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.
Gail Combs,
Thank Goodness.
For a moment there I feared a feud with you was forming.
That wouldn’t have ended well for me.
Mark and two Cats:
“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.
—
Not really. The word “pause” has special connotation when it comes to the climate change debate! (do I need to rant again?)
We in real science never had a problem. Those with the mistaken belief it was possible to immerse a sphere heated to stable temps in vacuum,
into a frigid nitroge/oxygen bath phase change refrigerated by water,
on the other hand,
are finding it difficult to not have themselves laughed at to such scorn their opposition’s catcall
is to dare them – dare them – to predict which way a thermometer will move.
Oh yeah
“and have that sphere’s surface energy sensors show it got warmer by 91F/33C for it ”
is supposed to be line 4 above
Bill
jai mitchell says:
“your pro-coal bias is showing. . .”
That, coming from someone whose alarmist bias trumps everything, is the epitome of irony.
What is a ‘pro coal bias’, anyway? If being pro coal means desiring lower utility bills, and more harmless, beneficial CO2 for plants to use, then I am also ‘pro coal’.
Too bad about you. You want higher electric bills, poverty, and mass starvation. Well, to each his own.
I get it: you hate humanity.
If someone was paying me a 3-figure salary to build computer models that provided “what if” scenarios of climate catastrophes that might arise given certain assumptions, I’d build as many of those models as they wanted. There is really nothing wrong or illegal about that.
My mistake would rest with the fact that I saw that my work was being portrayed as something real or factual in a whole host of lay publications, and I did nothing to set the record straight. Models are just models. They are only as good as the theories and assumptions upon which they are based. Data is the lifeblood of science, and there never was any good data to support the models or the theories. That’s the big chicken now roosting on a lot of fragile eggheads.
It is not “the pause” that destroys the reputation of science.
It has been destroyed in the moment when “science” became irreproducible, when raw data and methodology were hidden, when past records in history started to change.
When one looks at history and does not recognise it from year to year it is bad. When relative positions in a graph change, when temperatures of past year cool and cool and sea level gets up and up:
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/23/german-review-sea-level-rise-way-below-projections-no-hard-basis-for-claims-of-accelerating-rise/
When ARGO data does not show warming and needs re-calibration to show it, when Envisat data changes post mortem and so on.
The pause only drew attention to it, helped put a spot of light on it, and what one saw was not pretty.
You may choose to support those who wish to spend no money on science at all, but if some is spent, neither try to tell how it should be allocated, nor allow the government to do so, that’s all.
BTW, if you prefer to live in a country where no science is done, that’s a bad choice, IMHO. But it is up to you, of course. As for “stealing from the productive”, I wonder how productive the Liquid Crystal Display industry would be without an obscure Austrian botanist stumbling upon a weird material with double melting points 126 years ago. Think about that.
M Courtney says:
January 26, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Gail Combs,
Thank Goodness.
For a moment there I feared a feud with you was forming.
That wouldn’t have ended well for me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I would have sicced your Dad on you since I am on this side of the ocean. Or worse, one of my old English caving buddies.
(My husband also had a good laugh out of that example.)
There’s a standing joke that the US Constitution is a great document, and a helluva lot better than what the USA has right now. Similarly, science is a great idea, and a helluva lot better than what we have right now.
“””””…..LesH says:
January 26, 2014 at 12:31 pm
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! …….”””””
So why pick on Monsanto’s “guys” ? Last time I checked, guaranteeing the exclusive rights (via patents) of inventors, to the fruits of their inventions is one of the 17 things that the US Congress is actually authorized to involve itself in.
As for controlling the code virtually all software licensing agreements (you can’t actually buy the software to own) prohibit the licensee, from modifying or reverse engineering their code, or editing it in any way.
