Author Archives: Shub Niggurath

Blowing smoke up asses: the Paris endgame

It was thought blowing smoke up the ass could save drowned people from death. Common enough a human affliction – carrying out an earnest if comical act in the face of calamity, in order to give the appearance of doing something.

With the dissolution of Neo-Malthusianism the underpinning ideologic elements merely mapped to different domains. Formerly, too many people meant wretched existences and eventual ‘collapse’. Drought, famine and disease would stalk the land. There were ‘limits to growth’. Now there is a climatic limit to growth.

David ‘ Climate Nuremberg’ Roberts of Grist.org, who now works for a different website, has written yet another article on the 2C conundrum and Paris. To get to its conclusion, recall the progression of the climate movement:

1. First, the concept of global change blossomed and with it the question of human-influenced global climate change. How sensitive was the climate to human influence? Climate models gave answers.

2. We got a bunch of numbers for sensitivity. The Schellnhuber School for priests of climate alarm astutely realised such figures alone were not enough. Limits were needed to make the woolly climate debate concrete. 2C was invented.  Surprise, surprise, climate modelers came up with the goods – the host of bad things that were to happen. 2C it was then – the limit for human civilization, the guardrail, the safe space.

3. The world (finally) had a problem to be solved — 2C. As solutions go, killing off people (communism, nazism) and preventing them from being born (malthusianism) had fallen out of favour. Carbon taxes, trade permits, solar panels, onshore windmills and emissions trading had not. Climate mitigation models came with the answers. Surprisingly it was the same every time: with a magical combination of the above it was possible! 2C could be avoided. All that was needed was ‘political will’.

4. 2C imposed limits on everyone but cruelly and ironically on climate activists first. There was a price for saying ‘all is needed is political will’ every 5 years. The amount of carbon to be cut kept increasing and time left to come up with a plan, decreasing. The solution? More smoke-blowing. REDD, negative emissionsBECCS … all cooked via integrated assessment models. It was still possible! All that was needed was suspension of disbelief.

So, in the end, two circles of blowing smoke up policymakers’ asses with models to get them to solve problems created by two circles of smoke-blowing with models. A whole lot of smoke and contact with reality is finally lost.

For a long time the climate story remained the same: A ‘target’ would be set. It would be high enough to demand significant ‘cuts’ in emissions, by far enough a deadline to appear possible, painful enough to bring tears to the eyes and joy to the hearts of activists, and fake enough to be called off each time. Throwing up your hands and pointing fingers – at Bush, Luntz, Exxon, Inhofe, the Koch Brothers, USA or the BRICS – was enough. The Paris endgame will have no scapegoats and it is time to deliver.  The joyride is coming to an end.

ATTP: Safe space from seepage

3292477091_5370d8a502_z

Richard Betts has written a long explanatory note to Stephan Lewandowsky’s ‘Seepage’. Seepage contends that invasive memes from skeptics have tricked scientists into framing the public debate their way.

Betts submitted the article to ATTP’s blog. At the surface his reasoning sounds plausible: it would be dismissed by consensusists if it were on a climate-skeptical blog:

Judith Curry evidently agrees:

It is no surprise scientists like Betts and Curry find themselves in a bind – if they speak to skeptics they are pilloried and the consensusists don’t engage. But from the perspective of the consensus, the problem is different and runs deeper. Have Betts and Curry thought about this?

In the politics of climate consensus, what is said is less important than who says it, where it is said and how it looks. The frame carries more weight than the picture. If climate activists and alarmists venture out to skeptical venues, they lay their claims open to challenge. They may be shown to be wrong, or fall to a better rhetorician. With either, they don’t come out looking good – something that is very important.

When you submit opinion you cede control. You have something the onlooker judges. When you debate, your opponent becomes your equal

A lot of the authority in consensus climate has been built by assiduous adherence to looking good, controlling the terms of the debate,  avoiding being subject to judgement and appearing beyond question. It uses climate science as a tool, and consequently hollows and fragilizes it.

ATTP bans skeptical commenters and provides a safe space for the consensusists, free from triggers. They need to be slowly drawn out and forced to engage, and not pandered to. Like Lewandowsky, ATTP has to learn – in the realm of ideas there are no safe spaces.

2C: ‘An ivory-tower view of life’

Oliver Geden‘s bold article on 2C in Nature continues in the line Richard Tol highlighted many months ago: the make-believe world of international climate negotiations is running headlong toward the terrain of the impossible.

As expected, scientivist and activist ‘communities’ wasted no time exploding in disbelief and Scientific American wasted no time collecting the reactions. Here is one of them:

Others, like Tom Burke, founding director of U.K.-based environmental group E3G, dismissed the Nature piece as “an ivory-tower view of life” that focuses on what is being said in academic literature rather than what is happening on the ground …

E3G is a climate activist organization founded by the physicist-turned-diplomat-turned-climate preacher John Ashton. (some of whose Yeats-influenced climate poetry can be seen here).

