Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
The Washington Examiner headline says, “John Kerry calls climate change deniers members of ‘Flat Earth Society’.” It typifies all reports about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s head-on attack on scientists trying to practice properly skeptical science. I challenge John Kerry to produce a single person who studies climate who denies climate change. Apparently everybody, except John Kerry, knows that climate changes all the time, it always has and it always will.
In statements made to support his political agenda, Kerry manages to perpetuate a series of errors, myths and slurs. One is the claim Al Gore made before the US Senate in 2007 that the “science is settled” and the “debate is over.” Kerry said,
“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”
Kerry displays further ignorance by marginalizing those who question the science.
“We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”
These are frightening words and a disturbingly narrow position from one of the most powerful statesmen and diplomats, in the world. In the land of “free speech,” he believes no venue should be allowed, and thus people denied their free speech rights. Whatever happened to Voltaire’s view that I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Apparently this is too liberal for this liberal. It confirms George Will’s trenchant observation that,
“When a politician says, “the debate is over,” you can be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”
He clearly doesn’t know the history of science that determined centuries ago that science is never settled. As Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) wrote,
Another error is a conceit that the best has still prevailed and suppressed the rest: so as, if a man should begin the labor of a new search, he were but like to light upon somewhat formerly rejected, and by rejection brought into oblivion; as if the multitude, or the wisest for the multitude’s sake, were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular and superficial, than to that which is substantial and profound: for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh and drowneth that which is weighty and solid.
By participating in the denigration of scientists who dare to practice the scientific method Kerry displays more ignorance and a purely political motive. He calls them climate change deniers, with all the holocaust denial connotations of that phrase.
The scientific method requires that all scientists are skeptics, so it was a correct designation. Kerry clearly doesn’t understand that, but knew the term achieved the marginalizing of those who opposed him.
Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of East Anglia hired to create and prove the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis knew they had a problem. Thomas Huxley identified it over a century earlier.
“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
The ugly fact developed after 1998 when CO2 levels continued to increase as temperature stopped increasing, in contradiction to their major assumption. We learned, from an email leaked from the CRU (IPCC), that it prompted reaction from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus that said,
“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”
To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,
“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”
Proper science requires they consider the null hypothesis that something, other than human CO2, is causing warming. Instead, they opted to defend the political objective, and the mantra shifted from global warming to climate change. At the same time, they raised the emotional stakes by saying some scientists moved from questioning to denying.
Thanks to the work of the “flat-earthers” who Kerry scorns, people began to learn that climate change is normal. Increasingly cold winters reinforced their doubts and prompted another shift begun by President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. He recommended the switch from climate change to climate disruptions. In 2014, the White House formalized the idea with the 840 pages, “National Climate Assessment.
CBS News explained the transition in an article titled,
“Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”
Climate change’s assorted harms “are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond,” the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming.
Kerry is behind the times using climate change and “flat earthers” as epithets. Get with the program John. I suggest you call me a ‘climate disruption disrupter’ because I still know the science does not support the political agenda?
John Kerry is the third most powerful cabinet member and the most powerful statesman and diplomat in the most powerful country in the world. His words and actions on climate and attacks on some scientists are ignorant and shameful. He uses personal insults because he doesn’t understand the science. Worse, he denies scientists free speech, the primary tenet of the US Constitution to which he swore an oath of allegiance.
It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxley’s creed;
“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John Kerry is nothing more than a professional bloviator for whom the application of the Peter Principle is quite appropriate, i.e. John Kerry has risen to his level of incompetence as Secretary of State.
This has always been a political issue, much more so than a scientific debate. Before he latched onto global warming/climate change, Al Gore was pushing a BTU tax on fuels. The objectives, as many commenters here have said over the years, are more money for the government and greater power over its subjects. With public alarm disappearing, and the end of the Obama administration looming, US Democrats – politicians, bureaucrats and their media outlets – National Public Radio, PBS, National Geographic and “mainstream” TV and print news organizations – are making a big final push to get some kind of binding legislation, agreement or treaty enacted to tighten the noose as much as possible while they still can.
Bacon sizzles.
Kerry, like a lot of “debate overs” fails to draw the distinction between raw CO2 forcing (~1.1C/doubling) and the projected feedbacks.
There is not so much debate about the raw forcing (it is at least some), but there is huge debate over the feedbacks, and those feedbacks are supposed to ~triple the raw forcing, so it is a systematic question.
