|Rajendra Pachauri, chair of IPCC|
and doyen of climate science
Patrick Michaels has a great post on the profound impact that the global warming hoax is having on the credibility and future of science:
Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?
That day is coming closer, because, as [climate scientist Garth] Paltridge notes, people are catching on:
“…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.”
The scientific establishment has painted itself into a corner over global warming. Paltridge’s explanations for this are depressingly familiar to those who read these columns.
Science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations. Predictably, scientists (and their institutions) became addicted to the wealth, fame, and travel in the front of the airplane:
“A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.”
Every incentive reinforced this behavior, as the self-selected community of climate boffins now began to speak for both science and in the service of drastic regulatory policies. In the measured tones of the remarkably lucid and precise writer that he is, Paltridge explains how the corner got painted:
“The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster.”
Every year that elapses without a significant warming trend more and more erodes the credibility of not just climate science, but science in general...The global warming hoax is revealing science as a corrupt claque of government contractors who lie, cheat and steal to keep the public money flowing. It is not only the corruption itself that is outrageous; the silence of the scientists who are not themselves part of the cabal is damning as well.
When the climate science tsunami breaks the shore, the destruction will be massive and universal... Scientists, run for cover. Now.The long-overdue backlash against corrupt science is already starting. There will be more cuts, and these cuts should be aimed at scientific disciplines corrupted by graft and ideology-- climate science, environmental science, and evolutionary biology are obvious places to start.
Defund the bastards, and they'll scurry like cockroaches.
This post sums up my thoughts pretty succinctly.ReplyDelete
The scientific establishment is suffering from some self-inflicted wounds. Their credibility is suffering because they have defended bad science. If they want to restore their credibility they need to clean house.
For starters, they need to admit some fault. They need to admit that the IPCC is a hot mess and that it exists only to push an agenda. The conclusions they reach are preordained and if you don't agree with them they don't want you in their little club.
Come to think of it, this really reminds me a lot of the AA meetings I still attend from time to time. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. The scientific community still isn't there yet.
Sometimes cops rally around bad cops. Sometimes teachers rally around bad teachers. But the willingness of scientists to rally around bad scientists is really unparalleled.ReplyDelete
I remember when climategate broke and the liberals were all trying to spin and minimize it. One of their talking points was that the emails were all just normal chatter between scientists.
Normal chatter? Yes, scientists always talk that way. They discuss how they will keep opposing opinions out, how they will corrupt the peer review process, and how they secretly have doubts that they won't mention publicly. All very normal, indeed.
The scientific establishment is science's worst enemy.ReplyDelete
I think I should repost a comment I made several months ago on this site:
I read Framboise's book "The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For the World's Foremost Climate Expert." It's about the IPCC and the many myths that surround it.
For example, the IPCC does not conduct scientific experiments of its own. It surveys the germane literature. Not all literature, of course, only the kind that supports their preconceived notion. A lot of people think that they take only peer-reviewed articles into account, but as Framboise points out, even that isn't true. Some papers they cite are peer-reviewed, others are not, others are subjected to a pseudo-peer review process that would not fly in any other scientific discipline. They even accept pamphlets from the World Wildlife Federation as scientific literature.
You don't have to be an expert on climate change or anything else for that matter to be part of the IPCC. The chairman is in fact not an expert. He's a railroad engineer. Many of the people reviewing the literature are graduate students, not recognized experts in their field or any other.
Some of the people chosen to head up different sections are selected not primarily by their credentials but because the UN likes geographical diversity on the panel. That presents a problem, as expertise is not evenly distributed around the world. The best minds in climate science tend to come from universities in Europe and North America. The UN, however, likes to keep member states happy, so they feel obligated to include scientists (and perhaps some non-scientists) who represent other parts of the globe--Latin America, for example.
When the whole process is complete, a panel of nonexperts, appointed to represent the interests of their member states, meets to write the summary for policy makers, which is the only part most people ever read. It should really be called the summary for headline writers, because that's what it is. As we saw two months ago, many member states did not want to discuss the lack of warming in the last fifteen years lest anyone get "the wrong idea," which is to say the right idea.
But hey, I'm sure everything they do is legit. I used to think that the IPCC was a little shady but then liberals shouted at me and accused me of hating science, so I've been cowed. I wouldn't want them to burn my house down, as Steve Zwick suggested his readers do to climate change "deniers" in the pages of Forbes magazine.
