Anatomy of a Collapsing Climate Paradigm

Guest post by David Middleton

Paradigm:

A framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.

Paradigm Shift:

These examples point to the third and most fundamental aspect of the incommensurability of competing paradigms. In a sense that I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds. One contains constrained bodies that fall slowly, the other pendulums that repeat their motions again and again. In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another. Equally, it is why, before they can hope to communicate fully, one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift. Just because it is a transition between incommensurables, the transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at once (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.

–Thomas Kuhn, 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Vol. II, No. 2 p. 150

What is the current paradigm?

  • Human activities, primarily carbon dioxide emissions, have been the primary cause of the observed global warming over the past 50 to 150 years.
  • The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration had stabilized between 270 and 280 ppmv early in the Holocene and had remained in that range prior to the mid-19th century when fossil fuels became the primary energy source of the Industrial Revolution.
  • Anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are causing the atmospheric concentration to rise at a dangerously rapid pace to levels not seen in 100’s of thousands to millions of years.
  • The climate sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration “is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C,” possibly even much higher than 4.5°C.
  • Immediate, deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are necessary in order to stave off catastrophic climate change.
  • The scientific consensus regarding this paradigm is overwhelming (~97%).

Why is the paradigm collapsing?

  • There has been no increase in the Earth’s average surface temperature since the late 20th century.
  • Every measure of pre-industrial carbon dioxide, not derived from Antarctic ice cores, indicates a higher and more variable atmospheric concentration.
  • The total lack of predictive skill in AGW climate models.
  • An ever-growing body of observation-based studies indicating that the climate sensitivity is in the range of 0.5 to 2.5°C with a best estimate of 1.5 to 2°C, and is very unlikely to be more than 2°C.
  • Clear evidence that the dogmatic insistence of scientific unanimity is at best highly contrived and at worst fraudulent.

The paradigm is collapsing primarily due to the fact that the climate appears to be far less sensitive to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than the so-called scientific consensus had assumed.

One group of scientists has steadfastly resisted the carbon dioxide-driven paradigm: Geologists, particularly petroleum geologists. As Kuhn wrote,

“Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another.”

Petroleum geologists tend to be sedimentary geologists and sedimentary geology is essentially a combination of paleogeography and paleoclimatology. Depositional environments are defined by physical geography and climate. We literally do practice in a different world, the past. Geologists intuitively see Earth processes as cyclical and also tend to look at things from the perspective of “deep time.” For those of us working the Gulf of Mexico, we “go to work” in a world defined by glacioeustatic and halokinetic processes and, quite frankly, most of us don’t see anything anomalous in recent climate changes.

So, it should come as little surprise that geoscientists have consistently been far more likely to think that modern climate changes have been driven by overwhelmingly natural processes…

APEGA is the organization responsible for certifying and licensing professional geoscientists and engineers in Alberta, Canada.

This study is very interesting because it analyzes the frames of reference (Kuhn’s “different worlds”) in which opinions are formed. Skeptical geologists are most likely to view climate change as overwhelmingly natural. Skeptical engineers are more likely to view it as a matter of economics or fatalism. The cost of decarbonization would far outweigh any benefits and/or would have no measurable effect on climate change.

The Obsession With Consensus

In nearly 40 years as an Earth Scientist (counting college), I have never seen such an obsession with consensus. In geology, there are many areas in which there are competing hypotheses; yet there is no obsession with conformance to a consensus.

The acceptance of plate tectonics was a relatively new thing when I was a student. This paradigm had only recently shifted from the geosynclinal theory to plate tectonics. We still learned the geosynclinal theory in Historical Geology and it still has value today. However, I don’t ever recall papers being published claiming a consensus regarding either theory.

Most geologists think that granite is an igneous rock and that petroleum is of organic origin. Yet, the theories of granitization and abiogenic hydrocarbon formation are not ridiculed; nor are the adherents subjected to “witch hunts.”

One of the most frequent methods of attempting to quantify and justify the so-called consensus on climate change has been the abstract search (second hand opinions). I will only bother to review one of these exercises in logical fallacy, Cook et al., 2013.

Second Hand Opinions.

These sorts of papers consist of abstract reviews. The authors’ then tabulate their opnions regarding whether or not the abstracts support the AGW paradgm. As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.

The largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it.” They provided this example of an implied endorsement:

‘…carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’

Carbon sequestration in soil, lime muds, trees, seawater, marine calcifers and a whole lot of other things have always been important for mitigating a wide range of natural processes. I have no doubt that I have implicitly endorsed the so-called consensus based on this example.

The second largest endorsement group was categorized as “implicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize.” Pardon my obtuseness, but how in the heck can one explicitly endorse the notion that “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic” without quantification? This is the exmple Cook provided:

‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gases of varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

Wow! I contributed to Romney for President… Yet most of his campaign warchest didn’t come from me. By this subjective standard, I have probably explicitly endorsed AGW a few times.

No Schist, Sherlock.

One of the most frequent refrains is the assertion that “climate scientists” endorse the so-called consensus more than other disciplines and that the level of endorsement is proportional to the volume of publications by those climate scientists. Well… No schist, Sherlock! I would bet a good bottle of wine that the most voluminous publishers on UFO’s are disproportionately more likely to endorse Close Encounters of the Third Kind as a documentary. A cursory search for “abiogenic hydrocarbons” in AAPG’s Datapages could lead me to conclude that there is a higher level of endorsement of abiogenic oil among those who publish on the subject than among non-publishing petroleum geologists.

These exercises in expertise cherry-picking are quite common. A classic example was Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009. This survey sample was limited to academic and government Earth Scientists. It excluded all Earth Scientists working in private sector businesses. The two key questions were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

I would answer risen to #1 and my answer to #2 would depend on the meaning of “human activity is a significant contributing factor.” If I realized it was a “push poll,” I would answer “no.”

Interestingly, economic geologists and meteorologists were the most likely to answer “no” to question #2…

The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36).

The authors derisively dismissed the opinions of geologists and meteorologists…

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.

The authors close with a “no schist, Sherlock” bar chart:

The most recent example of expertise cherry-picking was Stenhouse et al., 2014.

The 52% consensus among the membership of the American Meteorological Society explained away as being due to “perceived scientific consensus,” “political ideology,” and a lack of “expertise” among non-publishing meteorologists and atmospheric scientists…

While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus. At least for the measure of expertise that we used, climate science expertise may be a less important influence on global warming views than political ideology or social consensus norms. More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective.

Finally, we found that perceiving conflict at AMS was associated with lower certainty of global warming views, lower likelihood of viewing global warming as human caused, and lower ratings of predicted harm caused by global warming.

So… Clearly, 97% of AMS membership would endorse the so-called consensus if they were more liberal, more accepting of unanimity and published more papers defending failed climate models.  No schist, Sherlock!

What, exactly, is a “climate scientist”?

35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policy-ologists.

NASA’s top climate scientist for most of the past 35 years, James Hansen, is an astronomer. The current one, Gavin Schmidt, is a mathematician.

It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers, with little comprehension of the natural climate cycles which have driven climate change throughout the Holocene.

Climate scientist seems to be as nebulous as Cook’s definition of consensus.

What is the actual consensus?

The preliminary results of the AMS survey tell us all we need to know about the so-called consensus…

89% × 59% = 52%… A far cry from the oft claimed 97% consensus.

Based on BAMS definition, global warming is happening. So, I would be among the 89% who answered “yes” to question #1 and among the 5% who said the cause was mostly natural.

When self-described “climate scientists” and meteorologists/atmospheric scientists are segregated the results become even more interesting…

Only 45% of meteorologists and atmospheric scientists endorse the so-called consensus. When compared to the 2009, American Geophysical Union survey, the collapsing paradigm sticks out like a polar vortex…

In reality, about half of relevant scientists would probably agree that humans have been responsible for >50% of recent climate changes.  And there might even be a 97% consensus that human activities have contributed to recent climate changes.

However, there really isn’t any scientific consensus if it is defined this way:

So… Why is there such an obsession with a 97% consensus?  My guess is that it is to enable such demagoguery.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Great article!
As part of my research I found that sceptics tend to focus on data whereas alarmists tend to focus on what is “socially acceptable”. So I suspect to an alarmists a consensus is seen as STRONGER evidence that something is true than seeing the data themselves. And this I suggest it because most alarmists really don’t understand data analysis and have very little confidence in their own ability.
So, to them the whole subject is really just a celebrity beauty contest. They don’t understand the data themselves and so they just want to see what everyone else thinks. Also they want to know “who thinks”. So social status is very key and an alarmist will utterly reject data of argument from someone they deem to be a low social status whereas they will swallow quite gullibly blatant lies from those they admire or respect.

