An original paper for the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
Source: PDF Report
The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field.
What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then—without discussing the evidence—applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases. What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy? If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”.
And so it is. But it’s not science.
Mitchell Taylor is a Polar Bear researcher who has caught more polar bears and worked on more polar bear groups than any other, but he was effectively ostracized from the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) specifically because he has publicly expressed doubts that there is a crisis due to carbon dioxide emissions.
Dr Andy Derocher, the outgoing chairman of the PBSG and Professor at the University of Alberta, wrote to inform Taylor that he was not welcome at the 2009 meeting of the PBSG. Keep in mind as you read his comments (below) that Taylor had arranged funding to attend the meeting in Copenhagen, and has been at every meeting of this group since 1981[1]. With 30 years of experience in polar bear research, it goes without saying that he has something to contribute to any discussion about polar bear conservation.
This is the original email from Derocher to Taylor explaining why he was not invited:
Hi Mitch,
The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.
I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.
I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.
Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.
Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.
I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.
Best regards,
Andy (Derocher)
So in polar bear research, your opinion on climate change is more important than your knowledge about polar bears. (Time to add Science to the Threatened Subjects List.)
So in polar bear research, your opinion on climate change is more important than your knowledge about polar bears?
WhileMitchell Taylor was ousted, three participants were added to the meeting from groups whose main activities are political lobbying and education rather than science. While the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Polar Bears International (PBI) do fund some minor research, their main output is press releases, rather than scientific papers. Taylor has published some 59 peer reviewed papers. But none of the three new representatives appears to have published a single scientific paper related to polar bears. If they managed large research programs it would be understandable, but PBI’s budget is apparently barely enough to cover one full time researcher[2] and yet they effectively had three representatives at the PBSG meeting (including Derocher who is a scientific advisor for the PBI).
So there were three spaces for people from institutions whose funds depend on there being a “crisis”, but no space for one of the most published researchers in the field?
If Exxon funding is supposed to affect scientists’ announcements, how could we expect “Green” funding from groups who hold a very strong position on climate change not to influence people, or at least to attract job applicants who share their views? Imagine the scandal if Exxon had funded a representative without a single paper to his name and he replaced one of the most experienced in the field?
People assume scientific associations make pronouncements that mean something, but scientific associations are not scientific so much as political. Committees change. Their decrees are unaudited, and the media do little investigation or critical analysis and mostly just repeat their press releases.
One of the few who did note the incident was Christopher Booker[3]. In response, blogger Tim Lambert in (known as “Deltoid”) weighed in to give Derocher a chance to answer the critics[4].
So what does Derocher have to say for himself? He comes up with reasonable sounding excuses to justify his actions, but none of them change the original email. His post hoc efforts are just that: post hoc. Worse, they are wrong too. He clutches at straws declaring that Mitchell Taylor is retired—which is evidently news to Mitchell, who has two current contracts, and is a faculty member at Lakehead University with an active teaching program. Taylor has also been out in the field since the last PBSG meeting, and what a “field” it must be. Trekking through snow and looking for predators that weigh half a ton doesn’t sound like much of a hobby for senior citizens. Derocher comically repeats the “retirement theme” in his email reply to my question about evidence. “What the media and Mitch Taylor have failed to note, is that Dr Taylor moved into early retirement last year.”
Derocher is correct that Mitchell Taylor had retired from the Nunavut Government position, but Taylor is obviously still involved in research. Defending himself, Derocher points out that it was only a brief personal email, and that there were many factors he left out. But it obviously wasn’t an email about personal matters, and while there may have been other reasons not to invite Taylor, the point here is about the way the decision was reached and conveyed. There was no equivocation in the email. It is obvious that the message for Taylor was that …if you had believed in man-made climate change we would have invited you. Like a Masonic handshake, kowtowing to climate change has become the password for entry.
In the heated world of climate change ‘debate’ Lambert throws unsubstantiated smears. Without any basis he refers to Booker as having ‘concocted’ the story. (And if Lambert were important enough, presumably Booker would bother suing him for libel.) The email above was clearly what Booker described. Derocher didn’t deny that he sent it. His “suppression” of Taylor is in writing for all to see.
The PSBG scientists have strayed far from their passion for understanding the biology of bears. Like many scientific committees and associations they have a “position” on climate-science, even though none of the members of the committee are involved in climate research, and have probably never reviewed the atmospheric physics, or even read what dissenting scientists say on the topic.
Mitchell Taylor agrees:
“I don’t believe any right-thinking polar bear biologist has ever critically reviewed the climatology that their status concerns are based on. They would argue that the material is institutionally accepted, peer-reviewed, and too technical for a mere biologist to penetrate. I think that they just find the information so useful on so many levels that they don’t want to know anything that could disrupt what they have written, the profile they are enjoying, and the funding that all of this has generated.”
Dr Derocher suggested that dissenting views were fine as long as they were backed up with evidence (implying that Taylor’s views were not). Yet when I pointed out to Derocher that this applies equally towards “consensus” views, and I asked him if he could back up the PBSG’s position on climate change with empirical evidence, he replied exactly as Taylor had predicted he would, claiming he was not a climate scientist and assuming the IPCC are right:
“I am not a climate scientist. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the primary literature are the basis from which I take my information on the issue.” Dr Andrew Derocher
Argument from authority is fine for scientists discussing topics that are outside their specialty at cocktails after work. But when argument from authority is used to stifle debate, censor opinions or ostracize colleagues, the foundations of science are rattled.
And when scientific associations have official positions on any topic, it seems a bare minimum to insist that they have considered the relevant empirical evidence. If they merely rubber stamp pronouncements of another association or bureaucratic committee, they act as mindless cheerleaders—not scientists.
when argument from authority is used to stifle debate, censor opinions or ostracize colleagues, the foundations of science are rattled.
Derocher let slip in his email reply: “climate change discussions were not part of our Copenhagen Meeting” that Taylor had been refused entry to, which makes it all the more absurd that Taylor was denied access to a meeting on polar bear biology because of his views on the climate.