That is the big question for policy makers going forward: feedbacks. (Also, bad microsite may reqy=uire knocking a thoid off the LST — skimmed right off the top).
If we can get that much into play (and I think we can, we certainly are in the journals), we can get things back on keel. maybe.
What should we expect from a pseudo-Kennedy but pseudoscience?
I’m reminded of that scene in “The Avengers” movie where Tony Stark questions an Intelligence Agency that fears Intelligence.
In real life we have Scientific Organizations that fear scientist.
We have lots of time. The climate models don’t.
The more time passes, the more it is obvious they are wrong. (Even with the temperature “adjustments”.)
OOPS!
Messed up my “blockquote”.
What I said should start after “Flat Earth Society.”
Professor Michael Kelly of the British Royal Society, has challenged the pronouncements on Climate Change of that august institution.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995239/Why-Royal-Society-wrong-climate-change-devastating-critique-world-s-leading-scientific-organisation-one-Fellows.html?login#newcomment
The trouble is – the last Professor Kelly who challenged the British government was murdered in mysterious circumstances. (UK politics is not always a genteel game of cricket….)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488667/Why-I-know-weapons-expert-Dr-David-Kelly-murdered-MP-spent-year-investigating-death.html
Ralph
What a MORON!
And to think this guy is a second in command of the most powerful state in the world…
Wow, Just WOW.
America and the world are in deep deep s**t. And not because of “Globul ManBearPig Warming”.
[Well, behind the VP and “House of Rep leader” … Hmmn. Even more frightening. .mod]
Warren…you challenge Tom Trevor to put up. You just proved you ARE a climate “scientist”! YOU make the claim, YOU provide the proof! Or didn`t your masters teach you that about science. YOU claim it, is NOT my place to disprove it , but yours TO prove it. Or is that to simple a concept to understand.
Calling people anti or pro AGW is too 1 – dimensional and , frankly its childishness, as expressed by some , is beginning to irritate me.
Everyone has a multidimensional profile in this debate , and my suggestion is that we try to assess ourselves under the following criteria ( you might like to think up alternatives if you dont like mine ):
1. On a scale of 0 – 5 do you accept that CO2, H2O , CH4 , etc have the spectral properties, and sufficient concentration, necessary for the “greenhouse effect”. 0 = no effect , 5 = complete acceptance of the most extreme IPCC conclusions on forcing.To give an example I would classify myself as a 2 , possibly 3 (need to read more Goody and Science of Doom).
2: Are the effects from AGW if it exists likely to be catastrophic , or just something humankind can cope with . On a scale of 0 ( no problem ) to 5 (“we are all doomed”). I classify myself as a 1, maybe 2 if feeling down.
3. Again on a scale of 0 – 5 should we allow legislators free rein to bring in any taxation penalties they think fit to control emissions. I would say 0 to 1 for myself since I do not trust the probity or competence of our leaders and the sinister (IMO) influences acting on them .
So if I am a 2(3)11 and Warren lb is clearly a 555 person we should be able to discuss our confidence in the science rationally without warren believing that people are either 0 or 5 . I suspect most people here are 211s or 311s.
Another dimension: The current and future cost-effectiveness and scalability of wind and solar power.
A 5th dimension: The likely effectiveness of our setting an example for the rest of the world.
Good points. It is clear that people occupy many different positions in a multidimensional space in this debate , maybe moving around as they listen to others and see new data.
What annoys me about warren and others of like prejudice is that they condense all dialog to a simple yes or no without recognising the bigger picture.
I would add another question which should be the first and most important. What role does CO2 (naturally-produced or human generated) play in driving the climate. I have not seen anything to indicate that CO2 is anything but a minor influence regarding temperature. And if that is true, what possible benefit can eliminating the paltry contribution of man produce to “halt” climate change? It is so easy to get bogged down in all the minutia and distractions. But what is the role of CO2 and how can reducing the minute portion contributed by man reduce climate change and return the climate to the mythical stability? I think this should be the primary thrust to explore this issue as human-generated CO2 is the culprit according to the climate establishment.
Let me qualify this a little further. If we eliminated all human-generated CO2 (an impossibility unless mankind is eliminated first) and all that remained was the CO2 generated from natural sources, what would be the effect on temperature and the climate? Even if CO2 is a major influence (which has not been demonstrated) how could marginally reducing what is already a very minor part of the total have any serious impact?
Did you just invent the “Myers Briggs” of climate personality? You better get a copyright on that, before some anti-science pro-AGW person does.
