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
What.a.great.post! It goes to show how much the ‘scientivists’ have corrupted a noble profession. There are those, for instance, in the UK MO who have sold their bodies and souls to the government in return of the baubles of over-long titles and bigger computers. They bask in the radiance of the politicians who are really only using them – like the prostitutes that MPs are so used to. Little do they know, once they have been used and their use is no more of value, they will be abandoned and cast to the winds. Scientivists have been used merely to allow failed politicians to make good the huge losses and debts they have incurred on their countries – in the UK’s instance, it’s well over £1.5 TRILLION of debt (not deficit, as many polis will try to deflect attention to).
The thing is, as the MPs are finding that gas wells don’t vote – but can be taxed, they are better than taxing to death the people who can.
“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.”
————
Mistake? AGW is warfare, not a mistake. It is a false-flag operation covering the infiltration of UN governance/communism into free society. They have won significant ground so far in the US with outposts like EPA and California Air Resources Board etc, and with entrenched operatives such as obama.
Even if the “science” of AGW fails, their foothold will remain. Just try getting rid of established bureaucracy. CARB mentioned above has been shown to be using falsified data in its jihad against diesel emissions, but that has not slowed their march.
And if the main thrust of AGW is deflected, they will come at us from another flank.
“Global temperatures have not risen for 17 years. The pause now threatens…”
And PLEASE stop calling it a “pause” – you are allowing the enemy to define the terms. It is natural variation. Calling it a pause subconsciously accepts the assertion that mm-global warming is real but just taking a break.
With this frigid weather, there are still people who believe in global warming?!? Sorry, I used to believe in global warming, but these temperatures just aren’t possible in a globally-warmed atmosphere. They are saying -20 possible, with -40 windchills in Chicago. Glo-BULL warming my butt.
I don’t think it’s entirely fair to paint all scientists with the same broad brush. It’s true that “climate scientists” have been hoist on their own petard, and regular readers of Retraction Watch understand that the peer-review process has its problems. But I believe many scientists recoiled at the pronouncement that “the science is settled,” even climatologists who knew better at the time and surely know better now.
Is it just possible that there are [too] many scientists doing [too] much science? The scientist currency and the science currency has been debased. This is the result of over production of the scientist currency. When a real currency is debased and has lost most of its value, the solution is usually to ditch the previous currency and bring in a brand new one revalued. How are you going to do that to the scientist currency?
Dave says:
”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.”
Some “scientists” (like those @ur momisugly RC) even backed him up:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
”How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought.”
The author did point out a few errors which he characterized as “minor” and says:
”For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right”
It’s unfathomable that any scientist could be that naïve, but there it is for all to see.
Meanwhile we just had the highest year ever that was not associated with a positive ENSO event, a fact that no one at this website has really noticed, even Tisdale.
Mod says: “highest?”
Let’s see, which are the years that usually beat 2013:
98 high ENSO positive event.
02 ENSO positive event starting in the year, more than 6 months.
03 preceding 02/03 ENSO positive event
05 high ENSO positive event
06 ENSO positive event starting in the year, 3 months
07 preceding 06/07 ENSO positive event
09 ENSO positive event starting in the year, 6 months
10 high 09/10 ENSO positive event
2012 is the highest year with La nina conditions, and it breaks into the top ten in some rankings.
And 2013 is the highest year with no ENSO event at all, and it breaks into the top 5 in some rankings.
With 2013 as a base, I suspect with the next El Niño we won’t need to look all the flat graphs that usually begin with the 98 El Niño.
Others that will lose credibility: The Nobel Prize organization; organized, Capital-S “Skepticism,” aka pseudo-skepticism or scofticism.
MarkG says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 8:55 am
….The only solution is to cut all taxpayer funding of science, completely; let scientists do something useful that people are willing to pay for, or nothing at all. We won’t lose much, as most of the taxpayers’ money goes on generating dubious studies that are soon contradicted by other dubious studies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I said the same thing a few days ago.
People seem to think the only science is government funded science yet in the USA funding only really started about 1950. For example in 1940 the total expenditure was under $70 million or about 1 percent of present-day expenditures, when adjusted for inflation.
Scientists in mass have betrayed the public trust especially scientists in Academia. They do not deserve one red cent more!
PS: A third that will have egg on its face: the two recent green popes and their church. For that matter, all warmist / alarmist ecclesiastics. Oh, and a fourth, the royal family.
They all thought this was a fail-safe “motherhood” issue they could use to gain cred with. Ha ha.
Zeke says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:31 am
“NGO – only a government would think of that!”
A better term is QUANGO for Quasi-NGO; but I use NGO as it’s the established (Orwellian) term.
jimv said @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 10:59 am
Do you really think the Köppen-Geiger climate boundaries are fixed for ever and ever, amen?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Koppen_World_Map_%28retouched_version%29.png/1280px-Koppen_World_Map_%28retouched_version%29.png
Theo Goodwin says at January 26, 2014 at 11:01 am… Yes children are no longer taught science in schools.
But you have no idea how bad it is.