PiperPaul

I agree, great article.
It would be nice if you could convert your comparison of Academia/Scientists and Engineering/Doctors into a graphic file.
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2014/07/13/why-climate-engineers-beat-the-climate-academics/

Knowledge of the origin of ‘consensus’ in UN climate “science” proceedings is essential to understanding the entire AGW discussion. It’s an aspect of UK Wellington House, Tavistock Institute, SRI and Aspen Institute social engineering, based on the theories of psychiatrists Dr Kurt Levin and Edward Bernays; it’s one of the principles used in mind control, inner directional conditioning and mass brianwashing, the MK Ultra experiments, etc.; the formulation of the disinformation campaigns (psyops) used to inspire US participation in WWl, WWll, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc. The Aspen Institute is adjacent to IPCC founder Maurice Strong’s Baca Ranch in Crestone, CO, supposedly also the Trilateral Commission’s US headquarters. Aspen Institute holds seminars for upper management and elected officials using dialectic decision-making processes including consensus engineering.
It ain’t science.

Duster

One of the self-evident aspects of “climate science” in contrast to a real science is that the “scientists” in question are either working outside their specialty areas (astronomers, biologists, computer and political scientists, pyschologists, etc.) or are not scientists per se (mathematicians – don’t argue with me about that – call up the ghost of Kurt Goedel and dispute it with him).

ROM

Scottish Sceptic;
Over the last year or so there seems to be a well defined and fast developing consensus on all of that!

Dawtgtomis

Quite right S.S., the media programmed public want to be good citizens who are in the correct tier of the social environment. They will accept the authority of scientific consensus rather than exert the time and effort to learn for themselves, as that is “instant knowledge” to them. They have been programmed to believe that they “owe it to the planet” to adhere to the guilt and shame that accompanies all things human, and to seek retribution through taxation and high energy prices.

asybot

@ Scottish Sceptic. “So, to them the whole subject is really just a celebrity beauty contest. They don’t understand the data themselves and so they just want to see what everyone else thinks.”
To me it is anything but a “beauty contest” . To me it is very dangerous dogma. There are way too many LIV (low info voters) that eat this like candy without understanding even 1% of what effect this dogma has on their lives. To me it is dangerous and even frightening. The way this is lapped up (as it seemed that way at Al Gore’s speech the other day in front of a young impressionable crowd of students ) by those young inexperienced people is scary, those may be our “leaders” one day

rogerknights

To me it is anything but a “beauty contest”

I think the author was alluding to the type of beauty contest described famously by Keynes, in which the winner was the person who best predicted what other balloters would select as the winners (top five).

johann wundersamer

The whole story. + the magic word: Status.
Hans
/ don’know how to lift my status but wish to be with ‘my’ peer group. magical, wishfull thinking. /

johann wundersamer

and the conclusion:
change / diminish the OBJECT of the wishfull thinking.
Solution of a / nonexistent / problem.
Hans

Great article! I agree with the explanation of the poll. However, why didn’t this analysis go further into the subject of “Human caused warming”. I would be interested in knowing how the percentage of those stating “human caused” define “human caused”. That is more black top roads, cutting forests down for agriculture, More physical structures, increased population, etc.

Don

Nicely done.

Brute

Indeed. It is a clear and well written article. It is reasonable and rational.
I will be amusing, as always, to see if any troll is angered by it and how the misconstrue it in order to find fault with it.

Bruce Cobb

The MMGW aka “climate change” paradigm was always a house of cards constructed on the shifting sands of lies, deception, and of course, money. Destined to fail, and fail big.

Hivemind

It hasn’t failed yet and it won’t fail as long as it has $350B of government money supporting it. What will happen is the same thing that happened under Nazi Germany – any skeptic, even people that don’t believe strongly enough, will be made into pariahs. Eventually they’ll just be sent to re-education camps.

markl

“Why is there such an obsession with a 97% consensus? My guess is that it is to enable such demagoguery.” +1 and I don’t understand why the 97% meme is allowed to continue after being thoroughly trounced by the truth.

Gary Meyers

Because, no matter how loudly you bang the drum, nobody listens!

Alex

Empty vessels make the most noise. I tend to turn off when someone is too vocal. It makes no difference whether I agree with them or not.

Don Perry

Because it’s not about truth; it’s about control.

TYoke

My guess is that MSM reporters probably DO agree at close to a 97% rate. Those reporters are obviously the smartest folk around, and they all agree with each other, so it must be true.
Hence, that is the way the issue is reported.

knr

The 97% claim , has nothing to do with ‘truth’ therefore its can not be undone by pointing out how truth refutes it.

Randy Kaas

Concur

Duster

Why 97%? From marketing and psychology. It’s why stores price goods 1 to 5 cents below a round dollar amount. It looks “cheaper” and is easier to accept among the hoi poloi.

JohnB

Actually that is more true now than in the past.
Early cash registers had a little bell inside that rang when they were opened. While 1 cent and 5 cents isn’t much nowadays it was a fair bit early on and people would want their change and this fact was used as an anti theft device..
An even dollar or pound amount allowed a cheating cashier to pocket the money without opening the cash drawer. So the price was set so that the cashier was forced to open the drawer to give change. This also rang the bell to alert supervisors to the fact a sale had been made.
The practice has continued both for the reason you said and from simple tradition.
Cheers.

JohnB,
Nowdays, the sound of the bell just results in a bunch of droolin hounds.

When all of the data shows AGW theory is wrong how can it be correct?
Answer it is not correct and the data shows this over and over again.

JayB

Because AGW data doesn’t have to be correct. It simply must convince enough laymen to raise an overwhelming outcry in their favor. That’s not going so well now.

Latitude

97% is such a catchy number….

noaaprogrammer

I like 98.6% better. That point-six really shows you lied very cleverly with your statistics!

Joe Crawford

The old number was always 99.44% (pure) from the old Ivory Soap commercial of ~50 years ago.

DD More

As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

Gee no private sector people need apply?
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
Questions – Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
2a./2b How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening? How sure are you? –Extremely –Very sure –Somewhat sure –Not at all sure -Don’t know –Not at all sure –Somewhat not sure – Very not sure – Extremely not sure

So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? (Yes/No?)
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for.
Do these questions really provide the answer that man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more] which can only be prevented by giving your money, control & freedom will keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?

masInt branch 4 C3I in is

Seems ‘Climate Science’ the outcome to Geography Study has devolved into a religion of hatred.
To which we raise our voices with Tom Lehrer’s ‘National Brotherhood Week’.
Oh, the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks.
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule.
But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
Lena horne and sheriff clarke are dancing cheek to cheek.
It’s fun to eulogize
The people you despise,
As long as you don’t let ’em in your school.
Oh, the poor folks hate the rich folks,
And the rich folks hate the poor folks.
All of my folks hate all of your folks,
It’s american as apple pie.
But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
New yorkers love the puerto ricans ’cause it’s very chic.
Step up and shake the hand
Of someone you can’t stand.
You can tolerate him if you try.
Oh, the protestants hate the catholics,
And the catholics hate the protestants,
And the hindus hate the moslems,
And everybody hates the jews.
But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
It’s national everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It’s only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn’t last all year!
Ha ha

masint,
Tom Lehrer is the best! A scientist/musician. Here is a pointless tune that I’ve always liked.

joeldshore

“Tom Lehrer is the best! ”
And, who said that dbstealey and myself could never find anything that we’d agree on?!?

Masint– Governments’ use propaganda tools to generate hate, anger and envy among the Takers, and generate fear, quid pro quo and guilt against the Producers to achieve their agenda of increasing property confiscation, control and power.
It’s a game of divide and conquer. Now, 50% of Americans pay no income taxes and 50% of Americans are dependent partially or entirely on government largess for their livelihoods…..
Humans are intrinsically social animals that have historically worked together to achieve their own mutual benefit. Through massive government propaganda, human nature has been twisted upside down, where the people serve the state, rather than the state protecting the natural rights of individuals.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we’re beginning to see what that means….
Eventually, this era of MASSIVE government theft, power and control will come to an end, and humanity will return to minimal governments, where societies are based on mutual cooperation and the principles of non-initiation of force.
It may take hundreds of years to accomplish this natural order, but technology will eventually make governments redundant institutions for all intents and purposes.

LonestarM

The Kingston Trio had it right long before “climate science” went completely left:
“The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch.
And I don’t like anybody very much!”

BFL

“The total lack of predictive skill in AGW climate models.”
Also this important one:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
Excerpts:
Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
I will give examples of all of the following concerning climate modelers:
* They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
* They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
* They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty
extremes. (I kid you not.)
* They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
* They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.

PiperPaul

Sometimes I think modellers are like bad CAD drafters. “Meh – I’ll just draw some stuff. If it’s wrong, I’ll just re-do it later, ’cause CAD is fast.” (And then there’s no time later, so original crappy design stands)
VS
Old-timey draftsmen: “I don’t want to have to draw this frikkin’ thing again, I’d better get it right the fist time.”

eyesonu

Piping designer/engineer?

PiperPaul

Good guess, eyes.

eyesonu

😉
Been there, done that!

IPCC climate modelers are social engineers working on a political/economic process, not an environmental research project, consciously or unconsciously. Anthropogenic effects on the environment are an idea that a group of globalist totalitarian government depopulation supporters “came up with” to disguise their agenda. The science is irrelevant.
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome
http://green-agenda.com/
Who would ever suspect an ulterior motive concealed in protecting the environment of the planet? or perceive a need to explore the history of AGW-alarmism?

