets to contact you, and the content of his email, will be enough.
My day job is software development, so I know what I am talking about.
When science mixes with politics or religion, an explosive, unstable soup results. A mixture of all three explodes on its own sooner or later. This explosive reaction is catalyzed by money, so removing its inflow will render the soup mostly harmless and ready for recycling.
“Action on climate adaptation … requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known, … Beginning with this metaphor, {If-I-Can’t-Imagine-It-It-Isn’t-Possible-}Tom Downing {whines}… .”
To remove that last, pitiful, little bit of ground from beneath you, Climastrologist Downing…
check this out: REALITY
December 17, 1903 — Wright Brothers’ First Flight
(may want to mute monotonous music)
History of Flight — “Hold on Tight to Your Dreams” (ELO)
(excellent music)
“There is actually a very useful lesson to be learned from the above:
… given the technological changes in only 45 years (from
the Wright brothers’ first passenger flights in 1908 to the B-52 in
1952) {to presume that humanity will not develop the technology
necessary to adapt to climate change (no matter what causes it)
demonstrates a laughable ignorance of history.}”
(Anonymous WUWT Science Giant and yours truly)
Remember copper wire… ?
Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!
#(:))
{re-posted from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/15/over-half-the-usa-covered-in-snow-the-most-in-11-years/#comment-1505414}
**********************************
Hang in there, O Anonoymous One — as Gunga Din said, there are MANY on WUWT in exactly your position (and some are no longer “young”). You are in excellent and sympathetic company, here.
It is very wise to keep anonymity. Certainly, my openness about my views has been an obstacle in getting jobs. But, on the other hand, I doubt my personality helps either.
Also my lack of comprehension is a weakness – I can’t distinguish between “Action on climate adaptation, a wicked problem, requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known, using wayfinding aids that are problematic at the best of times, in company with often recalcitrant partners” and slippery waffle.
Is the action “a wicked problem” or is it the climate adaptation?
Are these the “best of times” and how would we now? Is this a call to do nothing until those times come or to recklessly abandon the precautionary principle and plough on regardless?
Are the partners recalcitrant because of the certainty over the way or because of the certainty over the speed?
This is not a clear abstract. Is the thinking as muddled?
For those for whom English is not their first language, “anonymous. (and for my pride, of course, lol) NO, it was not Freudian, lol, for our informer is definitely not annoying… . I-take-that-back. Climastrologists, on the other hand, are SUPER-annoying.
I am so happy to be an AGW infidel!
“Action on climate adaptation, a wicked problem, requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known, using wayfinding aids that are problematic at the best of times, in company with often recalcitrant partners.”
Adapting to a 2 deg C rise in a 100 years (assuming that would happen)? That’s a problem? What?
The trouble is that the science related to climate is under the control of government funded agencies which have come to be directed by apologists for the populist governments of the day. Riding a wave of enthusiastic zeal for ‘humans must stop destroying the earth’, (whether or not they are in fact doing so), governments formed in the image and likeness of the voters who put them in power, have appointed directors who follow along with the politics of it all at the behest of their political masters. That is a difficult train to get off!
It may be that this general scheme of things is reasonably normal in the political administrative sphere which is, theoretically at least, engaged in implementing the will of the constituency.
BUT science is not about politics or populism or fashion or social benefit or….whatever. Science is about discovering and promulgating the best understanding of “the world” that it is possible to achieve.
That may or may not be in accordance with the will of the people; in fact there might be very little sympathy for the truth. Nevertheless it is the duty of the scientist to ensure that the truth prevails.
Mr. Clark, weather has events. Climate doesn’t.
I read the abstract and couldn’t figure out what the guy was saying.
“Case studies….” = anecdotal material.
Steve from Rockwood, yeah.
I couldn’t understand what he was saying, either, but I also couldn’t tell if that was deliberate.
He might have been trying to say all things to all men.
Fool or knave? False dichotomy, of course. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Gamecock says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Actually, climate has about as many models as weather has events. The latter are manifestations of nature; the former? Not so much.
James from Arding says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Dear Young Scientist from NCAR – be afraid, be very afraid – they might catch you with the WUWT ip address in your web browser history!
I happen to be “fortunate” enough to have been given the job of administering IT at the small company I work for, and believe me, your company does not have to go look in your browser history to know what websites you have been visiting. I wouldn’t visit any non-work sanctioned sites from a work computer!
OKAY, sorry all caps,
Okay wot wawts the question
Okay start again
NASCAR is a fine institution (see i can spell sintutitinion)
Oh, NCAR?
National (or North, as your preference) )Carolina Association of Realtors.
The maine thine is do not;t drive ib youb ten drinnkn.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
NCAR young scientist : “I’m a young scientist and am too afraid to speak out at work, because I fear repercussions”
NSF IT Security Officer: ” we were given clear indications that we had better believe in ‘Climate Change’, being skeptical was not acceptable ”
Is there any way to get evidence of such pressure through FOI requests? Is a whistleblower needed to give a few hints on what to ask for?
A wicked problem is one that has so many complexities that it is very, very difficult if not impossible to solve.
Climate adaptation is not a wicked problem.
There is nothing to adapt to as far as your backyard is concerned. Maybe in a climate model but not in the Real World. Nothing has happened so far or, at least, it is no real change from the normal seasonal and hourly variation that the climate has always shown. I’m tired of people pretending that there has been any change in the climate at all.
