By Andy May
I’ve written about the far left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their anti-democratic attempts to suppress free-speech and free-thought before (see here). There are more details about their chicanery in my latest book: Politics and Climate Science: A History. ExxonMobil totally humiliated them and their gang when they tried to accuse the company of suppressing or hiding “evidence” that global warming was dangerous. The gang included Naomi Oreskes, who tried to convince a judge, through a “content analysis,” that ExxonMobil said one thing publicly and another privately regarding the supposed dangers of climate change. Too bad her analysis was ripped to shreds by the original content analysis expert Kimberly Neuendorf in court, who wrote:
“[Oreskes’ analysis] does not support the study’s conclusions because of a variety of fundamental errors in their analysis. S&O’s content analysis lacks reliability, validity, objectivity, generalizability, and replicability. ” (May, 2020c, p. 169).
Peter Frumhoff, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, was one of the principal organizers of the ExxonKnew campaign and even paid the travel expenses of the state Attorneys General attending the various campaign meetings and announcements. They have been up to their eyeballs in these anti-free-speech campaigns ever since. They are not nice people.
Now, they are giving voice to Benjamin Santer, the “fingerprint” guy, widely criticized for his last-minute changes to Chapter 8 of the second IPCC report (SAR) in 1995. He and John Houghton forced a last-minute change to the conclusions of Chapter 8 after the chapter team had approved the conclusion that “no study to date has both detected a significant climate change and positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes.” Under political pressure, likely from Vice-President Al Gore, they reversed the scientific finding and changed the conclusion to:
“The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” (IPCC, 1996, p. 4)
This political change to a scientific document led to an enormous uproar in the scientific community and forever stained the IPCC’s reputation for scientific integrity. You can read more about this shameful incident here.
Now Santer is after Koonin’s book in a UCS web site blog post entitled: “Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.” You can read it in full here. You may remember that Santer participated in Koonin’s APS workshop on climate change, which I wrote about here. In that workshop, I thought Santer did a good job of defending his position. Clearly, he and Koonin do not agree on the climate change issues, but both comported themselves well in that meeting and discussed the issues as professionals.
Santer has changed though. His essay on the UCS web site is not professional. For some reason he seems to think that because Koonin does not adopt the title of “climate scientist,” he is not allowed to study and speak out on the subject. We will remember that Koonin has written over 250 peer-reviewed articles that have received over 14,000 citations according to Google Scholar. He was also a Department of Energy science advisor in the Obama Administration. Are the small group of self-appointed “climate scientists,” the only anointed ones allowed to speak about climate? How does one enter this esteemed priesthood? Reading Santer’s essay one would think they are appointed by God.
Like most of those in the “cancel culture,” Santer says “Free speech is important,” but the text of his post suggests only his small community is allowed free speech regarding climate science. He seems determined to deny it to Koonin. Sorry Benjamin, free speech only works when everyone has it.
IPCC. (1996). SAR, Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf
May, A. (2020c). Politics and Climate Change: A History. Springfield, Missouri: American Freedom Publications. link
Andy, your reference to the IPCC SAR is a file on your hard drive.
“Climate science” is now a de-facto religion, with hunts for heretics and a defined catechism.
Whatever it is, it is not actual science.
This came out in NATURE a few months ago. The hypocrisy is HEAD SPINNING & JAW DROPPING. (excerpts below)
According to NATURE Steve Koonin should be welcomed with open arms:
Pandemic researchers — recruit your own best critics
You are 100% correct, Climate Science is not actually science… in any recognizable form.
I learned at the beginning of my software engineering career to not let my ego get in the way of doing what was necessary to produce the best work product as possible. My work is not me, and so if someone finds a flaw in my work it is not a personal attack (or even criticism) on me. If the goal truly is to produce the best possible work product, then errors must be discovered and eliminated to the greatest extent practicable. Those that stand in the way of this process, for whatever reason, must be called out for they are the true deniers.
His book is working out beautifully. As Konnin undoubtably anticipated.
The Left is in a desperate “cancel” mode right now of anyone they deem a threat to their ideological gas-lighting of the public. Alphabet’s YouTube is now all-in the “digital content burning” effort to suppress content of opinions they don’t like.
If someone does get Koonin’s book, I highly recommendation they acquire and actual hard paper copy. A digital copy e-book on an Amazon Kindle or in your Apple iTunes account can be simply deleted once the S i l i c o n V a l l e y Left finally feels bold enough to take the censorship to the next level.
E books can be copied to hard drives on other devices.
Or thumb drives, etc.
Most people just keep them on their Kindle where when the Kindle fills up they get pushed to the cloud. But Amazon can delete that Kindle version anytime they want. Most people don’t bother to archive a copy to their own media, because they think Amazon would never delete something they “bought” not realizing they didn’t really buy it if it just stays on the Kindle.