It also makes the Resolutions from the Copenhagen meeting a parody of science: the topic they “didn’t discuss” sits right there in their first set of recommendations.
It makes the Resolutions from the Copenhagen meeting a parody of science: the topic they “didn’t discuss” appears in their first set of recommendations.
The PBSG[5] recognize “the IPCC conclusions” about greenhouse gases, and recommends that “Urgent global actions be taken to significantly reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”.
So now we have a group of biologists, who effectively make recommendations about global energy sources without considering the evidence, the criticisms, or allowing anyone to speak in opposition.
This is the state of modern “science”, and it is not the pinnacle of critical thinking that we are led to believe.
Derocher also belatedly claimed that Taylor had agreed to “The issues pertaining to global warming” at their 2005 meeting, and thus had since contradicted these points publicly, making him difficult to work with. Derocher claimed the unanimous agreement was written into the minutes. But in the 198 page report issued from that meeting there is not one reference to carbon dioxide or to greenhouse gases. Like many others, Derocher mixes up greenhouse gas induced warming with other causes of warming. Yes, warming is a problem for polar bears, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that carbon dioxide caused the warming.
Science will surely lose its hard-won credibility with the public as many “Scientific Associations” get caught with their pants down: supporting an international unelected, unaudited committee, without any evidence.
If it were just this one group doing mindless cheerleading it wouldn’t matter much, but the IPCC assertions are repeated in scientific organizations around the world. For example: The American Society for Microbiology[6], The Australian Coral Reef Society[7], The Institute of Biology[8], The American Geophysical Union[9], The American Public Health Association[10], The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[11], The European Federation of Geologists[12] and the list goes on.[13] Thus the public repeatedly hears of press releases issued by groups with scientific cachet, that support policies and opinions that the issuers have never assessed, which are published by journalists who parrot the PR.
There is no reason that biologists, psychologists, or any scientific group can’t hold an informed opinion on greenhouse warming, but who needs their uninformed views? If they have not considered the evidence, they do science a disservice making public pronouncements. Science will surely lose its hard-won credibility with the public as many “Scientific Associations” get caught with their pants down: supporting an international unelected, unaudited committee, without any evidence.
The PSBG deserve a shellacking for their unscientific attitude and censorship of debate, but they are just one of many who ought to be exposed.
A growing wave of scientists are objecting to this kind of unprofessional rubber stamping and unscientific censorship. Recently scientists from the American Chemical Society (ACS) startled their Editor In Chief with their outcry calling for his removal for his use of the word “denier” in their journal editorial and his claims that on man-made global warming: the “science is settled”.[14] Recently 54 prominent physicists of The American Physical Society petitioned for the society to revise its global warming “position”.[15]
The incidents with the Polar Bear Specialist Group and the ACS are a call for scientists everywhere to write to our associations for the sake of our profession. We need to ask them to provide empirical evidence for their positions. If the IPCC can’t do it with all its resources, how will The Australian Coral Reef Association, or the Polar Bear Specialists Group?
What is left of science if there is no debate about the evidence?
The Bottom Line
Examples of bullying and ostracism like this don’t prove anything either way about the science. Only the evidence can tell us whether we need to worry about carbon dioxide. But it’s an apt reminder to all those who parrot scientific associations bizarre unbacked “positions”. As if all the opinions could mean anything against the evidence which points firmly the other way. It’s also a powerful example of how serious the intimidation is. With respect to the enhanced greenhouse effect, no matter how respected you are for your work, there is a serious price for holding the “wrong” opinion.
There are no sacred topics in science.
|
References
[1]http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/participants.html#14
[2] http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/rsrc/files/pbi-2008-fs.pdf , page 12.
[4]http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/christopher_bookers_misinforma.php
[5]http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/resolutions/15.html
[6]http://www.asm.org/ASM/files/CCPAGECONTENT/DOCFILENAME/0000006005/globalwarming%5B1%5D.pdf
[7]http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/pdf/chadwick605a.pdf
[8]http://www.iob.org/general.asp?section=science_policy/policy_issues&article=climate_change.xml
[9]http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
[10]http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1351
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
[14] Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group ‘Startled’ By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! http://www.climatedepot.com/print.asp?id=2213
[15] An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society, http://www.climatephysics.com/GlobalWarming/APS.htm
Update 26-9-09: The PSBG typo has been corrected to PBSG. Thanks, John Reynolds.
http://tinyurl.com/jonova-exile
Very bad to hear this, indeed.
I peronally am fortunate to occupy a unique position.
I’m a mouthy and occasionally aggressive sceptic, and a scientist working for the US Federal Government as well.
The AGW position is officially supported by all branches of the US Government, but my mouthy scepticism goes unabated because dissenting views of any topic have to be tolerated within the Government.
US EPA economist Alan Carlin’s management learned this the hard way.
If I worked for any private entitity that supported AGW and did not wish to hear dissent from an employee, I probably would be forced to accept either silence or termination.
There would be nothing I could do about it either.
I feel bad for a lot of people who are forced to keep their mouths shut about what they really think about AGW
20
Andy Derocher, thank you so much.
People like you who write letters like that are an absolute gift to the skeptic community. Did this not occur to you when you write that ridiculous letter?
20
This is another piece of evidence indicating that climate ‘science’ is more politicized than ever. Climate science is being systematically subverted by special interests with radical agendas, just as has happened with most political parties. The danger is that science will become marginalized, simply because science, unlike politics, ultimately converges to the truth. Once the truth about how small the AGW effect really is becomes accepted, the public, having been subject to extreme hardship because the scientists said a catastrophe was eminent, will no longer trust anything coming from the scientific community. The harder the special interests push the science away from the truth, the longer it will take for the truth to become accepted and the greater this hardship will be. Even though science will ultimately prevail, the publics perception of science being the ultimate arbiter of truth will be forever tarnished. This is the catastrophe we will face as the result of runaway positive feedback.
George
10
On the other hand the public’s perception of the truth will decide whether the public wants to “do anything” about AGW – and right now, despite the bleating from liberal media and left wing politicians I get the impression that the public ain’t buying it.