Egnor: The global warming hoax is revealing science as a corrupt claque of government contractors who lie, cheat and steal to keep the public money flowing. It is not only the corruption itself that is outrageous; the silence of the scientists who are not themselves part of the cabal is damning as well.ReplyDelete
Baloney. When fraud happens in science (and it does happen), it's scientists themselves who uncover it.
I was a postdoc at an Ivy League university when the greatest hoax of condensed matter physics of the 20th century was unraveling. Bell Labs' prodigy Hendrik Schön was publishing in Nature and Science paper after paper filled with astonishing experimental results that his competitors were unable to reproduce. People grew suspicious. One day a young professor discovered that two of Schön's unrelated experimental graphs had the same noise on top of the signal, indicating that the graphs were faked. That was the beginning of Schön's end. He was fired from Bell Labs and his doctoral degree was revoked. He will not be able to work in physics for the rest of his life.
Scientists are natural competitors. They are jealous of their colleagues' success. When they find out that a colleague has committed fraud, his days in science are numbered.
It's ironic that Egnor writes crap like this. He dabbles in research and he ought to know what it's like. Either he doesn't, or his own field is an intellectual mush where no one can check other people's claims.
You're obviously not a scientist.Delete
You have no clue what really happens.
"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade." (Gould, Donald [former editor of New Scientist], "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)
That is reality. You live in la la land, denying reality, utterly ignorant of the abject failures of the scientific community - all through history in fact.
And speaking of frauds, creationism, particularly of the YEC variety, is just that. People who used to be scientists and ought to know better make outrageous claims about the age of the Earth, the Great Flood, and so on. Most of the YECs are just stupid, but some are just plain liars for Jesus. Egnor has no qualms about them. Furthermore, he wholeheartedly supports their fraud.ReplyDelete
And just who are you lying for in that inane, ignorance-based comment?Delete
Egnor: There will be more cuts, and these cuts should be aimed at scientific disciplines corrupted by graft and ideology-- climate science, environmental science, and evolutionary biology are obvious places to start.ReplyDelete
The world is not warming, pollution has never been a problem, and I ain't come from no monkeys. Three things that perfectly characterize a redneck Republican.
The climate "science" industry is a total fraud. No other evidence is required beyond the extreme efforts to conceal data the public pocketbook has paid for, the self-incriminating emails from the East Anglia CRU, and the corruptocracy called the IPCC. Only God knows how much money the IPCC, that den of vipers, doles out. I'm sure the UN doesn't.ReplyDelete
And the same thing is going on here in the US. That's why I was laughing yesterday when one of our resident trolls compared the NSF and NIH budgets to make a point about climate and cancer funding levels. In fact, the NIH also funds climate change and climate "justice" work (see here and here. As does the EPA, NOAA, USGS, DoT, USDA, DoI, Dod... In fact, the GAO reported that, in 2004, 14 US government agencies funded climate change "research" with total outlays in the billions. This is a lucrative business. From a funding perspective, trying to tease out the vast sums spent on climate "science" is like nailing jell-o to the wall. The byzantine funding mechanisms that have been jury-rigged, along with the outright fraud (see John C Beale, EPA "expert" on climate change) make accountability impossible.
Egnor observes that "The global warming hoax is revealing science as a corrupt claque of government contractors who lie, cheat and steal to keep the public money flowing", and that is absolutely true. If you want a smoking gun, examine the Tyndall Centre document entitled "The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthrogenic Climate Change". Here's a snippet from the Abstract:
This paper uses a dynamic simulation model to situate the role of variables representing environmental processes in the social construction of the issues of climate change and global warming. In effect, it presents a quantitative dynamic simulation model of the social construction of a quasi-reality. By quasi-reality we mean a reality that thus far is defined by expert knowledge and is surrounded by uncertainty.
--- Bray and Shackley, Tyndall Centre Working Paper No. 58, 2004
This gets more interesting, though.
The Bray and Shackley paper is concerned with simulating the effect of various weather scenarios on what they call "belief temperature". Here is a perfect example of what is being done in "climate science":
[W]e have labelled the scale we use as belief temperature. We assume that events (direct and indirect encounters) provide the impetus for belief change. One should keep in mind, that although we are dealing with a public construction of reality, the reality per se has not yet manifest. The public are assessing clues to confirm the conclusions of science. In effect, it is the social construction of quasi-reality.