I keep mine under a foil dome. Not the one I’m wearing, another one.
Loydo: like most Leftists, you look even more stupid than usual when you attempt to be funny.
Loydo funny ??
I, for the most part, think Loydo is funny. How can someone be so wrong so often if not for satirical purposes.
OTH, he may be just a brainwashed leftist. Sorry, how can I rephrase that? To be brainwashed there is the prerequisite of having a brain to wash. So, he is a leftist, that covers it all.
Loydo – that’s simply splendid. I think it’s absolutely marvellous that you have the confidence to set new fashion trends in headware despite being completely unsuited to doing so. I’m sure it will catch on in those, erm, ‘places’ you frequent on occasion and be terribly, terribly popular. You just keep doing your thing.
Wasn’t loydo one of the trolls, who last year who declared that believing that the Wuhan flu came from a lab was just a conspiracy nut?
Maybe that’s how pLoydo earns its’ money ?
If you ever pull your head out, be careful and make sure you get all the tin-foil as well..
No DRM on the book then?
A eBook manager like Calibre has the ability to remove DRM. After that is done, your eBooks will not only be delete-proof (if you move them off the Kindle), but they can be read on any device you choose.
I urge anyone doing this with copyrighted material to respect the authors’ intellectual property rights, and not to share the book in any way you would not share a paper copy.
Or you can install Calibre and add Kindle eBooks to the Calibre Library, painless and free.
Where or when can I get a hard copy.
All that seems to be available is the kindle version, all the hard copies are said to be out of stock or only available on backorder.
It must be selling really well.
Stephen, Steve told me the next printing is not out until the end of June.
That is assuming it happens.
Thank you Andy May.
Not sure how it happened but I am on the UCS mailing list and so receive their frequent letters that educate me on the horror of climate change and end with something like
“so you don’t forget send in your donation before midnight tonight”.
Sadly I do forget.
Forgetfulness – a classic symptom of climate change.
“Sadly I do forget.”
Oh, that made me laugh, Chaamjamal!
You sounded so heartbroken. How do you manage to sleep at night?
“Very well. Quite soundly, in fact” sez Chaamjamal. 😜
Putin and Xi don’t forget.
You’re in good company, I believe I read many years ago that our host, Tony Watts’, dog Kenji joined the UCS. Subsequently he was invited to the AGM along with his donation form. The dog chose to send Mr. Watts as his proxy. Imagine their surprise when Tony showed up representing the skeptical POV.
Is Anthony’s dog still a member?
Not available in stores.
Sorry. No CODs
These attacks on Steve Koonin and his book are sadly understandable, and honestly, I’m old and realize the world will do what the world will do, but this episode in human history simply boggles my mind. I genuinely feel helpless against rank evil for the first time in my life. Is there not some group, petition, cause, or movement somewhere in the world that can shed light on this penultimate human tragedy? How did this happen, and how is it possible that intelligent humans cling to this lunatic idea that CO2 is harming humanity?
I agree with this view but am more pragmatic about the outcome. If the “Greenhouse Effect” was generally accepted for the myth it is tomorrow, then what would change.
Would everyone take a sigh of relief and fill the fuel tank, sell the EV and hybrid, ditch the solar panels, replace the LED globes with incandescent, pull out all the wall insulation and so on. I believe conservation is a good thing. Think of how energy prices would rise if energy resources were used without restraint.
The western world can afford to dabble in uneconomic power generating systems and transport systems; at the level of “dabbling” it is R$D. You never know but some combination of wind, solar, gas, coal, hydro, battery may prove to be more economic than just coal. China does reasonably well with electric powered two-wheelers. Australia retraced a decade of wholesale electricity prices in Australia in Q1 2021. Does not tell the full story because FCAS charges are now on top and transmission costs go up to deliver all that “free” energy from geographically diverse generators working at low capacity factors.
China has proven coal reserves for 30 years at their present rate of consumption. India is only just emerging and Africa has hardly started. It is probably a fair thing to give the poorer nations first bite of their natural resources and western developed countries keep exporting their resources while taking steps to use them wisely and economically internally. USA is exporting coal. USA has the largest proven reserves of any nation; could be just more explored than other countries but exporting from USA is good for the global economy.
Rooftop solar is already causing grid indigestion in parts of Australia so it becomes self-limiting. I think Spain is well past the indigestion stage. EVs will quickly become resource constrained and still need to do better to be realistic alternative transport.
China will benefit from its contribution to development in emerging countries; it is trying to emulate Japan and become rich before it grows old. USA has long enjoyed the benefit of being the supplier of global money; that is literally nothing tangible for something tangible. It could be argued that the US military might backs the USD and that is presently true.
