By Garth Paltridge
Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens to expose how much scientists sold their souls for cash and fame, warns emeritus professor Garth Paltridge, former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research.
Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties
…there has been no significant warming over the most recent fifteen or so years…
In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…
The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sources—external anyway to their own particular organisation.
The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven…
The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of…
The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the … Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster… It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
Full story here at: Quadrant Online
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Monsanto who publishes safety studies that always find its products safe! None of these industries have any scientific credibility any more and no one listens to them.”
Here we have the argument that anyone who supports the development of superior crops, such as Golden Rice or high yield cotton, is in the pay of big Monsanto. But there are many dissident scientists who have done the work and made a genuine improvement to human life, and these are ruthlessly lied about and attacked by Greenpeace and other big political international NGOs. As Patrick Moore has pointed out, they not only oppose life-saving Golden rice, but also insist on pushing failed, fantasy solar and wind on Africa as well.
It is important to keep in mind that environmentalists have a long tradition of opposing agricultural development and disease prevention in all of its forms, as Norman Borlaug found out.
Science, per se, is beautiful and demanding in its rigor, The Scientific Method.
Often this rigor has been abandoned for fame and/or money .
This time the sellout is so huge that the reputation of scientists (and politicians) has been ruined.
Scientists should sit down and shut up for awhile, IMO.
Richard Phillips
A large portion of “climate science” is not science at all, but badly inspired guess-work. It is driven by money and governmental ignorance. I quite recently submitted some notes critical of turbines, biomass and a circular from the Grantham Institute to all MPs, to the chief scientist at the DECC, asking for errors of fact to be detected. No errors notified, but all the matter was totally contrary to HMG policy, based on “need to fight Climate change”. Out masters in HMG have for ever been ignorant of science, and unable to analyse the garbage presented to them by the “warmist” lobby.
David in Cal says:
January 26, 2014 at 8:33 am
Amen. I think the reputation of all science will be harmed, particularly academic science. Sadly, I think the hit to reputation is deserved. I think more academic science is done badly than we’d care to believe, especially in the handling of statistics and inference.
I think you are 95% correct! Almost everytime I hear about a new study in popular media, it is bassed on statistical correleation. I can usualy pick appart the study in <5min. These so called Scientists are nothing more than Yes Men for Hire.
A purpose behind the computer simulation’s of climate is to provide evidence that man’s adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing the climate to warm. But so far these simulations of climate, if they provide any evidence at all, it is that CO2 does not affect climate. The simulation results are wrong so if they provide any evidence at all it is that the models behind them are wrong.
Apparently a general circulation weather prediction program has been modified to predict climate. Code has been added to include CO2 based warming so that is what the simulation results show. Thescomputerer simulations beg the question so their results are really quite useless. Apparently Nature is not bound to follow the results of these useless simulations.
The theory behind AGW is that CO2 added to the atmosphere by man is causing the radiative thermal insulation properties to increase. Furthermore, the warming caused by CO2 causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further enhances the warmeffectfecr. But that is not what really happens. The dominant greenhouse gas in atmospherehere is H2O and it provides negative feedbacks to the addition of greenhouse gases so as to minimize the effect that added greenhouse gasses might have on climate. H2O is also a coolant. More heat is transfered off the surface of our planet by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by LWIR absorption band radiation. More H2O in our atmosphere means that more heat is transfered which provides a negative feedback to the addition of CO2. More ignornour atmosphere means more clouds. Not only do clouds reflect solar radiation but they radiate more efficiently to space in the LWIR then does the clear atmosphere that they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. The insulation effect causes warming in the lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere where earadiatesites to space in the LWIR according to theory. Cooling in the upper atmosphere causes less H2O to appear which counteracts the effect of adding more CO2. This is another negative feedback.
If a gas is a good LWIR absorber then it is also a good LWIR radiator. The so called greenhouse gases share their sensible heat with other gasses in the atmosphere. This heat is moved around by conduction and convection. If there is rally any heat trapping going on then it is by the non greenhouse gases that do not give up energy by LWIR radiation to spaefficientlyiently as does the so called greenhouse gases.