I see Pound has his climate astroturf talking points down. Trolls R Us must really be scraping the bottom of the barrel now. Dregs of the dregs.
Actually, Kerry has a point. It is as proven as gravity.
Mr. Kerry. How fast will an apple fall from 100m above the ground on the 6th planet of Alpha Endari?
If you don’t know, then you are a gravity denier right?
You can’t answer the question because you do not know enough about the planet in question despite know exactly how gravity works. We know CO2 is a GHG, we don’t know enough about the planet to say much else.
So he is right, just not for the right reason.
Senile Kerioke is probably the Founder of the Flat Earth Society! A true DENIER of everything Normal, Beneficial, Conservative, Religious, or AMERICAN! The Imbecile should have been relegated to Obscurity instead of being inflicted upon the rest of the Nations of the Earth. Only in Iran is this man considered acceptable, since he is the Epitome of SURRENDER, CAPITULATION, and APPEASEMENT!
A bit late to comment however …
This is politics, not science. Lysenko lives in the US of A. Makes you feel real proud, dohnit?
As to warrenlb, I personally believe that the misinformed and illogical offer a distinct advantage to this site as they arouse thoroughly educational responses that quickly bring novices up to date.
When they keep relabeling scientific phenomenon (or any thing else) it means they don’t understand it and don’t like the truth from those that do understand it.
I’ve got another one for Jimbo.
On 3/13 Tony Heller went to the premiere of Merchants of Doubt. Afterward there was a Q&A with Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, and Sen. Bob Ingliss.
Someone asked Sen. Ingliss:
Q: “Have you found any way to appeal to conservative voters on this issue?”
A: “We’re not winning yet, but there’s progress. If you think about it; in the depths of the great recession: It’s hooey, it’s a hoax. Then, uh, hear more lately: I’m not a scientist. That’s becoming untenable, and so now what we’re seeing is people moving to: Well, it’s too expensive to do anything about.
That we count as real progress.
If you’re moving from basically a belief in opposition, you know: Hoax…to I’m not a scientist–which when you think about it is an agnostic position, the next step is a series of a walk toward faith.”
Again with the religious connotations. I’m not going to have “faith” in the science when I’ve seen so much bad science promoted by government in my lifetime, e.g., diet, especially when those getting a government paycheck seem to be the biggest crooks.
John Kerry is a fruitcake. Look who appointed him.
Now, how much credibility does he have in the rest of the world as “Secretary of State” of the USA when the people of his home country don’t trust him. He lives a lonely life in reality.
God help us, please.
These are the same guys who dreamed up the so called “speech codes” on college campuses that have been used to shut down any speech or opinions that the leftists disagree with.
at WUWT, people are familiar with this February 2015 statement by UNFCCC’s Christiana Figueres:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution”
from energygamechangers.org…to highlight another CAGW buzzword, “game-changer”:
Stanford-MIT Energy Game Changers
George P Shultz, Hoover Institution & Robert C Armstrong, MIT Energy Initiative
The Energy Game Changers initiative highlights historic and current effects of research efforts from universities across the US as they deliver a
cheaper, cleaner, and more secure national energy system…
Twenty-five scientists convened at Stanford’s Hoover Institution in 2011 to review specific projects. The group met again the following year at the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI). Some of the most compelling results from those meetings were presented at a conference cosponsored by Hoover and MITEI in Washington, DC, in March 2013…
All of these ideas are portrayed against the backdrop of our three key objectives: national security, economic well-being, and an improved environment.
As Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz said when he was director of the MITEI, there is tremendous research capacity in the United States and elsewhere to carry out aggressive work on this important agenda. The United States needs to exploit this capacity by devoting scientific, engineering, and entrepreneurial resources to the energy area on an unprecedented scale. The fruits of this research and development, combined with the creative juices of the American entrepreneurial culture, will shape our future.
July 2014: Forbes: Kelly Flynn: Game Changers In Energy Making Moves At Stanford, MIT
At the country’s leading universities, thousands of new ideas are being explored and developed, so it’s difficult for anyone to determine which ones
are truly the next game changers. But in a new book, Game Changers: Energy on the Move, Director of MIT Energy Initiative Robert Armstrong and Stanford’s Hoover Institute Distinguished Fellow George Shultz have used their expertise to identify transforming innovations in the energy sector.
