Apparently, MIT didn’t like its name being used in petition to Trump. Dr. Richard Lindzen responds to that letter.
March 9, 2017
President Donald Trump
The White House
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
On 2 March, 2017, members of the MIT Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate (PAOC) sent a public letter to the White House, contesting the Petition I circulated. The Petition, signed by over 330 scientists from around the world so far, called for governments to withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.
Let me explain in somewhat greater detail why we call for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
The UNFCCC was established twenty five years ago to find scientific support for dangers from increasing carbon dioxide. While this has led to generous and rapidly increased support for the field, the purported dangers remain hypothetical, model-based projections. By contrast, the benefits of increasing CO2 and modest warming are clearer than ever, and they are supported by dramatic satellite images of a greening Earth.
We note that:
- The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
- It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
- Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
- The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
- Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
- Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.
Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago. Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.” Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.
I hope these remarks help to explain why the over 300 original signers of the Petion (and additional scientists are joining them every day) have called for withdrawal from the UNFCCC.
Respectfully yours,
Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences
SUPPORTING SIGNERS:
Most of signers of the Petition, agree with my remarks above. In the limited time available to prepare the letter, it has been reviewed and approved by the following:
ABDUSSAMATOV, Habibullo Ismailovich: (Dr. sci., Phys. and Math. Sciences. ); Head of space research of the Sun sector at the Pulkovo observatory, head of the project The Lunar Observatory, St. Petersburg, (Russian Federation).
ALEXANDER, Ralph B.: (Ph.D. ,Physics, University of Oxford ); Former Associate Professor, Wayne State University, Detroit, author of Global Warming False Alarm (2012).
BASTARDI, Joseph: Chief Meteorologist, Weatherbell Analytics.
BRIGGS, William M.: (Ph.D., Statistics & Philosophy of Science); Author of Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics.
CLOUGH, Charles: (MS., Atmospheric Science); Founder and Retired Chief of the US Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, Retired LtCol USAF (Res) Weather Officer.
DOIRON, Harold H.: (Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston 1970 ); Retired VP Engineering, InDyne, Inc.; Senior Manager, McDonnell Douglas Space Systems; and former NASA Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle Engineer Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, composed of NASA manned space program retirees.
EASTERBROOK, Donald J.: (Ph.D.); Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University; former president of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division of GSA, Associate Editor of the GSA Bulletin for 15 years, and many other professional activities. He published four books and eight professional papers in the past year.
FORBES, Vivian R.: (BSc., Applied Sciences); FAusIMM, FSIA, geologist, financial analyst and pasture manager, author of many articles on climate, pollution, economic development and hydrocarbons. (Australia).
HAPPER, William: (Ph.D., Physics); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (emeritus) Princeton University; Director of the Office of Energy Research, US Department of Energy, 1990-1993.
HAYDEN, Howard “Cork”: (PhD.); Professor Emeritus, University of Connecticut.
IDSO, Craig: (PhD, B.S., Geography, Arizona State University, M.S.,Agronomy, the University of Nebraska – Lincoln in 1996 ); Chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
LEGATES, David R.: (PhD, Climatology, University of Delaware); Certified Consulting Meterologist.
LUPO, Anthony: (Ph.D., Atmospheric Science); Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri.
MARKÓ, István E.: (PhD,Organic Chemistry, Catholic University of Louvain); professor and researcher of organic chemistry at the Catholic University of Louvain ( Belgium).
MOCKTON, Christopher: ; The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (United Kingdom).
MOORE, Patrick: (PhD., Ecology, University of British Columbia, Honorary Doctorate of Science, North Carolina State University); National Award for Nuclear Science and History (Einstein Society).
NICHOLS, Rodney W.: (AB Physics, Harvard); Science and Technology policy Executive Vice President emeritus Rockefeller University President and CEO emeritus, NY Academy of Sciences Co-Founder CO2 Coalition.
SINGER, Fred S.: (Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University, BA, Electrical Engineering, Ohio State University); professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. He directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990 and incorporated in 1992 after retiring from the University of Virginia.
SOON, Willie: (PhD); Independent Scientist.
SPENCER, Roy W.: (Ph.D., Meteorology ’81; M.S., Meteorology, ’79; B.S., Atmospheric & Oceanic Science, ’78); Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; co-developer of method for satellite monitoring of global temperature; author of numerous papers on climate and satellite meteorology.