Except, of course, for the noisy crowd of imbeciles who have equal distaste for humanity and toilet paper
20
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Hilary Maybaum and Skip Zilla. Skip Zilla said: RT @Orion_Magazine: RT @revkin: Polar bear expert excluded from polar bear meeting http://j.mp/CO2bears over climate views. […]
10
Unfortunately, it’s the latter who hold most of the power today …
10
It is most often the toilet-paper hating cheerleader who disrupts reality, indeed.
They are omni-present at decisionmaking time, consistently the victim of the crisis constructors and profiteers, unapologetically ignorant of their lowly status.
The reward comes as the glee and arrogance on their faces morphs into astonishment and anger, realizing their own data has been used against them to more pragmatic ends.
Eventually science will prevail.
10
It just defies my imagination that so many so-called ‘scientific’ groups stake their reputation on the work coming from a psuedo-scientific body, the IPCC. What other reason would the UN, a political organization, have for creating the IPCC, if not for political purposes?
The charter of the IPCC clearly states that its aim is to study the “risk of human induced climate change”. So, because the IPCC automatically dedicates itself to the idea that this “risk of human induced climate change” is a forgone conclusion that requires their evaluation – ANY rebuttal suggesting that there might not be any such risk is a direct threat to their very existence. Essentially, the UN invented problem ‘X’ then appointed themselves, via the creation of the IPCC, as the de facto authority responsible for studying it and fixing it. Comparatively, ‘Food for Oil’ was just as convenient for them…
Mitchell Taylor and other dedicated scientists who feel ‘exiled’ need to take heart in the fact that they are all nonetheless in good company among a HUGE majority of other real scientists on the outside who do not believe that any measurable connection between human CO2 and global warming has ever been detected. Here are some of your peers Dr. Taylor and I am certain that they will all be happy to see you.
It probably wouldn’t hurt to bring this to the attention of other real scientists within the PSBG who may share in your ‘denial’ of there being any crisis but who might not have been willing to speak up just yet – that is until you show them that being ‘exiled’ actually frees you to join others already living in the promised land of scientific truth.
10
Column “Polar bear expert barred by global warmists” by Christopher Booker in the (UK) Telegraph
10
Evidence of consensus is not to be confused with scientific evidence.
This sounds like a religious matter.
10
This is classic human nature and shows that the basic social organization of man is still the tribe with the shaman dictating which superstition is to be believed and commanding punishment for those who do not. to think that science is exempt from this just because of their express ideals (since when did men ever attain their ideals?) is totally naive.
the corruption of science is to be expected as the corruption of everything man lays his hands on is to be expected.
science is a human social political activity like everything else. so is subject to the same fads, politicking etc, as everything else.
I dont deny that science is a useful tool but man is simply too prejudiced and blind for it to ever be the final arbiter of truth. such a sanguine view assumes that man seeks truth. This is essentially untrue and a self flatering notion. men seek self justificiation. if they did not we would not be complaining about the humbug that is AGW. Moreover logical positivism is simply too crude, being reductionistic, to be worth anything,. since when was anything that maded us human to be mewasured in a test tube.
I understand your disappointment at science being so abused as it is, but as i learn more i expect less. after all 100 years ago most of our scientists were racist social darwinists. this kind of corruption is par for the course
10
Henry,
Yes, AGW has many hallmarks of a religion.
1) The fear of damnation (catastrophic climate change)
2) The promise of salvation (CO2 mitigation taxes)
3) Priests (Gore, Hansen et all)
4) A savior (the anticlimatrist Obama)
5) Heretics (like me)
George
10
If we had Dust Bowl Days in the American Midwest over the past couple of years we would have an inquisition for heretics too.
Then when the rains came again to quench the drought – try to eliminate Government intervention! It couldn’t be done.
If the Midwest had an extended drought then every single toilet paper hater there is would be bleating as loudly as they could and the noise would be deafening
10
To quote the rationalization for punishment dolled out in the name of the inquisition,
“… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”
It seems like this was the justification for what happened to Taylor, so I would say the inquisition is happening.
Time for the Reformation …
George
10
For those of us who are short on scientific depth but long on common sense, it bothers that in the arena of the science of climate change, politics has taken command. Again, for some of us who are somewhat paranoid when circumstances like this come to the fore, one wonders what possible long or short-term gain can be gleaned from such a global farce. Perhaps the truth is that there is no end-game; that in essence what we see is nothing more than yet another ignorant plaintive cry that “The sky is falling,” from those who profess to have the third eye, or the ‘gift’ of knowing, or—? At any rate, friends, we should be very, very concerned about letting these people take the road.
20
Joanne, another great post! I appreciate your email about this article. I remember when this happened earlier this year. Sad to say for what Michael Crichton stated is the absolute truth, “Consensus is the Business of Politics. If it’s Consensus, it isn’t Science. If it’s Science, it isn’t Consensus”. A very wise statment by a very wise and noble man. For now He knows the truth!
Best of Regards,
Denny
10
Jo Nova
Excellent article, IMO for effect one of your best. Keep up the excellent work you are doing.
At some point the political situation will change & those who have legislated to put into place things like the ETS will be left like “shags on a rock”. The further they advance down this road the more severe will be the reaction when the tide turns. Is the next phase in Australia a “Carbon Tax on Personal Consumption”, as proposed by President Sarkozy in France?
http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/09/10/sarkozy-proposes-carbon-tax-on-personal-consumption/
In the meantime keep communicating the evidence & exposing the bad science.
10
The succes of any supression of knowledge is based on general ignorance. The reason why the public are not interested in CO2 and global warming is that it is low on their personal agenda. Ignorance rewards those who state falsehoods. Just ask any of your friends
“What percentage do you think man-made CO2 is of the atmosphere ? “The first two answers I received to this question were “60%” – from a British MP, and “35%” from a member of the public. (The correct figure is 0.012%) There is no possibility that views will change till the public move away from ignorance.
