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.
M Courtney says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 3:30 pm
…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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
When I ran a lab I wouldn’t even consider anyone under the age of 35. The kids had work ethics that were non-existent, knowledge that was minuscule and egos that were immense.
Carbomontanus says:
January 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
__________________
Your ramble triggered memories of Act 5, Scene 5 from the bard’s tale of my ancestors.
I’m being kind.
consequences! the political forces of most of the western world have adopted AGW for
control purposes over their citizens by scaring them with endless increases in heat, rising
seas, etc. etc.
Now is it possible, that we may be entering an ice age. Solar cycle 25 may well determine
the outcome of that possibility.
The politicians have spent billions to fight AGW. If they are wrong are they perhaps criminally
responsible when we find the alternative energy they have tried to force on us does not meet
the needs of a colder world. In addition, a colder world produces less food can we feed
seven billion + people ?
The result is not pretty. Think about it!
Many admirable points on this thread, but one thing seems to be missing:
The entire global warming meme ultimately is an expression of tyrannical, exploitative politics. It’s always been only a device for robbing productive people of the fruits of their labor and suppressing human rights. Never was this more apparent than in the UN’s Christina Figueres’s statement that “democracy is bad for climate.”
The origin of CAGW can be laid at the feet of enemies of liberty and capitalism. The so-called “scientists” who tout it were always extreme leftist-reactionary politicians first, scientists second – that is, if they could ever be called “scientists” at all. They were never committed to the scientific method, only to ways to advance their authoritarian, kleptocratic, perverse, hate-driven agenda.
Orwell, 1984: “there is truth, and there is untruth … to be in a minority of one doesn’t make you mad”
As for science having been replaced by scientism, that was identified by Atiyah decades ago. Now all that’s left is to defeat the cult of death and look for the scientific equivalent of a “good german”.
What isn’t mentioned here is the opportunity costs, where certain people’s careers were pretty much trashed? If you think that’s not a problem, go back to the climategate emails, where you can see the collusion to keep the bad science and exclude anything that disagreed.
For real michaelspj.
Scam science is the destructive waste of entire human lifetimes’ pursuit of research and reality based reveals from scientific endeavor that are the whole reason we instituted a government.
Not so morally bankrupt and ethically challenged frauds can simply run wild as rampant peddlers of falsehood,
simply because it’s a new day,
and the new day’s stream of falsehood should be generated to keep that spot taking money for lying with friends in “THE CAUSE”.
“Science” is now a term that, sadly, will journey down the euphemism treadmill.
Sad, too. Because if actual science and scientific debate had taken place regarding AGW we wouldn’t have as polarized a society, as expensive a set of ineffective policies, nor would the West have exported as many jobs as it did to the East, sacrificing a viable middle class in the process.
Those insisting others accept their assertions because s/he “is a scientist!” and “a consensus of scientists agree!” should have been rejected prima-facie as making flimsy appeals to authority. And the politicization of science by self-important blow-hards should have been rejected by their peers.
It wasn’t. Now all will pay.
Alan Robertson says:
Carbomontanus says:
January 26, 2014 at 1:28 pm
__________________
” Your ramble triggered memories of Act 5, Scene 5 from the bard’s tale of my ancestors.
I’m being kind”
I was thinking “Unabomber”.
Some of these apparent environmentally friendly activities on second look may not be worth the effort. What difference does it make for example if plastic takes hundreds of years to break down in a landfill? Rocks take hundreds of years to break down 😉 Why is it if a human discards a piece of paper its called garbage, but trees discarding leaves that essentially consist of the same fibers, that’s ok? I ride my bike past a body of water that has a shopping cart in it. A duck sits upon it while preening. To the duck it’s a structure similar to a stump, to a human its nasty and must be removed (which it was).
There is more to science than just observation. You have to consider what someone tells you and immediately look for the flaws. That’s what I do and I have been very successful in my endeavors.
The Quadrant, a conservative magazine, has a circulation of around 5000. Too bad. Not many people will hear what Prof. Paltridge has to say.
On the other hand, the British parliament seems grumpy about the corruption of science due to the demand for publication in peer reviewed journals. The result is a bunch of journals that nobody reads and which publish mostly crap. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/inquiries/peer-review/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
People are beginning to notice; especially about pharmaceutical research. If you google for ‘pharma research corruption’ you get lots of hits. I’m not sure whether Global Warming will ruin the reputation of science but there is plenty of evidence that the people in power are beginning to see that there is a problem with science and may (hopefully) demand some kind of action (other than the Harper Government ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ approach that is).
richardscourtney says: “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?”
Perfectly.
And why a moderate El Niño in 2010 is so close to a super El Niño in 98. And why probably any El Niño in 2014 or 2015 will beat both.
The good doctor did not once mention the benefits of Carbon Dioxide. I have not found one comment on this thread yet on the benefits. My eyeballs will loose the ability to focus before I’m through reading them all to check if Carbon Dioxide benefits do get a mention.
michaelspj says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 4:00 pm
What isn’t mentioned here is the opportunity costs…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is even worse when you consider that our political leaders DELIBERATELY took a wrecking bar to western civilization and SMASHED IT.