The book explores five R&D categories (natural gas; solar photovoltaics; grid-scale storage; electric cars; and LED lighting) and presents projects
at various stages of development in each of those fields. I had the pleasure of speaking to Robert Armstrong who described the energy landscape as the field needing our immediate attention and greater financial support. In this
interview, he shares the challenges he’s witnessed in energy and how we can learn from other sectors, such as the U.S. military and the life sciences
industry.
Kerry Flynn: How would you define a ‘game changer’?
Robert Armstrong: Game changers are a set of discoveries, inventions, innovations that fundamentally change the way we think about a business,
market, service, or product. In the book, we explore game changers that have already been commercialized, those that are near commercializing, and those that are on the horizon. All of those promise to change the way we think about the market or products…
Flynn: Where did the idea for this book come from, and who do you see as the intended audience?
Armstrong: It came out of discussions we had at Stanford and MIT. It is our joint belief that now, more than ever before, we need inexpensive, reliable, and cleaner energy to propel our economy forward, ensure national security interests, and combat climate change…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryflynn/2014/07/02/game-changers-in-energy-making-moves-at-stanford-mit/
10 March: Acton Institute: Bruce Edward Walker: Religious Left Preps ‘Grassroots’ Strategy for Pope Francis’ Environmental Encyclical
Reminding attendees that Pope Francis has an “approval rating politicians would kill for,” Ellis (Lonnie Ellis, associate director of the Catholic Climate Covenant) says the pontiff’s message will be “potentially a game-changer”—as was every development reported during the meeting from Oreskes’ “game-changing” claim for the film adaptation of her book to Ms. Koper’s assertion her CCL(Citizens Climate Lobby) local’s upcoming efforts also will be “game-changing.”…
http://blog.acton.org/archives/76568-religious-left-preps-grassroots-strategy-for-pope-francis-environmental-encyclical.html
2015: Financial Post: Attractive returns make green bonds a ‘game changer’
2014: CBC: UN Climate Summit: A ‘game-changer’ for global warming?
2014: UCS: The Clean Power Plan: A Climate Game Changer
2014: Globe & Mail: Climate pitch a game changer from Obama
2014: Grist: New U.S.-China climate deal is a game changer
2014: HuffPo: The Real Climate Game-Changer? Humility and Hauling Ass on a Plan B
“reply” seems to be broken in this thread. My comment at
davidmhoffer March 15, 2015 at 4:38 pm
is a continuation of my question to warrenlb at
davidmhoffer March 15, 2015 at 2:35 pm
warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 4:40 pm
The IPCC estimates a rise of 3C including feedbacks, a far more relevant calculation. Tell me how they arrive at 3C.
They do no such thing. In AR4 they provide an estimated range of 2.0 to 4.5 degrees C with a consensus median estimate of 3.0 degrees. In AR5 the estimated range is the same at the top and lower at the bottom, 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with no median consensus estimate being arrived at (and explicitly stated as such).
If you believe that the in feedback number is more relevant, I will advise you that the mismatch between w/m2 forcing and the estimated temperature range change suffers from the exact same discrepancy when the relevant numbers are plugged into SB-Law.
So you have now demonstrated that:
1. You can’t answer the question
2. You don’t actually know what sensitivity the IPCC (your cited source) actually says
3. You are unaware that the “more relevant” calculation suffers from the exact same discrepancy as the direct feedback calculation does.
I direct you back to my comment at 4:38 which will give you some clue as to how to answer the question in relation to both the direct forcing and the with feedback forcing. You can either answer my question or leave everyone following this thread to draw their own conclusions as to your knowledge of both the literature and the science.
wrt to warren? simple minded comes to mind.
Mr Kerry’s problem is easy to understand: he is an idiot.
Lysenko would be proud..
WarrenLB You kind of remind me of Admiral Stockdale, Vice Presidential Candidate for H. Ross Perot at the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate. He was a “Master-debater” just like you. He was a disaster at debating but at least tried, just like you. You are up against some heavy hitters here. I am not one of them, but this has been entertaining for a Sunday afternoon.
It’s ashame that Dr. Tim Ball’s excellent post here has been overtaken by a “debate” between you and some of the true scientists who post here on WUWT. You should be honored that WUWT allows you to post whatever you like, unlike some of the sites that you undoubtedly agree with such as SKS, etc. (which censor comments – especially those that disagree).
Like I said, it’s been entertaining, but it takes away from some of the Kerry “idiotic” speeches which should be the subject matter here.