10
Should all of the PSBG be changed to PBSG? — John M Reynolds
10
[…] LINK AKPC_IDS += "3006,";Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet) Loading … […]
10
Thanks John! PSBG changed to PBSG. Of course. How did I miss that?
10
I couldnt’ read Kuhn’s book on scientific revolutions as the style was impenetrable, but it seems to me that once a scientist’s mind is made up he stays that way for life. that is why they may be called die hards. it seems that though the data wil accumulate and the paradigm finally collapse it will be younger eyes that see it, younger than the establishment figures that hold the wrong view.
Am I correct? If I am then the myth of AGW will be with us for a long time, namely for the lifetime of its proponents.
we may not live to see the refutation of AGW publicly accepted.
thoughts?
10
Steve,
What you said is often true, but not always. An objective scientist allows his mind to be changed in the presence of new evidence. Many on the skeptical side were at one time on the AGW side. Almost everyone believed that GHG concentrations drove the climate when the ice core data was first presented, and unfortunately, many still do. What flipped many to the skeptical side, was when the data was examined in more detail and revealed the temporal relationship between temperature changes and GHG changes and the very high correlation between temperature changes and changes to the Earth’s orbit and axis. It then became unambiguously clear that GHG gases were a trailing indicator of temperature change and not a leading indicator and that the climate was driven by changes in the incident solar energy profile. Since then, the AGW arguments have been getting flimsier, yet more arcane, in an attempt to paint climate science as being so complex that few will be able to understand it, so you have no choice but to believe what the ‘experts’ say. Even most experts are confounded and rely on what other experts say in order to justify their own arguments, in yet another example of positive feedback.
Many of those who have refused to acknowledge the finite but minor role AGW plays are generally those with other agendas which can’t stand on their own merits without the claim of a man made climate catastrophe. For the most part, these are radical environmental, anti oil company and anti capitalism agendas. For others, this appeals to bleeding heart, guilt driven political left ideals, which is why this has become such a political issue.
The problem that must be overcome is the billions spent on pushing AGW into the publics consciousness. If you repeat a lie often enough, most will start to believe that it’s true. But like all propped up lies. it will eventually come crashing down. The longer this goes on, the harder it will crash. I don’t think this will happen before trillions are wasted, which will make the crash all the more harder. But I do believe the Climate Reformation will occur within the next decade and that irrefutable science will drive it.
George
10
It depends.
If someone’s paycheck depends on the validity of AGW, then the chances become slim to change their minds about it.
If they have nothing in it and some background in science, their opinions about AGW might be changed.
If someone has no background in science, then their opinions about AGW are generally shaped by others who they might like or admire. This is the situation with many of the “enviros” or run of the mill toilet paper haters. These people generally latch on to any stupid klunky thing that comes along. You can’t change their minds because they don’t have a mind in the first place
10
Here is my prediction of mean global temperature anomaly until 2100 based on historical patterns.
http://www.geocities.com/girmao/GlobalWarming/AnomalyPrediction.gif
What do you think?
Girma
10
Hmm – as we go back in time, I have less faith in what a “temperature anamoly” is because, the inference is mostly indirect.
I think there is an envelope out for the nect 100 years, with lines of all kinds of positive and negative slopes possible in that envelope. Each having about equal probability.
10
To Steve’s point about the possible perpetuation of the myth of AGW—I believe if a majority of the global community allows for the passage of legislative change geared to produce weather modifications, the fact of whether it was the wrong thing to do or not could easily become lost within a generation because of an apathetic and ignorant humanity. Adding even more incredulity to such a possible scenario is to imagine that if we do allow ourselves to go this far astray with this wrong-headed thinking, what could be the next logical mis-steps and where could they lead?
10
George, thanks for the input, but i think your view of human honesty is too sanguine.
But I ,must ask why do you need to lump AGW proponents as being left wingers, anti capitalists and anti oil companies?
Amd what do you hope to gain by revealing your contemptuous scorn by calling them bleeding hearts? The thinking of the so called Right wing was always “I’m ok screw you” thus it is depraved and their talk of individual moral responsibility is spurious. The so called conservatives only wanted to conserve their privilege, their wealth and their power. read some history.
it is through reading history that i knew that AGW is a myth
I am a left winger, I regard capitalism as evil, as are all other systems of men, and i oppose the oil companies. But I also happen to know that AGW is a myth.
My concern is that when AGW is finally refuted in the public domain the oil companies and their ilk wil feel justified in stepping up their polluting ways just as the USA became maddened by its own arrogance when the Soviet
Union fell.
you think with subtlety and depth when it comes to science but outside your field it seems to me you are as given to crude stereotyping as anyonse else.
this left winger anti capitalist is NOT a fan of AGW fantasy
10
Alas, you cry for reformation. but what was the reformation? It was a hate fest fueled by some scraps of sound doctrine on the protestants’ part, and it lead to war.
Martin Luther was a passionate hater, just read his obscene pamphlet against the Jews. CAlvin was a dictator, I can go on
The raging of the protestants only hardened the catholics in their position, hence iultimately the bloodbath of the 30 years war.
Besides, the reformers did not beleive in individual conscience. they held “Cuius Regio Eius Religio”, namely that the religion of the local area was determined by the ruler of that area.
and both sides angrily shouted down those few cries for tolerance that arose from a few people.
you really want a reformation?
If you believe in freedom of thought you may just have to live with the fact that the establishment may be opposed to the debunking of AGW for decades.
(By the Way, I am an evangelical protestant, but my knowlege of church history shows me the reformation was a stinking sham)
persuade, yes. but if you want to coerce you are no better than they are
10
Steve,
I’m optimistic about scientific honesty, not human honesty. Humans will almost always lie if it’s in their best interest and in many cases, don’t even know they’re lying. Scientific honesty is about the only mechanism that can objectively separate truth from rationalized lies.
In a prior post, you said, “100 years ago most of our scientists were racist social darwinists”. I would say that not much before that, they considered that our galaxy was the only one that existed, were ignorant about disease, thought that things like electricity were magic and that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Science has come a long way in a short time and new ideas constantly overturn old ones. I see no reason to believe that science will revert to the Dark Ages.