President Barack Obama’s top science adviser, John Holdren co-authored books that called for a campaign to “de-develop the United States”
Pascal Lamy, former WTO Director-General asks “Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?”
However I think the worst of the bunch is President Bill Clinton. Remember Clinton is real big on Interdependence.
Up until Clinton a discouraged worker was one who was willing, able and ready to work but had given up looking because there were no jobs to be had. The Clinton administration dismissed to the non-reporting netherworld about five million discouraged workers who had been so categorized for more than a year. This has effectively hidden the results of his policies. While the real unemployment in the USA is ~23% heading towards 24% and has been increasing since 2007, the news reports it as 7.3% (oct 2013) down from a high of 10.0% in Oct. 2009.
Clinton set-up the foreclosure mess when he signed five banking laws repealing the depression era laws restricting banking, making banks give loans to the unqualified but did not regulate Credit Default Swaps. The result was Banks that were TOO BIG to fail and the AIG credit default swap bailout aka the Bank Bailout.
Clinton pushed through the World Trade Organization and got China membership.
WTO states:
The problem is WHO is the US government/Clinton working for when they do the negotiations? The international corporations? 2.8 Million U.S. Jobs Lost Since China Joined WTO: Study and U.S. Standard of Living Has Fallen More Than 50% in effect we are competing with China and India in wages. This Chart is for _Jim and shows the increase in payroll taxes while corporate taxes and tariffs (excise taxes) decreased.
And it gets even worse because Clinton also gave away America’s technological edge.
garymount says: @ur momisugly January 26, 2014 at 5:23 pm
The good doctor did not once mention the benefits of Carbon Dioxide….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is probably because we have been screaming about the benefits until we are blue in the face.
I think this paper say it all: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California
Considering the jury is still out as to whether we are headed for glaciation or just a very cool 40,000 years or so, that paper should scare the bovine fecal material out of any one with half a brain.
Otherwise head over to http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
garymount says:
January 26, 2014 at 4:35 pm
“What difference does it make for example if plastic takes hundreds of years to break down in a landfill? Rocks take hundreds of years to break down 😉 “
Indeed! Not breaking down is a GOOD thing. When something “breaks down”, it can leach toxic residues into the ground.
“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.”
…the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity so far.
Science when practiced is fine
Establishment (political base) science, government autocrats, ambitious academics and the academic welfare pretenders, not so much.
people such as Al Gore or anyone else who subscribes to the GW lie should be expelled by the scientific community algore was never even remotely qualified to join the scientific community, with measured,-able intellectual and character deficits.
garymount says:
You might like “Carbon Is Life” by Yours Truly: http://bunyagrovepress.com/content/carbon-life
“jai mitchell says:
January 26, 2014 at 2:12 pm
And pretend that this is somehow equal in weight to a DIRECT measurement of surface temperature, utilizing equipment that can (and has!) been continuously re-evaluated and whose verifiable results show actual temperatures.
your pro-coal bias is showing. . .”
No such DIRECT measurement of surface temperature has ever been taken by any standard device installed anywhere in the world. None! Never has and never will.
Also, I hope you don’t use Aspirin, y’know the active ingredient was discovered by accident in coal!
“The ‘Pause’ of Global Warming Risks Destroying The Reputation Of Science”
Bull shit, don’t make me laugh.
Just the title is a nod to the AGW fraudsters.
A better title opening would have been “AGW risks…” to start with.
“Destroying the Reputation of Science”
It isn’t the reputation of science that is at stake here….
It is the reputation of politicians, AGW proponents and all those riding the AGW gravy train who jeopardize the loss of their reputation, last but not least the pro AGW media.
(IMO they already lost it but who am I)
The most important and significant loss of reputation however is that of the individual tax payer the modern. well informed and well educated citizen who has been funding this gravy train and who has paid for all the costs of the useless projects, tax hikes and blown up energy bills that will hunt them for years to come while their declining buying power forces them to risk their necks driving the little coffins called eco cars.
And what about the victims of the bio fuel madness that promoted famine and uprisings all over the world, the loss of freedoms in the West.
It’s nice to write a piece about the loss of reputation of a bunch of “scientists” who sold their soul and their scientific integrity for a few bucks but that’s only a very small part of the story.
My view? If you you want to make an article about the negative impact of the real world observations and the alarmist and fraudulent AGW propaganda please tell the entire story.
What is at stake here isn’t the reputation of science or trust in science because people have lost trust in science a long time ago.
What is at stake here is the entire future of humanity, our way of life, our freedom, our financial and economic systems, our prosperity and our civilization.
What is at stake here is capitalism and freedom.
Wake people up to warn them for the real shit that will shake the world.
We will be confronted with the biggest depression since 1929 very soon and crises will go global.