James Harlock

It’s nearly impossible to discuss anything with someone who believes that Mankind is some sort of unnatural phenomena or “virus” plaguing the planet.

Randy Kaas

Concur

Beautiful essay. Needs to be published far and wide.

ossqss

I will second that!

Retired Engineer Jim

I was looking through some of the ClimateGate-related posts this morning and saw comment after comment along the lines of “now that the outright fraud had been exposed, AGW (as it was called then) would surely be recognized as wrong and the whole political movement would fall apart”.
That was more than 5 years ago, and all that seems to have happened is that AGW became ClimateChange (TM). Unfortunately, it will take a lot more than truth, rationality and real science to kill the meme.

Jim,
Got a number for that email? If so, please post.
And thanks to Dave Middleton for another excellent article. You always do such a great job. I look forwared to all of them.

We made the mistake of assuming the public and academics were rational and that they would look at the evidence like we did and quickly change their view.
It turns out that the “establishment” are very very slow to respond. I use the metaphor “that it takes 5-10 years between kicking the dinosaur between the legs for the signal to travel all the way up the neck to the brain”
http://uclimate.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/dinosaur-between-legs.png

The UN’s program, in addition to global government, is ‘redistribution of assets’; nominally from developed to developing nations; in practice, from the US to the UN and NGOs, with green projects financed through Rothschilds and Rockefeller and other international bankers; Edmond de Rothschild announced the sale of shares in his private Geneva bank to UN bureaucrats and international bureaucrats at the 1989 Fourth World Wilderness Conference – truth, rationality and real science won’t kill it; the wrong kind of green.
Allan Cheetham’s website, Appinsys.com has the best description of the history of UN agencies (and many other topics) in AGW that I’m aware of.
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_History.htm

Jim Francisco

Well Jim, I thought a couple of harsh winters ought to do it. Silly me.

“…it will take a lot more than truth, rationality and real science….”
Not that much more, actually, just reality – a few more winters with snow and freezing weather penetrating into the Deep South, Mexico, Egypt, etc., and a few more winters with unprecedented numbers of cold and snow records broken in the higher latitudes will completely eliminate any public support for the meme. More winters with the Great Lakes freezing over, along with massive amounts of sea ice forming in the bays and inlets along the northeast coast, bringing maritime traffic to a standstill, will contribute to the demise of the AGW theory. Ultimately, a few cool summers with unexpected snow at higher latitudes and altitudes, along with earlier, cooler Autumns and later, shortened Springtimes will finally put the icing on the cake.
All of the above is unavoidable, I’m afraid. The climate is indeed changing, if not the way alarmists would have us believe.

Ian H

Nonagintaseptemist : A statistical subdiscipline of the social sciences which studies the art of getting the answer to be 97%. From the latin “nonaginta septem” meaning 97.

H.R.

Nonagintaseptemist – It’s the flashy new field to get into, pays extremely well, and attracts all the hot women… oh wait…
.
.
.
.
Completely off topic but, how’s John Cook doing these days?

Tucci78

One group of scientists has steadfastly resisted the carbon dioxide-driven paradigm: Geologists, particularly petroleum geologists.

…and:

No discipline has a better understanding the “nuances” than meteorologists and no discipline has a better understanding of the “scientific basis of long-term climate processes” than geologists.

…and:

35 years ago climatology was a branch of physical geography. Today’s climate scientists can be anything from atmospheric physicists & chemists, mathematicians, computer scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists, oceanographers, biologists, environmental scientists, ecologists, meteorologists, geologists, geophysicists, geochemistry to economists, agronomists, sociologists and/or public policy-ologists.

Three salient points. Draw the line therefrom.

joeldshore

What I have often said, but really can’t be repeated often enough (with apologies to Paul Samuelson): People who oppose the current scientific paradigm have correctly predicted 1000 out of the last 3 paradigm shifts.
I’ll also note that there is another rather obvious explanation for why petroleum geologists have tended to be more skeptical about AGW than other earth scientists.

PiperPaul

Because they work in the real world and if they screw up they get fired, instead of getting renewed grant money, promotions and peer support? Is that what you mean, Joel?

joeldshore

First of all, I’ve worked “in the real world” of industry too. And, it bears very little resemblance to your free-market-fundamentalist fantasy real-world. It has every bit as much cronyism, stupidity, and promotion of incompetence as the academic world.
Second of all, I mean: (1) that their expertise in climate science is rather limited…it is not what they are trained or actively working in and (2) that they have strong financial incentives to believe that using fossil fuels is not the major factor in a serious global problem.

And Big Government “self-selected” climate scientists have pure and unadulterated motives in seeking to justify their next 22 billion in climate change money coming from Big Government bureaucracies that pay their salaries and computer fees – but only if the computer theories justify continued Big Government and Big Finance 1.3 trillion dollar carbon schemes, don’t they?

Martin R

LOL, good comeback 🙂 We all know what he meant, but the facts are the alarmists are the ones on the crony capitalist’s payroll.

joeldshore

And Big Government “self-selected” climate scientists have pure and unadulterated motives in seeking to justify their next 22 billion in climate change money coming from Big Government bureaucracies that pay their salaries and computer fees – but only if the computer theories justify continued Big Government and Big Finance 1.3 trillion dollar carbon schemes, don’t they?

(1) If climate scientists want to make tons of money, they wouldn’t have gone into climate science. They would have gone to Wall Street. (Although they would also probably do at least somewhat better by becoming petroleum geologists.)
(2) Big government bureaucracies fund science in ways that are at least somewhat insulated from what the funders want to see the results to be. Furthermore, what the funders want is complex because in a Democracy, those in control of the government purse-strings may or may not be sympathetic to the ideas of stopping AGW. Congress now certainly isn’t and the executive branch wasn’t when Bush was in charge. And, right now in Florida, we have a classic case of the politicians at the top trying to squelch the scientists (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article13576691.html).

richardscourtney

Joeldshore:
You wrote of petroleum geologists

Second of all, I mean: (1) that their expertise in climate science is rather limited…it is not what they are trained or actively working in and (2) that they have strong financial incentives to believe that using fossil fuels is not the major factor in a serious global problem.

One can more accurately say of climatologists earning their living promoting AGW:
(1) their expertise in climate science is rather limited…it is not what they are trained or actively working in
and
(2) that they have strong financial incentives to assert that using fossil fuels is the major factor in an imagined global problem.
Richard

joeldshore

Richard,
Alas, just saying something does not make it true. In fact, the climate scientists who agree with the overwhelming consensus on AGW are generally actively working and publishing in the field.
And, as I pointed out, incentives to please funders are much complex: Some politicians controlling the purse strings would like nothing better than for AGW to be shown to be insignificant. Furthermore, the way grants are awarded at least tries to separate the politics of the funders from the process.
And, while there may indeed be some incentive to go with the dominant paradigm to get funding, there is another incentive that to make a name for oneself in science, one wants to change the paradigm, not just say “me too”.
One of the things that I have noticed about you guys is that you only seem capable of seeing the incentives that go in one direction and are completely oblivious to any incentives that go the other way.

markl

joeldshore commented”
“One of the things that I have noticed about you guys is that you only seem capable of seeing the incentives that go in one direction and are completely oblivious to any incentives that go the other way.”
Are you saying some scientists are becoming rich with their skepticism? Refresh my memory on “incentives that go the other way”.

richardscourtney

joeldshore
You reply to my rebuttal of your untrue and unjustifiable assertion by saying

Alas, just saying something does not make it true.

Yes, Joel, that is what I said.
And you add

In fact, the climate scientists who agree with the overwhelming consensus on AGW are generally actively working and publishing in the field.

