UPDATE: Some commenters got the wrong idea about this article, see the footnote.
Our resident solar physicist Dr. Leif Svalgaard is one of the scientists involved in the effort
Dear SILSO user,
Mon, Jun 22, 2015 11:42 am
Over the past 4 years a community effort has been carried out to revise entirely the historical Sunspot Number series. A good overview of the analyses and identified corrections is provided in the recent review paper:
Clette, F., Svalgaard, L., Vaquero, J.M., Cliver, E. W.,“Revisiting the Sunspot Number. A 400-Year Perspective on the Solar Cycle”, Space Science Reviews, Volume 186, Issue 1-4, pp. 35-103.
Now that the new data series has been finalized, we are about to replace the original version of our sunspot data
by an entirely new data set on July 1st. On this occasion, we decided to simultaneously introduce changes in several conventions in the data themselves and also in the distributed data files.
There are so many diverse changes that we cannot guarantee that everything will work perfectly on the first try.Our team is too small to make full prior simulations. Therefore, multiple careful consistency checks will be done on July 1st itself, which will slow down the processing. So, please anticipate some delays compared to an ordinary month.
The most prominent change in the Sunspot Number will be the choice of a new reference observer, A.Wolfer (pilot observer from 1876 to 1928) instead of R. Wolf himself. This means dropping the conventional 0.6 Zürich scale factor, thus raising the scale of the entire Sunspot Number time series to the level of modern sunspot counts. This major scale change may thus strongly affect some user applications. Be prepared!
Regarding data files, various files will be replaced by new ones, with new more homogeneous names and new internal column formats. The included information will sometimes change: combining data (e.g. hemispheric numbers together with total numbers), separating data (monthly smoothed numbers in a separate file) or adding new values that were not provided previously (standard errors).
All those changes will be explained in the information accompanying our data, on the web site of the World Data Center SILSO. While the primary files will all be replaced in early July, some other changes will still occur in the next two or three months. During this transitory phase, we thus invite you to visit the SILSO Web site to keep track of the changes, as we are preparing this major transition now scheduled for July 1st, 2015.
An important remark for our faithful observers: the current transition in the sunspot number processing does not change anything to the way you enter your data. So, just proceed as usual on July 1st. Your past k personal
coefficients will simply be recomputed relative to the new re-calibrated sunspot number. We are working on this right now. By the way, the new processing software will open the way towards a better determination of the evolution of each station and so, a better feedback to our observers will become possible in the future.
In the coming weeks, please visit our SILSO Web site:
____________________
Dr.Laure Lefevre
Royal Observatory of Belgium WDC-SILSO
UPDATE: A number of commenters got the wrong idea about this article, conflating the process with the sort of questionable adjustment techniques For example, Dr. Svalgaard comments:
As the text says all observers should continue the way they have always done. There is no such as ‘the traditional count’ for observers. That concept is completely local to the SIDC [now SILSO]
Frederick Colbourne adds:
These adjustments (at the very least) compensate for the faulty decision by one important observer to use an instrument that did not have sufficient resolving power to count the sunspots properly.
Willis Eschenbach sums it up:
Dear heavens, this resistance to correcting the mistakes of the past is most peculiar. Mosh is quite correct. The sunspot count of the past was differently calculated, due to changes in counting methods which are both well known and well explained.
What they have now done is to use the same methodology from start to finish.
Look, there have been some bogus “adjustments” to climate records by various miscreants. But that doesn’t mean we can just use what we have in front of us in any field. Sunspots are a good example. We know where we changed methodology in the past. We know the dates that calculation method changed, and how the method changed. As a result of the change we have two incompatible sets of numbers.
So should we just continue to use the existing sunspot dataset, which consists of two sets of DIFFERENT NUMBERS which were calculated in DIFFERENT WAYS and then just spliced together? That would be nuts, no?
Instead what we need to do, and what Leif and the others did, was to go back to the underlying observations, and to use a single unified clearly-defined method of counting sunspots from the start of the record to the end of the record. This single internally coherent dataset replaces the SPLICED DATASET of the past.
Anyone who thinks that using the same counting method from start to finish is somehow bad and wrong, well, they’re free to use the old spliced dataset … and if you do, I’m free to laugh at your adherence to past mistakes.
Note well that this says nothing about the endless adjustments to the temperature record, which may or may not be justified in any particular case, and which are nowhere near as clear-cut and clean as the sunspot count.