STEWARD, H. Leighton: (MS., Geology); Environmentalist, No. 1 New York Times Best Selling Author, Recipient numerous national environmental awards or directorships including the EPA, Louisiana Nature Conservancy, Audubon Nature Institute, the National Petroleum Council and the API. Former energy industry executive and chosen to represent industry on Presidential Missions under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
MOTL, Lubos: (PhD., Physics ); former high-energy theoretical physics junior faculty at Harvard University (Czech Republic).
WYSMULLER, Thomas H.: (BA, Meteorology ); Ogunquit, Maine, NASA (Ret.); Chair, Water Day 2013, UNESCO IHE Water Research Institute, Delft, The Netherlands; Chair, Oceanographic Section, 2016 World Congress of Ocean, Qingdao China; NASA TRCS charter member.
ZYBACH, Bob: (PhD., Environmental Sciences, Oregon State University); www.ORWW.org, author of more than 100 popular articles and editorials regarding forest history, wildfire mitigation, reforestation planning, and Indian burning practices.
Original letter here: Lindzen Personal PAOC Explanation-final
It can also be added that Inter Academy Council, the reviewer of IPCC, was not at all independent from United Nations:
The IAC review of IPCC was not independent!
For example: “…. The United Nations Secretary – General, Kofi Annan, has been a strong supporter of the InterAcademy Council and its mission. When the InterAcademy Council was established in May 2000 he sent the following message: ‘I welcome your initiative to create an InterAcademy Council for providing advisory studies and reports on issues of concern to the United Nations system and other international organizations’.»
Absolutely spot on. Here is a slightly different slant demonstrating the interdependence of IAC and IPCC.
“Is The IPCC Endangered By The IAC Report”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/ipcc-endangered-by-iac-report
“Our charge here was not to review the science, but simply to ask, “Are their policies and practices set up in such a way as to minimize errors and generally achieve the authoritative nature they sought in the report?”
“Who decides whether to accept the report?
Dr Shapiro: “Well that’s up to the panel [the IPCC]. The panel, of course, are the governments that established IPCC in the first place, of course under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization and U.N. Environment Program, and they meet in plenary session in Korea, in the middle of October, which is why they wanted our report by August 30th. They’re the ones that decide.”
Which of course is perfectly fair, as they are the client.”
“The IAC is client-driven and works on a project-by-project basis.
As with all reports produced for clients, where the client is the subject of the report, the long-term survival of the client has to be a major consideration of the review process.
Much has been made of its “independence” from the UN and the IPCC, yet it included people with strong allegiance to the IPCC process, some having been involved with it for many years.”
Great link. 🙂
Another issue with the InterAcademy Council review is that IAC endorsed and recommended subjective judgement within science.
Here is a quote from the IAC report:
“However, it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”
And that is a historical blunder by a scientific body. Incredibly naive. A documented subjective judgement is still a subjective judgement. It is as simple as that.
The hallmark of science is objectiveness. Whose judgement that are reflected, or how a consensus was reached is completely irrelevant to science.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
– Michael Crichton
And that is the major blunder by United Nations – the reliance on consensus. Incredibly naive. And it is totally unbelievable that Inter Academy Council did not point out that to IPCC. Interacademy council should have said: Sorry, the principles governing IPCC are flawed – start over again.
So what do we have left when United Nations, Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change and Inter Academy Council all endorse subjective judgments and consensus?
Skepticism. Unfortunately, and also unbelievable, the scientific principles have not been documented in a clear and consistent manner. Believe it or not – or prove me wrong. So I had to do that myself, with a little help from a friend, see if you like it: The principles of science (v7.5)
Battle on Dr. Lindzen. There are thousands of us cheering for you every day. Scott Pruitt is making progress at the EPA. If Ivanka will get out of her father’s way the President will march on as well. The skeptics army has landed on the beach by that swamp of Washington D.C. Victory lies ahead.
And one of the “many, many, more” heroes for truth in science, John Coleman.
Get to know him and learn a TON about science here:
(youtube — KUSI video — not great picture quality, but, good enough and sound is excellent — well worth watching)
At ~ 27:25, Mr. Coleman lists several of the Science Realist Heroes.
Fine presentation by a world class professional. Nice job, Mr. Coleman! 🙂
Skeptic army special forces legend, the great John Coleman . . Thank you, sir.
A much better quality version of the above, a lot easier to look at.
Thanks so much for posting yours!