———-
Our young scientist should only be visiting WUWT from home and not on his work computer obviously if he wants to keep his job. Global warming proponents depend on coercion to keep people in line.
On the other hand, it NOW time that the young scientists stand up to the peer coercion and tell them the facts do not support the catastrophic warming proposition. At some point, the science has to change to adapt to reality.
I read the abstract and couldn’t figure out what the guy was saying.
Let me translate:
Abstract:
Abstract
Action on climate adaptation, a wicked problem, requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known
We don’t f….g know how we’re gonna do it but we’re gonna do it even though the ideological high ground is slipping from under our big hairy feet
using wayfinding aids that are problematic at the best of times, in company with often recalcitrant partners.
We have no idea where we are headed, and there are multiheaded monkeys at every turn (especially on WUWT) trying to turn us away from the quest and back towards real science..
.
Beginning with this metaphor, Tom Downing traces recent thinking and emerging prospects for climate change adaptation.
Beginning with this metaphor, Tom Downing looks at the sceptics arguments and notices what spin, hype and disinformation might work now that the facts are disproved.
He draws upon a toolkit that spans theory of change to multi-attribute metrics.
He does this using a toolkit (collection) of propaganda, spin, lies, and misdirections that politicians have been using for centuries to deceive the population.
Case studies from Africa and Latin America illustrate key principals of practice.
We will look to Zimbabwee, Somalia, Iran, and the Drug cartels of Latin America for inspiration.
There, does that help
Arrgh, Mods, could you fix the first end italic tag in that last post — grrr
[ Like that? ModE ]
DirkH says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Adapting to a 2 deg C rise in a 100 years (assuming that would happen)? That’s a problem? What?
Well absolutely it is a problem, after all where would you find a Pina Colada in Antarctica…. Oops, forgot the MV Akademik Shokalskiy
Please stop urging sceptics to out themselves.
Independence of thought will not be encouraged by a few public executions.
And martyrdom is only for the fanatic… by definition that isn’t us.
I have recently read a Richard Dawkins book ‘An Appetite For Wonder’ and he mentions a story told by evolutionary biologist Arthur Cain. In the story Cain explains that Galileo is showing a learned man an astronomical phenomenom through his telescope. The learned man said to Galilieo: ‘Sir, your demonstration with your telescope is so convincing that, were it not that Aristotle positively states the contrary, I would believe you’ This story perfectly illustrates the belief system of many climate change scientists that regardless of empirical evidence contrary to their models they cannot accept that they or their models are wrong.
That abstract has too many buzzwords for me to take it seriously.
Dear Bob L.
Even if they never fix the italics thing, WELL PUT! Precisely (and accurately) and eloquently stated. Thanks for making eminently clear just what a laughingstock those ol’ AGWers have become.
“Knaves” AND “fools,” M. Courtney.
LAUGH — OUT — LOUD.
********************
Dear G-eran,
Happy New Year to you, too, you excitable fellow, you! (SMILE)
Pax?
Your WUWT pal (I hope),
Janice
AP says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:49 pm
” I wouldn’t visit any non-work sanctioned sites from a work computer!”
Yes I understand all this – I was a server sysadmin at a university in a former life and know all about server logs.
Gunga Din says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:38 pm
I have sympathy with those who wish to remain anonymous, but I now have the luxury of being retired and don’t care much who knows my opinions. In fact I would be quite pleased if some of my “left wing” friends saw my musings here and on other parts of the internet – it means that maybe my hints that they should read WUWT have born fruit.
Remember everyone who comes here knows who Anthony Watts is – he doesn’t hide in the shadows – more strength to his right arm says I. This at least gives me some hope for the future of free speech and underlines the extreme importance of keeping the internet an open conduit of information.
Keep up the fantastic work Anthony and mods! Please find a little xmas cheer in the tip jar.
@ M Courtney
You are right, please all urge caution, expression of support for sceptics of climate change definitely can be “A career limiting move”. It’s why I use an acronym to identify – being a contractor, web searches that reveal anti-establishment sentiment can lose contracts and real income. Our young scientist must politely refuse the Kool-Aid and work by degrees to out the truth, and definitely should not visit WUWT except on his smartphone, at least until the warmists have called uncle, or the climate drops by half a degree and hell (oops I mean Europe) freezes over
Tinyco2 @ 0308
That RSA paper reads like a greenshirt manifesto. It is even almost honest about the politico-economic, rather than environmental objectives of AGW promoters. The suggestion that 90 companies are responsible for all damaging carbon emissions is a new one to me. Is the implication that taking down those companies is a moral imperative?
No surprise that the author characterises deniers as under-educated, Tory-voting readers of the Telegraph, Sun, Daily Mail, etc, and believers as graduates who vote Lib Dem and read the Grauniad since he is clearly one of the latter (even if he doesn’t know that “alumnus” isn’t a plural!). There is a nasty F word for people with his mindset, but he earns it. Hard to believe that a once respectable organisation like the RSA would put its name to this garbage.
Darn, and all this time I thought it was Trenberth when I got a visitor to my website from NCAR. Then again, I get multiple visitors from NCAR.
Following on from my previous comment I think that many scientists (and many other intellectuals) AGW believer or not question the existence of god or the need for a religion. However I think that their may be a deep seated need in human dna for such a belief and AGW supplies that need or desire for faith.