My viewpoint is that this adjustment corrects a clear mistake, and therefore should be welcomed. – Anthony Watts
Thank you, dbstealey. Spot on. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Real scientists do it right and Dr. Svalgaard’s group are for real.
I don’t object to Leif’s efforts if they help solar science in general but I don’t see them as necessarily relevant to climate science.
Sunspots do not affect climate directly. They merely serve as a proxy for variations in solar activity that affect climate in other ways.
Leif has above pointed out the continuing relationship within the revised sunspot figures between changes in sunspot numbers and changes in cosmic rsays reaching the Earth and that continues to be relevant to the Svensmark hypothesis.
Likewise, my hypothesis relating to wavelength and particle variations affcting global cloudiness via reactions with ozone in the stratosphere remains valid despite the revised sunspot nimbers.
I see no sign of Leif and his colleagues interfering with or concealing past records and so see no valid objection to their endeavours.
The problem with your hypotheses is that all the things you mention vary as the sunspot number does. An example that may be relevant is the reconstruction of Solar EUV since about 1740:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
Your link says:
“On the other hand, it appears that the Relative Sunspot Number as currently defined is beginning to no longer be a faithful representation of solar magnetic activity, at least as measured by the EUV and related indices”
Which is my point.
You work in revising the sunspot count has little relevance to climate science because it does not derogate from the relevance of other aspects of solar activity which more directly affect climate.
On the other hand it might serve to push attention away from sunspots themselves towards more directly relevant areas of study such as the hypothesis which I have presented.
What is next?
Adjustment of the climate gate emails?
The only correlation i can see with rising CO2 is alarmist getting more desperate.
As for this, i have no view really as it is obvious the sun plays a role.
How much is the million dollar question.
And if there are errors to be fixed then Lief should have the chance to fix them, with the work of others.
Time will tell
For those of you folks who truly think that the changes that Leif and his band of merry persons have made to the sunspot records are not correct … then what you need to do is to quote the part of their explanation of the changes that you think is incorrect, and tell us why. They have explained exactly why each of the changes have been made. If you think they are wrong, then precisely where are they wrong and why?
Because it is far from enough to merely mouth fanciful stories of global anti-solar conspiracies. Good heavens, these are solar physicists making these changes. Don’t you think they’d be overjoyed to find out the sun, their special chosen field of study, was secretly in charge of the climate?
In any case, if you think the adjustments are wrong then you need to put up or sit down. Because if you want traction for your claims that the adjustments shouldn’t have been done, you’ll have to explain exactly where Leif and the others went wrong.
Best to all,
w.
No, not ‘exactly’.
===
I agree with Willis.
The complex interactions between all of the solar effects, the 70% of our planet which is water and its storage and release of energy and the formation of clouds and their multiple effects may, indeed, be the “secret” controllers of our climate in as much as we have yet to be able to quantity those relationships. Not complete chaos, perhaps organized chaos would be a better description, of course with all of the other ancillary potential causal variables chipping in their two cents worth. What fun!
Willis it does not matter one way or the other when it comes to the argument of solar climate connections. Everything is relative which is to say solar activity was much higher in contrast to the Maunder and Dalton Minimums and from 2005-present, despite the adjustment. That fact will remain.
Further the temperature data response( not manipulated) shows clearly that each prolonged solar minimum period is associated with a temperature drop and each prolonged maximum solar period is associated with a temperature global temperature rise.
All this does is show that the climate is very sensitive to changes in solar variability which is more due to the associated secondary effects rather then primary solar changes.
We shall see as we proceed into this decade who is correct and who is wrong as far as a solar climate connection goes. I have put forth my low average value solar parameters which I say will impact the climate and until they are reached the verdict is unknown.
It is wishful thinking to think this adjustment will somehow diminish the validity of a solar/climate connection. In a word it doesn’t.
Salvatore Del Prete June 23, 2015 at 9:12 am
Salvatore, this is why I rarely even read your comments.
All you’ve done is throw up a bunch of uncited, unreferenced, unsupported claims. You claim that there are clear connections between solar variations and climate. You claim that the climate is very sensitive to changes in solar variability. You claim that you know that the purported solar-climate sensitivity is due to unknown, unspecified, unidentified “associated solar effects”, rather than being from unknown, unspecified, unidentified “primary solar effects”.
