In November 2010, scientist John Abraham told a news reporter from Minnesota:
“All the technology is already here, it’s a matter of political will,”
You don’t have to think too hard to know who says these kinds of things. It is most certainly not scientists.
In October 2011, a climate science teacher in Abraham’s group has appeared thus:
Your comment is deleted
The propaganda website ‘SkepticalScience.com’, or SS.com in short, strives to serve as a ‘one-stop shop for all consensus communication needs’ kind of an outlet. Emerging ideas based on published papers or opinions, that run counter to a perceived consensus are monitored for, and various authors who work for the website churn out superficially plausible, scientific-sounding ‘rebuttals’ to these positions.
The Coyote blog picks on ‘The Pattern’ here. He calls it “the Global Warming Hype Process’:
Jack Trevors is a distinguished scientist at the University of Guelph. He’s had a decorated career in microbiology research, and unlike many scientists, has pursued research into more broader topics such as the question of the origin of life and the genetic code.
Jiang Qing in the 1930s
The world’s best scientists, a gang of 17, gathered in Stockholm recently and issued a ‘memorandum‘. One representative of the world’s best climate scientists (a.k.a Realclimate), approvingly identified the memorandum’s objective—to demand global-scale “immediate emergency measures as well as long-term structural solutions”.
Police in Norfolk UK are said to be looking for a goat in the University of East Anglia area.
Last year, when the Russian Heat Wave™ was laid at the footsteps of ‘global warming’, that was ‘Part I’ of this despicable saga. The parts consist repeatedly, of the act of jumping on the first best thing of summer and blaming it on global warming.
A post has appeared on the scientist popularizer blog Realclimate where they have, of all things, posted this cartoon.
One often encounters in the climate change debate, those who carry on with what can be called the ‘ecologists’ mindset’. This is, perhaps a poor choice of words, to describe a certain phenomenon - of our repeated and fumbling efforts to do a so-called ‘systems thinking’. Why, after all, should I invoke a specific discipline’s name to criticize a oft-committed intellectual error to which we are susceptible, throughout ages?
Some experts say everything there is to be known about anthropogenic global warming is known, whereas others like Vincent Courtillot believe there is much more, that is yet to be learned.
The geniuses at Realclimate have emerged from behind their bunker, yet again. This time we are truly blessed— another nugget of wisdom from ‘group’ has tumbled down, slipping free from their grasp. Shall we see what it is?
However, as it is now often practiced, one can make a good case
that computing is the last refuge of the scientific scoundrel.
Nature - show me your code if you want to
Some backstory first
A very interesting editorial has appeared recently in Nature magazine. What is striking is that the editorial picks up the same strands of argument that were considered in this blog – of data availability in climate science and genomics. Continue reading
Easy to spot them if they are together
Finally, I will once again recall memories of my boyhood life in those Baraboo, Wisconsin glacially-formed bluffs, a time when a pal and I caught rattlesnakes for a local reptile farm. On one occasion when I was concentrating my attention on one particular timber rattler, I inadvertently stepped over another that very fortunately wasn’t paying attention. I learned from that experience that it’s much safer when they are all coiled tightly together in a den where you can keep your eyes on most all of them at one time. RealClimate is such a place, and affords the same benefit. Thank you for that service.
If you are new to this stuff, and cannot understand why Larry Bell should say this about Realclimate, you can take a look here, here and here.
El Global Warming Roach Motel
You must know about recent controversies about what to call the ‘greenhouse effect‘, whether it even exists, about what a greenhouse gas is, and the various learned opinions flying around.
Well, move over ladies and gentlemen, there is a new explanation.
Last time, I examined the issue of data availability in climate science in the context of Phil Jones’ paper on the urban heat island in Nature. The case of the Jones paper is simple — data supporting conclusions of this important paper are not available and there are serious doubts whether such data was present at the time the paper was written. As first author, Jones has however categorically stated he does not intend to correct the situation or address it in any fashion.
Part of the problem in the climate establishment vs ‘deniers’ face-off is that the establishment…has no understanding of the Internet. You can see an example in the person talking to Christopher Poole (4chan.org) near the end of the video below:
Robert Laughlin talks to Russ Roberts about climate change and coal usage.
Drawing on his forthcoming book on energy, Laughlin predicts that we will continue to use cars and planes and electricity long after coal and petroleum are exhausted and speculates as to how that might play out in the future.