BTW, the Climate Reformation I speak of is simply an analogy relative to the apparent religious aspects of AGW. In the time of the Protestant Reformation, it was the rulers who by proxy to their subjects, objected to dogma from authority. The concept of individual rights or conscience didn’t even exist yet. In the case of a Climate Reformation, it’s individuals like me and you who object to the dogma from authority. I don’t know about you, but as for me, the reason I object is because at every turn, the scientific evidence contradicts the dogma.
The association of AGW with the left is an observation. This issue is almost perfectly split across party lines. My main point was that if you are predisposed to radical environmentalism, are against oil companies (i.e G Bush) or anti capitalistic, you are very likely to buy in to the AGW cause because it reinforces your own. As for me, I don’t consider myself either a Republican or a Democrat and if anything, I’m probably more of a Libertarian. But in all honesty, I don’t see that any political party has all, most, or sometimes even any of the right answers.
Consider Obama’s view on this. He states flat out that the science is a done deal. I’m sure he doesn’t know he’s lying, so why has he embraced the AGW lie with so much gusto? Well, for one thing, it’s very clear that his political agenda is far to the left and he’s definitely anti capitalistic. I think Gore latched on to this for his own selfish and vindictive reasons. As Bush was widely associated with oil, his rants were a convenient way to irritate Bush for winning the 2000 election, albeit by the narrowest of all margins. I’ll even bet that Gore doesn’t think he’s lying either. Even Hansen, probably doesn’t know he’s lying. although in his case, I suspect it’s more a matter of pride, as he was among the first to claim AGW was an issue. The reason many lie when it’s in their own self interest is because somehow they have rationalized the lie into a truth and don’t even know they’re lying. As I said, this is where science comes in.
George
10
George, there were people in 1910 who thought the world was coming to an end from this. It’s had a ebb and flow every ten years or so.
Hansen latched on to this somehow, maybe it was a need to ingratiate himself with some people, I don’t know.
He never would have made director of GISS without people like Gore behind it.
Prior to that Hansen was just doing some so-so stuff on planet atmospheres. He took some of his Mars computer program modeling and applied it to the Earth and concluded the world was coming to an end.
He would just be another flake in fleekland if it weren’t for Gore
10
Brian,
Do you recall who was the first to connect GHG amplification with the ice cores? I seem to remember this being the forcing influence that brought ‘AGW as a menace to the planet’ into the forefront. Wasn’t it Hansen who convinced Gore that AGW was a threat? I know that Hansen’s entire career has been defined by AGW (it’s even in his bio). I’m sure he has a mental block to the fraud of AGW, as it would mean his primary contribution to science was to impede it’s progress. I don’t think that any scientist wants this to be their legacy.
10
Wow,co2isnotevil,
I’m impressed with you explanation towards Steve. I to have had people state the same thing to me. That they don’t believe in AGW but dispise the “Free Enterprise” system as it works. The amazing thing to me is “all” people have a chance to be sucessful. Everyone if applied, has this chance. If not they need to learn more. Yes, the term “Compound Interest” is one of the most amazing affects in the Capitalist system. Once you reach a point it really grows. I think jealous feelings, emotions get in the way and people want the easy way to get there. If they don’t, they get angry…hence your feelings Steve….
10
That ice core thing was English – might have been Calendar himself, can’t remember.
Roger Revelle, in one of the many “kook” phases of his life, told Gore about CO2 when Gore took classes at Harvard.
In 1987 Gore was a US Senator and somehow he and Hansen discovered they shared the same psychosis. Inevitable I suppose.
Neither sought treatment for their disorder.
Interesting how they kind of competed with each other to put a lower estimate on how much longer an Earth with a four billion year history of life upon it had left.
Fifteen years left? Ten? No matter – the shrillness defined the topic subject. This remains the definition of it.
I can’t condemn Hansen too much for having AGW define his life because it now defines mine. My life’s objective is to provide the scientific facts to demonstrate that what the public intuitively understands about AGW- it is nothing but an abject fraud – is completely correct.
When I tire of it I’ll move on to something else I suppose. The topical subjects that interest me most are the theory of PDE, classical EM theory, classical mechanics.
I’m 60 and I hope I don’t die just being an “aggressive denier” but that is the direction I’m headed right now
10
Brian,
Let me provide some assistance to your endeavor. The dynamics of a closed loop, nonlinear feedback system can be a little esoteric, which is why so many get it wrong, however; there’s a very simple way to measure the climate sensitivity directly.
The climate system can be considered to have gain, where this gain is the multiplier applied to incident energy to arrive at surface energy. When you calculate this using the average of the incident and surface energy for the last 25 years, the *CLOSED LOOP* system power gain is about 1.63. This includes the effects of all short term feedbacks, positive and negative, known and unknown, including the net effect of water vapor. This unambiguously quantifies the 25 year average sensitivity of the surface energy/temperature to changes in incident energy. If you apply the same analysis with yearly averages, you arrive at almost exactly the same gain. If you do the same for monthly averages, the gain varies between a low of 1.6 in August/September to a high of 1.7 in December/January. This gain range spans +/- 40 W/m^2 of incident energy variability and about a 3:1 variability of surface ice/snow coverage, when averaged across the surface. The narrow gain range over a wide range of conditions is a clear indication that the climate system acts to moderate change, not to amplify it.
If we look at the IPCC claim that 3.7 W/m^2 causes a 3C temperature rise, the surface energy of 392.82 W/m^2 @ 288.5K must be increased to 409.42 W/m^2 in order to increase the surface temperature to 291.5K. This is a 16.6 W/m^2 increase from 3.7 W/m^2 of new forcing, which is a power gain of about 4.5, which the system simply can’t support. It gets even better, since HITRAN data shows that the increased absorption from doubling CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm is 3.6 W/m^2. However, only half of the energy absorbed by the atmosphere is directed back to the surface, while the other half escapes into space. This sets the required gain at 9.2. If you say that 1.8 watts on the surface is equivalent to about 1.9 watts of incident energy (some incident energy is also absorbed by the atmosphere), the gain drops slightly to about 8.7. In any event, this absolutely precludes the large climate sensitivities required for AGW to be important.