The theory of AGW caused by adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not conform to reality and if anything that is what the IPCC’s climate change models show but the IPCC does not admito admitt that because they might loose their funding.
Much more than ‘science’ it is Scientism that thankfully is, and assuredly should be, damaged by the global warming farce. Science is nothing more than a technological methodology–its great for building a better mousetrap. Scientism is a body of naturalistic and empiricalistic presuppositions which are maintained as both rigidly unexamined, and utterly unassailable–which is to say, in effect, its a damned cult…
Until some time passes following the point at which a majority of scientists own up publicly and consistently to the fact that, apart from technological questions, science is not a particularly strong approach to obtaining meaningful answers to important questions–especially questions with any potential bearing on the essential nature of the human person, origins, socially prescriptive norms.
Knowing what electricity does is wonderfully useful (with some hazards)–forgetting that science can’t ever possibly tell you what electricity actually is, or exactly how or why it arose, leads toward the foolishness of Scientism.
Zeke says: @ur momisugly January 27, 2014 at 10:44 am
“Monsanto who publishes safety studies that always find its products safe! None of these industries have any scientific credibility any more and no one listens to them.”
Here we have the argument that anyone who supports the development of superior crops, such as Golden Rice or high yield cotton, is in the pay of big Monsanto….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First let me say I think Golden rice is a great idea.
Second
Do I have a problem with the idea of GMOs? No, the problem I have with GMOs is TESTING and CONTROL.
There is the possibility of Horizontal Gene Transfer: Recent evidence confirms that transgenic DNA does jump species to bacteria and even plant and animals
However my real problem is I do not trust the big Ag corporations especially after Monsanto had Pinkerton agents trespass on farmer’s land to take samples and sue because they found GMO genetics in corn from farmer saved seed. Remember that corn is wind pollinated and field-trials have shown pollen can travel a distance of up to 650 m, that is almost a 1/2 mile. Sure makes it easy for Monsanto to target farmers not buying their seed. Just go after the neighbors of the guy who does.
Then there was the Starlink mess:
Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s lawyer was named deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While at the FDA he ruled GMOS are “substantially equivalent” to their non-genetically engineered counterparts. The FDA uses a consultation process to work with developers of GE foods to help them meet the safety requirements. The consultation is voluntary. Even Monsanto states “There are not currently any human clinical trials used to test the safety of GM crops.” So Americans serve as guinea pigs.
The safety of GMOs is based on “Independent scientists and the companies that develop biotech crops conduct[ing] tests for food, feed and environmental safety. Scientists at regulatory agencies review this data and are responsible for regulating the crops” Of course when you have the The Amazing Revolving Door – Monsanto, FDA & EPA it makes it very easy to get a pass. Also see Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov’t And Big Business In Venn Diagrams
And to add the icing to the cake. FDA says CRO Cetero faked trial data
Not to mention Epicyte: Contraceptive Corn
Another indication that “Science” as a whole is implicated in the Great Lie is the endorsement by 100-odd Nobel laureates of CAGWism. (I don’t have the link to their statement at hand.)
Just as putting the modifier ‘social’ on it means you are no longer in the world of justice, putting the word ‘climate’ before science modifies it to the same extent.
“””””…..Gail Combs says:
January 27, 2014 at 12:05 pm
Zeke says: @ur momisugly January 27, 2014 at 10:44 am
“Monsanto who publishes safety studies that always find its products safe! None of these industries have any scientific credibility any more and no one listens to them.”
Here we have the argument that anyone who supports the development of superior crops, such as Golden Rice or high yield cotton, is in the pay of big Monsanto….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First let me say I think Golden rice is a great idea…..”””””
Gail, I’m really interested in YOUR opinions, as a Farmer, and one, that does the home work..