E3G celebrated its 10th anniversary in existence recently. Here are some pictures:

14640539664_99494c0f6d_k 14662595633_d1d956a18c_k

15337898971_3585eef525_k

Here are their sponsors…

donors

Here are their partners…

partners

Here is a full listing of sponsors:

  1. Climateworks  Foundation
  2. The Energy Foundation
  3. Greenpeace
  4. Avaaz
  5. DECC UK
  6. Planet Heritage Foundation
  7. DEFRA UK
  8. WWF
  9. EDF
  10. Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
  11. ECF
  12. Kudos
  13. NRDC
  14. Germanwatch
  15. Stiftung Mercator
  16. Rockefeller Brothers Fund
  17. Shell Foundation
  18. Zennstrom Philanthropies
  19. The Climate Group
  20. Norden
  21. Climate Strategies
  22. Arcadia
  23. Barrow Cadbury Trust
  24. RAP
  25. The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
  26. Ecofin Research Foundation
  27. IDDRI
  28. Doris Duke Foundation
  29. The Greens in the European Parliament
  30. Trust For London
  31. Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK
  32. Oak Foundation
  33. ADB
  34. Climate and Development Knowledge Network
  35. The European Commission

The mind reels at contemplating how Tom Burke of E3G could think anyone to be dwelling in ivory-towers. E3G produces no goods, provides no services and lives on donations – academics do much, much better.

Don’t underestimate E3G though – it has housed or churned out a steady stream of climate activists who are adept in applying pressure on individuals and countries. In their colourful brochures they take credit for everything from the Kyoto Protocol to banning coal-plants in the UK.

There you have it – 2C in a nutshell – people living ivory towers and rooftop champagne-party bubbles, fighting with each other to impose costs on the rest of the world.

Low climate sensitivity : Heretical implications

The blink monkey

The wilfully blind monkey. From Kevin Anderson’s “Climate change going beyond dangerous – Brutal numbers and tenuous hope”

Let us suppose for the moment the climate works according to the ‘sensitivity-forcing’ paradigm.

Consider the effect of sensitivity on the 2C threshold used in international climate negotiations. If the climate orthodoxy wishes to initiate policy action against climate change, sensitivity needs to be high. But if sensitivity is too high political action is impossible.

Richard Tol pointed out a while back, a strict 2C target would mean “build[ing] 4,000 new nuclear power plants before 2030″ and “convinc[ing] China and India not just to stop building coal-fired power plants, but to abandon” built ones. As Kevin Anderson puts it, ‘pointless despair’ is the end-result.

Almost as a throwaway Tol stated that the 2C target could be accommodated if climate sensitivity were low.

To date, numbers for climate sensitivity and low sensitivity are not exactly in play in the domain of policy. The activists keep policymakers cooped up in the pressure-cooker of possible catastrophe, feeding them simple numbers like ‘2C’, ‘350’ and so forth.

But with global temperatures not going up rapidly, what if they awaken to the low numbers?

I am not sure climate negotiations has considered the meaning of this yet. They could finally stop, in the words of David Roberts, blowing lots of smoke up a lot of asses, and craft treaties that comply with ‘the science’. What a relief that could be. The treaty obligations need not be a guaranteed drag on economies. Developing countries can scale back on ‘renewable’ energy subsidy-gobbling monsters, developing economies can build large-scale coal plants, and island nations can adapt knowing they are not going to drown two days later.

In other words, low climate sensitivity would mean Lomborg. It would be a consensus the world can agree to.

The above must sound fantastical. Climate activists do not operate in a world where they would let a little science get in their way.

As far-fatched as it sounds, the real heretical implications lie in the climate debate itself. Outside the unreal charade of emission negotiations, low sensitivity would mean blowing smoke up asses would get increasingly difficult. If and when low-sensitivity estimates are accepted it will not be, as ATTP dreamily imagines, that skeptics and lukewarmists finally accepted the logic of climate alarmists. The outcome would rather be the opposite: the ground would shift toward skeptics and the Lindzen/Curry/Lewis school. It would be Joe ‘Dustbowl’ Romm left looking crazy, if that was possible.

With Tamsin Edwards’ latest article in the Guardian, the radical implication finally dawns on ATTP:

So, I think it’s unfortunate that Tamsin appears to have framed it in this way, as it – IMO – adds undue legitimacy to the Lukewarmer position, and largely misrepresents the alternative.

Nuccitelli rubs his eyes, he cannot believe what he sees:

… by putting ‘lukewarmers’ in the middle of her imagined spectrum, between deniers and mainstream climate scientists, she made them seem like the moderate middle ground. … She’s shifting the Overton window to put ‘Lukewarmers’ in the middle of the spectrum when actually they’re on the low (overly optimistic) end.

That’s right, Nuccitelli. If the world (ever) grasps implications of low sensitivity, it’ll be the alarmists who get pushed out the Overton Window. Believe me, it will be easy doing it to doom-mongers and 10:10 video makers who cannot get simple things straight.

