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.
Unfortunately, the reputation of scientists was destroyed by Gore, et al years ago when he proclaimed the science settled. By and large, the scientific community said and did little in response. As a result, scientists have the same reputation as politicians and attorneys. The real shame is that this was all so avoidable.
Due to the nonsense “models” used in the cagw scam any time I see a study of any kind with forecasts using said models I have to be sceptical at best and at worst just think “pa rubbish,gigo…….
Contrary to popular opinion, it is not the “pause” that is the downfall of global warming climatology. It is methodological shortcomings in the research that are obcured by applications of the equivocation fallacy. Prestigious scientific institutions have disgraced themselves through failure to see through this fallacy.
The author is still waiting on the weather while ignoring skeptical exposure of fraud and peer review corruption, and it continued unabated in 2013, impossibly, but so. Defrauding whole cultures is a moral crime of the highest order, as is just following orders and actively playing along.
It is becoming clear to the public that the climate alarmists are shills of Big Green. They have a well-funded organisation to spread misinformation and the denial of the significance of natural climate forcings.
When climate scientists tied their future to enviro activists and politicians, they left the realm of science and entered the world of politically correct causes. Enviro’s and politicians believe the end justifies the means. For enviro’s it is a religion, for politicians it is power. So they convinced the climate science academics to sell their reputations for passing prestige and money. In the end it will come out negative for most, the tax payers, the environment, and the academics. However for some like Hansen and Gore, the “green” technology corporations, they have become rich, so the end was justified by the means, ugly as it was.
Gareth Paltridge said:
“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.”
______________________
Go deeper…
“The ‘Pause’ of Global Warming Risks Destroying The Reputation Of Science”
Anthony, think what damage would have been done not only to science but all of mankind if we hadn’t had a pause at this time and the climate actually ends up not conferring such importance on CO2 50 years from now. We would have impoverished ourselves and when the pause finally did come, the big Ship of Fools that is the body of climate science would be congratulating themselves on having turned the tide and saved the planet. Science would be dead. There would be a special synod of scientific establishment that would mete and dole out grave punishments to skeptics who didn’t buy in by that time. Gareth says we are spending a billion a day!! This would have risen to 10 billion a day. I would be volunteering for the next trip to Mars.
Let us not lose sight of the terrible risk we were put at. Don’t let this all blow over as the rats abandon the Ship of Fools and rewrite their own personal histories. Greenpeace will give them lessons in this. Let’s not have any Truth and Reconciliation committees. This was far outside of any civilized parameters.
Gareth Paltridge:
I write to strongly support your article.
A decade ago Fred Singer organised a well-attended fringe meeting at an IPCC Meeting in The Hague. The speakers were Fred, Gerd Rainer-Weber and me.
My presentation concerned global temperature data sets and explained how the data was unreliable, inaccurate and not indicative of imminent crisis.
Near the end of that presentation I said,
“When ‘the chickens come home to roost’ – as they surely will with efluxion of time – the politicians and journalists won’t say, “It was all our fault”. They will say, “It was the scientists’ fault”, and that’s me, and I object!”
Since then I have seen nothing to change my view.
Indeed, things have gotten worse. For example, a recent scandal has removed the ability of AGW-sceptics to assert there is no evidence of AGW-sceptics practicing bad science procedures.
In the famous words from Dad’s Army, “We’re doomed, all doomed”, and I still object but to no avail.
Richard
Maybe climate scientists like Phil Jones and Michael Mann could learn from an old poem about ‘Truth’ by Arthur Hugh Clough. It contains the lines
I’d love to see an apology from some scientists or scientific organization, but I don’t think that will happen. Recall that science never specifically admitted that there are no canals on Mars, nor did they explain why that false belief persisted for such a long time. They simply stopped talking about the canals.