I used to work for Monsanto, at their Central Research Labs, in St Louis County Missouri.
Didn’t do a jot of chemistry or biology. Just digital electronics, and early LED technology. They appeared to me then, to be a very responsible company. I believe that was all pre GMOs.
My understanding of the GMO seed situation, is that those plants are supposed to be sterile; which is why the need for new seeds from Monsanto each year. This is supposed to prevent cross fertilization, and transfer of whatever genes to other plant species. That’s the theory.
Do you know yourself, as a farmer, or do you know of cases you trust, where Monsanto’s GMO plants have gone AWOL.
In “Jurascic park” , we learned that the sterile dino brats, laid fertile eggs anyway; Nature will find a way.
So is that what is happening out in the Monsanto GMO fields ?
Gail says, inre: The remark that GMOs “contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security and positively to the stock market.”
I have examined the quote by this PhD in its entirety. It is a remarkable example of pretzel logic, in which he complains that greedy businesses and arrogant scientists believe that they can develop strains that are highly drought and stress tolerant in the foreseeable future. But in the next breath he claims that research should be publicly for future generations to unlock this closely held secret of nature.
Here it is in his own words.
Conclusion: With the right hand the PhD denigrates a private company who works in this direction, claiming they are lying greedy businesses, and with the left hand he motions for grant money to produce results for a “future generation.”
Is this what he meant? Let’s test it with his further statements. Again, here he accuses private companies of “using” the promise of drought tolerant strains for greedy deceptive reasons: “These goals have been used by the proponents of currently available genetically modified organisms (GMOs) under the control of big business, who propose that GM crops will alleviate poverty soon while in fact currently available
ones mostly contribute negatively to poverty alleviation and food security and positively to the stock market. The holders of intellectual property rights for present day GM crops keep teasing us about the potential of GMOs resistant to abiotic stresses and the like while doing nothing about developing such crops for this generation.
And his conclusion: “These are simply not easily exploitable in a business market and are accordingly not on their agenda. Basic research in this area is being funded almost exclusively by public funds.”
His argument, as well as much of yours, is that it is being accomplished by a private company with a profit motive. He is appealing for grant money, that is, “public funds,” to be sent as much as you can, as often as you can.
I think there may be other experts and scientists we might also like to listen to in the matter, now that we have unpacked what Ossama El-Tayeb, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Biotechnology at Cairo University, Egpyt had to say about the need for grants.
Correction: But in the next breath he claims that research should be publicly funded for future generations to unlock this closely held secret of nature. Thank you.
Now a bit of historical perspective on purchasing seed each year:
When newly developed, high yield seeds for corn and wheat were first introduced to farmers in the US, it took some time for the farmers to accept the new varieties. The reason they were leary of the newer varieties is because they had to buy the seed each year. They thought this was an enormous burden, and of course not according to tradition! Many stuck to older cultivars. Norman Borlaug’s uncle approached it this way: he planted a trial field to see if the yield would make it worth buying new seed each year. He then made the calculations based on observations and decided that the increase in yield would absolutely be worth purchasing the new seed each year.
This is not a new argument. It has long been customary for a company that develops a cultivar to be able to sell it.
This is not the case with Golden Rice, though. Golden Rice is GM to divert the micronutrients from its green stem to the rice itself. This could save many lives. And whatsmore, Golden Rice can be planted using seed from the last years crop. So there again the evil profit motive which is so visceral in anti-GM activists does not apply to Golden Rice.
CO2 is not alone in having dramatic effects at low concentrations. Compare to the level of it’s sister molecule, carbon monoxide, which kills in the 600 ppm level and at the present levels of CO2, if it doesn’t kill you, it gives you a hell of headache.
The question often arises, have there been studies on GMOs?
“A recent paper by independent Italian scientists noted there have been 1783 studies on safety and health issues related to GMOs over the last ten years alone, including many publicly funded studies, confirming the safety of GMOs. The literal avalanche of GMO safety studies, short term and long, have prompted more than 100 of the world’s independent science bodies to conclude that foods made from genetically modified crops are as safe or safer than conventional or organic varieties.”