I’m sorry, Salvatore, but all of that goes exactly nowhere. It’s just your unsupported opinion, and unsupported opinions are of little interest to the scientific world.
w.
Dr. Svalgaard, like any other scientist, must have predictive value in his work. These adjustments will help in our understanding, or they won’t.
The reactions seen on this thread are of no surprise to me. We have all seen the brutalization and politicization of the scientific method in thread after thread. “Adjustments” that always seem to go in one direction, etc, etc,…..
. Is it really that much of a surprise that posters have reacted this way?
No, no surprise, as posters are like sheep [or useful idiots] who can’t and don’t think critically for themselves. But as I said, that is human nature and not much can be done about it. And all the same, those sheep continue to take [and expect] advantage of things science does for them. Then, on top of things there are ‘exploiters’ [some on this blog] who are just interested in peddling pseudo-scientific nonsense for their own self-glorification.
Heh, consider the things the sheep are ‘expected’ to ‘take’, which just ain’t so. I’m not saying your adjustments are among these things.
=============
And Dr. Svalgaard misses (or ignores) my point completely, all in order to denigrate the readership (and everyone else).
I agree with David Ball, and what he said in both of his posts just above.
I have found nothing wrong with the work done to improve the record, and I am starting from a skeptical point of view of any new and improved interpretations of past records.
But I see little call for such an uncharitable view of the opinions of anyone who has any questions of Mr. Svalgaard’s work.
People who use a position of authority to denigrate other individuals will never be any hero of mine.
It is one thing to respond in kind to barbs and insults, quite a different matter to hurl them about in response to polite questions or questions, or for no reason at all. And they are not even funny put downs.
Just mean and nasty.
‘Don’t you think they’d be overjoyed to find out the sun……was secretly in charge of the climate?’
Many solar physicists do think the Sun is in charge of the climate! Do you think this ‘band of merry little persons’ are the only solar physicists in the world?
Absolutely!
I am thoroughly puzzled why there is this movement to minimize the immense, gigantic, utterly huge power of the local star to heat our poor little planet! The fact that suddenly it is dumping us into long Ice Ages with brief warm cycles should scare everyone.
‘I am thoroughly puzzled why there is this movement to minimize the immense, gigantic, utterly huge power of the local star…’
I call it the Kelvin Syndrome! 🙂
This has been an interesting thread.
My position is that the sunspot count over time is not perfect and there is no way to make it perfect. These “improvements” may be warranted and may even get the data set closer to the objective truth of how it really came down. But one has to see the three tons of subjectivity that must go into this endeavor. One must also recognize that the alarmists have said all along that the sun has no effect at all on the changes in climate on this earth. Seems there are people’s biases to consider.
In the long run, I doubt this “clean up” will have much effect on the CO2-causes-the-warming debate. I do think that those who claim that this “clean up” has a lot of room for subjectivity have a point, but one hopes that this effort brings the data sets a little closer to the truth. Our experiences with data-set “improvements” don’t fill up with a lot of confidence however.
Odd that there is now observed cooling of both poles.
What could have changed to cause cooling of both poles? Atmospheric CO2? No.
Did the sun change? Yup.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/440/1/012001/pdf/1742-6596_440_1_012001.pdf
Really? It didn’t take several solar cycles for 20th century warming to kick in. This whole argument is ridiculous. Either there is a clear solar/climate connection or there isn’t. Were the weak Dalton cycles during the early 19th century responsible for cooling during that period or not? If they were there was no lag. On the contrary cooling across Europe, at least, actually began in the 1780s, i.e. at least a decade before the Dalton Minimum.
Face it – the solar explanation for climate variability is a busted flush. However – look on the bright side – it means the warmists cannot explain the early 20th century (1910-1940) warming.
The change in trend is rapid but the full thermal effect takes decades to filter through the oceans.
We saw cloudiness increase and the pause begin at around the same time as active cycle 23 ended and quiet cycle 24 began but it will be decades before the full effect is felt even if the sun stays quiet.
The clear solar / climate connection lies in cloudiness, jet stream behaviour and latitudinal climate zone shifting. They are the leading diagnostic indicators with temperature following much later.
We could possibly even narrow it down to the average annual latitudinal position of the ITCZ.
It seems that since 2010 the PDO is growing, and AMO decline.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2010/trend:2010/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980/to:2010/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1980
Sun spot activity is a crude way to determine how much energy the sun sends. It is a better predictor of weather than normal than any other predictor.
