Guest Opinion by Kip Hansen – 1 March 2022
There has been a new idea proposed in the Climate Science (CliSci) world. I want to go on record publicly, right here and right now, making it clear that I am 100% on board with this idea. Not only that, I think it is long overdue.
Your friend and mine, The New York Times, gives us the good news in an article titled: “These Climate Scientists Are Fed Up….”. It tells us that Bruce C. Glavovic, a very prolific working scientist who works out of Massey University in New Zealand and is the co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Ocean & Coastal Management. ”He was Coordinating Lead Author of the sea-level rise chapter in the IPCC’s 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and is a Lead Author and Cross-Chapter Paper Lead in the IPCC’s Working Group II contribution to AR6.” [see Notes on Contributors ]
Glavovic, Timothy F. Smith and Iain White are mad and sad. They are so sad and so mad that they published a comment [note: a “Comment is an opinion piece on a topic of broad interest”] in the journal Climate and Development last December (apparently, news travels from New Zealand to New York slowly) which is featured in the Times piece: the comment is simply titled: The tragedy of climate change science.
In the abstract they say:
““The science-society contract is broken.”
“We explore three options for the climate change science community. We find that two options are untenable and one is unpalatable. Given the urgency and criticality of climate change, we argue the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research as a means to first expose, then renegotiate, the broken science-society contract.”
I love it when I can agree with people I probably would otherwise disagree with.
However, Glavovic’s entire argument pivots on what he deems the “science-society contract”. What does he think that contract is? Glavovic refers to Jane Lubchenco’s 1998 essay “Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science”. Lubchenco proposed:
“I propose that the scientific community formulate a new Social Contract for science. … This contract represents a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding. …. The Contract should be predicated upon the assumptions that scientists will (i) address the most urgent needs of society, in proportion to their importance; (ii) communicate their knowledge and understanding widely in order to inform decisions of individuals and institutions; and (iii) exercise good judgment, wisdom, and humility.”
And what is needed for there to be a valid contract between two parties?
Most contracts only need to contain two elements to be legally valid: 1. All parties must be in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other). 2. Something of value must be exchanged – such as cash, services, or goods … for something else of value. [source]
Lubchenco proposes that scientists (as an enterprise) “commit to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding.”
That is already the general system under which science is funded – though who supplies the funding is far more diversified than that simple statement implies – governments, foundations, industry, individuals, corporations all fund science. At issue is who decides what the most pressing issues of the day might be and who should be funded to do the work. The Lubchenco’s contract is an idealization, of course. Scientists are not puzzle pieces or interchangeable resources that can be allocated to this or that. But I think we can agree, with some latitude, that the public supports science in exchange for better understandings that help solve the problems of today and make possible advances for the public good.
So, if present society is generally keeping Lubchenco’s science-society contract (albeit loosely), why does Glavovic say it is broken? His explanation is quite long but can be paraphrased as “we scientists did our work, told you what was wrong, complied evidence of the great harms being done by climate change and even after all the science was in and settled, society still isn’t doing what we told them to do.” Somehow, Glavovic came to think that it was the job of science to tell society what it must do and then see that society did it – supplying the knowledge, the preferred policy solution, and the enforcement of that policy.
You may not agree with my interpretation of his point, but that’s pretty close.
Glavovic, Smith and White propose three options for the climate change science community which they characterize as “two options are untenable and one is unpalatable.”
1. “The first is continuation of climate change science as usual. We carry on. Deliver more science. Collect more evidence of deleterious impacts……Given that climate change science is ‘settled’, and has been for decades, we argue that this course runs counter to our own scientific training of collecting and reflecting upon the evidence. The evidence shows that the science-society contract is broken. The first option is therefore not tenable.”
2. “The second option is intensified social science research and advocacy on climate change. It focuses on better understanding why action has not occurred, and how to enable the behavioural and institutional changes required to contain global warming and climate change impacts….. There is no evidence that more social science research and traditional forms of advocacy will lead to transformative action within the timeframes required to avert dire climate change consequences. The second option is therefore also not tenable.“
3. “The third option is much more radical. Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide robust knowledge. We now need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation, and focus instead on exposing and renegotiating the broken science-society contract. … We call for a moratorium on climate change research until governments are willing to fulfil their responsibilities in good faith and urgently mobilize coordinated action from the local to global levels. This third option is the only effective way to arrest the tragedy of climate change science.“
Now I know that opinions will vary, as they must, but I think Glavovic et al. mischaracterize the science-society contract. Luchenco certainly didn’t include public policy formulation and execution on the science side of the contract. That is on the society side. The science society contract is not broken, rather, Glavovic is trying to add a new clause to the contract, one that requires society to comply with the opinions of science on what public policies should be formulated and what actions — governmental/societal/individual – must follow.
Society’s lawyer needs to show the contract to Glavovic and explain, in simple non-lawyer English – “Sorry, that ain’t in the contract!”