The problem mentioned in the post has pervaded every agency of the government. Facts and science don’t matter at all. There is an agenda that ignores every reasonable request to explain their actions and regulations. Think climate change claims are questionable based on data on Hurricanes, Tornadoes, etc.? The DOE and the EPA just motors on with the administration’s agenda See below for a recent edict from the DOE to control our life under the guise of “the social cost of carbon”:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/194154-doe-wont-reconsider-microwave-efficiency-rule
“The Obama administration says it will not reconsider a new carbon emissions formula for federal regulations.”
“The conservative group Landmark Legal Foundation filed a petition in August calling on the Department of Energy (DOE) to strike the provision on the “social cost of carbon” from a microwave efficiency rule.”
“The DOE denied the petition and said the input on the social cost of carbon provision “did not influence [its] decision regarding the final energy conservation standard chosen.”
“Reconsidering the rule would not change the standard adopted for microwave ovens, the department said in an early copy of its response that will be published Tuesday.”
“The social cost of carbon directive, which was updated in June by the Office of Management and Budget, bumped the cost of carbon to $35 per metric ton from $21. The new formula will dramatically increase the projected benefits of regulations that clamp down on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”
Landmark decried the formula and the way it was developed.
“DOE’s unannounced, dramatically increased, and improperly altered ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ (‘SCC’) valuation presented for the first time in this microwave oven regulation will certainly become the standard by which all other agencies will place a purportedly beneficial economic value on new carbon regulations,” the June petition filed by Landmark stated.”
“The Energy Department said it provided enough notice and opportunity for public comment as required by law.”
“In November, the administration released data behind its decision to increase the social cost of carbon, which Republicans on Capitol Hill said was crafted in a “black box” without adequate oversight.”
“Rigorous evaluation of costs and benefits is a core tenet of the rulemaking process,” the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said in its November notice. “It is particularly important in the area of climate change.”
“Business groups have challenged the carbon rules, and the House voted in August to block the Environmental Protection Agency from weighing the benefits of curbing carbon emissions in major energy-related regulations.”
“The Obama administration says it will not reconsider a new carbon emissions formula for federal regulations.”
“The conservative group Landmark Legal Foundation filed a petition in August calling on the Department of Energy (DOE) to strike the provision on the “social cost of carbon” from a microwave efficiency rule.”
“The DOE denied the petition and said the input on the social cost of carbon provision “did not influence [its] decision regarding the final energy conservation standard chosen.”
Reconsidering the rule would not change the standard adopted for microwave ovens, the department said in an early copy of its response that will be published Tuesday.
The social cost of carbon directive, which was updated in June by the Office of Management and Budget, bumped the cost of carbon to $35 per metric ton from $21. The new formula will dramatically increase the projected benefits of regulations that clamp down on air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Landmark decried the formula and the way it was developed.
“DOE’s unannounced, dramatically increased, and improperly altered ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ (‘SCC’) valuation presented for the first time in this microwave oven regulation will certainly become the standard by which all other agencies will place a purportedly beneficial economic value on new carbon regulations,” the June petition filed by Landmark stated.
The Energy Department said it provided enough notice and opportunity for public comment as required by law.
In November, the administration released data behind its decision to increase the social cost of carbon, which Republicans on Capitol Hill said was crafted in a “black box” without adequate oversight.
“Rigorous evaluation of costs and benefits is a core tenet of the rulemaking process,” the White House’s Office of Management and Budget said in its November notice. “It is particularly important in the area of climate change.”
“Business groups have challenged the carbon rules, and the House voted in August to block the Environmental Protection Agency from weighing the benefits of curbing carbon emissions in major energy-related regulations.”
Another weapon in the arsonal
Bill Illis (December 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm) “There is nothing to adapt to as far as your backyard is concerned. Maybe in a climate model but not in the Real World. Nothing has happened so far or, at least, it is no real change from the normal seasonal and hourly variation that the climate has always shown. I’m tired of people pretending that there has been any change in the climate at all.”
Folks can adapt to weather and it isn’t difficult. The main thing to do is impound water since it reduces floods and can be useful in a future drought. Some isolated people on the coast can move and big cities can chip in for surge barriers. Adapting to hurricanes is not impossible.
The key is to read the comment I quoted and understand that it is our individual duty to save, invest and prepare for normal fluctuations in weather.
I know what this person feels like, I lost a research job because of my lack of belief in the AGW scenario.
rogerknights said:
December 31, 2013 at 2:39 pm
They don’t have a clue what bitter means. Wait until they’ve lost the argument and the politicians are on the hunt for the guilty.
——————————-
No, the politicians will take care of their own; eg the polar bear “scientist”.
Speaking of polar bears:
Scientists’ new job: polar bear alarmism PR.
Put on a polar bear condom.
Oh fudge…
the polar bear “scientist”.
One must learn to understand the language Academish, for example:
We figuratively quantify the method for the compartmentalization of academic intellectualism over population norms using a toolkit derived from application of multisyllabic verbiage.
Translation
“We’ve figured we can keep the prols out of our sandpit by using big words.”
“‘Climate adaptation, a wicked problem, requires navigating a landscape that is only partly known’”
Ah NOW I see. He’s trying to show that adaptation is nigh impossible, therefore MITIGATION must happen, i.e. the oh so desired UN totalitarian control over all combustion processes on the planet / carbon taxes etc.
Steve from Rockford
See Climate Etc. for how “climate change” is a “wicked problem”. Human civilizations have been adapting to +/- a few degrees for 10,000 years. Its far more cost effective than “mitigation”. “Recalcitrant” =
.