--- ibid. [emphasis added]
Now... how to warm up that "belief temperature, how to create that "quasi-reality"?
Do you recall when "global warming" became "climate change"? Did you ever wonder why?
We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming, and is indeed often reported as such by science through the general media. In those countries where global warming has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon of climate change/global warming, unseasonably cold weather is seen as a refutation of the phenomenon and indeed will lessen the belief temperature.
--- ibid, Conclusion [emphasis added]
Have you wondered why so much news and discussion of climate issues these days is focused on extreme weather events? The so-called "polar vortex", or Typhoon Haiyan, for example?
The value of the belief as framed by climate change reaches the highest level of all belief under conditions of maximum sustained [weather] variance...
--- ibid. (esp. Fig 25)
Never, in the history of science, has such a massive fraud been perpetrated with the collusion of governments and the complete corruption of the scientific process.
And one our resident trolls compares this massive fraud, committed with the full cooperation of academic climate "scientists" willing to rejigger the review boards of professional journals, to an incident he googled up from Wikipedia.Delete
That's rich, Hooter. Press 1 for Q or Z. Z for "zippo". :-)
Grandpa, your example is completely irrelevant. The paper by Bray and Shackley is not a work in climate science. It's a sociological study. I am sure you could figure it out in your better days.Delete
The Tyndall Centre is described thus:
"The trans-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research undertakes integrated research into the long-term consequences of climate change for society and into the development of sustainable responses that governments, business-leaders and decision-makers can evaluate and implement. Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists in a unique collaborative research effort."
Grandpa: "to an incident he googled up from Wikipedia."Delete
You're the one who gets his news from the Internet. I was a postdoc at a university where people first figured out Schön's fraud. I observed the process firsthand. The Wiki reference was for the benefit of people who weren't there.
Hoots: "You're the one who gets his news from the Internet."Delete
This is not about where people get the news. Don't try to change the subject. We know you don't get your news from a smartphone because you don't even know what an American keypad looks like, or what American voice response systems say about the "1" key.
No, the point of this discussion is not scientific misconduct. Yes, there's plenty of that, and a better place to follow it than google is retractionwatch.com, updated on a near-daily basis, documenting graph jiggering and other fraudulent behaviors.
No, this discussion is about far more than that, and the Forbes article, Egnor's many posts, and the simple public exposure of journal-rigging, lying, and data concealment shows those remarks to be true. It a major scam, funded with billions of dollars from hard-working middle class taxpayers, designed to screw them with "skyrocketing" utility bills, outrageously expensive appliances, useless electric cars, high-speed trains to nowhere, and medieval generation technology doled out to corrupt crony capitalist companies who exist and thrive on government subsidies.
That's what the discussion is about. Focus, son.
Gramps, you're the one who is taking rabbit trails in this discussion. Look, for no particular reason you cited a sociology paper as if it were one in climate science.Delete
I'd call you a fraud, but I'll be charitable and chalk your confusion to old age.
Hoots: "The paper by Bray and Shackley is not a work in climate science."Delete
Well, that's pretty strange, given that they did the work for the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and they did research to determine how to manipulate the public "belief temperature" regarding climate change.
You don't get to define what is considered to be climate "science", Hoots. Get over yourself.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is an organisation based in the United Kingdom that brings together scientists, economists, engineers and social scientists to 'research, assess and communicate from a distinct trans-disciplinary perspective, the options to mitigate, and the necessities to adapt to current climate change and continuing global Warming, and to integrate these into the global, UK and local contexts of sustainable development'.
--- Wiki: Tyndall Centre
The British government and university system certainly thinks they do interdisciplinary climate "science". Give them a call. I recall you were the guy who claimed there was no such thing as an exobiology. When I posted the link to the Penn State exobiology research program, you accused me of "name-dropping". :-)
Lastly, whether or not you agree the Tyndall Centre do your Hooteresque version of "Climate Science" has no bearing whatsoever to the content of my post.
Enough "look a squirrel!" Hootertoots, redefinition attempts, and subject changes from you today.
Gramps: "You don't get to define what is considered to be climate "science", Hoots. Get over yourself. "Delete
I am not redefining climate science, Gramps, you are. Tyndall Centre has "climate scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists." This paper is a work in sociology, not in climate science. Only an old fart like yourself can confuse the two.