Oh, Yirgach, THANK YOU. MUCH better! I was kind of bummed about that low-quality visual. (and thanks for your affirmation 🙂 )
Wow for such a skeptic he sure accepts the “big bang” model pretty easily. See this movie: http://bit.ly/2hDBTFH
John Q,
“Wow for such a skeptic he sure accepts the “big bang” model pretty easily.”
It seems/seemed kinda obvious that the discussion is/was about skepticism regarding the “global warming/climate change” scare . . Now, I happen to be someone who has criticized several writers here, including our host Mr. Watts, for being overly casual in their use of vague phrases like “climate skeptic” . . and, someone who has brought up the particular matter you refer to right there as well, but in this case it would be rather silly I feel/felt, to spell out at that point in this discussion that I wasn’t just praising him for being “such a skeptic” in a general sense . .
In short, please try to be more context sensitive, I suggest.
Is the Ivanka thing for real, or is it just fake news clickbait for losers in the denial stage ??
Heck even those people are advert-fodder
In fact, given, that they’re on the extreme end of the easily-duped scale, they’re the best advert-fodder
That is a good question. I would like to know the truth on that one as well.
The principles governing United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are far from imposing proper scientific principles on the panel.
Rather than imposing proper scientific principles on IPCC, United Nations allowed IPCC to be governed by:
– the unscientific principle of a mission to support an established view(§1)
– the unscientific principle of consensus (§10)
– an approval process and organization principle which must, by it´s nature, diminish dissenting views. (§11)
WOW, just the fact that he was able to send this second letter and have fellow scientist willing to show support is amazing and shows the stranglehold over skeptical scientists is being reduced……
Frankly I thought I would never see this day, I had given up about 2 years ago and was resigned to more and higher carbon taxes about Global Warming, as a Canadian I sill still pay carbon taxes but it will be harder to bring in more, and possibly the current taxes will stay in Canada and maybe, just maybe be used for something useful…as opposed to filling swiss bank accounts
Late to the party on the fist post about the Lindzen petition but I eventually posted complaining about the lack of completeness in the appended list of signatories.
“It would be enormously helpful if there weren’t many names on the list which are, er, just names with no quals or anything else appended. Given that the list maker must have been aware that this list would be scrutinised with an electron scope by hyper-avid detractors how could they have been so mind-bogglingly stupid as to do this?? Lordy give a boy a man’s job! Next time I insist on being a proof reader.”
It was a possibly OTT post as I’d just been hauled over the coals about it but it really isn’t helpful to have
BEE, Roger: ();
BEETHAM, Barry: ();
amongst many other apparently unqualified members of the general public included in the list.
I volunteer to do the work myself but it just looks sloppy and unprofessional as it stands.
It appears you may have put a fist through the wall of your glass house
What? I’m trying to get the quality of the list improved and don’t need stupid typo ‘humour’ thanks all the same.
Cephus, no more detail is needed. These are all well known scientists.
No Stephen, I’m sorry but they are not. Try and find Roger Bee on the internet as any kind of scientist. The list is getting trashed all over the web because it is putting up unknown people with no more qualifications than possessing a first name and a last name.
If they are indeed as you say qualified scientists then should those qualifications not be included anyway? I’ll say again, I’m fully behind this effort but dismayed to see it so easily disparaged by such obviously silly oversights.
Cephus, before I post this (not aimed at you, but at those who are attacking the list), I agree with you (and good for you to try to do a bit of editing, here). We should make every effort to do our very best when we do anything to promote science truth. Needless distractions are not fatal, but, they create waste (mostly, of time).
That said….
http://theoldtimeway.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/camel-and-a-gnat.jpg
This list, with all its flaws, speaks loudly:
“AGW IS JUNK SCIENCE.”
cephus0, I had no problem finding lots of info for Roger Bee…Maybe don’t use Google search ?
If CAGW advocates are attacking names they do not know on the list, that is called a “red herring” straw man distraction.
It is a bogus argument.
All teams have supporting members who are unknown to the public. What matters is the strength of the lead signers and the quality of the statement.
Lindzen’s initial letter and the follow-up letter above trump every CAGW hissy fit out there.
If you let noisy bottom dwellers, e.g. attp and his groupies, get your goat over people they can’t identify; well, that is not a problem for Lindzen and his coterie.