And while I disagree with Glavovic about the contents of the contract, I do agree with his ultimate solution and think it would be a great benefit to all. So, I join Glavovic’s call for climate scientists to:
STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE !
Climate scientists (and their politicized commissions, agencies, and organizations) “need to stop research in those areas where we are simply documenting global warming and maladaptation” and do something useful instead.
Stop “collecting more evidence of deleterious impacts”
Stop pumping out endless reams of reports falsely predicting doom and destruction!
Stop trying to dictate to society what values they should favor when facing the problems of the world.
It never being good so emphasize the only the negative, I suggest these following activities to keep them busy during the coming decades of inactivity during their strike:
1. Continue with and concentrate on research on how the climate system of Earth really works. The causes and effects and interrelationships of forces.
2. Increase research into the effects of solar cycles and changing outputs on the Earth climate system. The sun being the source of all the energy coming into our climate system.
3. Follow interesting lines of inquiry into what happens to all that incoming energy and find ways to harness more of it so that less efficient energy sources can be abandoned.
4. As certain geophysical forces are not going to stop or slow down at our command, research to discover the best no-regrets adaptation solutions for problems that are inevitable.
5. Research how the positive effects of changing climate can be turned even further to our advantage – for both humanity and for the rest of the living environment.
So, hit the picket lines! And when you are tired of marching – do something far more useful.
# # # # #
I wish Glavovic and his pals good luck with the strike. I hope they make more announcements so I have something more to write about.
Happy to hear from all of you about 1) The contract 2) Glavovic’s solutions.
Please indicate if you will be joining the Strike!
# # # # #
Perhaps the climate scientists should hold their breath until society agrees to implement their ideas instead.
That would certainly control the Hot Air issue association with scientific bloviation and the emissions borne from it.
I’ll back-up any Scientist worth their salt who believes that denying their own funding and associated journal publishings will have an effect on CC/GW/GCW or the populations perception thereof
h/t Tom Luongo.
Right now the EU, London, D.C. petulant kids are going blue in the face!
Is that young Greta?
No to cute.
No. It is Greta’s successor. Wait a few years, she will not be skipping classes on fridays but on the whole week. For (illiterate) future, of course… Then she will be a movie star, like LeoCrapio.
and stomp their feet!
Greg ==> Stomping of feet is the best way for pouty kids to emphasize their point (at any age)
“exercise good judgment, wisdom, and humility.”
That’s four things that M. Mann would never do.
What’s the fourth thing? Telling the truth?
Exercise, good judgement, wisdom and humility. : )
Punctuation saves lives. M. Mann is a heart-attack waiting to happen. A bit of exercise wouldn’t do him any harm.
Bruce ==> You missed the subtle joke….”exercise”.
It was priceless, the “four” bit.
Thomas ==> Cute, the four…..
Let them strike. See if I care. It will be like the nonentity who went on an ego-trip and noone noticed. Oh and please return the grant money for all your useless airhead projects.
Oh frabjous day!
He chortled in his joy!
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
But beware the jaws that bite…
Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber Mikie Mann and Gavin Schmidt
Ask and ye shall receive…
But let’s put an earliest end-date on the strike! I propose 1 January 2101. Oh, and there’s zero lay-off remuneration.
sorry but you’ve clearly been tricked by a clever Douglas Adams based satire
“You’ll have a national Philosopher’s strike on your hands!”
the UAH LT anomaly was exactly 0.00 last month, coincidentally right on the new baseline
also coincidentally, that’s the exact benefit of every climate-related effort since the current moral panic began circa 1988 under any plausible ECS
when you’ve already wasted trillions of dollars you can’t just give up and admit you’re wrong
you double down on what works — histrionics and censorship
and the fact that it works means the scientific method demands it
I work in the same building with many climate scientists. To be frank, they haven’t come in to work more than a handful of times in the past two years. They could go on strike and you would never know it.
Scissor ==> If they do strike I will have far less to write about.
Home office strike – now that’s a good one!
Maybe refuse the espresso machine and go on coffee strike?
Ask the wife first – oh wait maybe she in on herb-tea strike.
Shudder the thought!
Home Office strike? (for UK readers only).
Now that’s a good idea!
Work? Wow, that must mean they get paid? And don’t even have to show up? Who’s paying these clowns? Let me guess, people with real jobs that pay real taxes?
meiggs ==> You work in an office in which the employees are actually expected to show up and do something? Must not work for a state government.
I actually have a good friend of mine (known him since high school) who works at the Langley Research Center (LaRC) on satellite stuff. One of the smartest people I know and got me interested in science early on. asked him one time if he wanted to meet me for lunch when I was going to be over in that area. He said he was working from home and I don’t think he’s been in his office in two years.
Phil R ==> hen I was with IBM, I had an office 2 hours away, went in every day for years. after a couple of years, the internet got up to speed and I could have worked from home, except for the stuff that was only on IBM internal net. That problem was finally solved and I did work from my home office some days.
But in-person meetings are necessary for true mind-melding innovation. Four of us flew to Austin from the UK, Australia, NY and Georgia — held a 20-minute meeting and invented a multi-million dollar product. Never would have happened over Zoom.