Patent laws are quite benign, when compared to the largesse of copyright laws, which guarantee would be guitar strummers the right to collect fees for their noises, long after their demise. Inventive patent holders on the other hand, now have to pay (a subscription fee essentially) to maintain the continuing patent protection of their invention, which is only protected for a very limited time; less time than it takes to verify that some climate change might have happened.
George Steiner says:
January 26, 2014 at 11:59 am
Yes, there are quite a few graduate departments of science that need to be closed. In addition, there are quite a few graduate departments of science education that need to be closed.
“””””…..Jbird says:
January 26, 2014 at 3:00 pm
If someone was paying me a 3-figure salary to build computer models that provided “what if” scenarios of climate catastrophes that might arise given certain assumptions, I’d build as many of those models as they wanted. There is really nothing wrong or illegal about that. …..”””””
Gee ! with that kind of salary ; plus 60 cents, I can buy a McDonalds senior coffee, with two free refills.
M Courtney says:
January 26, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Good example. It contains so much propaganda that one can hardly find the problem.
Of course the realities of farming, as opposed to agri-business, are such that every genuine farmer chooses the item with the lower initial investment. Farmers do not have the luxury of thinking about long term investments.
The reputation of science hasn’t suffered.
The reputation of pseudo-science believers who demanded everyone acquiesce that a sphere, heated to full temp in vacuum,
then immersed in frigid nitrogen/oxygen bath, that’s phase-change refrigerated by water,
on the other hand,
has plummeted to the point the catcall of real scientists is to dare them to predict which way a thermometer will move.
Theo Goodwin says at January 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm
True. It is all unrealistic.
But the point is that children are taught to think this way. This is what 16 year olds are told is most important.
To progress in life they must give the right answer under the life-altering pressure of a an exam.
In the labs where I currently work, when people apply to us straight from university, they need to be very impressive to overcome the lack of value we ascribe to their qualifications.
My gosh that was fast. Sorry, I posted once, saw it up and – oh well whatever – everyone sees – I double posted.
Berényi Péter says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 3:13 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are taking it that science would have no support at all. It is not a government support or no support – either/or. That is the logical mistake that everyone keeps making. Money given directly is 100% of the money going directly to the beneficiary. Money via taxes is a small fraction of that. (1/3 wasted, 1/3 to interest, 1/3 not collected)
88% of US households give to charity
The average household gives $2,213 a year.
Then take a look at tax money, heck we can not AFFORD to give even a dime to science or anything else and the IMF agrees:
The amount of waste in the federal government.
Do you think people who understand the federal debt crisis want to see money go to corrupt universities and scientists? Think again. They had their change and they blew it.
Time to take back and cut up Mommy’s credit card.
ja1 m1tchell:
I am replying to your ridiculous post at January 26, 2014 at 2:12 pm which is addressed to me.
It includes these pearls of your wisdom
The “DIRECT” temperature “measurements” are few, not randomly distributed, and change in number and in place from year to year. The global temperature is inferred from them using a variety of assumptions. The resulting derivations of global temperature cannot be verified because
(a)
there is no definition for ‘global temperature’ so each team which determines it does that in a different way which is often changed
and
(b)
there is no possibility of calibrating their results.
For more information to reduce your immense ignorance of these matters please read Appendix B of this Parliamentary Submission
The decay of satellites is simply observed and corrected for as is demonstrated by the fact that GPS systems work.
Importantly, I am interested in your saying to me
I don’t have a “pro-coal bias” as can be seen by my recent comparison on WUWT of advantages of new coal-fired power stations and new gas-fired CCGT power stations.
But that is not why I am so interested.
I was not aware of the technology for coal-firing satellites and I would be grateful if you were to tell me where I could obtain information on it.
Richard
Why do you think the scientific establishment leans to the left? If the smartest layer of humankind thinks something to be true I would not dismiss it easily and euphemistically
on grounds of political affiliation
For the last couple of years I have been highly critical of science as it is being practiced today .
But this time as the comments are all running along the line that all science is corrupted, I am going to defend some science and scientists.