That is stifling a very brave Voice. I thought your country had freedom of speech!!! It seems that right, is disappearing everywhere in the world, including here in Canada. A Despicable act by academia !!! Rod Chilton. ( Also, by the way, a climatologist).
Will the marching scientists call Lindzen a den1er of science? Anyone taking bets?
I doubt that very few of the people who march are scientists. Having lived in the area for a long time, the more appropriate name of “The Union of Concerned Scientists” is “The Union of Escathological ZPG Dingbats with a sprinkle of Luddites”.
Is there a specific reference for ‘The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,” I’d really like to share the heck out of it and send it to a number of politicians
I think the reference is to the lack of a central estimate of ECS in AR5, in contrast to AR4.
Yeah !
MIT has no place in supporting any particular theory. It only has a place in making sure that it teaches the scientific method and the current state of the art. As an alumnus, I cannot support them when they have become a church and not an educational organization. Perhaps Prof. Lindzen can get them back on the correct path again. Sadly I doubt it.
He retired from MIT in June 2012. I met with him in his office for half a day and lunch two weeks before. He critiqued the climate chapter of The Arts of Truth (and a lot more of the book as well).
ShrNfr,
As a fellow graduate of The Great Technological Institute on the Banks of the Charles, I, too, am appalled at the Institute’s behavior. When the President of the Institute sent me own electronic copy of their plan for action on climate change, I removed my Brass Rat and adjusted my charitable giving. I will point out, however, that MIT was chartered as a charitable institution to perform scientific and technical research. The school is merely a part of The Corporation. They had to get officially on-board with Climate Change (TM), I suspect, to ensure the continued flow of funds to the corporation to perform scientific and technical research. Trough feeding at its most basic.
I have long suspected but never found or have seen proof that the universities had to sign on to the “sustainability doctrine” to get a place on the gravy train. Anyone know anything about this?
I would have liked to sign Dr. Lindzen’s letter as well, as I have been a climatologist all my working life. Thank-you Dr. Lindzen, Rod Chilton.
Looks to me like the inbred so called elite hung their hat on CO2 like they did shooting up our babies with hep b vaccination at birth. They do it because they think they control the slave minds so wholy we never, ever could wake up and destroy them. Which I personally believe the slaves will soon enough. Put this in your pipe and smoke it too: we live on a flat earth. Yep. It’s totally true. After thousands of hours of research – it is all true. Do a YouTube search on NASA hoax. Get ready to settle in on your final conclusion we are ruled by absolute psychopath liars. 100%.
mysteryseeker: Send Prof Lindzen an email asking him to put your name on the list.
Good idea, but also see contact info., here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/09/lindzen-responds-to-the-mit-letter-objecting-to-his-petition-to-trump-to-withdraw-from-the-unfcc/comment-page-1/#comment-2446740
..Hello, Janice the Librarian !!
Hello, Butch! lol
Butch: Say, I know you. You’re Janice the librarian.
Janice: I — am — no — such — thing. I am a book repository engineer, if you please. (sniff) The nerve.
#(:))
Thank-you Philip, I will do just that, Cheers, Rod.
Janice, you make me smile every time you post one of those old time pics or video’s like “faulty towers” etc, thanks! ( how is your buddy?).
Hi, Sybot,
You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoy them! Thanks, so much, for saying so.
Davy (who will be 3 on June 10th) is doing great. When we jog around 6AM, he wants to “go beat up that big mouth good-for-nothing” (the dog in a fenced yard down the street) and he pulls VERY hard (he is around 80 lbs.). Thankfully, we never meet any dogs on the trail (that’s why I go early). He is super affectionate and likes to snuggle, though, so, all in all, he is a good little companion. Thanks for asking about him.
I hope your orchard pruning isn’t too much of a pain. Good for you to get out there (the other day) right on schedule. Once a farmer, always a farmer, huh? I hope you and Mrs. Sybot are well and that soon, you will be smiling at the sight of daffodils blooming. The daffodils and tulips in the bulb farmers’ fields around here are still hunkered down in their rows, pulling their green jackets tightly about themselves — extra cold this year.
Soon, though, they will peel off those coats, jump up onto the stage in their vivid costumes and shout: “Ta da!”
For….. SPRING IS COMING! 🙂
Take care up there,
Janice
Janice, thanks for the reply and spring did come today sadly it came in the form of another 10 cm of rain in an altered state 🙁 the shovels had to come out of the shed: but then again, loppers get a day off! . Good to hear about Davy must be fun!
