By Larry Kummer. From the Fabius Maximus website.
Summary: Why has the vast investment over 30 years produced little action in the campaign for policy action to fight climate change? Listen to climate scientists to learn one reason for this failure. Here is one day on Twitter, typical conversations in the decayed wreckage of a once great but still vital science. It’s a sad story, with no signs of getting better. But it’s not over yet.
“First, science places the burden of proof on the claimant. Second, the proof for a claim must in some sense be commensurate with the character of the claim. Thus, an extraordinary claim requires ‘extraordinary’ (meaning stronger than usual) proof.”
— Marcello Truzzi in Zetetic Scholar, August 1987 (text here).
Example #1 of climate science in action.
“Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?“
An op-ed in the WSJ by Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue.
“James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.”
This op-ed attracted a lot of attention from scientists. Such as this tweet.
We all know that Pat Michaels is beyond shame, but you'd think @RyanMaue might still be capable of being embarrassed by this WSJ editorial pic.twitter.com/v1sFG5uDjr
— Kevin Anchukaitis (@thirstygecko) June 23, 2018
An eminent climate scientists replied, as so many have replied to such unprofessional attacks.
Please debate the subject, not demean one of our colleagues. @CatoMichaels I have know Pat for decades and always respect his views, even on those occasions where I disagree. He adds significant robust substance to the climate issue.
— Roger A. Pielke Sr (@RogerAPielkeSr) June 23, 2018
Anchukaitis jumped into the discussion at a later point.
Shorter climate deniers: if you scientists would just be pushovers when we write motivated nonsense in the national press intended to mislead the public, we wouldn’t have to do our best to also prevent reasonable measures to avoid dangerous climate change. Ok 🙄 https://t.co/XLOUgcYGoY
— Kevin Anchukaitis (@thirstygecko) June 26, 2018
Anchukaitis deploys the universal defense of modern climate science against criticism: “deniers!” This is odd. I am a dogmatic supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies. But after 30 years of massive effort with almost no policy action, I believe a change of tactics is needed. To Anchukaitis, that is “denial.” In a nutshell, that’s why 30 years of massive effort has failed to produce action.
Bio: Kevin Anchukaitis is an associate professor at the University of Arizona (see his University profile page).
A reminder from the past
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher {U of East Anglia} said ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
– Testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (the July 2006 hearings which produced the Wegman Report). Jones has not publicly denied it, so far as I see.
Example #2 of climate science in action
Another tweet about that WSJ op-ed.
That seemed an odd claim. It does not agree with the NOAA data, and short-term climate changes are almost impossible to attribute to human action. So I sent a Tweet showing NOAA’s global surface temperature.
NOAA disagrees with you. Trend of 2000 – 2014 was 0.12C/decade, statistically insignificant. The El Nino spike is fading fast, with global surface temp now back to the 2015 level. https://t.co/BHuN62Mj5D pic.twitter.com/uPoc1jDVg1
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 23, 2018
Cowern blocked me – for showing NOAA data that contradicted his tweet. See the offensive graph below from NOAA’s excellent Climate At A Glance website. Note they calculate the 2000-2014 trend as 0.12°C per decade (probably statistically insignificant, and within the instrument network’s margin of error). The graph shows the El Nino spike – and its fall, perhaps returning to the 2000-2014 trendline.
Bio: Nick Cowern is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Newcastle University. See LinkedIn.
Another reminder from the past
“The time for debate has ended”
— Marcia McNutt (then editor-in-Chief of Science, now President of the NAS) in “The beyond-two-degree inferno“, editorial in Science, 3 July 2015.
Declaring that the debate is over: it is a favorite tactic of climate advocates (see more about this pitiful article). After thirty years, it had not worked. But they keep trying.
Example #3 of climate science in action
Anthony Purcell was acrimoniously attacking Roger Pielke Sr. about the role of CO2 in climate dynamics. Here are three of his salvos.
There is not much to be said about that tweet. It’s beyond rational rebuttal. Another one is more substantial.
That is an odd tweet. That a CO2 increase was detected in the 1930s does not mean that it had a significant effect on the climate (the IPCC’s reports make no such claim). The melting of glaciers and polar ice sheets in the 1850s was a retreat from their expansion during the Little Ice Age (whose causes are still debated, but it wasn’t CO2). This other tweet is also material, asking an important question.
Pielke Sr. is too modest to give an adequate reply. Hence my two tweets answering Purcell’s question.
2/ See Roger Pielke Sr's bio at CIRES. Lifetime of work in many areas of climate science, holding distinguished posts, many awards.https://t.co/48InG3yKqY
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 24, 2018
In one sentence, Purcell’s reply shows the essence of the climate science policy debate – and why most the US public still ranks climate change as a low priority vs. our other problems.
Now I’m not sure what your background is or what your technical qualifications might be – but if you are nothing more than @RogerAPielkeSr’s lick-spittle You’re not bringing a lot to the conversation
— Anthony Purcell (@Tony_Purc) June 24, 2018
Citing a climate scientist’s publications and professional record – in response to Purcell’s question – gets a schoolyard insult. And, in the fashion of climate sciences, he blocked me.
Andrew Dessler jumped into the discussion with this tweet …
A nice articulation of the “Iron Law of @RogerPielkeJr”: it’s always the climate scientists’ fault. Sounds legit. https://t.co/CxWRfk6f4z
— Andrew Dessler (@AndrewDessler) June 26, 2018
This is odd. First, Pielke’s Iron Law says “While people are often willing to pay some price for achieving environmental objectives, that willingness has its limits.” Explained in his book The Climate Fix (see below). Dessler is not even close. Second, he appears to believe that is a universal defense of climate scientists against any criticism. But he did reply.