Gareth Paltridge has cogently summarized many of the thoughts I’ve had over the past six years–especially the relationship between global warming, scientists and social agendas. I have long held the opinion that with the breakup of the Soviet Union the people espousing socialism as the ideal form of government have thrown their saddle on global warming and are whipping their horse to the finish line–a one-world government. Given how many times the CAGW team has changed the goalposts in its attempt to hide the failure of many of its
predictionsprojections, it’s ironic that mother nature apparently isn’t cooperating with the most important goalpost of them all: Earth temperature. As a result, CAGW proponents are finding out that if they had started their sprint to the finish line 10 to 20 before they did, they just might have achieved their goal and we’d now all be under the boot of UN control. Another ironic aspect of the CAGW fiasco is that the team only has itself to blame for the late start. In the 70s the crisis du jour was global cooling, not global warming. To maintain any semblance of credibility, the team had to wait a decent period before it could make the switch. It looks like that wait might be fatal to the team’s ultimate goal. Hallelujah!“””””””” davidmhoffer says:
January 26, 2014 at 8:47 am
While I agree with the central premise of the author’s essay, I would
argue that private industry is also responsible to a considerable degree
in regard to the corruption of climate science””””””.
I would argue against this “considerable degree”, because I have sent my Earth
orbital and climate change analysis to hundreds of Warmist “climate scientists”
and almost none replied http://www.knowledgeminer.eu/eoo_paper.html .
They refuse to take a look, as soon as they notice the paper is “skeptic” – they
are simply obstinate….. It doesn´t matter, whether a study is peer-reviewed or not,
see Nicolas Scafetta papers….It is Warmist policy, not to answer skeptical papers.
Myself, I complained with Stocker in Bern about AR4…..they replied: Yes, there
is something to it, you have a point……but, quote: “action is not warranted”, thus
AGW is dead scared to look into the Earth orbit matter as the cause for decadal
and centennial climate change….
I worked my entire career in managing corporate R&D labs. I love and value real science. But…
How many “scientists” gladly accepted the grants, funding, publications, meetings……….
How many spoke out Against the abuses and overstatements? As a % of community?
How many “scientific organizations” gladly embraced the warming meme for politics?
Seems like the reputation of “scientists” deserves to be lowered, many notches……….
Good article, I too say science will be fine.
Those who disguise their advocacy in sciencey clothing will not fare so well.
The public has a nose for dishonesty and BS. (Bad Science)
While unsure, we are willing to give the “experts” the benefit of doubt, but when the consequences of having taken this expert advice are hugely damaging we are capable of being extremely unforgiving.
Science as an institution of uncertainty, has always been under attack.
The high priests and witchdoctors never left our societies, they have always resented having their grasp on the gullible pried loose, by sceptical thinkers with the freedom to speak.
The herd attraction to certainty is instinctive and comforting, we want to believe.
Human behaviour seems to cycle, from grimly pragmatic through to suicidal insanity.
The perception problem is it takes generations, exactly like those possible weather/climate cycles we are trying to decipher.
The horrible vision, the posted article gave me, ..
I forsee a time coming when those of us who have been extremely critical of the actions of modern scientists, particularly those of the “climate persuasion”, may find ourselves arguing on their behalf, against a lynch mob.
Always a possibility when you argue for fair play and civil discourse.
But I do maintain civilization is valuable.
davidmhoffer says:
January 26, 2014 at 8:47 am
“While I agree with the central premise of the author’s essay, I would argue that private industry is also responsible to a considerable degree in regard to the corruption of climate science.”
You are not wrong, of course, but don’t chastise industry for what it does best. If [your] business is production of energy and policies are being put in place to put you out of business, then you are going to also go into the green energy business and pick up subsidies and any other legal avenue to get your share. I don’t fault them. Industry responds to regulation. Making coal uneconomic in the USA and Australia leads to coal exports from their companies. You have to admire the versatility of industry. Also, at least a seasoned business is going to do this stupid deed most efficiently. Imagine what it would cost if a bunch of political scientists, environmentalists and their flacks were to go into the green energy business and we were forced to buy the energy from, say Greenpeas or World Wild Flights of Fancy organization.