A brilliant letter from Prof Lindzen.
James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
===============================
“In the first century of the American republic, No. 10 was not regarded as among the more important numbers of The Federalist. … Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10
Clearly the 4th President of the United States gave a great deal of thought to the problems likely to face the Republic in the years and centuries to follow.
The enormous redundancy in climate science is beginning to be sensed and understood by these burgeoning organizations. They should have seen this many years ago before Trump came along. The rather simple formula with CO2 and feedbacks (impossibly all positive) driving climate has, despite 100s of thousands of studies (97% Cook sifted through over 100k papers published in one decade for his study) over 30yrs not had any revisions or new ideas. IPCC has expressed higher and higher confidence and the ‘consensus is touted to be almost complete.
This prompted the Ozzie government to chop CSIRO’ s climate budget (rather gave them a rationale to do so). It prompted cutting off NYT’s entire climate news division and Joe Romm ‘s Climate Progress, etc.
After a 100k papers on hockey sticks or its various parts you’ d think that physicists would be aware of how simple supply and demand works. Now with the Trump wrecking ball about to swing, there is going to be more and more defections going forward as climate scientists ‘Sauve qui peut’ on the losing side. But first comes the anger.
Actually, I think they did! But – not unlike Pachauri refusing to resign as IPCC head honcho – the arms, elbows, hands and fingers of the UN/EU had to stick to their CO2-causes-all-evils money-grubbing guns until the new, improved sibling (rival?!) bandwagon, aka IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services), had sufficiently matured to bring the dedicated missionaries on board.
As I’ve noted elsewhere (perhaps even here!) a rather significant tidbit from the current IPBES proceedings appears to signal that CO2 as primary cause is rapidly falling from favour:
YMMV, but I fully expect all the “transformative” and “innovative” send-money-now solutions will emanate from the UN’s far foggier “Sustainable Development” front. Whether their predictable alarms will yield anything more than inane slogans, tweets and word-salads of obeisance remains to be seen. My best guess: no they won’t, because, well, because – thanks to the Interwebs – too many people have seen this 5th-rate flick before;-)
Lindzen and the petition clearly represent a direct threat to the livelihood of a great many climate scientists that make a living from the public purse under the assumption that climate change is dangerous.
Should climate change be found to be benign or even helpful, these scientists would in large part be out of a job. This is a clear conflict of interest on the part of PUBLICLY FUNDED climate scientists to judge whether their labors SHOULD BE FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS.
By all means, if these climate scientists can raise funds privately, they are more than welcome to continue their research. However, on the question of whether their work should be funded by the public, these very same scientists should be disqualified from paticipation in the decision.
It doesn’t only threaten climate scientists, and rightly so, but the whole scam from UN, EU, USA and right across the planet. This scam was spread like a virus using communist techniques and useful idiots.
There are $trillions involved
never mind the scientists: debunk AGW and the case for renewable energy collapses: that’s a trillion dollar fraud on its own.
Clearly Madison recognized the “tyranny of the majority” as the greatest internal threat to the Republic. Should 97% of climate scientists actually believe something to be true, Madison recognized the great danger this represented in his writings:
The Federalist No. 10
Thursday, November 22, 1787
James Madison
“So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
…
To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
…
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.”
The “MIT Faculty” rebuttal seems somewhat overblown to me. Dr. Lindzen did not use MIT letterhead or identification other than to note his position with MIT in his signature block. The rebuttal is on MIT letterhead and purports to represent the entire faculty. It looks like they have 22 names. The MIT site has photo’s for 32 faculty members (one is Dr. Lindzen).
It did not seem likely that a reader would assume Dr. Lindzen was speaking on behalf of the entire faculty. Should we expect a department to make such mailings whenever any faculty member steps outside the bounds with the majority’s “group” assesments. I don’t think I’d have a problem if they wanted to respond with their own position, but casting it as a rebuttal strikes me the wrong way.
BAM! Lindzen’s Hammer. Cool, measured, hyper-intelligent response to Team Lysenko at MIT. Let this layman suggest that the kool aid kids read “Tuxedo Park” that is the reputation they are trashing.
Have to laugh at the MIT rebuttal since the best excuses they could give were
sea-level rise, ocean acidification and increases in extreme flooding and droughts.
Wow, such a scary list.
