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
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.
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.