In context = catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming alarmist.
Gerard says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:35 pm
“Following on from my previous comment I think that many scientists (and many other intellectuals) AGW believer or not question the existence of god or the need for a religion. However I think that their may be a deep seated need in human dna for such a belief and AGW supplies that need or desire for faith.”
There’s a name for that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_religion
Interestingly the wikipedia does not recognize that CO2AGW fits the bill of a political religion perfectly exactly BECAUSE it is the political religion of the atheist wikipedia authors.
Bob Tisdale says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I bet WUWT gets a lot of visitors from NCAR, ranging from vanity checks to real curiosity.
And occasional checks from Trenberth leaving no rock unturned in his never-ending quest for the Missing Heat.
Eric Worrall says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:10 pm
OMG Anthony it will take a NCAR security wonk about 5 minutes to trace this brave kid – the admission of viewing your site regularly, the use of department assets to contact you, and the content of his email, will be enough.
My day job is software development, so I know what I am talking about.
___________________
A very minor problem, indeed… maybe NCAR has a break room with an array of PCs with which users can access the internet. There are a couple of other scenarios where he might be safe, but if not…
Dear young user at NCAR- keep us up to date on your fate, ok? You might want to contact our gracious host from a home machine and arrange a code/message with him so that future correspondence with you can be verified as authentically from you.. The meme about “Be afraid”- screw that. So what.
Leon Brozyna says: “When a religion, such as AGW, fails to attract adherents and remains well outside the mainstream of a culture’s mores, the few that hold onto the religion become bitter and closed off from society…”
And fantasize about killing children who disbelieve.
I am a former NCAR employee. I have never felt any pressure to conform and was even invited to give a seminar on a contrary subject.
Climatologist says:
December 31, 2013 at 5:44 pm
“I am a former NCAR employee. I have never felt any pressure to conform and was even invited to give a seminar on a contrary subject.”
Doubting the CO2AGW meme is not just some contrary subject; it is the foundation of the UN’s strategy towards a one world government since 1971. Any statist will summon a lynch mob for that.
I have devoted the rest of my life to unwinding the damage done by the globalists and the IPCC. And their useful idiots. I kinda hope the winds keep blowing the sea ice into the Akademic to give these inkblots a good taste of Antarctic medicine.
Wait a minute, now they’re getting really bitter? You mean that we’ve been treated to their normal demeanors?
Oh, that is so sad. They really need to wake up a get a real life. They’re sure gonna have frown lines and sour pusses in their declining (further declining anyway) years. Kid’s are going to afraid of walking past them when they’re wheeled out for some of that future warm air.
I suspect the folks at NCAR, NCDC, etc. are starting to worry. Let’s face it, some of the stuff that has been done is criminal. If the worm turns and they lose political backing, there are certain folks (many of them quite high in the pecking order) that could face prosecution. I can see why they might be closing ranks and not allowing any dissension.
Gunga Din says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:38 pm
“James from Arding says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:29 pm
Dear Young Scientist from NCAR – be afraid, be very afraid – they might catch you with the WUWT ip address in your web browser history!
How can it be that in the “land of the free” people are afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs?
Having just recently visited the US and stood in the room where Thomas Jefferson and his associates drew up the Declaration of Independence – I am very sad when I contemplate this state of affairs.
===================================================================
Yes, it is sad.
PS “Gunga Din” is not my real name.”
I find it very amusing when websites require posters to have a “Facebook identity” or some such thing. (Does Facebook pay them to do that?) Do they not realize that they are prohibiting posts by some of the best informed people? We live in an age of Political Correctness With Teeth that demands discretion.
Heck, Gunga, I have been combing the phone books for your number.
The abstract sounds like an open invitation to play “Bullsh!t Bingo”.
Climate adaptation – that’s is like flying from British Columbia to Hawaii for a bit of RnR in the winter months.
Climate Change – Once there were glaciers in and around Yosemite Valley, we have been told, now these are gone. The rest is just noise.
oMan says: December 31, 2013 at 2:19 pm
“Principals” should be “principles” in the abstract for Downing’s talk.
In the world of English speaking people you are correct. However, in the world of AGW climate science there are thousands of principals but no principles.
. . . Lee says . . (at 7:03 pm) ( . .and ref to Dr. Spencer at 4:24 pm . .)
AAAHHH, Lee, you beat me to it. “Bulls – – t Bingo” is EXACTLY what I thought of when I saw that paragraph. And when seeing Dr. Spencer’s comment about ‘too many buzzwords’ to take seriously, I knew I had to comment . . .
BINGO ! ! ! !
The seminar was about the large solar influence, and that you ignored at your peril.
Here is a link to a picture of the Australian Cardinal of the Church of AGW http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/its-a-case-of-tim-foolery-as-flannerys-predictions-of-dry-dams-go-unfulfilled/story-e6freuzi-1226297567261
ldd says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:07 p
We are truly living in an Orwellian world and that’s what I find more alarming that the so called CAGW claims.”
I think you nailed it. Our government is no longer in touch with reality. The new reality is whatever government says it is. So 2+2 =5 because government says so. Sadly the voters of this country don’t have the mental horsepower to tell the difference.