Poorly educated zealots can be a problem for sure. However I expect the Biden Administration is getting a fair dose of reality. The Labor party in Australia remains firmly between a rock and a hard place that keeps it in opposition. They have an historic base of miners and heavy industry workers and a modern supporter base with a green tinge – almost impossible to satisfy both supporter bases.
Whatever is cheaper, will end up being used, aside from government intervention. Gas is cheaper. It’s used.
“Gas is cheaper. It’s used.” True for now, but some governments (e.g. UK – with support of every main political party) are already in the act of phasing it out, initially for domestic use.
A good pragmatic summary.
I have experienced and embraced amazing technological and societal change in my lifetime, but almost all of it developed and evolved organically, not by government mandates. I think that is one of the big issues at the moment.
If the governments of the rest of the world mandated ordinary people can only use electric two wheelers, then you would be able to say that the rest of the world does reasonably well with electric two wheelers.
Yep! That sounds just about right… if you think like …like… you didn’t think at all before you typed that, did you?
It was sarcasm.
Although in the US the congress mandated the use of compact fluorescent lamps in place of 60 watt incandescent lamps when LEDs were on their way to the market. They HAD to. GE and others had spent a BUNCH on the manufacturing plants and needed to get their investment back, so politicians did what they are paid to do, made a law to help out their campaign contributors.
When the law passed, I bought boxes of 60 watt lamps before the price went up. And some 100w also. Those lasted until LEDs became cheaper and more available. When I bought LEDs, our local electric utility had rebates in place. I replaced the incandescent lamps as they died with LED, shifting the old around when more than one was used together to maintain “color” consistency. I have very few left, mostly just exposed big globe lamps for bathroom lighting and exterior spotlights When I run out of those spares, I will replace the whole fixture with a new LED made for that use.
I NEVER used those crap compact fluorescent lamps. WHY? 1) Because the govment was trying to REQUIRE it. 2) Have you ever read the disposal requirements for those? Like all things “leftist energy approved” they are a toxic mess.
BTW: I have, with and without rebates, added insulation, replaced windows with higher quality, replaced AC units with higher than the minimum SEER rating units, etc. to improve the efficiency of the thermal envelope of my homes and reduce electric bills over the years. I just never did the active stuff like solar water heating, which only lasts so long, and historically doesn’t pay for itself even with tax credits, not to mention the maintenance time required to keep the thing working correctly.
Added insulation is the second best way to “save energy” and lasts forever when properly installed. The BEST is high quality windows and doors. #3 is replacing an OLD HVAC system with a new high quality system, then LED lighting, which is now the only way to go. High efficiency gas water heater, low water use clothes washer (front load) with high spin rate, and a natural gas (or propane) dryer complete the energy efficiency package.
None of these things NEED government involvement. Logic will dictate to conservatives to do the upgrades. Liberals are either wealthy enough they don’t care or live in rental housing where they have no control over most of these things. And, yes, I did the same in my rental houses as I did in my own home. I am a conservative, that is how we act. My logic, a lower utility bill, a happier tenant. I did the labor, so the “cost” was minimal compared to the return of goodwill. If I had needed to pay a contractor, I probably could not have afforded it for my home or the rentals.
I’m amazed at the number of people who don’t know that you can adjust the door sill to minimize air leakage.
Ah! Good defence, the prosecution shall retire.
But I must say, you do an impressive impersonation of a woke libtard, “..ripping out the insulation…”
These days, it’s hard to discern sarcasm from well-meaning climastrological consensus sciencery. Do I ridicule, do I educate, do I throw my hands in the air and beseech my gods to heap the mountains upon me?
It is not well known that good intentions pave the way OUT of hell, inscribed on steps impossible to climb…
Loco, you have hit the nail on the head. The theory that CO2 is a harmful gas is complete nonsense. There is no quantitative evidence that it has any effect on any climate phenomenon whatsoever. In fact its tiny fraction of the atmosphere (measured in millionths!) is highly beneficial, a necessary ingredient of all plant life. Without plant life there would be little free oxygen, and without that, there would be no animal life. There is no doubt that many scientists deserve the title “scientist” within their own realm of study, but most of them are woefully ignorant of what “science” is outside their own narrow specialty and are willing to leave political matters to their administrators at organizations like the AAAS. I used to believe that the latter group could be trusted to uphold the basic principles of science, but the CO2 hysteria that they ceaselessly promote clearly negates my assumption. Thus the scientific community as a whole is currently in the grips of ideologues, some of whom have legitimate scientific degrees resulting, perhaps, from some good “science.” I believe, for example, that perpetual fear salesman Paul Ehrlich did his early research on butterflies, but when Malthus came to his attention, the road to fame and riches became clear.