No, Joel, playing computer games in an office is NOT “working and publishing in the field”. Very few of them have ever worked in the field.
Richard

joeldshore

I’m sorry, Richard. I didn’t realize how the game is played by people like you. Yes, if you are free to define who constitutes an active researcher in the field, ignoring all standard ways of defining this in favor of your own perverse definitions, then what you say is true.
Apparently, everything you say is true just by virtue of the fact that you have made yourself the arbiter of all truth. My bad for failing to understand this simple point.

richardscourtney

joeldshore
My reply to your offensive, abusive and evasive nonsense is here.
Hopefully, this pointer will be in the right place.
Richard

Joel wrote, “First of all, I’ve worked “in the real world” of industry too. And, it bears very little resemblance to your free-market-fundamentalist fantasy real-world.”
You answered your own question… Since free-market capitalism has been destroyed by the US government through: $2 trillion/yr needless and senseless rules & regulations, $100’s of billions of subsidies, insane anti-trust laws, crazy labor laws, a 75,000-page tax code, onerous corporate taxes, cronyism, too-big-to-fail bailouts, crazy union regulations, huge income taxes, massive government debt, etc., free-market capitalism no longer exists, so it’s illogical to assume free-market capitalism doesn’t work since governments have purposefully destroyed it….
Were all the natural mechanisms of free-market capitalism allowed to work: corporate taxes were a flat 10% (no tax breaks), income taxes were replaced by ONE national 14% sales tax, federal spending was limited to 10% of GDP, federal and state governments were unable to run up debts, public sector unions were made illegal, interest rates were market based, a gold standard were reestablished, etc., the economic boom and technological advancement would be incredible.
But, alas, none of these things will occur until the existing “mixed/hindered-economy” paradigm is allowed to collapse; which is should do shortly.

joeldshore

Ah yes…The old libertarian argument that if we only had a purer free market economy, life would be all peaches and cream. That is indeed what I call “free market fundamentalism”, which means a religious belief in free markets rather than a scientific understanding of markets, when and how they work and when and how they fail.
The reason that we have evolved toward a “mixed economy” of regulated market capitalism is that the pure free market paradigm has failed time and time again. While the mixed economy may have its problems, I think it is basically like what Churchill said about democracy: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

edcaryl

Joel,
Free Markets have never failed for the simple reason they have never been tried. The local governments are always interfering, whether that government is a local king, chief, or Congress. The closest thing to a free market is the local farmers market that sometimes exists, and that is already constrained by the formal markets around it.

rw

edcaryl said:
Free Markets have never failed for the simple reason they have never been tried.
——————————————————————————————————–
That’s a dangerous line to take – that’s what lefties always say about communism.
However, I agree that free markets as such don’t fail – in the same sense that gravity doesn’t “fail”.
(If you fall down and break your arm, you don’t say that gravity has failed.) The problem is that
people subvert free markets. So joeldshore’s prescription is right even if I don’t agree with his
diagnosis.

joeldshore

rw: Yes, that is a very apt analogy…Both true believers in Communism and true believers in free markets are very similar.
As for saying that the markets fail, well markets fail for example when there are externalities, i.e., costs or benefits not borne by the buyer or seller. And, when there’s issues with information (e.g., the buyer doesn’t know that the medicine the seller is hocking has adverse effects he’ll experience 10 years from now).

Tucci78

At 5:31 PM on 19 March, joeldshore demonstrates that he’s unfamiliar both with the practice of clinical medicine and government regulation of the pharmaceuticals industry, writing:

As for saying that the markets fail, well markets fail for example when there are externalities, i.e., costs or benefits not borne by the buyer or seller. And, when there’s issues with information (e.g., the buyer doesn’t know that the medicine the seller is hocking has adverse effects he’ll experience 10 years from now).

First, common law mechanisms had been devised to address “externalities” long before politicians began to normatively intervene in the market process (ostensibly) to protect “third parties” from the “costs and benefits not borne by the buyer or seller.” An example of early government regulatory intervention is found in the onset of the industrial revolution in Great Britain, when H.M. government issued rules “holding harmless” those politically-favored enterprises which produced air and water pollution incidental to their operations, nugating the common law processes whereby those parties injured by those fouling the water and the air had sought – and gotten – redress.
Therefore anent negative “externalities,” rather much more often than not, government “protection” hasn’t so much addressed how “the markets fail” as to have purposefully deranged the ways in which trespass upon the property rights of injured parties were protected.
Second, with regard to medicines and similar products, the effects of regulatory measures like the Pure Foods and Drugs Act include not only “capture” by the established actors in the market sectors being politically controlled (popularity contest winners – elected politicians – and arrogant “Iron Law of Bureaucracy” government employees are, ex officio, the ne plus friggin’ ultra in their knowledge of pharmacology, epidemiology, pathology et alia, ain’t they?) but also disarmament of the caveat emptor imperative among the consumers of the products being regulated.
Y’see, with the propaganda-promulgated presumption that “government knows best” and that the politicians are actually looking – benignly – out for the consumer rather than for the “campaign contributors” who batten their warchests and the sources of “honest graft” shuffling to them obscenely profitable IPO opportunities and guaranteed successes in equities and in the real estate and futures trading markets, the average yutz (like you, most definitely!) is suckered into thinking that the Office of New Drugs of the United States F.D.A. is really purpose’d primarily to secure you safety and efficacy in the pill bottles on your medicine cabinet’s shelves.
Jeez, how blazingly stupid can you be?

In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.

— Frederic Bastiat

Tucci78
March 20, 2015 at 6:03 am
There is a plant medicine that, if fully exploited, could destroy 25% to 75% of Big Pharma. It is illegal. Big Pharma in connivance with government works very hard to keep it that way.
Government in this case is not fixing the market externality. Government is the externality.

hanelyp

Msimon, this is not the place for one of your drug rants.

Alex

Geologists have a good understanding of chemistry and physics. Earth scientists consider scientific apparatus as ‘magic’.

Alex

my comment is in the wrong spot

Alex

David Middleton
I’m an ancient and in my day there really wasn’t the environment/earth science thing.
As an intelligent human being you should also understand where I am coming from.
Science is taught in universities and so is environmentalism.
Earth Science sounds like a legitimate science and it probably is (as a generalisation) but it is probably being done a disservice by being polluted with environmentalism.
Where does my opinion come from? From dealing with universities and Marine institutes in Queensland since the 1980s. I knew these people on the ground and even assisted with grant applications (to sell my equipment). I know how smart they are and I also know how dumb they are. I have even worked in a chinese university for the last 10 years and have found that the administration and faculties work in a similar way to the west. I haven’t worked out who is worse. The administration/faculties or the students. Both lots are lazy good for nothings. However there were some exceptions.
In industry, in Australia, we the workers groaned when a graduate was hired. They didn’t have a single clue about how things worked even though they had been in university and supposedly used this equipment in their studies. I could continue ad nauseum , but I am boring myself.
Colour me sceptical about qualifications.
You seem to have a reasonable head on your shoulders and worth reading.
“I hope I wasn’t out of line with my remark about Earth Sciences, chief”

richardscourtney

joeldshore
This may be a “game” that is “played” by you but it is much, much more important than that to me.
This is about a bunch of pseudoscientists whom you support who have usurped what was the scientific discipline of climatology; i.e. the study of climates.
You want to redefine climatology as being the playing of computer games. Field work for real climatologists consists of obtaining real data and determining the quality of that data for their analysis: it does NOT consist of sitting in an office playing games.
That is not me “being the arbiter of all truth”. It is me stating the dictionary definition of climatology. Do you know what a dictionary is?

Temperature measurement results are one basic data set for climatology and the pseudoscientists resisted conduct of field work to determine its data quality so that was not done until our host established a project to do it for them.
To you the promotion of pseudoscience is a game you play.
To me the opposition of pseudoscience is defence of the advances obtained by the reformation.
Richard

Catherine Ronconi

When climatology mutated into “climate science” it ceased to be a science. Time to take away the game-players’ supercomputers.

Mark from the Midwest

The 97% number came from a piece of really sloppy work, cited below, which is pretty much junk. If you look at the selection criteria for this work it’s a haphazard convenience sample…. I would flunk a grad student in a nano second if they proposed this as a sampled design…
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

Mark from the Midwest

Ooooops! That’s sample design, not sampled design, hey it’s 8PM here and I’m on my second cocktail… and I really don’t care about grammar anymore because graphs work so much more better…

Ardy

Excellent read. I am just reading ‘how the hippies saved physics’ and was shocked to see young scientists kicked out of jobs in the 60’s and 70’s or not hired due to their interest in looking at the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics, ‘shut up and calculate’ was the watch cry of the bigoted majority. I guess nothing changes it is the same old thing, agree with the rest of our herd or go out and die on your own.

What?

Follow the money….green bs everywhere you turn.
It is a runaway train of (our) money going to useless
Windmills, solar power plants. Elec. Cars, coal plants
Converted to wood. Nuts

trafamadore

Meanwhile, the NOAA global analysis today puts February at 0.82C, the third highest reading ever. The average for the last 12 months was 0.74C, 0.04 degrees over the 0.69C record for the 2014 calendar year.

knr

‘the third highest reading ever. ‘
remind us again how 200 years ago they could get temperature measurements accurate to two decimal places?
I mean they did not even have the ‘magic models ‘ then so could not ‘prove’ that reality was mistaken in way modern climate ‘scientists’ can.

trafamadore

There are no instrument global readings from 200 years ago. And why would you expect any average from the little ice age to be warmer than now? It’s unlikely that even during Medieval times it was warmer.

trafamadore says:
It’s unlikely that even during Medieval times it was warmer.
So you completely disregard mountains of evidence, such as the fact that Viking villages keep emerging from the permafrost in Greenland, and assume — just because Michael Mann tells you so — that we’re burnin’ up here and the MWP was cold.
Like many others, you can’t see the BIg Lie. Not because you’re stupid, but because you want to believe it.

trafamadore

Poor db, your name calling always reminds me of grammar school children.
What with the salt in your wounds, I guess this isn’t the time to bring up the pending record low max up north…
opps.