Science disciplines can be divided roughly into three main basic categories whilst acknowledging that in the sub sections of the main science disciplines there is some overlap in the below categories.
1 / “Creative science” which is basic and essential for human welfare and existence.
2 / “Neutral science” which is the pure advancement of knowledge but which rarely provides useful outcomes for humanity except to satisfy our inherent human curiosity.
3 / “Destructive science” which never provides or creates anything of use or value to our socity and civilisation
Of interest here is that the importance of each category and the funding and promotion they get is in almost direct inverse proportion to their essentiality to our human existence and survival and the structure of our civilisation.
Examples of each
1 / Creative science;
Agricultural research ;
Now there might be a some seriously bad science in plant breeding and I personally know there is from the anecdotes of the researchers themselves. But the true picture of agricultural science’s and scientist’s performance is exemplified by the hard numbers of the global food crop production data.
The plant breeders, the plant geneticists, the analysts of the various plant products are the scientists who have ensured that as the world population rapidly grew in numbers from the 3 billions at the end of WW2 in 1945 to the 7 plus billions of 2014, a period of only some 70 years or less than the average westerner’s lifetime for a doubling of the human kind’s numbers, those food crop plant breeders and researchers through their science and on the ground efforts have ensured that global food supplies have more than kept up with the increases in the global population.
The production of the basic food products has actually exceeded the needs of the increased global population leading to a fall in real terms in the prices that grain and other producers receive for their products to about a third of what they received some 50 years ago.
And yet agricultural research is now having considerable trouble recruiting new scientists into it’s ranks against the glamourous and much better paid climate and other science disciplines,
A situation that in a way ensures that only those who really want to do Ag science go down that path which in turn probably ensures that Ag science is of a much better quality than most of the high status glamour sciences.
A second creative science absolutely essential to our civilisation is that of water and sewerage scientists and engineers, probably one of the least glamourous of all sciences in the eyes of most of the public and probably looked down with scorn by the climate scientist s who are getting all the publicity, kudos and funding.
There are quite a number of other science disciplines that are absolutely essential to our civilisation and it’s survival and advancement but these two examples are a couple of the most basic and most underrated and most ignored at our cvivilisation’s peril of all sciences.
Each Agricultural and water scientist and engineer in my opinion, are worth most of the entire phalanx of thousands of climate scientists in their real and actual value and essentiality to the survival and prospering of our global civilisation and society
2 / Neutral sciences
I would rate astronomy and cosmology as probably the two most nuetral disciplines although there may be othere. But hey both of those try to expand on and satisfy our inherent curiosity as to where our universe and therefore where we came from and where we and the universe are eventually going to.
There is much else that cosmology has also created particularly in incredibly accurate timing systems upon which our entire global communications system are now critically and totally dependent on to even keep operating.
3 / Destructive sciences.
Well as so many have pointed out in the comments, there is only one main contender along with a few secondary contenders for that title.
Climate science is now possibly the most destructive science that has ever appeared in the annals of mankind.
There is nothing of any perceivable value to yet emerge from the current version of climate science that has cost the people of this world probably over a trillion dollars worth of treasure, wealth and resources. a science that has led to the avoidable deaths of tens of thousands of the poorest in the land as they can no longer afford the costs of energy, a cost that was foisted on to the public by a totally corrupt cabal of climate scientists to solve a problem which they had not and still have not shown or proven to exist in any way at all. And a science that has led to severe and totally unnecessary social divisions within entire societies.
A corrupted science that has created wide ranging mental trauma and totally unjustified fears amongst a large percentage of the population over a supposed and claimed future catastrophic event for which they, the climate scientists never ever had any substantiated proof or evidence of, just hypothetical rantings based on nothing but some unproven, unverified, un validated compuer programs created and promoted by biased self aggrandising so called climate scientists who in most cases never even had any qualifications that were relevant to the climate science they were espousing.