The thing I am sceptical about is the 2030 & 2050 years, as I understand they line up with the Maunder minimum. I guessed that they were hoping to get the politics and money in place and then they can point to the reduction in temperature as them saving the planet….
“Are the small group of self-appointed “climate scientists,” the only anointed ones allowed to speak about climate?”
After watching the “Union of Concerned Scientists” over the decades, I’ve come to the conclusion that to be an esteemed member one only needs be “concerned”, much less a scientist.
Actually neither, just “don’t forget send in your donation”.
I suspect much of their funding comes from sources they desperatly don’t want disclosed.
Didn’t Anthony register his dog as a “concerned scientist”?
Well, not even particularly concerned. A happy, wagging tail** and the annual dues seem to be all that is necessary to become a “concerned scientist.”
** Kenji reference
Mr Watts dog Kenji was neither if I remember correctly and still received membership for years.
“I’ve written about the far left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and their anti-democratic attempts to suppress free-speech and free-thought before”
I saw a heartfelt request:
“Would all these people who have been silenced please turn down the volume?”
Steve Koonin’s op-eds, rebuttals and book reviews have all been very prominent on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. He has been featured in an APS debate. But he is being “cancelled”? What happened?
Apparently Santer wrote something critical.
“Apparently Santer wrote something critical.” So you don’t actually know? Now that seems usual.
Nick, Santer is a piece of work.
You’re smart enough to have worked that out ages ago.
No, but none of this has to do with Koonin being “cancelled”. Santer has free speech too, and can even opine that LLNL should not have invited him.
Does this free speech include making statements on reports that were not the wishes of the majority.
Does his right to free speech provide him with exemption from perjury? Besides, his pov disqualifies him as any sort of scientist, let alone climate. The man is a fraud perpetuating fraud. He knows even less about this subject than you do … and that’s saying something.
Sophistry at it’s finest Nick. You are in top form today.
Nick, if it were possible for my opinion of you to be any lower, you would have lowered it today.
Attempting to silence someone is ok, so long as you aren’t completely successful.
It never ceases to amaze me how much chicanery Nick is willing to live with, so long as it’s his people doing it.
“Attempting to silence someone is ok, so long as you aren’t completely successful.”
When in history have those trying to silence others been the good guys?
Well Santer should immediately be dismissed by Peter Ridd standards because that isn’t very collegial .. you and Mosher both supported that view.
You see the issue Nick you aren’t consistent on anything your Stokes defense flexibility has gone thru every aspect of your comments. Your caricature Josh draws of you becomes more and more what you look like to everyone.
“both supported that view”
Not me. It’s up to JCU. The point is, they considered he was undermining other parts of JCU. Koonin is not part of LLNL.
They claimed he was undermining “parts” of JCU, meaning the shoddy work of other employees? Is that what was indicated by “parts”?
He was in fact trying to bring up the standard of work published at JCU because it was lamentably defective. For that he was terminated. Unjustly, I might add, as the court found.
The value of Koonin’s comments are not rated according to where he works, where he has been published or his level of schooling. Words and arguments stand on their own power of explanation. Who happens to speak them is who is closest to the microphone at the time. Truth is no respect of persons.
Nick is perfectly fine with silencing people who undermine the work of the climate cabal.
I don’t believe I have seen the caricature drawn by Josh. Is it an animated pretzel?
Josh drew a cartoon of Nick Stokes? Tell me more…..
…but now I HAVE to go see who Nick really is.
Always thought he writes boilerplate for a libtard teachers’ union or sumpfink.
AFAIK he is a retired guy who worked at CSRIO in Australia in statistics and mathematics. His understanding of modern physics knowledge is woeful so he often falls foul of doing things that just don’t make scientific sense or are just plain wrong.
He is your typical educated climate believer with enough knowledge to be dangerous but not enough to be useful.
More of a Gordian Knot than a pretzel. But, I wasn’t off by much.
Have you read the link that Andy May has given and do you see that Santer is objecting to Koonin speaking at LLNL because in Santer’s view he is spreading “ “misinformation”.
That is not consistent with any responsible view of free speech.
And the basis of this opposition is “He is not a Climate Scientist. I am.”
Do you believe that the late Freeman Dyson and Edward Teller or a list of other Nobel Prize winners are disentitled to opine on “climate science”?
How is Michael Mann, a physicist, a “climate scientist”?
You are not a climate scientist but opine regularly on the subject.
According to the warmunists, one becomes a “climate scientist” when those who are already climate scientists anoint you as one.
Mann, despite his lack of credentials is a “climate scientist” because he has been anointed.
Santer isn’t, despite having the credentials, because he hasn’t been anointed.
Who anointed the first
Priest of ClimatismI mean Climate Scientist?
Santer didn’t just write something critical, he tried to get Koonin banned from speaking at LLNL.