I have two questions to Leif. 1. Does the sun have an internal clock and if not what causes the solar cycles.
2. What causes the world to cycle in ice ages to small interglacials and back to ice ages if our only heater is the sun.
The sun spot stuff is chicken feed, real science would be looking for answers.
Surely a clock inside the sun would melt?
Tides don’t melt so much as mesh.
=============
As Anthony pointed out in the first line of this posting, Dr. Leif Svalgaard is a solar physicist.
I can’t imagine what terrible thing he has done that would make so many here describe him as a “climate scientist”.
Leif said this:
“As I said, people see what they want to see, regardless of graphs and data.
Now, are you an ‘expert’ in climate and meteorology? The latter is actually my real expertise. The solar stuff is just an interest of mine that I have developed.”
which was news to me so I’ve asked for more detail.
Check out https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=qFdb2fIAAAAJ
Thanks.
A couple of those papers refer tangentially to solar effects on atmospheric circulation / vorticity but that isn’t really climate and meteorology is it ?
Leif said ‘The solar stuff is just an interest of mine that I have developed. Hmm, that certainly explains a lot…….
Leif said ‘The solar stuff is just an interest of mine that I have developed’. Hmmmm, that explains everything.
Stephen. You don’t keep up much with Leif’s website I am guessing. Leif was an early investigator of a possible link between solar variation and Earth’s climate and has said so on this blog more than once or twice. His reputation for being a puma stalking its prey (quiet, intelligent, and with great focus), I have no doubt, was brought to full force on his investigations.
Pamela,
Please direct me to some of Leif’s work that shows expertise on climate and meteorology. He has given a number of links that only relate tangentially to atmospheric circulation and/or vorticity.
Still waiting for Lief to give us more details about the fact that he said that ‘solar stuff is just an interest of mine that I have developed’. Apparently, his real expertise is in climate and meteorology. He’s suddenly become a bit backward at coming forward…….
Here is your answer Leif is trying to show that solar variability does not influence the climate and one of the ways to go about this is to try to show solar variability is limited. It is a wasted effort and does not work because the data suggest solar variability does indeed impact the climate, even if it should be less then what was previously thought.
They should run two series. The “old standard” and the “new best guess standard”. Especially since, at best, it’s only a guess. Adjusting history is a great deal like lying.
The only good thing about this is the history will be difficult to wipe off the internet.
However, since this is likely political else they’d have the kindness to wait until after Paris. Geez..
CH, perhaps they should go for “old not very good guess” and “new better guess”. If you insist on calling the solar records a “guess”, which seems pretty odd to me.
When I was in my teens, in the late 60’s, I made a projection box, out of balsa wood, black card, and greaseproof paper, to attach to my 3-inch refractor. Then I’d close the curtains in my bedroom with just the end of the telescope projecting into the light, and I made numerous drawings of sunspots with this arrangement. I was never able to compare the results with any official records, since the internet wasn’t around then.
But apparently, I wasn’t really doing any of this – I was just “guessing” at the sunspots. Who knew?
You know something is not right when all his ‘mates’ are trying too hard to prove him right. Everyone knows Leif among other things, is pro AGW.
I think you’ve spent too much time in the mountains. I know Dr. Svalgaard personally, and he questions it.
Please, few question AGW. Most question CAGW. All over the map on policy. This mishmashing the meaning of skepticism allows the use of ignorant epithets like ‘denier’.
In my experience, Leif has expressed disdain for the process of the IPCC. Clearly, with this kind of work, he shows capacity to have informed disdain about the process of the IPCC.
Also in my experience, Leif has attempted neutrality, if not agnosticism, about policy.
Now to shut my wittle mouf.
====================
I agree — Dr S’s & others’ solar work is non-biased/non-politicized.
Considering the way things are going, neutrality would seem to be tacit approval of the way things are going. Maybe this is not the case, but I can not understand how anyone with such top notch credentials, who believes that the world is being snookered by a false proposition, can stay neutral.
Except for the reason of not wanting to be Sooned.
Staying neutral on this if one is skeptical of CAGW is no badge of honor, IMO.
Just sayin’.
I’ve added a footnote and notice to the header because some commenters apparently didn’t get the fact that this adjustment corrects a mistake of the past. I support the work, and I support Dr. Svalgaard’s methods.