Their contribution to society and civilisation is entirely negativeand has been highly destructive to society and to the very science they claim to part of and represent.
It is even worse as some so called climate scientists have advocated that mankind be forced back to the caves from which we have as a species spent so much in blood, sweat and tears over the last 120 centuries to climb out of and begin the long climb up the ladder of civilisation.
Then there are the various oceanographers, an off shoot of climate science. A science discipline which seems like climate science to have nothing good to say about mankind or civilisation but concentrates solely on their supposed and claimed horrors of the oncoming disasters of sea level rise, destruction of corals, ocean acidification and etc and etc, none of which after some 30 years of promoting of these supposed and predicted mankind produced ocean destruction has shown the slightest signs of eventuating.
Then there are the Arctic ice loss Cassandra’s in climate science.
The list goes on and on.
Climate science and all the associated Cassandra like, mankind hating climate science and climate scientists are the worst and most destructive elements of civilisation and society that this world has ever seen from science, a formerly highly regarded and respected profession that we all had assumed until the last couple of decades, was there solely to advance both cilvilisation and mankind’s personal and collective well being.
This was inevitable when the climate hooligans started borrowing against the account good science had built up over a century of marvels.
The problem is, children are never genuinely taught the scientific method. They think it consists of a) rejecting anything having to do with religions of the past, b) using technological sounding jargon, and c) utter submission in thought, word, and deed to the self-proclaimed arbiters of Science. And, by Science, I mean the inchoate deity which, in their minds, rules over the natural world.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the worst fallout which is likely to follow the defrocking of the Climate clergy. Pseudoscience already runs amuck. People spend billions annually on quack medicines, vitamins, healing crystals, and magnet therapy. Many have stopped vaccinating their children and drinking unpasteurized milk, among other assorted lunacy. When the hucksters hawking such wares can point to this fiasco and derisively intone, “yeah, those scientists really knew what they were talking about with global warming, didn’t they?”, there will be an explosion of primitivism, and an atavistic retreat to Dark Age mentality.
Costliest scientific mistake ever doesn’t begin to quantify the magnitude of the problem.
Well said, David.
Many people have missed the fact that the entire CAGW hypothesis has benefitted industrial interests galore, largely in the commercial/public energy sector that the “theory” nominally excoriates.
The demand for energy is highly inelastic. Indeed, as the fundamental scarce resource, the sine qua non of modern industry and civilization, one literally cannot substantially reduce the demand for energy without driving humanity back to the 18th or 19th century. Energy companies can and will meet that inelastic demand no matter what idiocy is legislated because any alternative would spell a depression that makes the Great Depression look like good times. In the meantime, any legislation that causes them to raise prices, especially in a generally non-inflationary time, simply increases their marginal profit.
Duke Energy (for example) doesn’t care about whether they provide energy generated from coal, fission, or solar sources. What they care about is making a healthy profit on the energy they sell from any source. Which they do. How are they hurt, how is their business impacted by CAGW panic and hysteria? It isn’t. They just make more money.
rgb
Daniel G. said:
January 26, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Mark and two Cats:
“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.
—
Not really. The word “pause” has special connotation when it comes to the climate change debate! (do I need to rant again?)
————
You are free to rant all you want (for now), but when the general public hears “pause…”, I’ll wager they fill in the blank so: “pause in mm-global warming”.
It isn’t about niceties in nomenclature, it’s an assault upon our freedom and way of life, and the opposition are using language as an “assault-weapon”.
But rant away whilst you can, before the warmunists win the war and revoke your ranting privileges.
Prior to Climategate, and the climate research shambles, there was an automatic assumption of trust – people trusted the word of scientists, unless evidence emerged that such trust was misplaced.
The effect of the climate disaster will be people shall start with a presumption of distrust – which is a real shame, because if a real threat emerges, people will not trust the word of scientists when they describe the threat.