“I conveyed to LLNL management my concerns about the decision to invite Professor Koonin to speak at Livermore. I do not believe my concerns were adequately addressed. I therefore decided that I will no longer have any affiliation with LLNL after I retire on September 30, 2021. There is no personal satisfaction in this decision.”
To their credit, they didn’t buckle to his threat. Something tells me LLNL may be quite happy with this non-affiliation in the future.
“I do not intend to remain silent while the credibility and integrity of this research is
challenged.” – Claudius Ptolemy
He critiicised the LLNL decision to invite him. People are allowed o do that.
Nick, he tried to get him banned from speaking, as a “climate denialist”, intent only on spreading “disinformation”. Those are the tactics of climate thugs, not those interested in honest debate with a published physicist.
Do you believe Santer should have made the change to the SAR? That smacks of autocratic rule making, and his protestations trying to protect his turf, not advance his science.
Nick is being intentionally obtuse, disingenuous, or both.
Just a few weeks ago WUWT was in full cry condemning the decision of the EU to invite Greta to speak at something (though no-one seemed to know what it was). Was that “cancelling”? “De-platforming”?
That is really a straw man argument on steroids. Try argue with better arguments.
If there ever was a “false equivalence”, it is Greta vs. Koonin, and a post on WUWT vs. Santer’s hit piece, which has/will be picked up by every alarmist blog and media outfit around.
You miss the point and don’t understand the word “canceled.” Everyone has free speech, but vacuous slander should not be allowed to stand without a response. Santer’s post is not a substantive criticism of what Koonin wrote, it is an attack based on the fact that Koonin’s title is “physicist,” rather than “climate scientist.” It is an attempt to win an argument by discrediting and humiliating him, by making it appear he is less than he is. This is a high school attempt to get him to shut up through embarrassment.
It failed of course, just as the UCS attempt to “cancel” ExxonMobil failed. But every such “high school” attack needs to be fought against. It is why it is illegal to conspire to take away someone’s basic rights, such as free speech, through intimidation in the U.S. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 241)
Thank you Andy.
Climate skeptics have always been far too polite, and failed to realize that they were being attacked with vicious Lenin-Goebbels tactics. It’s time to fight back.
Catastrophic human-made global warming (CAGW) has always been a lie, a fraud. I first published that CAGW was a false crisis in 2002, but I knew that fact in 1985, based on paleoclimatology. For a while, we thought the “warmists” were just technically mistaken, but their thuggish Leninist tactics as exposed in the Climategate emails and their vicious “cancel culture” soon made it obvious that they were deliberately lying.
The warmists have been lying since the very beginning, circa 1970. To end 2020 they have made 48 scary failed climate predictions that have fully expired – at 50:50 odds, the probability of that happening are 1 in ~281 trillion – no rational person or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long – they know they are lying – they’ve known all along. Their objectives are not environmental, that is their false front – their objectives are extreme-left political and financial control – the Great Reset.
THE CATASTROPHIC ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (CAGW) AND THE HUMANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE CRISES ARE PROVED FALSE
January 10, 2020
I doubt very much that Nick has either missed the point nor misunderstood the word “cancelled”.
You have to work very hard to be that disingenuous. No way it happens by accident.
“Everyone has free speech, but vacuous slander should not be allowed to stand without a response.”
OK, so how is he not free to respond? With WSJ as a megaphone? Criticism (even calling someone a physicist) has always been around, and yes, people have responded. So when did it become “canceled”?
“Apparently Santer wrote something critical.”
Do you know if Santer ever got around to responding (“in the peer-reviewed literature”) to Ross McKitrick’s take down of his 5-sigma “evidence” for the mid-tropospheric hot spot that only manifests itself in the GCMs?
Dunno. He’s been criticised a lot here. I guess that means he has been de-platformed.
Yes, he’s been criticized a lot here, but not de-platformed here. Just to be clear, I’d be willing to bet no one here would ever stand in the way of his commenting or posting an article at WUWT.
I would define de-platformed as Google/YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter banning him, or hitting everything up with some factless fact-check, not a blog discussion on WUWT. Sure, he’s not well respected here, but invite him to “speak” and participate on WUWT and that could change. Not a soul here would try to deny him his opportunity, unlike what he’s trying to do.
Santer’s piece at the Union of Concerned Scientists site is a ‘straw man’ argument that in no way, from what I’ve read, accurately describes Professor Koonin’s position.
If it wasn’t for logical fallacies, AGW true believers wouldn’t have any arguments at all. They never fail in using at least one fallacy in every study. Hell, “climate change” itself is a logical fallacy that disqualifies it as any sort of scientific idea. It’s pure equivocation … an appeal to ambiguity. Much of what they assert appeals to ambiguous language.