Well, as long as it's just a lunatic fringe of conservative old white men (mostly demented Christians of course) that think AGW is a hoax, I'm not too worried about their threat to research funding.ReplyDelete
Anyway, by far the most corrupt branch of scientific research is, of course, medical research. Your field, Egnor. What are you going to do about that, hmm? Or are you too busy lying for the Dishonesty Institute?
Climate science and evolutionary biology are ground zero of junk science and fraud.Delete
There is indeed some fraud in medical research-- too much-- and I fight it as best I can. I am faculty advisor for our Christian medical student association at Stony Brook, and that approach is I think one of the best ways to spread honesty and ethical behavior.
I have no doubt there's corruption is medical research. Strange of you to admit that, seeing, as medical researchers are, esteemed professionals with lots of degrees and peer-reviewed papers published in professional journals. Somehow they aren't immune from being corrupt or just plain wrong.Delete
But that's not really the point. The point is that you think you've scored big with that zinger. The fact that some medical researchers are corrupt doesn't disprove the idea that some climate scientists are corrupt. One really has nothing to do with the other.
Haha. Compared to the numerous billions of dollars in fines and settlements resulting from fraudulent medical research, climate science and evolutionary biology are as innocent as newborns.Delete
You're just another corrupt member of the thoroughly corrupt US medical establishment No wonder no other developed country spends so much on healthcare with so little to show for it.
Ben: The fact that some medical researchers are corrupt doesn't disprove the idea that some climate scientists are corrupt. One really has nothing to do with the other.Delete
Egnor claim is more ridiculous than that: according to him, 90 percent of climate science is fraud. This is so over the top that it's hard to believe that a reasonable person can hold such views. A blowhard is more like it.
The best way of fighting fraud in medical research is making certain that it's uncovered.
Anyway. You keep claiming that there's fraud in climate science. There's more fraud on the side of those denying that AGW is happening.
In particular, those - including you - who keep on misconstruing AGW as meaning that 'global' means just the lower atmosphere. Whereas, it also includes the oceans, the cryosphere and the land surface.
Most of the heat coming from the Sun going into the Earth is absorbed by the oceans - the oceans cover most of the Earth's surface and its albedo (the amount of the Sun's radiation reflected) is the minimum, so more is absorbed.
The oceans heat the atmosphere and not vice versa. When more heat is dumped in the atmosphere, as in the strong El Niño event of 1998, then the atmosphere is warmer than average. When more heat is retained in the oceans, as in the moderate La Niña event of 2012, then the atmosphere is cooler than average.
This explains the global warming 'pause'. The radiative forcing produced by increasing greenhouse gases is a small one (about 2.6 Watts per square metre with a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, compared with average insolation of 250 Watts per square metre, well able to be swamped by temporary events such as large volcanic eruptions or La Niña events.
If there's another strong El Niño event in the next few years, and we have another record global temperature, what would be your response? What would change your mind concerning global warming?
Troy, let's talk some numbers here.ReplyDelete
A very recent poll indicates that twenty-three percent of Americans believe that global warming simply isn't happening. The general population of this country is not 23 percent old, white, deranged Christian conservative males. Not even close.
But even if that number is a bit misleading because it asks the wrong the question. It should ask about man-made global warming. The poll didn't ask that question but I surmise that the number of people who doubt that would be high.
Fourteen percent said they didn't know.
I'm not old. I am white and male. I'm a Christian but not "deranged." I've met all sorts of other people who share their doubts about this theory of yours. Plenty of other demographic groups were represented.
"Climate science and evolutionary biology are ground zero of junk science and fraud"ReplyDelete
Hey, Egnor, the World Bank and PriceWaterHouse Cooper -- know who they are? -- said we are on target to smash through 4 degree c rise over baseline temperature at the start of the industrial revolution. Know what that means for the world? And of course with carbon already in the pipeline, it's well understood that the temp rise will go well beyond 4c. Hey, I've got an idea for you. You're a brain surgeon, right? Suppose someone came up to you and said, "the brain is made of cottage cheese with little Mystical Raisins imbedded in it that cause thoughts and feelings and physical responses to occur." Then suppose you walked him through a long tutorial on how the brain really works. And at the end of which he said, "Nah, that's junk science and fraud! The brain is made of cottage cheese with ... etc." How would you, as a brain surgeon, react to such a person? Sadly, however, I'm sure the point is sailing over your own brain-limited head.