David in Cal, you write “I’d love to see an apology from some scientists or scientific organization, but I don’t think that will happen.”
I suggest there may be a difference when it comes to CAGW. Claiming there were canals on Mars did not cost taxpayers any money. Suggesting CAGW is real has cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Taxpayers can be very unforgiving.
David in Cal says:
January 26, 2014 at 9:25 am
You’re quite right David, you there will be no apology. There are too many serious losers; all the worlds Scientific Bodies including the once respected Royal Society, most of the mass media including the never-respected BBC, the once respected Nobel Foundation etc. They can never admit they were wrong, don’t even dream about it, it is not going to happen!
So, as Max Planck famously said
Paltridge in his full essay may be too pessimistic about a resolution to the problem. There are now skeptical governments scattered about the world, and as Jo Nova recently reported, Europe is beginning to swing away from its investments in alternative sources of power. Governments will probably make changes slowly, to avoid embarrassment. However, with electorates increasingly resisting the economic pain of AGW activism, we may actually see research money directed in part to skeptical scientific studies. With a balanced debate–in which Nature has a say–mainstream science may come to assess any projected warming as most likely not catastrophic.
Joachim;
They refuse to take a look, as soon as they notice the paper is “skeptic”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is your assumption. You fail to consider that they did look, found your work to be without merit, and unworthy of response. Had you sent it to me, I might have responded, but I doubt you would be happy with my comments.
In any event, how publicly funded scientists responded to your missives has absolutely nothing to do with the role of private sector actors in persuading political decision makers in regard to climate policy.
BTW, his name is Garth, not Gareth.
Richard,
Don’t be such a pessimist.
I still have one foot in the real world and ordinary folk have known for a while that AGW doesn’t sound ‘true’.
They are cynics as regards the conduct of big government and their lackeys in the world of ‘science’.
Just as the printing of fake money is forestalling the inevitable worldwide period of deflation the shenanigans of so called ‘scientists’ have already become a source of mere amusement.
Yet, despite the debasement of currencies worldwide, despite the stupidity of so called ‘experts’, the world is becoming richer, population growth is approaching stability and in due course a voluntary decline, natural resources are becoming more abundant through new methods of extraction, life expectancies are increasing, the power of dictators to exert their will is declining.
History flows towards a better future overall despite setbacks along the way and AGW was just one such setback which will be looked upon as an amusing example of past institutional stupidity in 100 years time.
The main culprits will get away with it, unfortunately, but the history of humankind will press on regardless.
Separating science from the cause.. Selling social engineering as some sort of quasi science like political campaign.. How can we be wrong with so many of the right people involved..
The government uses green to increase revenue and provide less infrastructure wise.. Abandoning projects just involves slapping a return to nature sign on it.. Not paying this year just involves a little more study..
Green is a governmental fudge factor to make sure there is money left in the coffers for government raises, promotions and benefits.. The public’s needs and the workers needs on a green teeter totter..
Who is not willing to put their thumb on the scale when reality is bounded by collective bargaining..
How do we get them to pay more for less.. How can we borrow on their backs so we can sell the fact that we are borrowing on their backs..
To me.. The western world sold its ability to produce profit to China.. Our elite (and their children) have no other choice but to create a new green industry that allows them to feed on the public..
Why do they need cheap power when they are NOT manufacturing here anyway.. They dont..
But.. they do need to generate some sort of profit in their own back yard to keep themselves at the top of the local heap.. Green is pushed and pulled, soiled and sold.. Keeping the lights on by slowly dimming them..
The very people who sold your future are taking your past.. This is clear..
“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 ”
Overstating? How about fabricating the climate problem? That’s much worse and with such wholesale global participation from every sector of academia and governments it is inevitable that
it will turn out in the end that “global warming” is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity.
Nothing else comes close.
It’s maddening that here in Oregon the push for mitigation is soaring.
There appears to be no limit to the crimes of public deceit.
The reputation of politicians, and the profiteers who bought them their office in exchange will remain intact.