George
10
George, do you have a website with all this stuff put together in a nice layout, plots, models, etc ?
10
“Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year and was replaced on the Polar Bear Specialist Group by Dr. Lily Peacock. Further, Dr. Taylor was not re-appointed the to the PBSG by the Canadian government that decided to appoint 3 other people to the PBSG meeting here in Copenhagen. Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement.”
Here was I thinking that censorship was involved, silly me.
Obviously “active in polar bear research and management” includes “politically active” and that’s why the WWF and PBI were represented.
Perhaps the PBSG should change their title to Polar Bear Group Speak.
10
George, I have looked at that thing for years and have come to the conclusion that the gain is either zero or it is damped.
By “damped” I don’t mean negative feedback, either. I mean the relation to the other variables such that gain margin is negative.
That has to be true or we would have sen this aeons ago – there is no way to obsure it for any amount of time.
Talking about the “climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 in the air” is as meaningless to me as talking about the “ocean sensitivity to doubling the speed of all boats in the ocean.”
The ocean is stable to that because of viscous damping. The climate is stable to that because of an inherent property of no net heat gain.
10
Brian,
By zero gain, I suspect that you mean unit gain. The gain must be at least 1.0. Otherwise, the surface temperature would be lower than the equivalent temperature of the incident energy. The gain analysis shows conclusively that the system resists change, indicating and that the net feedback is negative and not positive.
When you examine the monthly gain profile as a function of incident energy, the most revealing interval is from January to April, where the Earth’s surface reflectivity is relatively stable and the incident energy is monotonically dropping from it’s peak at perihelion. During this interval, the incident energy drops by almost 20 W/m^2 while the closed loop gain increases from 1.619 to 1.624, with a local minimum of 1.614 in February. Conversely, as the incident energy increases after aphelion, the closed loop gain decreases. This is the unambiguous signature of a system with net negative feedback.
BTW, when I was reporting the min/max gain as a function of the month in my last post, I was looking at the wrong data. There are actually 2 maximum gain peaks, 1.624 and 1.6923 in April and December and 2 gain minimums, 1.615 and 1.608 in February and August. The gain variability is significantly lower than I initially indicated. Previously, I was looking at the calculated gain using average incident energy, instead of the gain based on actual incident energy which is adjusted for perihelion/aphelion.
Another interesting result is that dE/dt, that is, the energy going in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass, can be measured from the same data. This follows a sinusoidal form, roughly coincident with incident energy, whose maximum is about 10 W/m^2 in January and whose minimum is about -8.5 W/m^2 in June. Global surface reflectivity variability modulates this, where the maximum is squeezed in time, while the minimum is stretched in time, such that the average across the year is zero.
George
10
Tel,
I have a little more validation to do, after which I will be updating my slide set with the gain analysis, as well as a more comprehensive atmospheric absorption analysis based on the latest HITRAN data.
George
10
I meant the log of the gain which is what I deal with
10
Brian,
OK. By that measure, my gain is 0.21, or 2.1db. The dampening you speak of is direction the gain goes as the input power changes. What I see is that the gain is reduced as the input power is increased and the gain is increased as the input power is decreased. The behavior opposes (or in your terminology, dampens out) change. It doesn’t cancel all of the change, but it does cancel out some of the change. This is a far different result than what AGW requires, where change must be amplified by nearly an order of magnitude. An interesting consequence, is that this is natures way to expand the Goldilocks zone, relative to extraterrestrial life.
This argument I’ve presented, which is based on observational data supplied by GISS, is the Achilles heel of the AGW case. If anyone can think of an argument against it, I’d be interested in hearing it.
George
10
The only difference with me, is that it all cancels out.
Within the errors, anyway, and then some so there is no chance of aplification of a thing.
By the way do you have an associated phase margin if that makes sense to you – to compute an associated time constant (at least in the first-order linearized case)
10
Interesting post by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit Joanne. Maybe you might like to do your own post on it before Bishop Hill beats you to it. Dr McKitrick has a very good summary of this disgraceful scientific debacle at comment 10 on the Climate Audit post.
10
I think it is interesting that George and I have arrived at pretty much the same conslusion and independently.
Apparently other people don’t come up with this because they get the coupling wrong.
10
Brian,
The phase/time constant of the system is apparent when you examine the relationships between the zero crossing of the various variables. Since the data has monthly resolution, zero crossings (average crossings) are easier to determine by interpolating across a month.
There is the sinusoidal input signal, which peaks on Jan 3 and crosses zero (average) on Apr 3 and Oct 3. The energy flux in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass crosses zero on Apr 3 and Oct 15. The additional delay in October is a consequence of the surface reflectivity changing. Between Jan and Apr, the reflectivity is relatively constant. This is nominally a 3 month delay, and is the quadrature phase relationship expected as a solution to the differential equations. If we consider the input power as a voltage, we can consider the energy flux in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass as a current, which lags the stimulus by 90 degrees and is consistent with the Earth’s thermal mass acting like a capacitance.
Tn interesting relationship is between the gain and the stimulus. The gain crosses zero (average) on Mar 12 and Sept 21 and leads the stimulus zero crossings by about 2 weeks. This almost seems like the atmosphere is acting like a small inductor, relative to storing thermal energy.
Where the surface temperatures cross through average is roughly coincident with when the stimulus crosses through zero. That is, on Apr 3 and September 15, the average global surface temperature is approximately equal to the average yearly surface temperature. Again, the extra lag in September is due to the dynamics of surface reflectivity.