Dang, your career sounds a lot more exciting than mine. 🙂
Phil ==> It was, in the language of my youth, “a good gig”.
If you’d like to see where federal money goes, this works.
It won’t show much detail about what the funds were for or what was accomplished. However, I did see that my university received over $200 million in covid awards.
So that works out at nearly $55 000 covid spending per every family of 5 in the US. However, there were many who did not even need a dime to be spent on them. Where has most of this money gone? I fear the climate spending is going to dwarf this with a few rich people grossly enriching themselves and making the plebs poorer.
“It’s my party and I’ll cry if I want to… cry if I want to …”
Let them strike forever. At the end of the day, what are they doing of useful for society? They are only spending taxpayers money.
Anyone with brains (and you don’t have to be a Mensa member) can see that they have used the exact same approach to combat COVID as they perfected with AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming in case you have forgotten or are under 25 or so) scam. Exaggeration, Fear, Doubt, Hype, Consensus, “precautionary principle” hide the data, change the goals, etc. Magically on March first the US does not need masks for all but the most critical situations.
Except that Covid was actually killing people
“Except that Covid was actually killing people” … like many other diseases, less then other preventable, curable or controllable diseases that have been, are continue to be, forgoten in the last two years.
However the numbers were/are/continue to be inflated just like in the CC Scam. Do some research, not on CNN, MSM, Big Tech, Wikipedia.
David G-J ==> Well, atmospheric CO2 is rising (Hurray!) and the Earth’s Climate is warming (as we come out of the Little Ice Age back to a nicer warm period.)
If you look at the numbers, you’ll find that Covid-1984 has killed exactly 0.0% of the Australian population.
As near as I can tell, the science society contract goes something like this.
I tell you what to do, and you give me money.
Bingo! But, wait, whose fault is that ultimately? I’ve found when you hand out money there is never a shortage of takers. Stoopid is as stoopid…
meiggs ==> In CliSci, is is often more a case of “You get what you pay for.” Far too many grants specifically call for studies to show that XX causes bad effect YY. (CliSci, medicine, social sciences, etc).
“Here’s a grant to show the moon is made of green cheese.”
Brief interval of Jeopardy theme song
Here are the results of our study.
1) The moon is indeed made of green cheese
2) It’s worse than we thought
3) We’re all gonna DIIIEEEE!!!!
Further research is needed. Please renew our study grant
If only Michael Mann would join the strike.
First problem with strikes is the black hooded profi’s . Sometimes called antifa. Naive to expect no infiltration – they get the facebook snaps.
Come on Mann, Mick retired from science when he came up with his ‘nature trick’
In their own way Lomborg and his expert team have been telling them that they should only spend their $s carefully and ONLY allocate where it can make a difference.
Their message and data have been available for decades, but the loony left have ignored them and instead tried to stupidly claim that we’re worse off today than 30 years or 50 years ago etc.
The data proves they are wrong and even the UN projections until 2100 tell us Humans will be 3.5 times richer, even if their climate projections were true. SFA chance for their climate projections I’d say and the data supports the sceptics, just check it out.
The correct path is always ADAPTATION and more R & D etc and the sooner we ditch the TOXIC, DILUTE S&W lunacy the better. Wasting endless TRILLIONS of $ for the next 30+ years will change nothing and China, Russia etc will be laughing all the way to their banks.
The US voters should deliver clueless Biden and his DEM donkeys the greatest kick in the guts in Nov 2022 and then work to deliver an intelligent new team again in Nov 2024.
which humans will be 3.5x richer?
Skolar strejk fur klimate.
What a brilliant idea, why haven’t I thought of that before?
Heads will explode.
The Confederate secession promoted British politico John Locke’s ‘social contract’ – Life Liberty and Property, opposed to the Union’s Pursuit of Happiness, from Leibniz.
Of course that ‘contract’ is broken since 1865! Get over it!
Scientists must get on with pursuit of the happiness, discovering new physical principles, which then naturally empower society.
See Constitution Article 1, paragraph 8.
Moratorium on ‘climate research is a great idea for a couple of reasons:
Misspent money is easy to prove:
-Sea level rise is NOT accelerating
-Arctic summer sea ice has not disappeared
-Polar bears are thriving
-Children still know snow
-and so much more.
‘Starving’ climate scientists will also be generally good for their overall health, as demonstrated by Mann, Dessler, and Hayhoe. Showing how much we ‘deniers’ really do care about them.
So nothing not to like about this seemingly serious proposal. Must be serious, cause echoed in NYT.
Rud they have to spend the money. Number 1 rule of government is to spend the budget.
Derg ==> True in business as well — departmental budgets not spent generally means the department didn’t need that much so gets less next fiscal period.
Generally true. I worked in a manufacturing concern where the production units that gained the most in efficiency (costs/output/quality) were given the production units that lagged in order to improve their efficiency. The team(s) running the less efficient unit(s) was invited to pursue other interests.