Janice Moore says:
December 31, 2013 at 3:13 pm
Janice,
Bless You, Sweet Pea! I needed that historical perspective…. and the the upbeat ELO tour of aero and astrospace history! That made my heart beat quick with pride! I work in aerospace and have previously worked on several launch-to-orbit programs as well as missiles, fighters, and commercial aircraft. I’m also a shame!ess airport ‘hangar bum’ and am building an experimental airplane in my basement. (If you ask me how I’m going to get it out of there, I’ll tell you I’m going to float it out on the boat that I finished down there last year!)
Thank You for reminding me what we worked so hard for, sweet Janice! I raise an old Irish toast to you (and all of the WUWT crew), on this New Years Eve:
May we be 10 minutes in heaven before the devil finds us gone!
(….Ulp, ulp, ulp… aaaahhhhhhhh……};>) )
Happy New Years!
MtK
Since when does adaptation require guidance by use of abstract handbooks of puffery written by insulated academics who only yesterday were sagely agreeing we needed to avoid catastrophe by a suitable die-back, most economically achieved by starvation and mass hypothermia?
Brian H says:
December 31, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Brian H,
+25 years of engineering experience has taught me this:
The volume and extent of high falutin’ frippery in an abstract is inversely proportional to the reality based science embedded in the proposed experiment or presentation thereof.
Stated alternately, “If you can’t beat ’em with brains and brilliant engineering, baffle ’em with bullshit.
Forty years ago I was a programmer for Drs. Stan Barnes at NOAA and Doug Lilly at NCAR for Project SESAME (Severe Environmental Storms and Mesoscale Experiment) in Boulder, Colorado. I remember talking with them about long term trends in the climate, wondering if we were heading into colder climate. It was the early 1970s when some were claiming an imminent ice age. Barnes and Lilly both doubted the hype at that time, and said that scientists aren’t able to predict long term trends (order of decades) any better than short term trends (order of weeks). I presume they are both retired now, and that their younger replacements at NOAA and NCAR are not so open minded and skeptical about group think.
After reading the abstract do you really think anyone will turn up?
Dear Mac the Knight in Shining Armor (I just can’t bear to call you, O Noble Defender of Truth, by the name from that horrid song),
THANK YOU. It is a rare occasion that anyone (watches?) says anything at all — at least they don’t yell at me about them, either — about the videos I post (except poor old John for whom they all seem to auto-play and drive him crazy). Hurrah! I’m glad that someone was as encouraged by that as I was (yeah, I like my own stuff, heh, heh). You work (just a guess, but, good probability … one clue is they are ALWAYS “reorganizing” people out of and into jobs — great for the blood pressure, huh?) for the finest company in the world (imo)! My great-uncle and grandpa worked there, too. Your fine sense of humor, e.g., “the game’s afoot, Watson,” heh, heh, has stood you in good stead, no doubt.
“Sweet pea,” aw go on, Mackie (blush). Really? Thanks (sheepish grin). Here’s to a wonderful 2014 — and the maiden voyage of your new plane! *Clink!* #(:))
Yet another woman you’ve charmed with your smiling Irish eyes,
Janice
HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
M Courtney says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Please stop urging sceptics to out themselves.
Independence of thought will not be encouraged by a few public executions.
—
Who is doing the urging? I don’t see a lot of that. But people finding the courage of their convictions – that is what it takes to bring down a tyranny.
Happy new year to everyone.
As time goes by the BS Won’t fly. Happy New Year and I predict more expedition exhibitions of folly.. Mark my word the exhibitions of folly are on an exponetial rise.
“When a political doctrine, like UNFCCC fails to attract adherents and remains well outside the mainstream of a culture’s mores, the few that hold onto the political doctrine become bitter and closed off from society while the more realistic and better grounded of that belief system look to slowly split from the Gro and Al Gore’s political established UNFCCC doctrine.”
Fixed?
Happy New Year, Michael Palmer!
Indeed, that is what bullies count on, the silence of their victims. Thomas Jefferson (and this is NOT to say that everything he said was wise and accurate) would disagree with Mr. Courtney, I think. So long as evil resides in the hearts of humanity, the blood {or job or reputation} of “patriots” is, “from time to time,” an unfortunate necessity to preserve Liberty. The truth is just this simple: we (the Western World) are ONLY “the land of the free, because of the brave of whom all gave some, and some gave all.”
Whether a given stand is yours to take is for you to decide, for not every battle should be fought. Discretion is, indeed, at least for a time, often the better part of valor. (Henry IV, W. Shakespeare)
Dr.’s Carter and Salby and Soon are among those who chose to stand up and say something. They are of that rare breed: true heroes.
The bottom line is, I agree, Mr. Palmer, for “The wicked freely strut about when what is vile {here, lying and calling it “science”} is honored among people.” Proverbs 12:8. Good for you to make that point.
Janice
Santa! How in the blazes are you, you jolly old elf, you? Thanks for the Christmas presents. Now, you get lots of rest and eat a lot of Mrs. Claus’s fine cooking and …. watch out for Al “Millions of Degrees” Gore. He said the north pole is going to melt and HE IS CEREAL!!!!
DirkH. If it barks like a dog….
That would be DirkH at 5.51 pm. As much as I revere this website a more conversational structure would help.
‘John Bell says:
December 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm
Has any actual “climate change” been measured in the last 50 years at all? Other than normal droughts, floods, heat waves, cold snaps, etc. Is climate change just something they fantasize about or has there really been some, somewhere, that both sides could agree upon having happened and persisted?’
Depends on your definition of ‘change’ doesn’t it??