Another interesting item is that since we can calculate dE/dt, we can determine that the energy required to change the temperature of the Earth by 1C is about 27.5 MJ/m^2, which is the total flux in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass each year, divided by the yearly p-p temperature variability. This is enough energy to raise the temperature of 6.6E6 grams of water 1C. If we consider the Earth’s thermal mass to be dominated by water and the planet is 70% water, and there are 1E6 grams/m^3, it seems that only the top 10 meters of the ocean is involved. I need to do this analysis again by filtering only on the satellite data which is above oceans, which might increase this to about 20m. My original analysis expected about the top 100-200m to be involved. This is to be contrasted with the AGW claim that all of the water is involved and is why they speculate that there is heating yet to come from past energy ‘imbalances’. In fact. there are no long term energy imbalances, as the energy flux in and out of the Earth varies across about a +/- 10 W/m^2 range during the year.
George
10
Yes that (lack of) imbalances is verified by satellites
So, somebody is hiding heat somewhere to make alarmists look bad.
They take incoming heat from the sun hidden away from the satellites, then store it someplace, then it looks like all the heat arriving from the Sun leaves the Earth.
This plot has to be stopped at some point, because the amount of heat that this criminal can store is probably limited, and everybody is going to die
10
Getting back to the original controversy, I think JoAnn appears to blame Derocher for not inviting Taylor to the PBSG conference and this seems to be incorrect. Derocher doesn’t make the appointments of members to the Polar Bear Specialists Group.
The organization is as follows:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/Publications/WWFBinaryitem4927.pdf
“The PBSG has no regulatory function but is rather a technical group consisting of government-appointed
specialists, with equal representation of the five nations that have polar bear populations. The PBSG membership
consists of up to three government-appointed members from each of the five nations, plus up to
five members the Chair can appoint. The members are all specialists in the fields of polar bear biology,
population dynamics, or wildlife management. The primary role of the PBSG is to promote cooperation
between jurisdictions that share polar bear populations, facilitate communication on current research and
management, and monitor compliance with the International Polar Bear Agreement.”
It seems that Taylor was not reappointed by the Canadian government. If the Canadian government bounced him, why was Derocher obligated to reappoint him? If his removal was unjust, it is the Canadian government that is to blame.
10
I meant to write
“Derocher is doesn’t make the appointnments of all members of the PBSG.”
As the article makes clear and Derocher says himself, he appoints 5 out of 20.
10
co2isnotevil:
September 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am
“Brian,
Do you recall who was the first to connect GHG amplification with the ice cores? I seem to remember this being the forcing influence that brought ‘AGW as a menace to the planet’ into the forefront. Wasn’t it Hansen who convinced Gore that AGW was a threat? I know that Hansen’s entire career has been defined by AGW (it’s even in his bio). I’m sure he has a mental block to the fraud of AGW, as it would mean his primary contribution to science was to impede it’s progress. I don’t think that any scientist wants this to be their legacy.”
Gore learned about global warming from Roger Revelle when Gore was a student at Harvard.
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/green-is-the-new-crimson-at-harvard/
“Al Gore has traveled the world warning of the dangers of climate change. On Wednesday, he had a homecoming of sorts — a speech in Harvard Yard, on the campus where as an undergraduate he first learned about the issue from Roger Revelle, an oceanographer and Harvard professor. “
10
Gore lost the election in the year 2000 and for a while he was in limbo, kind of wandering around blaming other people because he lost.
Then he remembered what Revelle told him – the world is coming to an end!
So he rounded up a few flakes and got in touch with the IPCC.
Gore then transformed himself from zero to hero by making a movie!
Then IPCC bent over backward to prove AGW was real enough and collected “research” from the seediest bunch of characters you ever saw in your life.
Then pink politicians in Europe fawned over Gore simply to kick Bush in the rear end.
Today we’re stuck with this crud simply because Roger Revelle was spouting off the cuff about some impossibilities that Calendar and Plass and a couple of others had worried about.
Revelle recanted his AGW pronouncements toward the end of his life.
Gore tried to cover that up
10
Demonstrates that one needs to be careful when philosophising in the presence of the doltish and impressionable
10
Well, I was only at the beginning of the comments and suddenly I just had to send Joanne some chocolate! I got to put a note in, saying it was for enjoyment and inspiration which, in turn, leads to all of you turning up in this wonderful community. I didn’t tell her what chocolate she should get, altho I have strong opinions, but shy away from control freak situations (unless I forget), especially of the micromanaging sort. Nevertheless,would be curious if she gets the “right” kind.Well, I’ll know from the quality of her next comment or post, won’t I?
10
Thanks Kendra! Shucks… Organic 70%. From Italy (today anyway). But I might have to move up to 90% to deter small children. I do appreciate your support. 🙂
10
I had no idea the word “shucks” was even used outside our small, colloquial corner of Midwest USA. Now I’m beginning to wonder about the possibility of AGW being real—down under, of course—:o)
10
Speaking of Gore, back in the Spring of 2007, Senator Jim Inhofe challenged Gore to take a pledge to reduce his energy use. Because Gore insists that global warming is the result of human energy use and the current means of producing that energy is by far the major source of human CO2, Gore should lead by example by pledging to use no more energy than the average US citizen.
Two years later Gore still refuses to make this pledge thus underscoring his elitist hypocrisy. Reportedly, Gore uses more electricity in one week than the entire country of 20 million Ugandans use in a whole year. Gore’s refusal is just further proof that he is a fraudulent scam artist, (and always was IMO).
10
Joanne, the 74% with cherry and chili is very good! I’m still a bit old fashioned, I’ll take a selection of truffles: champagne, cognac, baileys, tiramisu, latte machiato – in addition to the old standbyes! 90 gets abit to much like eating something different.
10
Speaking of Gore, back in the Spring of 2007, Senator Jim Inhofe challenged Gore to take a pledge to reduce his energy use. Because Gore insists that global warming is the result of human energy use and the current means of producing that energy is by far the major source of human CO2, Gore should lead by example by pledging to use no more energy than the average US citizen.
Two years later Gore still refuses to make this pledge thus underscoring his elitist hypocrisy. Reportedly, Gore uses more electricity in one week than the entire country of 20 million Ugandans use in a whole year. Gore’s refusal is just further proof that he is a fraudulent scam artist, (and always was IMO).