SL: no change empirically
OA: They threw out ALL the data from 1910 to 1988 only have data from 1990 to now and a decrease for 8.2-8.1 is what they have, at ‘worst’
EFD: no empirical support
I shutter at the dire future and their loss of funding.
Here is my recent exchange with Lindzen.
Dr Norman Page Geologist
Houston
Richard.
If it is still possible I would like to add my name to the Petition to withdraw from the UNFCCC. There is no danger from anthropogenic global warming. You and the Petition co-signers might also therefore urge the EPA to revisit and reverse its endangerment finding.Climate is controlled by natural cycles. We are just past the 2004 peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See my EAE paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””
Section 3 of the paper may be of particular interest to you because it discusses future temperature trends.Feel free to refer to the paper and its conclusions in any testimony you may give in future to government agencies or committees. If you have time I would appreciate hearing your views on the working hypothesis which the paper puts forwards.
Best Regards Norman Page.
Dear Norman,
Thanks. Please send your degrees and professional positions to info@co2coalition.org.
Best, Dick
Thanks for posting that, Dr. Page — THIS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE MAIN POST — AT THE TOP.
+ 100
It isn’t just academics whose money is threatened by the excellent Lindzen letter -there are huge amounts of money and vested interest threatened amongst unscrupulous or ignorant politicians , the entire windmill industry and its backers and the entire deceitful and corrupt green enviro movement. No one should be in any doubt that these people have no scruple and will go to any length to protect their gravy train and irrational religion. It is going to be a long hard slog to win this fight and neither Lindzen nor Trump on their own can defeat this many headed hydra monster – but we all wish them well.
..Don’t forget…Political reputations are also on the line for many in the coming elections…Should be interesting..
Once you lose faith in M.I.T. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), to just pursue knowledge as an end in itself, you begin to wonder what MIT ever meant.
What it always meant to me, was a place I was way too stupid to attend.
That MIT letter objecting to Lindzen’s petition should have been reworded something like this:
lol — +1
Great. Wish I had a direct line to POTUS. I would forward this comment. It reminded me of a comment from a fellow employee. “The only thing worse than doing business for the government was, Not doing business for the government.
350 signers. Assuming it stays at only 350, that means the 97% of comparable credentialed Cagwers can be described as having 11,666.6666 adherents.
Multiple Voluntary Science Courts
Roger Knights
(Earlier posted as a comment on Climate Etc. 1/29/16)
Here’s an initiative any college or scientific society could take that would end the gridlock. Let there be two, three, many voluntary science courts! I.e., dozens. Universities and/or scientific societies and/or think tanks and/or a collaboration of them would sponsor one or more independent science courts. Most of these courts would specialize on a single topic or group of related topics. A university’s professors would usually hear cases over the summer vacation; emeritus professors could be active year-round. Cases could be “in session” for months, as each side responds to the other side’s claims or thinks of improvements to its own case. Cases could be re-opened after two or three years, say, if important new findings or interpretations have occurred.
Science courts specializing in the same topic could collaborate (i.e., supply judges for the same case). Everything, or almost everything, could be done over the Internet, using sophisticated software, and be archived there. Georgia Tech could be the pioneer (Judge Judy already works there!). It needn’t supply all or most of the judges—it would just supply the sponsorship, the technical infrastructure, and the initial Oomph to get things rolling. Maybe it could collaborate with the Climate Dialog site. A science court could be built on that site’s software, modifying it to include judges as part of the process.
If one of the sponsors of a science court appointed biased judges, another sponsor could have its judges review the transcripts and issue its own decision, criticizing the prior court’s ruling. Fear of being publicly corrected in this way, and being proved wrong later in public, would tend to keep biased panels closer to the straight and narrow, and to keep universities from appointing biased members.
In the debate over global warming, cases should be broken down to manageable subtopics, like the Hockey Stick, acidification, UHI, arctic ice, corals, storms, CO2 fertilization, peer review, bias in govt. funding and publication, purported Big Oil funding of a “well-funded, well-organized” skeptic movement, the 97% consensus, warmist predictions, the hot spot, the stratosphere, oceanic cycles, the efficacy of wind and solar power, nuclear power, extinctions, aerosols, methane, arctic permafrost, polar bears, feedbacks, isotonic adjustments, Antarctic ice shelves, the Pause, flooding and drought, snowfall, glaciers, sea level, volcanoes, wildfires, beetles, homogenization, temperature records, ocean cycles, the sun, geo-engineering, diseases, refugees, etc.