“opps”?? What is this “opps”?
Good thing you’re not in .edu, or you would understand spelling/grammar.
And:
…the pending record low max up north…
In only 7 words, two major errors:
1. “Pending”? Are you making weather predictions now?
2. “Up north”? You still don’t understand that the ‘climate paradigm’ refers to GLOBAL warming? Oops.
No, you just drive by, taking potshots like that. FYI: global warming has stopped. But you can’t accept that fact, can you?

trafamadore

Wow. No names. Good job db.
But look at this, just in and on google news, maybe my “pending” is now not so pending.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
It’s a new new record (although there are still cases where the ice extent jumped in the ghosts of late March past, but I am thinking that maybe the arctic scientists know something about the weather forecast that I don’t)
Sort of fits in with the statically warmest last year (2014) and the almost record Feb.
and the Jan-Feb 2015 combined record.
What with the all the records, it’s interesting that there is no El Niño powering this one. I am thinking it sort of wrecks the Tisdale hypothesis of El Niño powered GWing. Either that, or we are in for a 44 figure walk back of his position. (That’s a joke, Bob)
Anyway, db, not sure how your “big lie” is playing out. You should be more skeptical of your position, I think, like I am of mine.
Really.

trafamadore,
You need to change your last sentence. “Really” is not part of your world.
I did read your link, and I note the blatant cherry-picking in your comment. Your link refers to “satellite” data. Does that mean you accept satellite data now? If so, then here is current satellite data for you:comment image
Regarding [Arctic] ice, once again: the discussion is about global warming. Referring only to Arctic ice disregards half the planet, and is simply more of your alarmist cherry-picking — because global ice cover is right at its long term average. Charts on request.
Finally, Arctic ice is the same now as it was a decade ago:comment image
You don’t have a leg to stand on. But since you have no skin in the game and you use fossil fuels just like every other green hypocrite, I suppose we can discount everything you say.

DBStealey (correcting trafamadore)

Regarding [Arctic] ice, once again: the discussion is about global warming. Referring only to Arctic ice disregards half the planet, and is simply more of your alarmist cherry-picking — because global ice cover is right at its long term average. Charts on request.

Arctic sea ice (at maximum) is 14 millon sq kilometers, the whole planet is 510 million sq kilometers.
He is ignoring 97% of the planet by looking only at Arctic sea ice.

trafamadore

Wow.
You people (db and ra) like to zero in on my arctic observation when my major claim is on global temp? Look, the _globlal_ temp is up in Jan and Feb this year, higher than the entire year last year, which was record, and the arctic ice reflects this. (and db, switching to some other web site than the nsidc is silly, and you know it.)
The antarctic doesn’t, for reasons that are different, even though the total amount of antarctic ice is lower. But it doesn’t matter, this is a false augment.
The main pt is that you ignore my major claim. Which says something, doesn’t it.

trafamadore,
Your comments are becoming more and more irrational and disjointed. You really got nothin’. Do you? Nothing but your baseless assertions, and your beliefs.
Certainly you have no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. It shows that there is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. That is supported by this chart of long-term global ice cover:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
As we see, there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening. Global ice is right at its long term average.
Face reality, mr. alarmist: exactly none of your scary predictions have happened. Every one of them has failed, just like your pathetic arguments. You keep wishing and hoping that the planet goes into runaway global warming or some kind of climate catastrophe, so you can say that you were right.
But you are wrong. The planet itself is showing that you’re wrong. And if it were not for your refusal to face reality, you would admit it, too.

To add more empirical information, here is the Antarctic ice accumulation record:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Notice that 2015 is on track to be one of the highest ice years on record. The Antarctic holds about 10X greater volume of ice than the Arctic, so really, the Arctic doesn’t much matter.
The ONLY reason the alarmist cult hangs its hat on the Arctic is because Arctic ice declined for a short time. But that’s in the past now, as Arctic ice is naturally rising again.
The believers in the ‘disappearing ice’ narrative are… on thin ice. The real world is debunking their entire belief system. Don’t ask me, though. Ask the planet. She will show us who’s right, and who is wrong.

Steve

“I would answer yes to #1…” ? Do you mean all three (rising, falling & stable temp) have existed during post 1800’s?

joelobryan

I would answer falling. Since the HTM 8,000 ybp, temperatures have been generally downward.

joelobryan

At this point in the warmists’ dilemma, with data and observation not on their side, all they have left is their models. That those models fail scientific rigor is inconsequential as long as the broader public is not aware of that failure, I,e. they remain scientifically illiterate, and think science is akin to a popularity contest. Hence the parroting of the 97%consensus lie is part of a disinformation campaign.
From the perspective of the Green Socialists, the GC models must now be protected at all cost. The very foundation of the IPCC’s AR rests on the circular logic built into those models. Reputations and literally Trillions of dollars are at stake.

Skepticalscience.com’s hacked emails show that the results of John Cook’s and Dana Nuticelli’s survey of abstracts was known in advance; Cook acknowledged the importance of promoting the concept of a consensus prior to the project; similar to statements made before the Rio conference, truth isn’t the issue; the focus is on what people believe.

Brute

Transient stuff, beliefs…

knr

Indeed one of the great unanswered questions , along with what would disprove CAGW, is if you take away the models what proof do you have ?
We can guess the answer to that is little if anything , hence has you write the need to defend that which is indefensible.

kamikazedave

I notice the trolls who occasionally pollute this blog are noticeably absent from this discussion.

doesn’t leave much room for their lurking

Dawtgtomis

Maybe the short bus is late today.

markl

The “short bus” is an offensive,obnoxious saying that reflects negatively on those who use it.

Brute

I too have noticed this lack of trolls with some disappointment.
The fact is that the post was written so skilfully that it is easy to miss it was also written “defensively” (as we say in academia), leaving little room to find wrong with it even if you disagree with it. It is a tactic that Ridley could use… unless his purpose is to provoke, of course.

kami,
Haven’t you noticed mr t @5:17 above?
+++++
[markl: I didn’t know what a ‘short bus’ meant, so I went online to look. There are lots of different meanings, not all of them what you’re probably referring to. The most common meaning seems to refer to a mentally challenged person.]

Dawtgtomis

My apologies to markl (and all) for lapsing into a midwestern redneck. Yes I meant the mentally challenged. A poor analogy, in retrospect, of those who refuse to open their minds and learn.

markl

Dawtgtomis commented:
“My apologies to markl (and all) for lapsing into a midwestern redneck.”
Accepted. I’m sensitive to remarks like that because my wife volunteers to help those “short bus” riders several times a week. Some have brilliant minds trapped in unforgiving bodies. Stephen Hawking?

markl

dbstealey commented on Anatomy of a Collapsing Climate Paradigm:
“[markl: I didn’t know what a ‘short bus’ meant, so I went online to look….The most common meaning seems to refer to a mentally challenged person.]”
I had to look it up as well and when you put the phrase in the derogatory context it’s been used (a couple of times) on this forum it’s making the analogy that the targets were mentally deficient….like those children that get picked up on the “short buses”. Which 1. Isn’t necessarily true as some have physical problems, and 2. Is in very poor taste to use some people’s natural condition as a slander against anyone.

Dawtgtomis

Agreed,as the brother of an autistic occupant of a group home, my skin must have gotten too thick about the mentality of said remark when it was used around me. These are the most well-adjusted of all souls and are a lesson to the rest of us when it comes to the important stuff.

markl,
I’m not arguing with anything you wrote. [I never get into heated debates with folks on the skeptic side anyway.]
For the record, my wife has her Master’s degree in Special Ed, and teaches mostly adults who have cerebral palsy [for those who don’t know, it’s what results when the umbilical cord gets wrapped tightly around the neck in uterus, cutting off oxygen; the result is a child that never progresses beyond 1st or 2nd grade intelligence].
I see from Dawtgtomis’ response that he meant no harm. I agree with him that those folks “…are the most well-adjusted of all souls”. They are. So let’s all have a big group hug, and forget it. We’re no the bad guys here. ☺

markl

dbstealey commented:
“I see from Dawtgtomis’ response that he meant no harm. I agree with him that those folks “…are the most well-adjusted of all souls”. They are. So let’s have a group hug, and forget it. We’re no the bad guys here. ☺”
I’m already/been there. Just pointed out that it’s an obnoxious term and shouldn’t be used. So far everyone agrees. I’m not militant, just vocal….. 🙂

Dawtgtomis

Beers for both of you on me, if ever…

Dawtgtomis

To dbstealey, Your wife might be happy to hear that one of my brother’s friends is a 60-something woman with CP, who drives, works and takes care of her elderly parents. Incredible person to meet.

Bear

Of course since you’re a geologist you must be in the pay of “Big Oil” and they’ll discount anything you say regardless of the facts you present.

joelobryan

The Koch brothers are now the US Left’s primary bogeyman.

Heartland isn’t far behind…

James Harlock

Every Big Brother needs an Emmanuel Goldstein.

Arsten

Funny, I saw a post on an article from CD stating that models can be used even if they aren’t making good predictions because there is no such thing as a “Bad model.”
It’s easier to win if they discount your facts and move the goal posts.

knr

He been in ‘good company ‘ has so is the IPC, CRU and a lot of ‘the Team’ , but I guess that is ‘different’

Thanks for the revealing dissection and good, hard work.