Here is Freeman Dyson discussing what he thinks is important scientifically in the global warming and CO2 question. It starts at around 2 min 40 seconds into the video.
Check out the photo gallery on this page.
Strong proof that not everyone doing paleoclimate science is unhappy and complaining all the time.
(This article is available as a pdf file.)
Here are a few quick questions:
- Are a scientific journal’s instructions contained in its manuscript preparation and formatting guide, its policy on data availability?
- Are instructions for expeditious processing of a paper by a journal, conditions for publication?
- Can the author of a scientific paper say: “when I published my paper, the journal did not require data to be submitted as a pre-condition of publication so I don’t have to give it to you now”?
- Is raising questions about a journal requiring an author to provide raw data, demeaning to the author?
- Did journals at a time when not bound by formal policies, not subscribe to commonly accepted principles of scientific publication?
If you answer ‘yes’ to all these questions, you would be in the select company of a few who shield authors from making their data available, even much against the scientists’ own judgments.
Back to the Future?
In 2008, in a message titled “IPCC and FOI“, Phil Jones asked Michael Mann to delete emails he might have gotten from Kieth Briffa, assuring him that Briffa would delete such emails as well. He said ’they’ was going to get in touch with Caspar Ammann asking him to delete emails too. Responding to Jones, Michael Mann replied sphinx-like, that he would get in touch with Eugene Wahl about the matter.
“After all, most people spend their lives making decisions under uncertainty, and that’s what dealing effectively with climate change demands – the same kind of decisions you make when you decide to buckle your seatbelt…”
-Chris Field, IPCC Working Group II Co-Chair, speaking to reporters at Busan
Evidently, such advice does not apply to the IPCC itself.
IPCC - Going off the Rails
Richard Black, BBC, thinks that ” Rajendra Pachauri will be here to usher” the AR5 in,” barring some major mishap”. In the rough-and-tumble world of climate change polity, the events of the last one year are not major mishaps then.
Richard Tol writes a blog where he discusses developments in how their writing of a chapter for the 5th assessment report for the IPCC is coming along.
So when the IPCC decided to keep RK Pachauri along for the rest of his term, it was widely reported in the news and blogs. Examining the reaction, Tol apparently thinks that all skeptics are absolutely thrilled and overjoyed by what the IPCC has done.
By now, this is about the third time science journalist Fred Pearce has tried his hand at spinning Amazongate. Why may we wonder, is this hobby horse being flogged back to life?
The first thing if you are a self-respecting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming proponent — you have to make use of the summer. I mean, if you cannot capitalize on the hot part of the year, what good are you to the movement?
But you see, there is a chasm to be bridged over. You have to switch over from constantly beating the “weather is not climate” drum during the winter, loosen up on your inhibitions and sense of shame, and start saying: “A-ha! Now here’s weather we can actually call climate”.
Sometimes, a sudden unexpected event, knocks people off their comfortable ensconced orbits, offering a brief window of reflection.
One of Stephen Schneider’s main contribution to the global warming debate was his plea to “avoid endless dispute”. Schneider wrote about this in 2001 in Science magazine. He expressed similar sentiments in his interview to Stanford Alumni Magazine published in its July issue. His recent paper in PNAS was an effort in the same direction as well.
Stephen Schneider, although persuaded by the possibility of alarm in climate change, framed his policy advice in what he thought were practical terms. These ideas were reinforced and influenced, mutually, by the way he dealt with his illness. Continue reading
“Amazongate is only an error of improper referencing, the actual science behind the key claim is sound”. This is the message that has been hammered home repeatedly by experts involved in Amazon forest research. In their press releases, letters of complaint and blog posts, they have refused to concede something might be wrong with the report, and argued that journalists should have performed in-depth research before bringing any disrepute to the IPCC.
Even as we search high and low only to conclude that the exact claim does not appear to supported by the literature available to date, another argument has been advanced simultaneously in defence of the IPCC. It says that the scientific evidence, the crucial pieces that go to make up this claim, bizarre though it might be, lie in many different papers. The IPCC report just brings them together – it paints an integrated picture of the trouble the Amazon region is in. So the defense of the IPCC is bi-layered. The science behind the imminent catastrophic destruction of the Amazon forests is true, and the IPCC makes a synthetic judgement to this effect. The only flaw is therefore one of citations.
The IPCC makes available its first order and second order drafts and reviewer comments. The question is: do these drafts and comments carry any indications or clues to the scientific summation and thinking process that is alleged to have taken place?