Transcripts of these hearings could be posted on the Internet. Getting all of both sides’ arguments together online would be the greatest benefit of such courts, more than their judgments. And science fans could get hooked on reading them. The controversy would spice up the topics treated, so it might also tempt members of the public to read them (and thereby to indirectly learn more about science).
Hearings needn’t be about socially important and hotly contested matters. They could be scientifically valuable anyway, as a way of clearing the air, getting tidbits of new ideas on the record, and getting a feeling for current thinking on a topic. These hearings would presumably be conversational and low-key. (Or maybe not!)
Science courts are needed because there are no formal forums for extensive debate about scientific topics, especially ones where “received opinion” reigns supreme. Journals do not provide one; they are interested in findings and review papers instead.
Universities OTOH would worry about damage to their reputation in the future if they were to endorse currently favored dogmas that had weak points that might in time prove fatal, or that competing science courts might consider to be disconfirming. So they’d be inclined to be cautious and hedge their conclusions. They’d tend to avoid hopping on bandwagons. (Importantly, their thorough findings and meticulous reasoning, with all cards on the table, would help to sink “fringe” claims too, and strengthen valid consensus POVs.)
If multiple science courts were in existence, many erroneous claims in many fields would have been refuted, weakened (or strengthened), modified, or at least clarified, much earlier than they were. (Even if a court’s main finding were only that more research is needed in certain areas, that would be greatly beneficial.) These include claims, many still active, for and against these topics:
SCIENCE:
Continental drift.
Uniformitarianism in geology.
Raymond Dart’s important 1924 fossil (ignored by the mainstream).
Piltdown man (skeptics were marginalized).
Rogue waves (anecdotal reports ignored or denied by experts).
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT:
Cold fusion / Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.
Forest fire management.
Biofuels.
DDT.
Acid rain.
GMOs.
PSYCHOLOGY:
Psychoanalysis’s effectiveness.
Behaviorism, which was dogma for decades in American psychology departments.
Hypnotism.
Lie detectors. (Pretty much settled by a scientific society’s report on the topic.)
HEALTH:
The government’s anti-fat, anti-salt, pro-starch nutrition advice.
Tobacco. (I.e., science courts could have been warning about it a decade before the surgeon general’s report.)
“Pseudo” sclerosis (denial of the reality of multiple sclerosis).
Lyme disease (severe underestimation of the number of victims).
Drown-proofing technique (underplayed by expert consensus).
Heimlich hug (opposed and underplayed by expert consensus).
Biological cause of stomach ulcers (opposed by expert consensus).
Asbestos.
Breast implants.
Swine flu, SARS, Mad cow disease, Ebola.
Vaccinations.
Radon.
POLITICAL-RELATED:
Nuclear winter.
Topics in criminology, such as gun control, the drug war, mandatory minimums, etc.
Here are additional topics Henry Bauer thinks are not getting a fair evaluation (from his book, Dogmatism in Science and Medicine): “Unwarranted dogmatism has taken over in many fields of science: in Big-Bang cosmology, dinosaur extinction, theory of smell, string theory, Alzheimer’s amyloid theory, specificity and efficacy of psychotropic drugs, cold fusion, second-hand smoke . . . .”
Unofficial science courts finesse the objections many people have to an officially designated court. And I sense that the time is very ripe for such science courts. There are thousands of colleges worldwide. I can easily see 0.1% (20) jumping on this—as a start! I can see it getting to 1% in five years, and becoming an established institution.
I Googled for: “Science Court: A bibliography” and got four useful links at the top of the page:
1. Science Courts… and Mixed Science-Policy Decisions
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/taskfor.htm
The Science Court Experiment: An Interim Report*:
(* Reprinted with permission from 193 Science 654 (1976))
Task Force of the Presidential Advisory Group on Anticipated Advances in Science and Technology**
(** The task force is composed of three members of the presidential advisory group — Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz (chairman), Dr. Donald Kennedy and Dr. Fred Seitz – and [16 others])
2. The Science Court is Dead; Long Live the Science Court!
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/field.htm
3, Symposium Index – The Science Court – Pierce Law Center IP Mall
http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/RISK_Symposium_ScienceCourt.asp
4. The Science Court: A Bibliography. Jon R. Cavicchi*.
http://ipmall.info/risk/vol4/spring/bibliography.htm
Kind of sounds like WUWT in a way.