This is a past paper for higher standard 16 year olds studying Physics in the UK.
Most of this is not science. And the rest is too dumbed down for a 16 year old.
You may not believe how bad it is so I’ll copy one question as a teaser.
PPS: #5: the UN. #6: progressive political parties.
Pippen Kool:
Your post at January 26, 2014 at 12:04 pm
It seems you are saying that if natural climate behaviour such as ENSO did not exist then AGW would exist.
Is that a correct understanding?
If I have understood you then you are presenting bollocks (again). The climate behaves as the climate system decrees and not as you desire. That is why global warming stopped 17 years ago.
ENSO is a real effect. Live with it: everybody has to live with its effects.
But effects of AGW? Nah, there are none of those that anybody has found to date.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:30 am
Good Lord! Why in heaven’s name did that go in the mod bin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr M*tchell’s name auto trips moderation.
richardscourtney said @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 11:30 am
I find myself asking the same question from time-to-time. I suspect that no-one knows, that it’s just a bug in the algorithm that does the binning. Even more mysterious was a brief (48 hour) period recently when I couldn’t post at all.
Robin Edwards says January 26, 2014 at 8:39 am:
“I would like to send this essay to my Member of Parliament.”
I just have.
Pippen Kool says:
January 26, 2014 at 12:04 pm
“Meanwhile we just had the highest year ever that was not associated with a positive ENSO event, a fact that no one at this website has really noticed, even Tisdale.”
NCDC says temperature in NOV was 13.69 deg C.
Der Spiegel, based on NASA data said 1988 it was 15.4°C.
http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/image/show.html?did=13529172&aref=image036/2006/05/15/cq-sp198802801580159.pdf&thumb=false
Which is perfectly compatible with retrocausality; because 1988 looked at from 2014 is probably much cooler than it was in 1988. I estimate that 1988 is today around 13.44 deg C – so 1988 has cooled down by around 2 deg C within 25 years. If this trend continues, 1988 will be at 5.4 deg C in the year 2100! We will wonder how we survived back then!
“Garth” not “Gareth”.
Even Ma Nature is thumbing her nose at the Politically Correct CAGW alarmists. Tuesday is the US State of the Union address and Ma Nature has scheduled the coldest day of the week just for Obama’s speech. The day will have a high of 17° F @ur momisugly 4:00 pm. Winds 10 to 15 mph with a wind chill as low as 6 below in the morning for when Congress walks into the building. The temperature is 25 degrees below normal for that day.
Hopefully even the most brain-dead of Congress Critters might notice it is NOT ^%$# WARM, unfortunately I don’t think it will penetrate past the $$ signs in front of their eyes.
M Courtney: (re: Exam question) I got as far as “A farmer plans to generate all the electricity needed on her farm,…” and nearly choked at the PC in the question…
M Courtney: Further to the Exam question: “A farmer plans to generate all the electricity needed on her farm,…”
OK: If it’s a question of “all”, then there is no option. It has to be what is the most continuous supply – the cheaper biogas generator. But I guess I would not have got all SIX marks for that.
Scott Basinger said @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 12:21 pm
As has been pointed out by several others. Anthony has met Garth even when in Hobart several years ago 🙂
Science will be fine?
let’s see, is that pharmaceutical science you had in mind? Perhaps you speak of the non-political purity of fusion research? Maybe it is Monsanto’s guys you referred to – who not only control the data, the code, but even the right to research their products! Just think of what tobacco companies could have done with the same entitlement. Oh but the military always get it right, right? Remind me – How much was spent on star-wars gambits since the teflon president ?
The only thing doubly blind about science are the people that believe the reports they read. But in case you think I speak of laymen, look in the mirror oh scientists and science fans.
Years ago (pre star-wars) as I completed my honors degree in Chemistry, a prof I had in an elective psychology course tried hard to pull me into their “science”. While discussing possible projects for my study, he let me in on the results of one they had just run. They wanted to evaluate how willing a range of different scientists were to entertain and test new ideas by scientific means and standards. It took some doing but they came up with a workable set of scenarios to do the evaluation. They chose researchers from different fields, a control group of ordinary lay-folk and as a baseline they chose a group of theologians and religious leaders. They, he said, were assumed to be the most resistant to change. The ran the study, looked at the results, figured something was really wrong and ran it again. Still confused they tried a different city. All the results came out the same. Those religious leaders were more likely to be open to, & test new ideas by scientific means than the others. Lay-folk came in second and the vaunted researchers were the most entrenched and resistant to change of the lot.
The explanation? After spending so much, training for so long, with careers on the line – the cognitive dissonance hurdle was too great to ever allow anything but the version of truth they now owned. They were the gate-keepers and guardians. For them, truth had served it’s purpose quite well.
That people, the lay-folk that science – no, scientists were to serve, are awakening to reality is a good thing. That each generation seems to need to re-learn the (for us grey-beards) obvious, is a strange combination of amussing, sad, and yet a sense/place of purpose for commenters on this blog.
Lets keep each other sharp.