But yes, most places and especially government bureaucracies, don’t run that way. Quite the opposite in fact.
Jane Lubchenco’s name reminded me of Trofim Lysenko.
There are two points about Lysenko:
1 – Scientists can be seriously wrong … even prominent scientists … in fact, maybe the fact that they’re prominent is because their wrong version of science accords with what someone in power wants the science to be.
2 – Wrong science can result in things like mass starvation … or the collapse of western civilization … things like that.
Iain McGilchrist points out that, if the brain’s right hemisphere isn’t working properly, the result is that the person will jump to conclusions, cling to those conclusions, be unable to admit she’s wrong, and make stuff up when she doesn’t know the answer. Oh yes, I nearly forgot, one of the effects is unwarranted confidence. Such a person is likely disconnected from reality and has symptoms that make it difficult to distinguish her from a schizophrenic.
As Jerre Levy points out that “One gets the suspicion that 18 or so years of formal schooling in the sciences may functionally ablate the right hemisphere.”
So, defund the universities … and also, at all costs, ignore Jane Lubchenco.
I was helping a doctoral student to finish up a dissertation.
She was modeling cost effectiveness of Medicaid adapting one new, but effective, medical procedure in place of what it was to replace.
it was clear that it would be cost effective: similar outcomes but much lower price tag per patient.
i was helping put the logic of it all together, but I was not doing the modeling – that was for her mathematical modeling professor.
Once she completed the run, she showed me her results. I note that the cost savings by adopting this one intervention equal about half of the US gross domestic product.
Surely, the modeling has gone wrong.
It actually took some time for me to walk her through the logic of that one point for her to agree something did not look right about it all.
Last ==> In CliSci, they first constrain outlying intermediate results, then throw away final results from model runs that zoom off into space of dive out the bottom.
The problem with that is it makes your models look plausible in spite of the fact that they tend to spew garbage. It’s like running an experiment where you pitch out all the results that don’t agree with your conclusion.
commie ==> They have to handle the chaotic nature of model results somehow!
Kip, one solves the problem by not attempting to model chaos. Wasn’t it an earlier UN IPCC CliSciFi report that cautioned against relying on such models?
Dave ==> All the IPCC Assessment Reports included this fact at least through the Third Assessment Report:
““The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
– IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis”
I wrote a four part series here on Chaos & Climate
Thanks for the information, Kip.
When I was managing engineers doing and using Models, most models were developed on the SWAG –“whoops, shit!” approach. Make a SWAG, the fix the whoops, shit that resulted.
These guys keep the whoops shits.
Wrong science can or has caused things like the collapse of western civ?
meiggs ==> Some feel that the Great Reset or NetZero are designed to do just that…
That’s the danger.
There is the obsession that human caused CO2 emissions will cause runaway warming that will make the planet uninhabitable.
Resulting from that obsession is a push for renewable energy that can not work, if only because of the EROEI Cliff (Energy Return On Energy Invested). Wind and solar cost so much in terms of energy and resources that there is not enough left over to run society.
Unless people come to their senses, it is highly likely that fraudulent climate science will lead to the collapse of western civilization, followed shortly thereafter by Chinese civilization, which currently depends on western civilization.
“As Jerre Levy points out that “One gets the suspicion that 18 or so years of formal schooling in the sciences may functionally ablate the right hemisphere.””
I think I’ve seen some anectdotal evidence of that.
From the abstract as quoted above: “the time has come for scientists to agree to a moratorium on climate change research” Response: Your terms are acceptable! Please clean out your desk, pick up your final paycheck, and await our invitation to return to work when we need something more.
I agree that the science is settled:
1) The earth relatively recently has been through an over 500 thousand year period of alternating long glacial periods and short interglacials (about five cycles of 120,000 +/-), with our present interglacial being the latest, but not the warmest.
2) Our current interglacial, the Holocene beginning about 12,000 years ago, reached its warmest period fairly early on and has been cooling in fits and starts for about 6,000 years, with a number of distinct periods warmer than the present. While there have been and are a number of motivated paleo-climatologists trying to erase past warming periods, they have not succeeded with real scientists to date but are feted by the climate profiteers.
3) Since the coolest period of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age, the earth has warmed in fits and starts by about 1 C over an approximate 300 year timeframe. The UN IPCC claims that the warming during the latter part of the 20th Century was primarily caused my Man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, but cannot explain the warming of the early 20th Century that was of almost exactly the same duration and magnitude. However, the UN IPCC reports say never mind the details, they are scientists and are aware of the complexities … its all capitalism’s fault.
4) The worldwide coordination of the UN, politicians, Deep State, NGOs, academia, crony capitalists & etc. have created a multi-billion dollar self-licking ice cream cone that squats out increasing fanciful speculations that “we’re all gonna die!” CliSciFi’s greatest achievement has been the creation of computer games with no foundation in reality that scare the bejesus out of the ignorant and fearful. All in all a very successful and profitable game akin to the three card monte scam that the police haven’t routed yet.
