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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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”