“Good heavens, these are solar physicists making these changes.”
This is a blatant appeal to authority. You know, since solar physicists know everything…
Andrew
And it is something they, solar physicists, discussed for years, prior to doing it. The process has been fully transparent and is replicable anywhere, unlike NCDC temperature adjustments which has computer code we have not seen yet, nor is fully replicable outside on NCDC
That may be true but now with modern technology there are better ways to monitor the variability of the sun. Solar flux and the AP index being two of the tools which are so much more objective. Sunspots are subjective and this will not be the final adjustment in my opinion.
Numbering is somewhat subjective and numbering is not likely the most sensitive of the markers for this manifestation of the sun. There is a great deal more to the characterizing of sunspots than their simple frequency.
================
‘Counting’ sun spots has ALWAYS been entirely subjective. The differences between various sun spots is huge, they can be any size or shape. All our tools that we use to do this are, by definition, subjective. With storms, we have ‘hurricane/typhoon’ data which still doesn’t give exact replication of reality since a high wind hurricane can be very, very small and a low wind one can be gigantic, the effects are wildly different.
Sun spots have been defined now by size, etc. but way back in the old days this was just not possible. If we put in too much ‘tiny sun spot’ data this flattens the numbers.
The trick here is, the sun spots that cause climate change are BIG. So tracking just the great big ones gives us a good picture of if it is going to be hotter or cooler on our planet.
Mebbe the bigness, mebbe the location, MEBBE the frequency, mebbe sumpin’ else.
That’s a big ‘maybe’.
===============
Hmmmm, I’m trying to find the remark by Leif yesterday diminuating solar influence with the argument that sunspots are similar to a time in the past but temperatures aren’t. Shirley wanted to question that one, and surely Shirley gets what Shirley surely wants.
But that was yesterday, and yesterday’s gone.
==================
A poor time to remember that the Maunder spots were ‘large, sparse, and primarily Southern Hemispheric’? I’ve found a way to understand ‘large’, even ‘sparse’, but the asymmetry mystifies.
================
Bah, I meant it ‘sparse’, even ‘large’, but not sure the alternate makes any difference.
============
I suspect there is some other manifestation of the sun, either presently unknown or poorly understood, that also varies as dramatically in its effect on climate as the sunspots themselves vary. That manifestation may be caused, or may be co-caused, may even be only co-incidental, by and to the sunspots.
==================
Hmmm, more clarity; I meant varies as dramatically as the character of the sunspots. You are over here lost in contemplations about the numbers, when that is the least sensitive of the pertinent indicators.
Dang, somedays I wish I were more numerate, and somedays I wish I were less.
================
How about wishing you were more educated on solar measures?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3540769528?colid=26NBVF4XE3DCU&coliid=I1FUUGJ5GN9Q0P&ref_=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_ttl
Don’t we all so wish?
================
Well, Pam, you’re gonna have to break it down for me a little. Lots about numbers but what do they say about the character of the spots, the size, the locations, etc? Have they figured out the meanings of the asymmetries? Help, oh Authority. Leif is allowed to assist.
==========================
So with a new data set, it is now time to ask if there is a super cycle of multiple 11-year cycles and with double peaks (cycles) and relative trough cycle around the super cycle top (?). This would be a longer variation of the pattern observed within individual 11-year cycles and tops.
For my part I see a great danger in “correcting” the past to match the present, if you intend to use the result for comparison.
Correction is not an objective process. It is subjective, based on current beliefs. Thus the correction process itself is highly likely to lead to confirmation bias.
The results of the correction will closely mirror the prior beliefs of those doing the corrections.
The problem for those doing the correction is that it is our subconscious mind that is biasing the results below our level of awareness. What we see as fair and appropriate is relative to our beliefs, not to any absolute scale.
Which means the corrections to the past are much less reliable in fact than we believe.
The analogy of painting the orange red so you can compare apples to apples best describes the problem of correcting the past so it can be compared to the present.
correcting the past is like a spell checker without a dictionary. the word may look right, but you have no way to know for sure.
And you too have not read the papers. We don’t so much correct the past, but rather the present where we know the data well enough to do so.
lsvalgaard – I agree that apples must be compared only to apples, but the data has changed now. My question is: Does this correction alter our present scientific fundamental understanding of solar dynamics and it’s connection with climate? How would you describe the resulting ramifications (to theory) overall, if any? GK
Our knowledge of the solar dynamo is sketchy. In order to gain ground here we need a better data set than the old faulty ones, so a new series will help.