Now, let’s all go on strike against giving these clowns any more money. Science, indeed.
Good points Dave! Re. your point 3, “but cannot explain the warming of the early 20th Century that was of almost exactly the same duration and magnitude”, they moved on a long time ago from ‘explaining the warming’ in favor of ‘tampering with the data’.
No I will not be joining the strike! I’ve weitten a paper, currently being checked by others, then I definitely intend to submit it to a journal. That might be as far as I get, of course. It provides empirical evidence in support of the IPCC’s statement that the climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.
I’m working on another paper aimed at overturning one of the major assumptions in the climate models. Others are welcome to go on strike, but I intend to keep going!
Mike ==> You go Mike…..write and publish.
Mike, is your nickname “The Man From La Mancha?”
“…society still isn’t doing what we told them to do.”
I taught environmental assessment and management for about a decade, had help some from a toxicologist. Assessment is science, management is application requiring a value judgement. These are separate ‘jobs,’ however interdependent. When they produce this they have a conflict of interest, just like a consultant hired that takes only the biased position of their employer without looking for cautions. A consultant has the duty to provide proper information for the benefit of the employer, but not to become their advocate. Separation of responsibilities is not always easy, but I know of cases where consultants ignored their own work for the benefit of their employer. It might be based on reasonably derived conclusions, but it is hubris to take such positions especially when they are beyond advocacy into activism thereby damaging their credibility. Not proper even if they were absolutely correct, unlikely when they want to manage the whole earth. Advocacy to some degree is very common in some areas of science, not just climate, appears to be similar motivations, restore the earth sort of thing. It is perhaps human nature, but undisciplined. I am certain that I failed some teaching this adequately, not realizing their earlier ‘education.’
Kip, you may well be correct. I’m not a lawyer. As far as I know under common law both parties must receive something of value but in US law this doesnt hold. Otherwise it might be argued that very few research contracts are valid. Also contracts need a time period in which the agreement is valid.
ferd ==> Contract law is variable, but the basic is an agreement from both sides to exchange of one valuable thing for another another valuable thing.
I can help Glavovic and his cohorts by addressing just one statement. “Given that climate change science is ‘settled’, and has been for decades”. This is a tired, old and used up statement that is simply false. Think about this for a minute. I assume that the term settled science means that the science has been done up and down and in and out and no stone left unturned. The evidence is complete, air tight, no errors and no doubt. If this is the case then make your case, show us. By us I don’t mean your pals in academia, I mean the people who are going to pay for making things right. I mean me. If the evidence is so overwhelming, so pure, so unequivocal why can’t you and your allies show us? To me that means one of two things either the studies are lacking or you guys are or maybe both. In any case don’t ask me to just trust you, that ain’t gonna happen.
Bob ==> I know, I know….how can a serious scientist include such a silly statement in what is supposed to be a serous paper?
Well it isn’t a serious paper or he isn’t a serious scientist or
both. Who am I to say?
“I love it when I can agree with people I probably would otherwise disagree with. “
I find myself in the same position. Talk of a moratorium is of course silly. But so is the contract stuff.
The duty of scientists is simply to find out stuff and tell people about it. It is the duty of society to figure out what to do about it. Scientists don’t have a duty as scientists to refrain from flying, driving etc. That would be their duty as citizens. Same for all of us.
Arrhenius, who did figure this out in 1896 and told us about it, didn’t AFAIK modify his lifestyle. In fact, he thought warming would be a good thing. That is the judgement of a Swede, not a scientist, and is of no particular significance. His science was thorough and sound.
Maybe Arrhenius, Greta’s granpa, asked his horse for advice – horse sense an’ all that?
My diesel simply purrs in reply.
Nick Stokes ==> Gee, I agree with you too. Especially:
“The duty of scientists is simply to find out stuff and tell people about it. It is the duty of society to figure out what to do about it. ”
and with the venerable Arrhenius:
: In fact, he thought warming would be a good thing. :
Thanks for checking in . . . .
We must – must we, bossy types are fond of using a first person plural pronoun when expressing a personal opinion.
If that were true then why are so many of the climate scientist involved in activism?
They would be mildly more believable with a lot more telling and a lot less activism.
They are conscientious citizens.
They are raking in money off the scam. Tell me how Michael Mann is a “conscientious citizen.”
They’re ConScienceOus people
Which leaves them open to the obvious claim they are not unbiased that leads into a problem noted by Feynman
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”
That is why a good scientist tries to stay detached unlike the Climate Science Fools.
Try asking a one eyed-football supporter to umpire their home team 🙂
Maybe, but this action shows us they are doing climate science believing it to be a political campaigning tool. That’s not how a scientist should think.
No, they’re grifters.
Thoroughly agree Nick.
And “mission creep” by those megaphone “scientists” (Mann etc) with no expertise in mechanical or power engineering, construction, transport, etc into telling society what to do about it (wind, solar, EVs etc etc) is what undoes most of the credibility of “the settled science”.