I think everyone would agree that climate has changed since 1750, which is a good thing as Little Ice Ages are neither agriculturally productive nor pleasant to survive through winter.
I think if you look at snowfall statistics at Mammoth Mountain CA, you’ll see that decadal patterns of snowfall exist, indicating a noticeable change in climate (albeit there’s still enough snow to ski every year).
Those are just two things.
What’s your definition of ‘change’?
Abstract:
Action on climate adaptation !
This sent my BS detector into overdrive. Another member of the bandwagon jumping team. (the lecturer not the young, intelligent NCAR person).
It is terribly sad to find that these sort of perceived threats continue in our modern society. This is the distruction of a young person through peer pressure and under-handed threats.
Rhys Jaggar says:
January 1, 2014 at 1:00 am
As we often say on this site, climate changes.
Stated alternately, “If you can’t beat ‘em with brains and brilliant engineering, baffle ‘em with bullshit.
And pompous scientist are the easiest to BS. I’ve been there.
PS “Gunga Din” is not my real name.
If you had not said so I would never have guessed it.
I on the other hand am not worried (or to dense to worry) to use my own name. When introducing myself I tell people James means innocence, I am amased at how many people believe me!
As Christopher Monkton has said here the cost of any needed adaptation to the small changes that are likely to happen if the climate changes are tiny compared to trying to reduce CO2.
James Bull
I couldn’t understand the abstract either. I figured it was written by Sir Arthur Jostleham:
Michael Palmer says:
December 31, 2013 at 10:29 pm
M Courtney says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Please stop urging sceptics to out themselves.
Independence of thought will not be encouraged by a few public executions.
—–
Who is doing the urging? I don’t see a lot of that. But people finding the courage of their convictions – that is what it takes to bring down a tyranny.
——-
Well, I did earlier in the thread.
I take that back now and I have never done that before..
I think any doubters who are in the climate science field should just keep themselves safe. If anything, there is an increasing trend in which climate science paper abstracts scream “global warming” but the data presented in them are completely contradictory. This is one way objective climate scientists are pushing back while staying safe in their jobs and remaining in the field.
There will come a day soon when more objectivity will be allowed and then eventually sanctioned. But not today yet.
Funny, but I noticed the problem of abstract not following the paper content a while ago, and did not attribute it to wilful attempts to do science and be PC at the same time. My thoughts were in favour of the Hanlon’s razor: stupidity first, everything else next.
I’m the young NCAR scientist who submitted this seminar announcement. I appreciate all of your encouragements (and warnings to be careful). I know there must be many others at NCAR who have the skeptical perspective that I do (and that is shared by many here on WUWT). I was very encouraged by the results of the recent AMS survey (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/) that there are many more people like us in academia and at research institutions, who have not fully bought into CAGW. I just wish I knew who you all were here at NCAR. I’ve met a couple closet skeptics here, but they usually try to avoid talking about it (likely because they too don’t want to be outed.)
In interactions with non-work people, I am unafraid to share my views on CAGW, and I often refer them to source data (much of which I know of through WUWT.) What’s nice is that a lot of people, after finding out what field I am in, ask me directly: “What do you think of global warming?” So, I do try to inform those that I can. But at work, since the people I work directly under are outspoken proponents of CAGW, I stay quiet. (They are nice people overall; I think they are just under the false impression that nearly everyone agrees with them.) I will continue to visit sites like WUWT, in addition to sometimes attending seminars espousing CAGW here at NCAR. I need to get all reasonable perspectives so that I can discern for myself what is truth, what is speculation, and what is pure propaganda. I believe one of these years soon, the truth will become unavoidable, and suddenly all of us who have been quiet will be able to speak up in unison.
Happy New Year!
Janice Moore says:
… given the technological changes in only 45 years (from
the Wright brothers’ first passenger flights in 1908 to the B-52 in
1952)
Ah, but that was almost entirely accomplished by engineers, not Climate McScientists and politicians with their snouts in the “Green” energy trough.
Big – in fact incomparably huge – difference.
Most obvious adaptation to increasing atmospheric CO2 already taking place……..increased storage capacity for bin busting crops after harvest (:
Agree with Eric. Except NCAR can likely figure out who sent this in less than 5 minutes. This individual has really jeapordized his/her career by sending this on an NCAR computer.
I continually look at this Site from work. I get a warning message before I continue to this Site so I know they are logging my keystrokes. I don’t care though as I want them to confront me. Only then can I point out the censorship being used by the corporation on me. I have enough tenure that retirement is an option.
It’s all about the proponents, not the science, don’cha know?
M Courtney says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Please stop urging sceptics to out themselves.
Independence of thought will not be encouraged by a few public executions.
—
Michael Palmer says:
December 31, 2013 at 10:29 pm
Who is doing the urging? …
—
Bill Illis says:
January 1, 2014 at 4:45 am
Well, I did earlier in the thread.
I take that back now and I have never done that before..
—
OK.
But I heartily agree with Janice Moore on this question. In every age, there is opportunity and need for straight-thinking and courageous individuals to take a stand against cynical or delusional attempts on our freedom and welfare, and thereby to reaffirm this freedom that has been so hard-won in history.
It must be voluntary, of course, but it is necessary. It is illusory to expect that this can ever be possible without sacrifice; it appears that humans insist on ostracizing and punishing those who dare to differ, no matter what lofty ideals the constitution may proclaim. We should count our blessings if such sacrifices endanger our professional careers rather than our necks.