On the climate front, the situation is better. It has now become clear that the Sun’s influence [although there] is but minor.
Minor in the sense of t=0, but not in the context of energy storage in sea water as in t-1, t-2, t-3…
Sun’s influence is but minor
You are so wrong, Lord Kelvin, you are so wrong…….
Wrong Leif the solar influence upon the climate is major.
Dr. Svalgaard thanks for sharing your results on this site and staying around to answer questions and take abuse by some of the “misguided” folks that comment here. Understanding the complexities of the solar component of climate is vital to gaining a real concensus on attribution.
“become clear” ? So you have sorted out every last dimension of it all even though “our knowledge of the solar dynamo is sketchy”? I look forward to the publication of the detailed (and no doubt comprehensive) analysis that fully defines and supports that remarkable claim. In viewing this discussion, I was, at first sympathetic to you in that you seemed to be taking what might called premature knee-jerk abuse. However, It has since become clear that you are also no slouch at dishing out generalized and unwarranted abuse and insults. Now, we see a leap in logic that is insulting to any critical observer’s intelligence. Disappointing.
Now, we see a leap in logic that is insulting to any critical observer’s intelligence
You should apply some of that claimed intelligence when you comment here. It is clear that my conclusion upsets your sensibilities, but so be it.
Dr. Svalgaard,
If we indeed have some sort of grand solar minimum of the next few cycles, and if we also see temperatures beginning to decline, would you modify your opinion that the sun is a minor player?
I am curious as to what it will take to move the needle on this?
I myself am of the opinion that warming is very much less to be feared than sudden and/or drastic cooling, and am very curious to see how this is going to play out.
Do you believe cooling is a greater potential problem?
Are you curious to see if cooling occurs?
If it does occur, would you change your mind?
Please note that I am not asking anyone’s opinion on how likely any of these events may or may not be.
I am sure that no one here needs to be reminded that the history of science is a veritable encyclopedia of great ideas, wonderful theories, and smart people which were found to be incorrect.
If we indeed have some sort of grand solar minimum of the next few cycles, and if we also see temperatures beginning to decline, would you modify your opinion that the sun is a minor player?
It i always a question of ‘how much?’ and of how much that is compared to the noise. Your ‘weasel words’ “beginning to” are too vague. By how much is the question.
I can turn it around and ask how much is needed for you to maintain your opinion.
Do you believe cooling is a greater potential problem?
Are you curious to see if cooling occurs?
If it does occur, would you change your mind?
Cooling is worse than warming.
As to being curious: Einstein said it best: “I never worry about the future. It comes all by itself”.
And last: it is all about how much.
I am sure that no one here needs to be reminded that the history of science is a veritable encyclopedia of great ideas, wonderful theories, and smart people which were found to be incorrect.
Dumb people are much more likely to be incorrect.
But it is a scientists prerogative to be wrong. That is how progress is made.
I one believed there was a Vorticity Area Index effect [google it]. I was wrong then.
Why not leave the historical data as it is? In this computer age treat it like any other database? If you want sunspots run a query. Ask for a Traditional view or a Svalgaard view or any other. Any correction of the original data always has a chance of introducing errors. You find out how priceless historical data is after you’ve erased it.
at a minimum, any correction to the past should increase the error bars. the bigger the correction, the more likely it is that error has been introduced.
By the standards of Climate Science the Piltdown man was just an infilling the archeological record.
“Given the amount of bogus climate “science” being passed off in the journals these days, such distrust is perhaps a reasonable defense reflex … but the bad news is that honest scientists get tarred with the same brush.”
Indeed. I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg of the damage that CAGW has done to all of science..
…and the noose is being tightened as people balk at CAGW. The roar of the politicians that are now scientists and they are not to be argued with. The money train is at full throttle to use the public’s ignorance of science to force agendas. The perfect storm.
Just as we see here, a lot of work goes into a project, which is arguably well stated; however the distrust and skeptical views are condescendingly scoffed at (maybe warranted in some cases) and one sees the reactions. As an example of turf protecting we see Svensmark’s work and how he was treated by his own so called open (mostly skeptical and rude) minded science community. It’ll all pass. Cheers!