And yet we are often told that there are no studies, and humans are being used as guinea pigs. But if that is not true…
“… who is behind this bizarre declaration? ENSSER, for those not familiar with it, is an organization with a mission. Its members believe—this is faith and not science—that the debate over GMOs is over, that the technology is harmful and should be banned or restricted out of existence. Its members are among the most high profile anti-GMO activists in Europe. Remember the pictures of rats supposedly twisted into cancerous monsters after eating GMO corn that were blasted across cyberspace and onto ‘laugh-out-loud’ pop shows like Dr. Oz? The rats were props for humans, according to the notorious 2012 Gilles-Erich Séralini study that stands as one of the most discredited experiments in scientific history. Séralini is a signee of this statement, along with co-author Nicolas Defarge, who is ENSSER’s Deputy Chairman.” “
Pippen Fool says:
“CO2 is not alone in having dramatic effects at low concentrations. Compare to the level of it’s sister molecule, carbon monoxide…”
Say what?! What “dramatic effects”?? There are none.
If we needed proof of Pippen’s anti-science nonsense, this is it. Earth to Pippen: different molecules have completely different effects. Otherwise, why have different molecules?
Neither Pippen nor anyone else has ever been able to post any verifiable measurements showing the effect of CO2 on temperature. Why not? Because there are no such measurements!
That alarmist nonsense is simply a baseless assertion, intended to take the place of quantified, verifiable measurements of the claimed ‘effect’ of CO2 on global temperature.
Without measurements, opinions like that are hardly science, are they?
No, those baseless opinions are simply the True Beliefs of the Acolytes in Algore’s Church of Globaloney.
These are the ocean surface temperatures using hadsst2gl and it shows there are two step ups straight after each strong El Nino highlighted with horizontal lines.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.5/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1979/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987.5/to:1997/trend
The reason why ocean temperatures are still high and affecting global land temperatures too, despite La Nada conditions is down to energy still slowly releasing from the last strong El NIno. It is obvious since this last strong El Nino that ocean surface temperatures are gradually declining. It shows the jumps were nothing to do with CO2 and despite the increasingly amounts of it after the strong EL Nino, if were warming ocean surface temperatures at all, would show slowly increasing ocean temperatures instead. The opposite is happening due to residual energy from the strong El NIno still in the ocean currents.
To provide scientific confirmation using scientific method that climate science never uses, in support of this observation ocean temperatures will continue to decline while no strong El Nino occurs. Ocean temperatures will only increase in future with a step up straight after a strong El Nino. While these scenarios are occurring this behavior has nothing to do with CO2.
Still cant believe any true scientist would support land surface temperatures to satellite. It is like preferring public pay phone in the street to a mobile phone. Satellite is much greater advanced technology, it covers all the planets surface that it goes over and is more accurate. It is incapable of having data positions changed and cherry picked with very limited use. With surface temperatures like HADCRUT4 has, if warming is not occurring just cherry pick some different stations to try and influence the wanted goal. The less cooling this change had while trying to hide the decline is far too much for only the Arctic region where data was previously absent.
Station surface data covers much less than 1% of the land surface and all these could be replaced in a different 1% and would still get different trends. Alarmists like this tool so they can cherry pick with freedom and try and influence their goals. That’s why they don’t like satellite data despite it being far superior because they cant control the cherries.
Pippen Kool:
In your post at January 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm you say
Sorry, but NO!.
At the present levels of CO2 it doesn’t give anyone a headache.
Your headache has the same cause as the voices you hear, and it is not CO2.
Richard
Pippen Kool says:
January 27, 2014 at 2:25 pm
“CO2 is not alone in having dramatic effects at low concentrations. Compare to the level of it’s sister molecule, carbon monoxide, which kills in the 600 ppm level and at the present levels of CO2, if it doesn’t kill you, it gives you a hell of headache.”