I’m a bit confused about the premise of this talk at NCAR, maybe someone can enlighten me. It is a wicked problem to accurately identify the direction of climate change. Possibly it is even more difficult locally than globally. However, adaptation seems to present very little trouble. With regard to infrastructure a few simple rules seem sufficient. For example, do not build in flood plains, stay back from the coast, do not cut off the toe of landslides for roads and pipelines, and on and on. Better insulation provides advantages no matter what the direct of future climate. And for the truly unknown unknowns, rely on risk management mechanicsms that are quick to adapt–real insurance (not a web of subsidies), futures markets, free markets of other sorts. Admittedly we fail to follow such practices at present, and we often pay for such accordingly.
John Bell says: @ December 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm
…. Is climate change just something they fantasize about or has there really been some, somewhere, that both sides could agree upon having happened and persisted?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is real, any geologist will tell you that.
It is also cyclical, at least with this continent configuration, again as geology will tell you. Graph: 5 million years of temperature change The problem is the general trend is not warming it is cooling Graph: 65 million years of temperature change and worse we are possibly at the end of the Holocene interglacial. That is where the real discussion is going on but never in the MSM. Climate Change: The debate in Geobulletin
In a nut shell these two papers illustrate that debate:
Second Paper:
#1. The bipolar seesaw is the increase in ice in the Antarctic and decrease in ice in the Arctic. See RACookPE1978’s recent comment on why this might push the earth into glaciation.
#2. So what is the sharp threshold of Solar Insolation that tips us into glaciation? That is the real question that needs an answer. It is not the mile high glaciers that are the problem but the abruptness with which the change occurs once that sharp threshold is reached.
Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. who chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change for well over a decade and in 1999 was invited to testify about climate change by Vice President Al Gore, has stated in the executive summary of the report: “Abrupt Climate Change – Inevitable Surprises”, Committee on Abrupt Climate Change, National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences
“…Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age.”
In other words large local warmings can easily indicate we are headed into glaciation.
In his book, The Two-Mile Time Machine: Ice Cores, Abrupt Climate Change, and Our Future Richard Alley, one of the world’s leading climate researchers, tells the fascinating history of global climate changes as revealed by reading the annual rings of ice from cores drilled in Greenland. In the 1990s he and his colleagues made headlines with the discovery that the last ice age came to an abrupt end over a period of only three years…. Link
In other words the change from one ‘strange attractor’ in our chaotic climate system to another can be very very quick.
…………….
William McClenney has written threads for WUWT on this subject:
The Antithesis
New Geologic evidence of very very quick climate changes: On “Trap-Speed”, ACC and the SNR
The End Holocene, or How to Make Out Like a ‘Madoff’ Climate Change Insurer
The most chilling is:
Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? A discussion of the 2012 paper, part of which I quoted above.
You all have an undeserved, low opinion of NCAR, including Data Soong. I worked there for a long time till very recently and freely expressed my opinions about AGW. Of course there are people there who believe in AGW. but they are not terrorists, and they will listen to you if your arguments are sincere.
Kohl says: @ December 31, 2013 at 3:32 pm
…. governments formed in the image and likeness of the voters who put them in power….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are missing a few steps.
1. The ruling class decides what they want to do.
2. The compliant MSM prints stories to ‘Shape Public Opinion’
3. The public is given a choice of several puppets to elect.
4. The MSM declares the government is following the wishes of the public.
A well documented example showing how this worked over 6+ decades link alternate link
The quoted abstract reads as though it was written by a postmodern deconstructionist at an English Lit department.:
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
@Kevin Kilty at 8:08 am
It is a wicked problem to accurately identify the direction of climate change. Possibly it is even more difficult locally than globally. However, adaptation seems to present very little trouble.
I think you are on to something. Because adaption is so easy and customizable to local conditions with a dose of economic freedom, it is a “wicked problem” only from the perspective of central planning and global control.
At best, calling adaption a wicked problem is a sign that the problem is badly formulated. At worst, calling adaption a wicked problem belies a totalitarian mindset. Adaption is a wicked problem IF and ONLY IF you lose your job when the “jig is up”
It will be interesting watching the actions, and reactions, of the CAGW in-group as it gradually dawns on them that the November 2014 U.S. Congressional election is likely to result in a GOP-controlled Senate and House, along with a significant increase of Tea-Party-minded members in both houses.
When Senator Reid is no longer able to control the work flow of the Senate, and both houses are free to investigate the various green scams of the past six years, along with all of the coercive behaviors that have accompanied them, many illegal, some heads are going to roll. Jobs will definitely be at risk for many, and in some cases jail time will likely be warranted.
As that realization dawns, and I believe that time is upon us given the obvious lack of support from the public for the CAGW agenda now, I suspect we will see wholesale abandonment of the green agenda by many of its current principals, with only the hard core adherents who are nearing retirement holding fast to their “principles” as they might be. (I would prefer “propaganda” over “principles” here.)
Australia’s recent sacking of the green party is the canary in the coal mine for warmists in the U.S. 2014 will not be a happy new year for them, I suspect.
Indeed, your best case and worst case scenarios present the possibilities accurately. The darned abstract was so unclear I thought I was missing something. An academic possessing very unclear thinking (reflected in an abstract) may see “new” problems when they are the same old problems, may see problems where there are none, or may see problems that are problems only to his/her interests and assumes because of isolation that other people’s circumstances or interests are the same. I can see this academic might think that oil companies are “uncooperative” partners if they refuse to give up fracking and off-shore drilling.