Sorry, Nick, but I have no “duty” to forsake modern living by pandering to current, fashionable ideology based on fearful speculation by people making money off it.
The first duty of any scientist is to tell the truth, regardless of whether or not your paycheck depends on telling porkies, and regardless of what the so-called “consensus” is. But, the Climate Liars like Mikey aren’t willing to do that, are they?
Bruce ==> Most scientists, regardless of field, are honest hardworking people like everyone else. Which is simultaneously the plus side and the minus side.
“5. Research how the positive effects of changing climate can be turned even further to our advantage – for both humanity and for the rest of the living environment.”
Kip, you couldn’t be more right! Freeman Dyson said several years ago that true climate research had to be holistic. The *entire* Earth system needs to be look at as a coherent whole, not just as CO2 and feedback.
It’s why agriculture scientists today in the US say our growing season is expanding while our maximum temperatures are moderating – leading to higher crop output each year. This is 180deg out of phase with the CAGW mantra that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder and everyone is going to starve to death as crops fail from ever increasing maximum temperatures.
Someone should point this out to the IPCC and perhaps include research on this from all around the globe. The greening of the Earth and the continued record food crops each year need to be explained in light of the 8.5 scenario – since it should already be having an impact on the greening of the earth and on food crop harvests. If those impacts aren’t there then the climate models are useless in projecting the positive effects of climate change.
Tim ==> Thanks for supporting my point — appreciated.
Paraphrasing from Murray Rothbard’s classic essay, “The Anatomy of the State”, and substituting ‘climate alarmists’ for ‘intellectuals’, we have:
“It is evident that the State needs the [climate alarmists]; it is not so evident why [climate alarmists] need the State. Put simply, we may state that the [climate alarmist’s] livelihood in the free market is never too secure; for the [climate alarmist] must depend on the values and choices of the masses of his fellow-men, and it is precisely characteristic of the masses that they are generally uninterested in [climate alarmist] matters. The State, on the other hand, is willing to offer the [climate alarmist] a secure and permanent berth in the State apparatus and thus a secure income, and the panoply of prestige. For the [climate alarmists] will be handsomely rewarded for the important function they perform for the State rulers, of which group they now become a part.”
Frank ==> Thanks for the academic reference — PoliSci, that.
This is an excellent insight, and explains why the vast majority of “intellectuals” are on the Left and favour the Big State.
Thank you! The essay, from which I pulled the paragraph, is easily found on-line and is all of 15 pages long, plus another 6, or so, of references to original sources. While an easy read, it’s a real mind opener, which I would recommend to anyone who might be curious how we ‘progressed’ from limited to mega government.
Here’s a contract: I’ll agree not to force climate obsessives directly or indirectly to use fossil fuels if they agree not to force me directly or indirectly not to.
Chris ==> Very liberal of you , I hope they appreciate it.
I have been involved in many political advocacy or lobbying efforts over the years.
One reality is: you don’t just jump into the policy advocacy world and get laws declaring what you want.
You have to get your issue defined, get your facts together, build coalitions, draft legislation, etc.
This is true for civil rights, regulating alcohol sales, etc. All legislative wishes.
Most proposed, filed bills do not become law.
Sorry, that is the way it is.
This “science/society contract:” it does not exist as they imagine. They imagine a technocracy. Technological Experts decide how to maximally engineer our society, and the rest of us just agree and fall in line.
Logan’s Run. Brave New World.
Nope, it does not work that way.
They have had their chance to influence legislation and policy. They could not do it in the regular way, and resorted to trying scare tactics and wishing for Totalitarianism.
We are fortunate to not live in a Technocracy Totalitarian Dictatorship.
Last ==> I think Glavovic and all just forgot to stomp their feet while demanding that national governments do as the CliScis say.
TLD, I lobbied local, State and Federal legislators on some major efforts. I agree with you wholeheartedly.
When I was educated (60 years ago) logic and science were not separate; apparently that is not the case today.
“Given that climate change science is ‘settled’, and has been for decades..” is a reasonable argument for the “scientists” to declare victory, adopt option 3, and focus on more fertile fields of research.
What WAS separate then was advocacy.
A wild suggestion as to what they could focus on next: an objective look at the causes and impacts of NATURAL variations in climate.
(Of course this would violate the mandate of the IPCC to focus on the negative impacts of CO2, and Stephan Schneider’s grossly misinterpreted warning about showing uncertainty when interpreting scientific results in the field of climate science.)
George ==> You see the difference between then and now? You were educated….today kids just go to college.
My father, who was a college grad also, often said that a college education doesn’t make you smart.
Refuse to write proposals that are full of bull shit weasel words, in other words be bloody honest if the funders don’t like it tough you are out off a job, unless every one takes the same stand then the polies and the bureaucrats are stuffed
there fixed it
Advice is not mandatory.
Phillip ==> Yes, but only once we have left home and struck out on our own….
Kip: I was still living at home when I told my father this.
Phillip ==> Brave lad….
In my childhood household, advice was just parental noise….