Go and learn some science.
http://www.gassaferegister.co.uk/learn/carbon_monoxide_kills.aspx
“What is carbon monoxide poisoning?
Carbon monoxide poisoning occurs when you breathe in even small amounts of the gas.
When you breathe in carbon monoxide, it gets into your blood stream and prevents your red blood cells from carrying oxygen. Without oxygen, your body tissue and cells die.
Levels that do not kill can cause serious harm to health when breathed in over a long period of time. Long term effects of carbon monoxide poisoning include Paralysis and brain damage. Such long term effects occur because many people are unaware of unsafe gas appliances and subsequent gas leaks.”
It is nothing like CO2, which doesn’t become toxic until at least 5% (50,000 ppm), you breath out about 4% CO2.
Ordinarily, carbon dioxide is not poisonous. It diffuses from your cells into your bloodstream and from there out via your lungs, yet it is always present throughout your body.
Symptoms of carbon dioxide toxicity include high blood pressure, flushed skin, headache and twitching muscles. At higher levels, you could experience panic, irregular heartbeat, hallucinations, vomited and potentially unconsciousness or even death.
@Pippen Kool
Are you presently sitting in an office or your lounge-room and are currently suffering from headaches?
Just asking, as because the levels of CO2 in those environments are probably well over 600ppm.
Zeke said @ur momisugly January 27, 2014 at 2:15 pm
And now a bit of current perspective.
The purpose of farming is not to maximise yields, it’s to maximise profit. If we wanted to maximise potato yields we’d all be growing them organically. I have easily exceeded double the yield compared to growing them on NPK from the bag. Unfortunately, that does not easily translate into more money at the bank. Most potato farmers in Tasmania contract to the factory at a price that could never justify the additional cost of organic fertiliser.
We recently decided to extend the moratorium on GMO crops here (apart from poppies). Should GMO crops be allowed, then we would in all likelihood lose most, if not all of our markets because our current markets demand GMO-free produce. New markets are not easily come by. It took Tim Reid over a decade to persuade Japan to accept our apples. It took the government the stroke of a pen to wipe that out by allowing New Zealand apples be imported into Australia even though, in the teeth of fierce opposition, we haven’t allowed those apples into Tasmania.
Several years ago we sanctioned a GMO canola trial on the proviso that the trial crop would be located where it could not contaminate regular canola crops. While the location was fine, there was “accidentally” spilled seed by the roadside in “strategic locations”. This was discovered when the local council sprayed off the weeds and the canola being Roundup-ready failed to die.
Of course you may have some magic recipe for finding new markets at no significant cost. If that is so, I suggest you get down here pronto. You’ll make a fortune! I’m not holding my breath, though 😉
BruceC said @ur momisugly January 27, 2014 at 4:12 pm
I think it’s me that’s getting the headache 😉
@Pippen Kool;
Current OH&S (Occupational Health & Safety) guidelines for co2
Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL)
The current OSHA standard for carbon dioxide is 5,000 parts of carbon dioxide per million parts of air (ppm) averaged over an eight-hour work shift. This may also be expressed as 9,000 milligrams of carbon dioxide per cubic meter of air (mg/m3). NIOSH has recommended that the permissible exposure limit be changed to 10,000 ppm averaged over a work shift of up to 10 hours per day, 40 hours per week, with a ceiling of 30,000 ppm averaged over a 10-minute period. The NIOSH Criteria Document for Carbon Dioxide should be consulted for more detailed information.
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0103.pdf
Sorry if that link doesn’t work, google , ohs co2 levels and click on 1st link;
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/81-123/pdfs/0103.pdf
I am curious about the potential political fallout. It seems to me that the liberals have been beating the conservatives up for a while now (perhaps it is a matter of perspective). This may be exactly what the doctor ordered to bring back a balance in the amount of respect given to conservatives.
It will be a sledgehammer to demonstrate the failure of an agenda driven position that swept the liberal mind into a moral frenzy.