History tells us that a period of economic depression is directly followed by war and with gigantic amounts of arms stockpiled over the years I expect a slaughter house that is going to dwarf all the slaughter houses of the past century.
This string of events will flush the entire AGW scam from the face of the earth just like the endless discussions in the UK about having a EU referendum yes or no.
One of these days we will wake up to a totally different world and only a few of us will survive the next slaughter house because it has been prepared for years to come and our insane estabishment, the same bunch of crooks behind the AGW scare have decided that 95% of the current world population has become OBSOLETE.
The reputation of science? just stuff it.
Read here about the reputation of science according to NASA and watch the slide show and when you’re finished read the information on the next link.
Have a nice day.
Space Ship Earth
The crew are:
– plundering the ship’s supplies
– Tinkering with the temperature and life support controls
– Still looking for instruction manual
– Engaging in bloody skirmishes in every corner of the vessel
– Increasing the size of the crew by 2 million PER WEEK
P. Creola
http://www.slideshare.net/johnkhutchison/future-strategicissuesandwarfare
http://green-agenda.com
That’s my 2 cents opinion about this posting.
I must know a different breed of people. My Democratic friends believe with all their hearts in CAGW. There just isn’t any room for doubts. It is bedrock to who they are. It is part of the reason why they feel superior to other people. And, even if CAGW is not as bad as claimed, it is still very bad and all the migation and green stuff has to go on just the same. And, even if they finally stop voting based on CAGW, and the govt runs out of money for green stuff because they have to give moeny to other, more powerful supporters, they will vote for the identical politicians anyway, the same ones who pushed CAGW. By then the pols will be pushing some other big govt solution to a non-existent problem.
This has very little to do with science.
You guys just don’t get it.
– – – – – – – – – –
Garth Paltridge,
A very relevant essay. Thank you.
Even before AGW exaggerating ideology infected science, the public was already well aware of many examples of hoaxes, bad science and psuedo-science in the >500 plus year history modern science.
If anything, the non-scientific CAGW exaggeration serves to strengthen the reasonable view that applied reasoning (science) is only as good as the application of basic integrity to the reasoning. Reasonable public members now know what they already knew before the scientifically flawed AGW came along; that many scientists can fall far short of integrity in their applied reasoning.
No doom and gloom for the future of science. Just business as usual for reasonable men with integrity. : )
That said, however, it is important that the full details of the whole history of the non-scientific CAGW exaggeration and the details of its irrational ideology be accurately chronicled to mitigate against future re-occurrences like it in science.
John
26 Jan: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Exclusive: Climate scepticism blamed as Owen Paterson slashes spending on global warming
The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) will spend just £17.2m on domestic “climate change initiatives” this financial year, a 41 per cent decline on the previous 12 months, according to its response to a freedom of information request.
The figures will fuel fears that the Environment Secretary’s personal climate-change scepticism could be exposing the UK to a higher risk of flooding and other global warming consequences…
Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute, said: “These shocking figures should worry everyone in the UK…
Maria Eagle, shadow Environment Secretary, said such a steep drop in domestic climate change initiatives “reveals an incredible level of complacency about the threat to the UK from climate change”…
The spending now represents just 0.7 per cent of the department’s total budget for the year, down from 1.2 per cent last year…
This month, Mr Paterson was asked in Parliament whether he agreed with David Cameron’s “suspicion” that climate change was partly to blame for the ferocity of the recent storms – and he failed to answer…
Guy Shrubsole, a Friends of the Earth campaigner, said: “By cutting Defra’s work to protect the UK from climate change and extreme weather events, Owen Paterson has shown that he’s unfit for office. He continues to put more people and their livelihoods at risk.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-climate-scepticism-blamed-as-owen-paterson-slashes-spendingon-global-warming-9086397.html
24 Jan: AP: John Heilprin: Cameron, Bono link poverty, climate at AP debate
to eradicate poverty must be linked to climate change, saying that rising temperatures will have widespread effects on everything from food supplies to education.
Panelists at two separate sessions at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland — among them Bill Gates, Al Gore and U2 frontman Bono — underlined the importance of the issue. The United Nations is also making climate change a priority at Davos this year, pushing for a U.N.-brokered internationally binding climate treaty in Paris in 2015.
At a debate sponsored by The Associated Press, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the next U.N.-led campaign to eradicate extreme poverty must make the climate a top priority…
More than one billion people live in extreme poverty by the World Bank’s definition, living on less than $1.25 a day.
“We do need to prioritize, but I would argue if we do want to help the one billion, we need to put in climate change,” Cameron said…
“Extraordinary things happen in Davos — no more extraordinary than an Irish rock star complimenting a Conservative British Prime Minister for his leadership in the fight against extreme poverty. Anything can happen,” Bono said, before turning directly to Cameron. “Thanks dude. I’m a top-line melody guy, and I will try and help with the assignment. But I have a feeling it’s people not in this room that are going to execute it.”…
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/bono-cameron-talk-poverty-climate-ap-debate