RH

That 64 is very generous – it’s the total before subtracting the abstracts written by psychologists and economists and the ones that explicitly disputed AGW. The problem is Cook’s poor experimental design; his search term should have been “unconditionally support all IPCC global warming predictions”, rather than ‘global warming’ and climate change’.

SAMURAI

It’s obvious that global temps have recovered since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, so, yes, the earth has warmed about .8C over the past 164 years.
Since CO2’s forcing effect is (5.25*log(400ppm/280))*(.31 Stefan-Boltzmann constant)*(.5 negative cloud feedback)= about .3C, I’d have to answer, yes, to the second question, as CO2’s contribution to total warming (.3C/.8C) is roughly 37% of total warming, which is “significant”.
BUT…the most salient question is whether or not 0.018C/decade of warming (.3C/164 years) is anything to worry about, and the answer to that is a definitive NO; especially since CO2 forcing effect is logarithmic..
To the contrary, .3C of CO2 warming over the past 164 years has likely been a net positive phenomenon, and if you include the roughly 16% increase of crop yields and forest growth from higher CO2 concentrations, it’s been a huge advantage to the environment and humanity. Moreover, it’s irrefutable that cheap fossil fuels have contributed incalculable positive economic and social benefits to humanity since 1850.
Moreover, China’s first test thorium reactor goes online THIS YEAR, with the goal of having a large-scale commercial LFTR design ready for rollout by 2024… By 2050, most of world’s energy will come from thorium, so this stupid CAGW hoax is moot anyway.
CAGW is dead.

Mark

The start us date has been set back. Still time for the US to enter the race for safe nuclear…
http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2012/10/30/completion-date-slips-for-chinas-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/

dougal of perf

Thank you for such a clear essay. It’s a shame that it will not change the minds of the great unwashed green/left. I taught the “greenhouse effect to my students for some years; semi believed AGW as well.
Thankfully, this belief lasted but a brief time. All it took was a short length of 4×2 across the back of the head – it focused my thinking to the truth.
Well done 🙂

Grahame

David a fabulous article, as a geologist myself, with similar experience, I have been screaming much the same things for years. There are so many parts of your article I would love to comment on but don’t know where to start.
This stupid notion of “consensus” is just so unscientific to be laughable.
The idea that peer reviewed publications are somehow correct is also nonsense, all that says is that the reviewer thought “this looks interesting let’s put it out there”.
Your comments on what is a “climate scientist” are very good and I couldn’t agree more, I have been asking this for years.
Computer models are also another gripe of mine, anyone who has tried to model the natural environment knows they only give a poor approximation of reality.
This really is a great article and as a geologist, it summarises everything I see as wrong with “climate science”‘ you should try and get it out more widely.
And also, again, as a geologist, political leanings don’t come into it, I am and always will be left of centre in my political beliefs, but bad science is bad science.
Again great article, sorry for the rambling.

KevinK

Well, I freely admit that “I once burned out a clutch during a Paradigm Shift”……
For the younger folks; a clutch was once an essential part of evil fossil fueled motor transport vehicles, it was a necessary component to perform a “shift”, once you “burned it out”, you had to resort to “alternative transport”, i.e. you walked…..
Cheers, KevinK

Jim Francisco

Same thing happens when you run out of gas …you walk.

The warmunists are so intellectually impoverished – they don’t have a paradigms to rub together.

Kit

When I see the word paradigm, I think of two shovels…

rh

I think that’s paradig’em.

Alx

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Question #1 does not point to a theory but instead asks if our ability to observe global temperature is credible. It is questioning our ability to observe not explain.
Question #2 again does not point to a theory, but instead asks what is you opinion of a vague hypothesis. What does”significant” represent, what does “contributing” mean relative to other factors and so on. It’s basically a stupid question to ask a scientist. Like intelligent design belongs in a religious philosophy class these questions are a better fit in a political science class.
No Schist indeed.
In science a theory represents the apex, the highest form of explanation for observations after having been consistently and repeatedly proven, substantiated, supported, and documented. Theory of relativity, theory of evolution are good examples.
The survey does not ask about a theory but asks politically motivated questions instead to get to a imagined scientific consensus. Making me wonder what exactly is climate theory? It would be sad if climate theory was no more than arm waving and a vague potpourri of hypothesis cobbled together in super computers. Maybe someone could explain where climate theory is defined, again the scientific version of theory, not the Al Gore version of theory nor the “Let’s take a poll” version.

William Astley

A scientific ‘crisis’ occurs when there are in your face observations and analysis results that unequivocally indicate there are fundamental errors in the basic theory or theories. Scientific paradigms change and breakthroughs occur when a field enters a crisis.
It appears (there is multiple recent observational evidence to support the mechanisms and the assertion that the change has started) we are going to experience the once in 8,000 to 10,000 year solar change that causes Heinrich events, which is the same mechanism that initiates and terminates interglacial periods (a climate event of a similar magnitude to the 8200 BP cooling event or the 12,900 BP Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event). If I understand what is currently happening to sun, the correct new stellar model, how solar cycle changes modulate planetary temperature, and the mechanisms that regulate and change the level of atmospheric CO2 – Planetary temperature and atmospheric CO2 are going to abruptly drop.
An abrupt cooling change in planetary temperature is only possible if the majority of the warming in the last 150 years has due to solar changes rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 and similarly a drop in atmospheric CO2 is only possible if there are much larger natural sinks and natural sources of CO2 than believed and if there is a non-fossil fuel source of low C13, CO2, which there is.
There is a mechanism related to the observational fact that the solar heliosphere density has dropped by 40% (the observational fact that the solar heliosphere density has dropped 40% was discussed at the November, 2013 AGU meeting) due to the solar cycle 24 abrupt change, that is delaying the cooling of the earth. This delay, temporary inhibiting of the mechanisms by which solar changes modulate planetary cloud cover and wind speed, has enabled the solar change to progress without cooling, hence when the inhibiting mechanism ends, there will be sudden cooling. In terms of the inhibiting mechanism the two hemispheres are different (it is a charge mechanism, the difference is caused by the difference in impedance of the continental crust as compared to the ocean/ocean floor and the relative different amount of continental crust and ocean floor in the two hemispheres, the massive movement of charge is the reason why the geomagnetic field intensity is now dropping at 5%/decade (ten times) faster than possible for a core base geomagnetic model.) High latitude cooling has started in the Southern ocean which explains the record Antarctic sea ice and indicates the mechanism that was inhibiting the solar modulation of planetary cloud is starting to abate.
It is important to remember there are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleo record where the same regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years warmed when solar activity was high and then cooled when the sun changed. The cycles or warming and cooling were not caused by cyclic changes to atmospheric CO2, there were caused by cyclic changes to the sun.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/

“Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”
…We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … ….The current global warming signal is therefore the slowest and among the smallest in comparison with all HRWEs in the Vostok record, although the current warming signal could in the coming decades yet reach the level of past HRWEs for some parameters. The figure shows the most recent 16 HRWEs in the Vostok ice core data during the Holocene, interspersed with a number of LRWEs. …. ….We were delighted to see the paper published in Nature magazine online (August 22, 2012 issue) reporting past climate warming events in the Antarctic similar in amplitude and warming rate to the present global warming signal. The paper, entitled "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature, 2012,doi:10.1038/nature11391), reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf

Donb

Most probably 97% of climate scientists agree that funding for support of climate studies should be increased and that their budget in particular should be increased. Does that make the idea a good one?

Bear

You’ve identified the true cause of CAGW: climate scientist funding.

” 97% of climate scientists agree that funding for support of climate studies should be increased and that their budget in particular should be increased. Does that make the idea a good one?”
100% of IPCC environmental scientists say it’s a winner.

rh

Climate scientists can also make money on a falling global temperature. The one thing that scares them is the infuriatingly stable temperatures we’ve seen since about 2002. As soon as we’re in an identifiable cooling trend, they will shift gears to catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling,CAGC. The politicians will change the threat, but the solution will be the same, Marxism.

AJB

“Every measure of pre-industrial carbon dioxide, not derived from Antarctic ice cores, indicates a higher and more variable atmospheric concentration.” …
http://s16.postimg.org/e721t7nrp/Stomata.png
Composite assembled from here.