My apologies. I thought you were making a useful contribution to discussion of this important subject.
— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) June 27, 2018
Bio: Purcell is a research fellow at the School of Earth Science at Australian National University. Bio here.
Bio: Andrew Dessler is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A and M (his page at the university website).
The last word on these sad stories
“Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.”
— Karl Popper in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge(1963).
(Update) I could post more and even worse tweets from climate scientists in these threads, but pouring more water on a rock does not make it wetter.
This is the public face of climate science today: tribal, defensive, discussion by invective, dismissive of contrary data. More like a priesthood than a community of scientists. Having corresponded or worked with many climate scientists during the past decade, I found that most are diligent, responsive to inquiries, and open about their work. But a large fraction – including many of the field’s leaders – are not. Their responses to inquiries and responses is the opposite of what the public expects in public policy debates about the fate of the world, especially when proposing solutions requiring vast resources and perhaps restructuring of the world economy.
For thirty years this has been the nature of the climate science advocacy. Naturally, they have little to show for it. Mike Bastasch (reporter for the Daily Caller) gave the last word on this sad story.
Well, it’s hard to learn when you don’t listen
— Mike Bastasch (@MikeBastasch) June 23, 2018
In the past decade I have written 400+ posts about the climate wars, as a stalwart (or dogmatic) supporter of the IPCC and major climate agencies. So I do not agree with this statement by Brandon Shollenberger. But events have forced me to see that his is a rational response to climate scientists’ behavior during the past 30 years.
“My view regarding global warming has always been very simple: the people who claim it is a serious threat act in such a bizarre way, I don’t believe them.” {Shollenberger has written a series of books about the climate wars; the most recent is A Disgrace to Skepticism
.
.Mistakes at the start often put a project on the wrong path. But it is not too late to restart the policy debate.
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
Carl Sagan’s undisputed claim that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” ADMITS THE Extraordinarily POLITICAL SIDE OF SCIENCE.
In a perfect world, any claim, regardless of its audacity requires only simple solid proof. That proof need not be extraordinary.
The ANU on its website describes itself thus: “ANU is a world-leading university in Australia’s capital. Excellence is embedded in our approach to research and education.” But presumably they aren’t bothered what their staff get up to on Twitter.
For someone who has been in the environmental and “science” battles, mostly not climate, for much of my career none of this surprises me. Since at least the mid-1980s such behavior by so called “scientists” has been common in many field with any science related to the environment. It got worse in the 1990s.
I was brought to my state capitol to fix problems within a science/ environmental division that had forgotten who they worked for. My assignments were (1) get the budget under control, (2) resolved long standing personnel issues, (3) improve public relations AND (4) ensure that the division was operating under the “rule of law” i.e., by our statutory mandates, which was to use the best science possible in advising management. Sounds reasonably, doesn’t it. Wrong! Both from within and outside the attacks were ferocious, name calling reached the lowest levels, at least as low as what you read above. Luckily social media was in its infancy. Every attempt was made to prevent us from dealing with just those three problems and there was more smaller issues we were attempting to resolve. Outside allies of certain groups of staff forced three investigations of me personally. The idea was to distract us from what we were trying to accomplish. I came out with flying colors but that is not the point here.
I am not sure when environmental sciences became a religion. I know it was before 1988 and Hansen’s pronouncements. However, AGW became the ultimate orthodoxy since it combined not only many environmental issues but also socioeconomic/ political issues. I predict it will get worse before it gets better.
Science does not care about credentials.
Science does not care how many initials are in front and behind your name.
Science does not care about the number of your publications and citations.
Science cares that the rules are followed.
Science does not waive those rules based on who you are, who you know or your noble cause.
288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with an atmosphere does not follow the rules.
396 W/m^2 LWIR upwelling from a BB surface powering a GHG energy loop does not follow the rules.
These two broken rules invalidate RGHE theory.
RGHE theory failure negates any role for CO2 and mankind in the behavior of the climate.
Begging the moderator’s indulgence I’m going to open a new but related thread to discuss an issue I believe is misunderstood by the entire community – how IR instruments work and what they measure. Hint: they do NOT measure W/m^2!
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/21036-S-B-amp-GHG-amp-LWIR-amp-RGHE-amp-CAGW
This WB link includes a couple of Excel graphs illustrating the problems mentioned below with SURFRAD & USCRN.
“The Instruments & Measurements
But wait, you say, upwelling LWIR power flux is actually measured.
Well, no it’s not.
IR instruments, e.g. pyrheliometers, radiometers, etc. don’t directly measure power flux. They measure a relative temperature compared to heated/chilled/reference thermistors or thermopiles and INFER a power flux using that comparative temperature and ASSUMING an emissivity of 1.0.
The Apogee instrument instruction book actually warns the owner/operator about this potential error noting that ground/surface ε can be less than 1.0.
That this warning went unheeded explains why SURFRAD upwelling LWIR with an assumed and uncorrected ε of 1.0 measures TWICE as much upwelling LWIR as incoming ISR, a rather egregious breach of energy conservation.
This also explains why USCRN data shows that the IR (SUR_TEMP) parallels the 1.5 m air temperature, (T_HR_AVG) and not the actual ground (SOIL_TEMP_5). The actual ground is warmer than the air temperature with few exceptions, contradicting the RGHE notion that the air warms the ground.”
Or cools rapidly at 396 W/m^2 held in check only by the dubious 333 W/m^2 “back” radiation.
I ran this past Apogee, Eppley and Kipp-Zonen. They did not protest nor dispute.
The role of a contiguous participating media was demonstrated in my modest experiment. The only way a surface radiates as a BB is into a vacuum. S-B BB works on the moon and sun and ISS, not so much on earth.
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6394226874976919552