The essay on how Santer supports free speech but everyone who disagrees with him on climate change should be deplatformed is classic Santer, well worth reading in full for the entertainment value.
He isn’t being “disloyal” – which should not even be a word for a true scientist.
He is a coward – not even prepared to stay with LLNL to defend “his” settled science.
Probably testing (threatening?) LLNL to see if bullying might work?
Doublethink is a requirement if one is to hold anything but contempt for “progressive” ideology.
“everyone who disagrees with him on climate change should be deplatformed”
WSJ is a pretty impressive platform, to which Koonin has been given liberal access. Santer did not say he should be deplatformed. He said that LLNL should not have invited him to speak on climate science. Most of the world has not been invited by LLNL, including me. I don’t see it as a right.
The issue is really whether a premier National Laboratory should be afraid of providing a stage for someone they disagree with. The essence of the Scientific Method is to use peer review (not pre-publication gate-keeping) to evaluate scientific hypotheses, and correct mistakes that the original researcher(s) missed, thereby improving the quality of the science.
There is an old saying that “There are always two sides to a story.” If “The rest of the story” is suppressed, then science is only presented as a half-truth.
There is a good reason that Materials Science is having more break-throughs than climatology. The reason is that politics plays an insignificant role! There are clearly defined requirements for new materials properties, and what comes out of the lab either meets those requirements or it doesn’t. Whereas, climatology is largely based on subjective, ‘expert’ opinions that can’t be validated for decades.
“The issue is really whether a premier National Laboratory should be afraid of providing a stage for someone they disagree with. “
Well, it seems that he will be speaking there on 27 May.
In Nick’s world, if an attempt at deplatforming fails, then it didn’t happen.
Actually, I thought by now Nick Stokes and his crew would have taught you better?
There are always THREE sides to any story: Your side, my side, and the truth…
“If ‘The rest of the story’ is suppressed, then science is only presented as a half-truth.”
Or, more and more often it seems, as a whole untruth.
The WSJ sank from treasure to trash in a matter of months after it was sold. The switch to selling “the narrative” was so blatant that I dropped my subscription of many years within months of the sale.
It’s now getting to be really difficult to tell NPR and the WSJ apart, but here’s a hint; one of them plays classical music a few times per day.
It wasn’t sold; Rupert Murdoch is still Executive Chairman, with Lachlan as Co-chair. WSJ are enthusiastic promoters of Koonin. And as a platform, still a major national newspaper.
Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation purchased Dow Jones & Company from the Bancrofts in 2007 for $5 billion or $60 per share.
Who Actually Owns the Wall Street Journal? (investopedia.com)
The Bancrofts sold it in 2007, Nick. Not long after the sale, I dropped my subscription for the reasons I gave above.
I take it you were not a long-time subscriber at the time of the sale if the only ownership you’ve known is Murdoch’s.
I just hadn’t imagined that anyone would describe the Murdoch WSJ as simply another NPR.
So you lack imagination and you weren’t aware of the sale and the abrupt change in their reporting?
I’m OK with that.
I ditched NPR in the early ’90s when the news hour and news breaks transitioned to propaganda.
Fortunately, CDs became quite affordable and I could continue to listen to classical music while driving, but without the propaganda.
Impressive to whom and for what reason? if LLNL support any part of the “climate change” fallacy, they’re considerably less impressive than you or they think. Santer is nothing more than a politically connected hack.
Mr Stokes is there employing another form of ‘strawman’ argument viz. extension: “an exaggeration of a position is claimed to be the actual position”.
No-one has claimed Prof Koonin has a ‘right’ to speak.
“he shouldn’t have been invited to speak” is not deplatforming?
Nick, do you have any personal integrity left?
So are all the people (eg you nd me) who haven’t been invited to speak at LLNL “de-platformed”?
Are all the people who don’t have the pages of WSJ thrown open to them “de-platformed”?
OMG. Stop playing with words like a 13 year old kid
Nick as you said, the difference between you and Steve Koonen is that he was invited and you weren’t.
The issue is not the invitation, but a blatant attempt to deny him a platform after he was invited because Santer did not “believe my concerns were adequately addressed“. (underline added.)
His rationale about Koonen’s title of course is absurd.
This is idiotic. LLNL has the right to invite whomever they want.
Of course. And people have the right to criticise their choices.
Santer– “I do not believe my concerns were adequately addressed. I therefore decided that I will no longer have any affiliation with LLNL after I retire on September 30, 2021”
Well don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!
What a rancorous man child Ben Santer turns out to be.
“there should be ample opportunity for actual climate scientists to set the record straight.”
Well here was your ample opportunity to crush Mr Koonin publicly with your superior knowledge on the subject.
I mean we’re not talking Bohr-Einstein here, but you could have scored a major victory for team Alarmist™.