Mike M:
September 30th, 2009 at 2:54 am
Ok Mike. If Algore isn’t human, his combustion and consumption transcends environmental impact. He just GLOs and radiates brilliance to the planet.
10
Gore’s old proffessor, Dr. Revelle co-authored a paper with Fred Singer just before he (Revelle) died. The conclusion of the paper was that it was too early to say whether CO2 had any influence on the climate and called for more research. When confronted with this during his run for office, Gore had his aids try to have the paper removed from publication and/or to have Revelle’s name removed from the paper. Both attempts were denied by the publisher. Like many people, Gore heard what he wanted to hear, not what was actually said.
As for Dr. Taylor, I’m sure that if he shared the PBSG’s views on global warming, he would have been invited to attend even if he was not appointed by the government.
10
In the comments above, amateur scientists stumble over various bits of data, sometimes looking at wrong tables or mis-typing things or using last year’s data to refute a 200 year trend, but always earnestly “proving” something-or-other that pleases them. Lots of CO2 and smog is actually good for us (suck it up, folks). Mysteriously, the one publicity-hound cum scientist who agrees with them happens to put bread on his table by working for an Innuit government which wants to be able to keep hunting polar bears.
10
NeroFiddles- There really should be no need for any of us to prove anything. It is UN and the warming alarmists who have yet to satisfy the inconvenient requirement of proving their theory, (and hanging some real numbers on it as well), to establish it as a fact worthy of anyone’s concern let alone shackling my children’s future to a bleak economy running on less energy. (Don’t bore me with windmills and solar cells either.) CO2 going up or down, temperature going up or down, correlations, consensus – all meaningless things that do nothing at all to prove that ‘X’ more CO2 CAUSES measurable global warming.
Don’t look now but Lindzen and Choi just shot down a MAJOR radiative assumption made in IPCC and NASA climate models that a warmer ocean in the tropics acts to reduce radiative cooling – the so called ‘positive feedback’ that Gore refers to that will reach a runaway ‘tipping point’, (and then the earth melts!). Well, it ain’t so, the feedback remains NEGATIVE so the warmer it gets even MORE heat is radiated back out to space.
By the way, nobody disagrees that smog is bad, (and thanks to CAPITALISM to pay for it in a free society, smog has been greatly mitigated by technology over the last 20 years), but more CO2 would actually be GOOD – ask a plant, (you know, those ‘green’ things lurking outside of your house). What is good for them HAS TO BE good for us because without them we’d be dead.
10
NeroFiddles:
… Mysteriously, the one publicity-hound cum scientist who agrees with them happens to put bread on his table by working for an Innuit government which wants to be able to keep hunting polar bears.
Dr. Taylor doesn’t work for the government, he retired. If you want to do the “follow the money” trail, then you must also draw conclusions about the veracity of others like Gore. But then its only the skeptics that draw such accusations. You would be further ahead if you could show why Dr. Taylor’s findings are wrong. What research can you quote to refute his views on the health of Polar Bear populations in his studies?
10
[…] joannenova.co.au Les mer om Taylors syn […]
10
[…] Taylor thinks that it is due to too many bears competing for food rather than Arctic warming. Exile for non-believers […]
10
I was looking up small solar panel information and found this article. I discovered similar websites, like http://www.propeller.com/story/2010/01/20/small-solar-panels/ that help you install your own solar panels but I was trying to figure out where to get the photovoltaic or pv panels.
10
Somehow I missed this post last year (I miss very few of Jo’s excellent posts). The particular sub-scandal of one of the world’s leading PB experts being disinvited to a meeting of a body that he helped to form (sub-scandal because several other researchers have gotten the same treatment) is now old news, and I wouldn’t bother posting a comment except that I have a statement from 2006 by Dr. Taylor in which he clearly & specifically stated that he did not deny AGW in general, but merely wanted to correct Tim Flannery’s wild assertion that polar bears would be gone in 25 years (Taylor’s actual statement was “It is entirely appropriate to be concerned about climate change . . . “). But apparently even this was not enough for the high priests of AGW, who will not tolerate so much as a whiff of apostasy.
BTW, did anyone notice the size of that monster? Even allowing that the camera makes foreground objects look bigger, its head appears as big as Taylor’s torso! Just thinking about handling one of those, even sedated, makes my stomach feel like I just swallowed an ice ball. And yet wildlife experts like Laurie David will publically bleat about the “poor cuddly polar bears!”.
10
I just noticed the post by “NeroFiddles” (ooohh – how clever & ironcially prescient!) about the “publicity-hound cum scientist”(sic).
To be accurate, Nunavut, while primarily Inuit, is not specifically an Inuit sub-principality, like, say, the Navaho Nation; it is just a new province of Canada and was created for more efficient governance.
The smear that Dr. Taylor was in the back pocket of the Inuit Nation originated shortly after his “Last Stand of Our Wild Polar Bears” statement by some environmental Council, Institute, Center, whatever (can’t remember which one – there are so many). Even if the Inuits were calling the shots, how do you suppose they were paying him off – whale oil? Bear grease? Ahh, the sneaky bastiid – he’s probably stockpiling whale oil against the day when Alberta’s tar sands run out.
Why didn’t I think of that sooner?
10
[…] price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field. We need a real free market in climate science before we […]
10
I have been a student of Dr Mitch Taylor for 4 years now, studying beneath him at Lakehead University has been an honor to say the least and I have the UP MOST respect for him. What occurs out in the scientific arena is incredibly embarrassing. When an expert tries to speak truth instead of going with the norm, he is exiled and his professional years of experience don’t matter… When I finish school, I am worried that my research wont matter, that my education will only be used as a ticket to center stage where I am expected to convince the world that I believe something my research has suggested otherwise. Science is about proof not political gain and I refuse to use my education, knowledge and influence to encourage anything but the scientific fact. A restructuring of the scientific arena, and in fact the political arena should be of priority.
10
[…] scientist. But it cost him: the Group tossed him out, as of the 2009 meeting (see details here and Nova 2009). As Derocher (outgoing chairman of the PBSG) informed Taylor by […]
10