The only ‘settled science‘ in this entire thing is that matter/substance/stuff can, sometimes does sometimes does not, absorb electromagnetic radiation.
When it does absorb, the temperature of the substance will rise.
When it does not absorb, the radiation reflects/refracts/scatters and goes elsewhere in search of colder matter/substance/stuff or place that may, may not, absorb it.
Thus demonstrating that we live in a cooling universe. ##
i.e. A very basic observation so intuitive that no-one even notices yet completely trashes any and every explanation (that I’ve ever seen) of the Greenhouse Gas Effect.
In a minor discussion elsewhere, I mentioned the 200 climate scientists at Leeds University.
Yes – the hard working scientists whose sole distinction to date is that they’ve named 6 glaciers in/on Antarctica – while costing the fee-paying students of Leeds Uni easily £20+ Million annually for salaries and office space.
The reply I got, clearly from someone who actually does understand the GHGE, was that that simply demonstrated the need for more climate scientists.
Possibly the same guy who thinks there really will be some salvageable cars off the Felicity Ace, as she now rests peacefully at the bottom of The Atlantic.
More sanguine folks thought we should go there and retrieve the diesel fuel that previously powered the old tub. Before it escapes and pollutes The World.
## Assuming we are actually alive, that A one or more Universe(s) do exist and this is not some surreal dream played out in a total vacuum
Entirely begging the question, will that Total Vacuum have the same properties that the vacuums we all know & love have?
Why indeed do vacuums have any properties at all?
Surely – Shirley says they should not.
“Shirley” should rule the world, not these jumped up, pretentious and spoilt brats.
My wife Shirley already runs the world, Peta; jobs taken.
what a ridiculous bluff. no new “research” means no new yellow journalism headlines. means fewer acolytes
I keep wondering why the models get updated when they were all correct decades ago.
The “contract” between society and scientists is a fuzzy thing. In the abstract, it’s a bit like this: society funds research to levels that society determines to be reasonable, and scientists have to submit grant applications to show some degree of relevance or utility to their proposed research. Sometimes, the results of research lead to discoveries that have practical applications, and society benefits in material ways (e.g. Crick & Watson, structure of DNA, where society’s return on investment is almost too large to comprehend). Other times, society gets profound and important understanding that doesn’t have much immediate material use but alters society in fundamental ways (e.g. Darwin, natural selection, starting to loosen the grip of organised religion on the rest of us).
In the case of climate science, the “contract” was deliberately perverted from day 1 by society itself (in the person of one of its leaders). It goes back to the early 1980s, when Thatcher made a decision for purely political reasons; in the words of Nigel Calder* “she said, there’s money on the table if you can prove it (AGW), so of course that’s what they did”. It led to the creation of the CRU at UEA. The moment that society asks – and pays for – an answer, any objectivity that scientists might have had, starts to get eroded by the lure of prestige and career-building. And that was the foundation stone of modern “Climate Science – Where the Answers Come First™”
Over a 40-year period, Climate Science has metastasised into this huge, ever-expanding, self-sustaining, self-important, self-reverential monstrosity that spans the globe and permeates governments, corporations, academies, religions and ruling elites in all our liberal democracies. A lot of its growth is due to its having been taken over at the management level by political actors with a rather specific agenda who see it as one of their most important tools. It probably never occurs to these narcissists who are threatening to go on strike, that they are helping to fulfill the dreams of Antonio Gramsci (who theorised that Marxism could only achieve control of industrialised democracies by taking over their cultural institutions, not by revolution).
These self-appointed strikers are evidence that the “contract” has mutated to the point where science is telling society what to do, and society has been meekly obeying. The tail is wagging the dog. And I don’t think that the dog has even realised it yet.
“from memory, may not be totally accurate”
The facts in this comment are flaky. I don’t believe the Calder quote, or at least that Thatcher said it. CRU was founded in 1972, when Heath was PM. But I don’t believe that event created any sort of contract between Science and Society. That would be a very parochial view.
Thank you, Nick, for the statement of your belief.
It is ironic, however, that CRU was set up by Hubert Lamb when he left the the Met Office and UEA offered start up money which matched funds that Lamb had already secured from oil and gas company Shell.
Dave ==> Lamb was a real scientist — and diligently sought for the truth about climate and weather.
Glavovic, Smith and White: “Climate change science is settled to the point of global consensus.”
The underlined phrase is laughable, and invoking consensus merely parlays Cook’s fakery into a preferred narrative.
I agree with Kip’s recommendations, especially with their subtext, which argues that the way forward is that science be resurrected in the field of climate.
Science has been moribund there, if not dead, for 34 years exactly because of the incompetence of Glavovic, Smith, and White, and their ilk.
Yes, “Cook’s fakery” unfortunately, has penetrated a lot of minds and caused them to have a false picture of reality, leading to bad decisions.
They cannot imagine that what they want to happen is not happening because the technology does not exist or it’s not economically practical, so it must be those darn climate change deniers. We’ll show’em.
Tom.1 ==> We are trying to show them….