Now you look weak and sulky, cobbling excuses together for your deficient scientific theories.
There should be ample opportunity for actual climate scientists who disagree with the “climate crisis” bullshit to set the record straight every time the Climate Nazis speak too, but we all know how that goes.
Apparently Santer thinks that his fellow scientists at LLNL are unable to form their own opinion about Koonon’s ideas and it his duty to protect them from such thoughts.
Was the Union of Concerned Scientists formerly known as the Union of Soviet Scientists?
No, it never was, but it might as well have been.
Given that the very idea of calling them ‘scientists’ implies that they actually use the scientific method, I prefer to use the term ‘climate enthusiasts’ – it more accurately defines their work and their lack of scientific integrity.
I believe the old name was Union of Concerned Soviets.
“ The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades. At LLNL, we routinely consider whether uncertainties in models, observations, and natural climatic variability call into question findings of a large human influence on global climate. They do not.”
Mr Santer needs to reconcile his two words “open” and “transparent” with two other words
We have examined the data and determined that there is no need for you to see any of.
and with Oz’s BOM homogenization of temperature records – black hole on that algorithm.
In his critique, Santer writes, “I therefore decided that I will no longer have any affiliation with LLNL after I retire on September 30, 2021. ”
Some how I doubt he will quit mouthing off about climate after he retires nor will he cease rubbing his credentials in everyone’s faces when he does so. But I guess Koonin did accomplish some good in vexing Santer as he whined out the door
As I said to Nick Stokes if we follow the Peter Ridd example Santer should immediately be sacked or forced to resign that isn’t collegial. You see the thing with climate scientist they don’t even apply anything evenly or as Orwell would say “Not all pigs are equal”
In Nick’s world, “collegial” means supports the warmunists.
These UCS folks and “Bait and Switch” Benji re acting exactly like the discredited Wuhan SARS2 virus origination suppression effort last year. That is, they attempt to “cancel” someone in academia or government if that person disagrees on substantive grounds with the fake consensus. Santer has since the 1995 bait and switch SAR-Ch 8 episode on his colleagues completely discredited himself as a scientist.
No one who supports the notion of scientific “consensus” can call him/herself a scientist of any stripe. Debating science with a bunch of people who aren’t even familiar with basic logic seems like a fools errand. As long as they rely on so many logical fallacies in support of their misguided conjecture, they need to be treated with disdain. They stink of undeserved self importance.
You tell’em,bro’ !
🎵Santer’s baby, hotspot, quietly dropped by the IPCC🎵
(when it was clearly missing in inaction)
Isn’t that the guy who wanted to physically assault Pat Michaels?
far left-wing Union of Concerned Scientists
I’m sorry, that just won’t do: this is NOT a far left organisation.
“The Union of Concerned Scientists is more of a political activist group than a scientific information resource.”- mediabiasfactcheck.com
Total left wing activist group, but you knew that.
You know, left is where the thumb is on the right side 😀
“UCS was formed amidst a series of protests in 1968 and 1969 by center-left and far-left activists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) culminating in a general protest on March 4, 1969, at MIT and other American universities.”
Can’t understand why griff has it always wrong, whatever he is telling 😀
griff mouths off without putting in any effort to research his knee-jerk position first. He relies on others to (constantly) prove him wrong.
Most leftists actually believe that they are in the political center.
Anyone to the right of them is conservative and only those to the left of them are liberals.
He behaves as an IDEOLOGIST has NOT shown sign of flexibility in his thinking process.
Griff is also known as Barry Anthony. A fake account who has been removed from so many sites for abusing people.
It’s not as far left as griff and the rest of the warmunists, therefor it isn’t a far left organization.
Who cares that pretty much every political position they take is far left.
Come on Barry Anthony. Your usual comment is a dead giveaway.
A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.
By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong.
UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again.
From Ben Santer’s article:
“Professor Koonin is not a climate Priest. I am.”
He might as well have written it. What an arrogant ass. The hubris is extraordinary.
Ben Santer sounds as though he would have tried to get Richard Feynman cancelled off the Challenger investigation “because he’s not a rocket scientist”.
There is no doubt in my mind that experienced, capable, highly intelligent scientists from any discipline can throw light into any other discipline by review and analysis. And having read and re-read the excellent APS transcript, Koonin clearly has those attributes in spades. Of course the last thing that Santer and his High Priests of Climate want is for those outside the club to shine a harsh light of reason onto their work and its weaknesses.
“Climate Science” does not exist. Its a catch-all description to exclude “outsiders”. Climate science as a description is so generic that it is meaningless. Does Santer think a glacier paleo expert will also be expert in atmospheric radiation properties or the details of ocean circulation?
But having a strong grounding in Physics gives Koonin (like Feynman) a real strength to critique “climate science”. And when you start taking flak, you know you are over the target.