Donb

There are issues with accurately determining past atmospheric CO2 concentrations. For example, Greenland ice is subject to wind-born dust deposition, which can and does bring carbonates, contributing CO2. Stomata are leaf “breathing holes” that admit CO2 to accomplish photosynthesis. If CO2 is higher, these holes become smaller and/or less numerous. However, the same stomata also promote the loss of plant water. And in a drought, these holes lessen to preserve plant moisture, even if it means plant metabolism slows. Desert plants are an example. Also, chemical methods of measuring CO2 over a century ago gave erratic and often erroneous results.
As for forming gas bubbles in ice cores, I have wondered if gas fractionation occurs between CO2 and N2 because of the greater affinity for CO2 to adhere (chemi-sorb) on ice crystals. Even so, I tend to think Antarctic ice bubbles give our best estimate of distant past atmospheric CO2.
A geochemist’s opinion.

thallstd

I have posted a link to this article a number of times in different threads but it is so appropriate to this topic that I must post it again. It is an excellent read that explains, at least in some case, the bell curve of a scientific paradigm – how it becomes dominant and then how it yields to another paradigm. And, while it doesn’t mention climate science at all, it does deal with both hard and soft sciences.
I’m referring to a Dec 13, 2010 New Yorker article called “The Truth Wears Off – Is there something wrong with the scientific method?” http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/13/the-truth-wears-off
The article is excellent and would make a superb multi-article series here if Anthony or a mod gained permission from the author to repost it. I believe it deserves reading far and wide in the climate science community.
As a teaser, here are the first two paragraphs:
“On September 18, 2007, a few dozen neuroscientists, psychiatrists, and drug-company executives gathered in a hotel conference room in Brussels to hear some startling news. It had to do with a class of drugs known as atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, which came on the market in the early nineties. The drugs, sold under brand names such as Abilify, Seroquel, and Zyprexa, had been tested on schizophrenics in several large clinical trials, all of which had demonstrated a dramatic decrease in the subjects’ psychiatric symptoms. As a result, second-generation antipsychotics had become one of the fastest-growing and most profitable pharmaceutical classes. By 2001, Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa was generating more revenue than Prozac. It remains the company’s top-selling drug.
But the data presented at the Brussels meeting made it clear that something strange was happening: the therapeutic power of the drugs appeared to be steadily waning. A recent study showed an effect that was less than half of that documented in the first trials, in the early nineteen-nineties. Many researchers began to argue that the expensive pharmaceuticals weren’t any better than first-generation antipsychotics, which have been in use since the fifties. “In fact, sometimes they now look even worse,” John Davis, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told me”
If you can’t find it with any of the above you can google “The decline effect and the scientific method” it should be the first link. And if that doesn’t work, I archived it here:
http://www.webcitation.org/6SgCvSc3w
Enjoy – it is well worth the time…

I also like the argument that your kids should be vaccinated because I don’t want your unvaccinated kids to give the disease to my vaccinated kids.

Catherine Ronconi

Apparently you don’t understand the concept of community immunity.
As long as most kids are vaccinated, the unvaccinated get a free ride. But when too many go unvaccinated, then they are at risk. It’s not the vaccinated kids who are in danger, but those who aren’t vaccinated, once they become numerous beyond a certain low level.

aaron

Vaccines don’t always work in everyone and not everyone can be vaccinated.
I imagine that if a disease becomes endemic, it is also more likely to mutate and defeat our immunities.

Catherine Ronconi

There is nothing wrong with the scientific method. The problem is that it is so often violated and corrupted these days and indeed under attack.

noaaprogrammer

In physics there is the “observer effect” where the act of observation will make changes to the phenomenon being observed.
For example, once we have measured some system in quantum physics, we know its current state and this stops it from being in one of its other states. This means that the type of measurement that we do on the system affects the end state of the system.
Just as the interference pattern phenomenon seen in the double slit experiment scales up from photons to large molecules – (and who knows – maybe even baseballs) – so also the observer effect phenomenon may scale up to cause the “decline effect.”

thallstd

Reply to NOAAProgrammer and Catherine Ronconi:
The article is not an attack on the scientific method. It is a discussion of the failure of the paradigm today within which science is conducted – the process of scienctific research. The title of the article in that sense is misleading.
While the “observer effect” may scale up to explain some of the decline effect, there are other causes, rooted in human nature for why, as Catherine says, the scientific method, “is so often violated and corrupted these days.” The article does a good job of discussing the forces and factors that lead to that “corruption”. I quote that because I don’t believe the corruption is as wide-spread as perceived, even in climate science.
That is one of the benefits of familiarizing yourself with the article. Frequently when discussing climate sciene I find myself confronted with an “appeal ot authority” argument that goes something along the lines of ‘how could 97% of scientists be wrong?’ or ‘sure – the entire climate science community conspired to create a hoax’. With the examples in this ariticle, conspiracy, corruption, and hoax can be taken off the table. It makes clear that the problems in climate science are not limited to climate science. They are pervasive across many scientific areas of study. The reason they have polarized climate science is because of the politics and vast sums of money involved.
The focus of this WUWT piece is a paradigm shift in climate science. To the extent that’s happening, “The Decline Effect” helps explain why that may be happening, and the reasons go far beyond the reluctance of nature to conform to model forecasts. It presents a strong case for a paradigm shift in the scientific process as implemented today to help protect against human nature.
On publication bias:
Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University

Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found. The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.

On replicability:
Leigh Simmons, a biologist at the University of Western Australia:

: [Simmons]“I was really excited by fluctuating asymmetry. The early studies made the effect look very robust.” He decided to conduct a few experiments of his own, investigating symmetry in male horned beetles. “Unfortunately, I couldn’t find the effect,” he said. “But the worst part was that when I submitted these null results I had difficulty getting them published. The journals only wanted confirming data. It was too exciting an idea to disprove, at least back then.” For Simmons, the steep rise and slow fall of fluctuating asymmetry is a clear example of a scientific paradigm, one of those intellectual fads that both guide and constrain research: after a new paradigm is proposed, the peer-review process is tilted toward positive results. But then, after a few years, the academic incentives shift—the paradigm has become entrenched—so that the most notable results are now those that disprove the theory.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University:

[Ioannidis]“It’d be really great if the initial studies gave us an accurate summary of things. But they don’t. And so what happens is we waste a lot of money treating millions of patients and doing lots of follow-up studies on other themes based on results that are misleading.” In 2005, Ioannidis published an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that looked at the forty-nine most cited clinical-research studies in three major medical journals. Forty-five of these studies reported positive results, suggesting that the intervention being tested was effective. Because most of these studies were randomized controlled trials—the “gold standard” of medical evidence—they tended to have a significant impact on clinical practice, and led to the spread of treatments such as hormone replacement therapy for menopausal women and daily low-dose aspirin to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Nevertheless, the data Ioannidis found were disturbing: of the thirty-four claims that had been subject to replication, forty-one per cent had either been directly contradicted or had their effect sizes significantly downgraded.

On selective reporting and a-prior beliefs:

The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. “It feels good to validate a hypothesis,” Ioannidis said. “It feels even better when you’ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that’s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven”—he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins—“you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it’s true.”

Richard Palmer, a biologist at the University of Alberta:

“Once I realized that selective reporting is everywhere in science, I got quite depressed,” Palmer told me. “As a researcher, you’re always aware that there might be some nonrandom patterns, but I had no idea how widespread it is.” In a recent review article, Palmer summarized the impact of selective reporting on his field: “We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some—perhaps many—cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated.”

This suggests that the decline effect is actually a decline of illusion. While Karl Popper imagined falsification occurring with a single, definitive experiment—Galileo refuted Aristotelian mechanics in an afternoon—the process turns out to be much messier than that. Many scientific theories continue to be considered true even after failing numerous experimental tests. Verbal overshadowing might exhibit the decline effect, but it remains extensively relied upon within the field. The same holds for any number of phenomena, from the disappearing benefits of second-generation antipsychotics to the weak coupling ratio exhibited by decaying neutrons, which appears to have fallen by more than ten standard deviations between 1969 and 2001.

On random results:

The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn’t an interesting new fact—it was a meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don’t understand. The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

Mark from the Midwest

It’s not the method, it’s sample-selection-bias. Whenever you select a small sample it will be, by it’s very nature, biased. Notice the term “select a sample.” There is no criteria, except for absolute randomness, to obtain a sample that does not have some of the researcher’s proximal notions built in. Unfortunately much of the discussion on experimental design implies that you don’t need a purely random sample to provide evidence of an effect. There’s some truth to that, as long as your sample selection process is designed to exclude moderators, variables that may interact, etc., etc., but there’s been almost no discussion about how to avoid such impacts.
When you’re dealing with human subjects it’s pretty common for the second researcher to mimic the procedures of the first researcher who finds an effect. It’s the easy way to get published, and also very lazy. So we tend to have a bias toward the bias, and that’s the way that many dumb-ass ideas are perpetuated. In almost 40 years of working with humnan subjects I can count on one hand the number of effects that don’t get substantively diluted when the measurement is extended to a broader population.
And that’s all I have to say about that

Gary Pearse

I’ve followed the CAGW story for ~10 years and I get the distinct impression that climate scientists like Hansen, and those of similar ‘weightiness’ have grudgingly actually been on a journey of learning about climate from the most humble of beginnings. Hansen looking at Venus had an epiphany about how the world was going to warm. After his “discovery”, UN opportunist.- in.- chief Maurice Strong (high school ed. marxist) gave Hansen and his colleagues the job of determining the extent of damage caused by humans about 35years ago (he realized that to recruit them he had to have the cash put out by governments, UN etc and to hold “conventions” in exotic places and to fete and decorate with awards (the nobel com. were already in his pocket and of his ideology). They were ignorant of the large body of knowledge already possessed by geology, history, literature, glacial research, etc. They didn’t know that someone knew that there were periods of great warmth and great cold that had low carbon dioxide and high carbon dioxide respectively. They didnt know there was an LIA, MWP, and all the other cold and hot periods that needed to be gotten rid of. They appeared not to know about Hannibal’s soldiers and elephants crossed the Alps – a feat only possible during a warming period. They didn’t know that 1/3 of Finns died of starvation, the Thames, New York Harbor and even the Bosphorus froze over during the LIA. Pause brought them knowledge of ENSO, the sun, the PDO, AMO, in their desperation to muddle a rescue effort for their tattered climate sensitivity…… This has been a very expensive journey of discovery.