Timothy F. Smith and Iain White could have joined the management of Bell Labs after Judge Green was done breaking up AT&T. The entire organization pivoted from lots of ‘blue sky’ research (which generated a number of Nobel Prizes) to research with an eventual product in mind.
The climate isn’t doing what we predicted and the more time that passes the more obvious it will become to everybody, so let’s stop the research and get on with creating the one world government utopia.
I did enjoy their public admission as to what our university social science taxeaters have been up to alongside climastrology-
The second option is intensified social science research and advocacy on climate change
and concluding more of it is futile. Presumably we can give them the chop right now while awaiting the climastrologist strike. A 97% immediate saving in salaries you’d reckon.
observa ==> The Social Science side of this is that some are so absolutely convinced that they are right about the coming catastrophe that they really do think that anyone who doesn’t agree is mentally retarded or mentally ill. OR there is something crazy going on in society that prevents the general public from seeing the light.
“Maybe we’re not saying it right?” “The Koch brothers must be winning the propaganda war?” “Those nasty oil companies are hiding the truth?”
Climate scientists go on strike and nobody notices or cares.
Climate scientists are distraught and devastated.
Climate scientists turn to the psychologists who have been treating people for climate anxiety.
These academics really should be facing an investigation.
Had another in calgary talk radio the other day hyping the latest IPCC summary, 2 minutes of fact free ranting I was not allowed to counter
Sea level rise 5-10x a decade ago (not kidding)
“Unprecedented” BC 2021 fire season (30 seconds on google shows 65% of record, ie not unprecedented)
And no push back for radio talking head of course
I like the strike idea. But, while they are on strike, I think they should stay away from laboratories and research.
There is a crying need for truck drivers. I think all those climate scientists should get CDLs and drive trucks until the strike is settled.
Walter ==> Yeah, imagine Michael Mann with a long beard listening to country music and chatting on the CB — now that’s what I call TRUCKIN’!
97% of the population would never realise they were on strike. He sounds like a complete fool, overfull of his own sense of importance.
Are they so stupid that they don’t understand trust is the basis of the “contract”.
They have blown it with 4 decades of over egging it.
Pronouncing certainty when it was obvious there was none. Hubris reigning over science. And they went along with it.
Suck it up princesses, you made the bed by being unscientific in the extreme, made it by being activists.
You need to earn back that trust, not demand it be given when you have conclusively shown your ilk to be “the ends justifies the means” types.
This is Atlas Shrugged in the funhouse mirror! In this case the State Science Institute goes on strike, as opposed to the producers in Rand’s novel. Worked to conclusion, this only becomes a victory by John Galt & company. Climate “scientists”, keep up the good work!
I’ve been thinking of going on strike myself. Unless our leaders do something to mitigate the effects of climate change, I will refuse to lie around, drink whisky, watch TV all day and be morally superior to everybody else on the planet Earth. Somebody else will have to do those things, because I will cease to do them until i get action.
I’m serious. Somebody else is going to be wise, all-knowing, humble and drunk, because I quit. Well, maybe not the drunk part. Whisky doesn’t drink itself, God knows, so it would be irresponsible to just let it stack up, and perhaps inundate the world. Never mind rising sea levels. Rising whisky levels would be a tragedy that we might best avoid.
This is very revealing when you think about it.
It means the entire reason they were doing the science was to produce a change in society. That was the reason for doing it.
Whereas science is about collecting data and producing theories. Proper science is not about doing science as a type of campaigning tool. It’s up to the rest of society to decide what actions to take, if any, when the science is communicated to it.
option 3 BUT only if they strike for at least 10yrs to allow us to have a gen of kids who havent been mindwiped and to work on the ones that have been
oh lordy to NOT hear daily drivel claims re co2 n warming would be BLISS!
Oh noes! Look what we’ve gone and done – made the Climate Cookoos, Cluckers, and Caterwaulers mad and sad. How dare we! Any minute now, shame will set in.
Taking longer than I thought.
“If you thought that science was certain – well, that is just an error on your part.” — Richard Feynman
AR6, WG1 report (from last September), section 18.104.22.168, “Climate change understanding, communication, and uncertainties”, page 1-29 :
“Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” — Richard Feynman
AR6, Box 1.1, “Treatment of uncertainty and calibrated uncertainty language in AR6”, page 1-31 :
“I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers which cannot be questioned.” — Richard Feynman
Mark ==> Physics hasn’t been much fun since Dick Feynman passed.
Or this one from immunologist Peter Medawar
“I cannot give any scientist of any age better advice than this. The intensity of the conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing on whether it is true or not.”
Dave ==> Terrific quote!
I would add a corollary: “The more convinced you are of your hypothesis, he more critical you should be of your own results.”
Such people confirm my long ago observation that the dumber a person is, the more unshakable are their opinions. That’s probably a corrolary of the Dunning- Kreuger effect.
Since Obama has recently bought 2 multi million dollar *Ocean front* homes, he doesn’t seem too concerned