My Ph.D. advisor was Robert (Gene) Woolsey. His most important law was:
As I wrote above seeing adaption as a “wicked” problem is at best a sign the problem is badly formulated, probably with too large a scope.
If the problem is formulated as trying to find the Optimum solution, the solution space is so large and the uncertainty so great, then indeed it is a wicked problem. That is exactly the kind of solution a rational manager with a profitabiltiy motive does not want. Adaption is exactly the kiind of problem where a menu of good, robust, low-risk non-global solutions can be made available for immediate decisions at local levels.
Climatologist says: “You all have an undeserved, low opinion of NCAR, including Data Soong.”
I agree, most of those at NCAR who fully support CAGW are nice people, but there is a subset who say some rather venomous things about skeptics, apparently assuming that everyone in the room agrees with them. I’m very early on in my career, and haven’t worked in the field long enough to prove I am invaluable. Seeing other young colleagues getting laid off in the past couple years (likely for purely economic reasons), I don’t want to give my superiors a reason to change their attitude about me, if they find out I don’t agree with them on CAGW.
I should clarify “… a small subset …”
Stephen Rasey says:
January 1, 2014 at 9:49 am
I assume your quotation from Woolsey should read “A manager does not want …”; however, the quotation brings up an interesting point; being that simply finding a direction of improvement allows one to continually improve even on a complex landscape that is evolving; whereas finding an optimum and making a map of how to get there could have one arrive at the location of an optimum that no longer exists.
My wife is getting a Ph.D. in education and when I read the abstract to her, she immediately noticed the “theory of change” phrase. I should have known that the incomprehensible verbiage would point to some indefinite, trendy idea in the social sciences. And I see that the idea is one of making a map toward a desirable goal and measuring one’s progress there, which one can hardly quarrel with. Here is a gem from one online offering about theory of change “There is nothing as practical as good theory.”
This seems to muddle the role of theory. Good practice comes from honestly assessed experience. Theory is an invaluable part of the assessment loop, but it has to be vetted through experiment.
More precisely:
“Tho’ I’ve belted you and flayed you,
By the livin’ Gawd that made you,
You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!”
Hlaford says: @ January 1, 2014 at 5:57 am
Funny, but I noticed the problem of abstract not following the paper content a while ago, and did not attribute it to wilful attempts to do science and be PC at the same time….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I noticed it also.
Now think about this. The title and the Abstract are PC so it gets a pass and the Journal publishes it. This means the reviewers never even bothered to do anything but look at the abstract and give it a pass. OR they don’t care what gets published as long as it can be used to generate headlines.
Also it means there are younger up and coming scientists who are just waiting for the old PC crowd to retire or die off or for the academic climate to become less hostile. Often children are the opposite of what their parents are so Conservatives end up with far left kids and Progressives with conservative kids. Political swings are rather common.
@Kevin Kilty at 1:05 pm
(what’s the emoticon for embarrassment?)
Yes. Woolsey’s Law is
Your observation that adoption is likely a continuous improvement in a changing landscape is spot on. Adaption will be a suite of solutions, non-exclusive, non-global, parallel, and incremental. Adaption is the antithesis of a wicked problem.
Dear NCAR-employee, right now I feel sorry for you, as you have to sneak to WUWT to get balanced and true information. But, i would strongly recommend that you
SPEAK UP FOR YOURSELF!
even if you loose your job. It cannot be very satisfying to stay there for long. You probably have plenty of opportunity to get a new one.
After all, in some months from now. I guess the world needs teachers, tutors, and scientists that have the most precious of all: HONESTY, PROUDNESS, and INTEGRITY. We need guys like you to tell the rest of the naive world why the world is no longer warming, why they were fooled – about the grand cover-up and what the consequences are.
He draws upon a toolkit that spans theory of change to multi-attribute metrics. Case studies from Africa and Latin America illustrate key principals of practice.
Regions that are known for their Marxist and totalitarian regimes. Why am I not surprised?
Dear Young Scientist at NCAR,
I too say be careful. I worked for 10 years as a contractor at a NOAA office. My tenure as a respected and valuable asset collapsed when I asked a few very measured questions about the data and processes used to make the astonishing predictions of rapid increases in the rate of sea level rise. Six months later, I went from senior project leader to unemployed without the slightest warning. 10+ years of exemplary service and relationships were flushed, instantly. No real reason was given. I can’t go into how I know AGW skepticism was my downfall without putting others who still work there at risk.
Watch your back.
NCAR is FUBAR.
The seminar they need would be titled:
Are we a “Ship of Fools”?
But that would require some real thinking and analysis. Instead they choose to play a good game of “buzz-word bingo”.
Some dumb questions I would like to see asked and answered at this seminar:
1. What is your definition of a “Wicked Problem?”
2a. Why do you ASSERT that adaption to climate change is a Wicked Problem?
2b. Could it be that if adaption to climate change is not a Wicked Problem[1], then the organization you head, the Global Climate Adaptation Partnership, has little to justify its existence?
3. Tell me why proposed MITIGATIONS of Climate Change, such as. Carbon Cap and Trade, Carbon Tax, regulations on CO2 emissions, are not Wicked Solutions —- even Wicked Solutions to a naturally and geologically insignificant problem.
——–
[1] that adaption instead is composed of a bunch of simple, straightforward, non-exclusive, optionable, locally and individually manageable solutions.