Physics underpins all of climate science. It’s such a shame that these climate enthusiasts have no idea about that. They studied climate science because the maths was easier – the dogma being made of mostly handwavium and madeyuppine.
“There is no doubt in my mind that experienced, capable, highly intelligent scientists from any discipline can throw light into any other discipline by review and analysis.”
Especially regarding “climate science” which is clearly a mix of many disciplines.
…and consists of so little actual “science” that it is laughable that it is referred to as such.
Right- real science is like when a physicist tells us the mass of a proton to 10 decimal places and can prove it compared to “climate science” which can only give us the ECS- to within several degrees C. When they give us the ECS accurate to several decimal places and can prove it- I’ll believe they have a real science.
You expressed my thoughts perfectly. “There is but one God..”
Of course it is him. How could anyone think otherwise.
The religiosity stinks the place up. Most discouraging is that this mentality pervades climate science.
This seems to be a characteristic common to many of the alarmists. It is also common to religious zealots who believe fervently that their interpretation of the scriptures is the only correct one and all others are apostates or heretics.
I read Santer’s open resignation letter, linked in the piece. I was amazed. After having just finished Dr. Curry’s Collapse of the fake consensus column. Santer blindly display’s the same sort of megalomania as Hulme and Besley in the Collapse story. In Santer’s mind by permitting Koonin to speak in the temple of LLNL, Santer’s lifework of confirming his faith in anthropogenic climate change is to be desecrated. He removes himself from the temple and damns them to their fate.
So what do we have left? Are there still a majority of the faithful priesthood at LLNL, or are the rank-and-file scientists breathing a sigh of relief? “Wow, I thought that old [guy] would never leave!”
All the national labs used to do unmatched research into physics and chemistry. Will Koonin be allowed to nail his indictments to the door at LLNL? Let’s see how he is received.
The Union of Constipated Climate Caterwaulers says what?
I want to replace the word “cancel” with “disappear” because that’s what’s going on. People are being virtually disappeared for not conforming to group think and expressing independent opinions.
Totalitarian regimes have a history of people disappearing in the middle of the night. It happened in ancient Athens, Hitler’s Germany and every communist country in the world. It is happening now in China and Venezuela.
What is it about this book that is so startlingly new that it has to be repressed by them?
Has Steve stumbled upon some previously unnoticed evidence, or is it just the usual singing to the choir?
To readers of this blog, there is little new in Koonin’s book. It is the fact that he wrote it that is important. He is a leading physicist and very well known. His name and reputation don’t affect us that much since we abide by Richard Feynman’s rule that science is the “belief in the ignorance of experts.” But, to the lefty, elitist snobs in DC and in the media, the opinion of a big name is a “fact!”
From the article: “Now, they are giving voice to Benjamin Santer, the “fingerprint” guy, widely criticized for his last-minute changes to Chapter 8 of the second IPCC report (SAR) in 1995. He and John Houghton forced a last-minute change to the conclusions of Chapter 8 after the chapter team had approved the conclusion that “no study to date has both detected a significant climate change and positively attributed all or part of that change to anthropogenic causes.” Under political pressure, likely from Vice-President Al Gore, they reversed the scientific finding and changed the conclusion to:
After inserting this Lie into the official IPCC report, I don’t see how Santer has any credibility at all. Who is he to criticize anyone? So an unscrupulous Liar doesn’t like someone. Big Deal.
The UCS has been in the past (and probably still is) funded in part by Rockefeller money. As far as I’m concerned, this canceling is probably coming from them.
I’m reading his book, Unsettled? His emphasis on scientific integrity is refreshing and hugely welcome. He’s obviously hit a nerve in UCS members. Kudos to Dr.Koonin.
Google et al have eliminated HardNoxandFriends and Tony Heller.
The rotten left are burning the books.
WattsUpWithThat and NoTricksZone can’t be too far off disappearing also.
The ExxonMobil vote demonstrates beyond any shadow of doubt that morons are now in full control of the United States.
On the same day that a Dutch court orders Royal Dutch Shell to curtail its carbon dioxide emissions, it is obvious that pseudoscience and superstition have prevailed in the West.
Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are laughing their asses off.
The clilmate change left is afraid of Steven Koonin because he is speaking real science and truth about what we know and what we can say about climate change, a huge departure versus what has been going on for many years. Secondly Steven Koonin is qualified, articulate, has the gravitas, and won’t be frightened into backing down. Related, a groups of the well known climate change crowd recently tried to rebut statements that Koonin makes in his new book. But Koonin replied in a WSJ editorial and posted a point by point rebuttal on the internet. The challengers criticisms were empty and off target; meanwhile, Koonin’s rebuttal like his book and various presentations we have seen in the past few years were very on point and focused on science and facts …