And someone has been sabotaging CRU and NOAA and NASA and NCDC and GISS and Al Gore and Obama by putting LSD in their water supply?

So they were government “experts” then?

Real scientists are fighting Marcuse (demand to be allowed to express minority views, then when your ideas are accepted by enough people, silence the opposing views; when these views disappear from public discourse, people will only harbor thoughts we (who are correct) want to be thought…this totalitarian crapist was given a professorship at UC San Diego!). Real scientists are fighting Alinsky (ridicule your opponents, show them no civil courtesy, get them to believe you have more backing than you have ((“97% consensus)), terrify people with threats, go after people not institutions, and hurt them).
These two men were bent upon destruction. Those of us who are healthy experienced people when we were growing up who were fair, even generous, and people who were unfair, who tried to get more from us than they gave us.
Most of the people at WUWT decided, sometime in childhood or adolescence or early adulthood that treating people fairly and even generously was a better course than advancing their own interests by taking advantage of people.
The UN IPCC is comprised of people who want to advantage themselves by disadvantaging other people. See Raj Pachauri…was he offering to marry his underling whom he was trying to convince to hop in the sack with him? He was on a mission to save the planet. Riight. How about saving the planet from dirty old men who want to ruin young women?

A quibble:
“It seems to me that climate science is currently dominated by computer modelers…”
As a software engineer I find the computer modeling done by climate scientists to be poor quality, exhibiting poor understanding of either the underlying physical processes or the difficulties of computer modeling. To call them computer modelers is a slur to my profession.

knr

Its worse than that , the data quality control seems to range from bad to awful , so before they even get to the models they have issue with the data .

Very detailed article, preparing for a paradigm crash. Thomas Kuhn would have been happy.
Thanks David Middleton.

Jim Francisco

It was well worth the time. Thanks thallstd.

My daughter-in-law and two sons have thrown the “97% of scientists” line in my face. They’re smart kids, they don’t use drugs. But this is what the MSM spouts.
On the issue of abstract reviews, the scientific method would be to have panels of AGW skeptics and AGW proponents contemporaneously review abstracts and derive conclusions. For disagreements on what abstracts impute, conference calls should be made to authors to get their responses to
Question 1:, “Do you hold the certain or nearly certain conviction that your published research demonstrates, beyond reasonable doubt that global warming since 1900 is mostly attributable to fossil fuel burning, or do you hold the opinion that your research is reasonable compatible with natural cycles of climate change being potentially the cause of most of the measured global warming since 1900?” (Answers of “I don’t know, I can’t really answer that question” get a new category,”Scientists don’t know.” and get thrown out of the 97% consensus.)
Question 2: Did you hear at any time that grants were being offered to show that global warming had adverse effects on the environment? Did you ever hear of grants being offered to show that global warming didn’t have adverse effects on the environment?
Question 3, 4, 5, 6 for the “beyond reasonable doubt” Yes answers:
Question 3: Have you applied for or have you taken an equivalent-paying job at an equivalent university located 600-1500 miles north of where you live or previously lived to protect your family from future global warming?
Question 4: Have you moved into a smaller home since 2000 to conserve household energy?
Question 5: Have you declined to use jet travel to attend meetings,on the grounds that you don’t want to contribute to fossil-fuel-burned climate disruption?
Question 6: Have you taken jet travel to attend meetings but felt bad about it?

thallstd

“My daughter-in-law and two sons have thrown the “97% of scientists” line in my face. They’re smart kids, they don’t use drugs. But this is what the MSM spouts.”
Besides all the points made in this WUWT piece, the 97% consensus figure can be found all the way back to 1959, attributed to publication bias.
I highly recommend you review my comments above at March 18, 2015 at 8:01 pm and March 19, 2015 at 6:21 am (assuming that post makes it out of moderation with the same time stamp), especially this quote from the article cited from Michael Jennions, a biologist at the Australian National University:

Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found. The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.

A few observations (we formally published most of these conclusions in 2002 – we’ve known this for a long time):
1. CO2 is the basis for all carbon-based life on Earth – and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient.
2. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
3. Recent global warming was natural and ~cyclical – the next phase following the ~20 year pause will be global cooling, starting by about 2020 or sooner.
3. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt varies ~contemporaneously with temperature and atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature at all measured time scales (published in 2008).
4. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society.
5. Green energy schemes (scams) are responsible for driving up energy costs and increasing winter mortality rates.
_________________________________
I suggest that most of the above statements are true, to a high degree of confidence.
All of the above statements are blasphemy to warmist fanatics.
It is truly remarkable how the warmists could get it so wrong.
Regards, Allan
(Petroleum Engineer / Earth Scientist)

Frodo

Allen,
The Useful Idiots (and I don’t mean they are stupid people; look the term up in Wiki, HG Wells is referred to as one, for example) simply want a Grand Cause to go with that fulfills them psychologically. The people at the very top aren’t “getting it wrong” in my opinion – they don’t care what the truth is. They simply want to implement certain social changes, and global cooling is as good as global warming is as good as climate change – they really don’t care what the mechanism is, and whether that mechanism reflects reality or not.

Chip Javert

+googol, especially your comment “The people at the very top…don’t care what the truth is”.

For Frodo
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/30/what-are-your-fears-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1847727
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
“The worst government is often the most moral. One composed of cynics is often very tolerant and humane. But when fanatics are on top there is no limit to oppression.”
“The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
– H.L. Mencken

David gave an eye-opening report. It makes you wonder why the fear-mongerers try to tear down WUWT. If google can be brought in line, maybe WUWT will “disappear”.
“Think Local”makes sense to me.Has the climate changed to become intolerable, whee you live? I’ve noticed that people are still flocking to Florida and Texas from New York, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois. Global warming isn’t on their list of things to avoid.
Cali is dumping gigatons of water into the sea, instead of conserving it. Freshwater for drinking and growing food, flushed into the salty Pacific.

I thought Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty Four were warnings. The leftists are taking them to be play books.

Claude Harvey

If the paradigm is crashing, does the current media tidal wave of blatant AGW propaganda represent Miss AGW’s “death throes”? Somehow, I doubt that. The old girl has managed to survive for some 17 years after her “actually warming” life support system was removed by our ever mischievous Mother Nature. That which should have put a stake through her heart only seems to have invigorated the patient.

Michael Wassil

Hooray for geologists! The last bunch to get sucked into the black hole. Maybe we’ll tarry at the event horizon long enough to escape. Great article.

JPeden

I don’t see that there was ever a truly Scientific Paradigm representing CO2CAGW in the first place. All I’ve seen is a gigantic Propaganda Op which is intentionally anti-scientific.

Chip Javert

JPeden
You must not have been paying attention when reasonable scientific practitioners were drummed out (i.e. lost their jobs) of academe because they flouted the paradigm.
Or, most recently, when former US Vice President Al Gore proposed “punishment” for scientists disbelieving AGW.

JPeden

Chip, you’re right about that anti-scientific practice, and that’s exactly what I’m saying about the allegation that CO2CAGW was ever a true Scientific Paradigm. For practical purposes, it was never Scientific. At best it was a “conjecture”, amongst the many we all could think up at any time for free, 24/7. [h/t dbStealey]

thingadonta

A former prime minister of Australia said something like (I don’t have the exact words anymore):
‘All respectable and qualified climate scientists think that climate change is caused by humans and we need to do something about it. ‘
She withdrew the comment when someone told her there are in fact, respectable top notch scientists who don’t think so.

The beast won’t die till Barry O. leaves the Whitehouse.
Then it will.

stan stendera

Great article and comment thread. And no trolls. They aren’t smart enough to comment on this article.

mikewaite

They are currently huddled in conference, planning their witty and incisive comments .

eyesonu

Excellent presentation by David Middleton leading to a good comment thread.
O/T, but WUWT is closing in on a quarter of a billion views. The quality of the comments reflects the level of intellect of the viewers. This reflects on Anthony Watts and WUWT.

Environmental Journalists belong to the Society of Environmental Journalists, where they meet and learn from each other, and from Democratic Party talking points. Talking points include 97%, endangered polar bears, anthropogenic global warming with rising sea levels, warming polar regions with melting ice and melting glaciers, and are not challenged because nobody among the environmental journalists reads any science whatsoever. They read the talking points because they are familiar and comforting.