Traction: Tom Fuller asks why Skeptics fail to get it

Some answers/replies for Tom Fuller’s questions to climate skeptics posted on his blog.

On Marc Morano as representative of skeptics:

Marc Morano may be on assignment from James Inhofe. But Marc makes an excellent spokesperson – he is straight, polite, and knowledgeable of scientific variables and the state of play. Climate politics is highly partisan in the US; you are not going to find someone acceptable to all parties.

“[Skeptics] don’t have a narrative that you can consistently put forward, nor a way to fit new science and climate news into your narrative”

At the surface, this is largely correct. Climate skeptics don’t have narratives, or a narrative. The world has expended a lot of fruitful energy dodging the climate activists bullets to its head. There is a story and a lesson there but it is not actively written by anybody.

The climate media/’communication’ machine takes no break. There are enough funded organizations, motivated journalists and testy news editors to keep ‘climate’ news on a slow boil, even if facts don’t co-operate. It is not possible to match these on measly budgets. Even Cook, Lewandowsky and Nuccitelli get paid to do what they do.

“Judith Curry does very well with the Uncertainty Monster theme, but she’s not a skeptic.”

That’s correct. Curry is no skeptic so she finds weaving narratives easier.

“But you do need to use a shared vocabulary that provides you with some legitimacy and answers some questions before they are asked.”

Not sure about the vocabulary, but the lack of skeptics’ organization can certainly makes things difficult. Suppose, there is a wrong climate activist paper published and the error is easily shown. The news will never get out. There is no press office or copy-writer to put out a press release. There is no money to cover costs. I bet many skeptics don’t know how press releases work.

At best you have a network of sympathetic journalists and high-profile bloggers.

Genuine skepticism in the climate debate, playing Team B, and cross-questioning climate alarmism is an expensive proposition. But climate alarmists routinely over-reach and make fools of themselves and have champagne-sipping high-flying playboys, green businessmen and unhinged activists as spokespersons. As Greenpeace gains in sophistication and wizardry in PR it is robbed of common sense and sends its activists to scrawl graffiti on ancient monuments.

People who have a position/vision/mission statement/story/narrative for what they do are those who are paid to do it.

Uncertainty Monster or Climate Monster?

Lord_Vampyre

Vampyre's_Bride

Judith Curry has written about her recent (but not new) presentation about ‘climate science and the uncertainty monster’. My sense is the analogy is pushed to the limit. No one knows what the monster is, and there are too many heads, tails and monster body parts flying around.

Curry says the monster concept is for examining the ‘response of the scientific community to uncertainties at the climate science-policy interface’.

The skeptic asks: what is this ‘climate science-policy interface’? Why should there be such an interface at all?

If you go back in time to Stephen Schneider, child of Malthus, you will encounter among his (many) books, ‘The Genesis Strategy’In the preface Schneider tells us he warns the world about ‘the dangers ahead’, and he is compelled to point out ‘the uncertain state of scientific knowledge’ … ‘does not imply there are no problems’. The ‘iceberg in the distance’ for the world-as-Titanic was ‘climate change and related misfortunes’.

The world was a different place as were circumstances. But the ‘terrible problems’ confronting it were the same as today: famine, climate change, global pollution—arranged in different configurations—along with yesteryear’s favorite bogeyman – population growth.

A significant chapter is devoted to the effect of human energy sources on the climate.

However, if global energy consumption expands greatly in the next few decades and this proves to be climatically dangerous, a great dilemma will befall the world

Sounds bad. It is. In fact, Schneider tells us, it’s so bad

… widespread climatic disruption from increased energy production could also occur as soon as the year 2000;

Sounds terrifying, but how would this happen?

Schneider lays down the case for the disruption occurring due to … heat released by power plants and urban heat islands. That’s right — not CO2 but the direct heat from coal plants and nuclear stations.

Over a span of several pages, with ‘uncertainty’ in tow, Schneider allows this industrial heat to be amplified by climate ‘feedback mechanisms’ just as with CO2 and ‘force changes in atmospheric motions that might be global’. At one point he has ‘large quantities of head added to the Gulf Stream from power parks’ finding ‘their way into the climatic system…in the subpolar part of the North Atlantic’ ready to melt Greenland ice,The Day After Tomorrow -style. In the next page, he wonders if thermal pollution from power parks could unleash tornadoes.

With climate, Schneider has no clue what will happen next. Ozone, CO2, aerosols, natural variability, supersonic transport, ‘thermal pollution’ all make their appearance in the book and they could all wreak havoc on the “steady-state”. But it doesn’t matter, there is ‘change’. ‘Change’ would cause famines in the populous third world whose citizens would consume the world’s food. There is a whole chapter on ‘The North American Grain Drain’.

genesis1

Through it all Schneider wrings his hands:  there has to be ‘decision-making with uncertain inputs’, but ‘the degree of uncertainty …should not delay consideration of actions to prevent..plausible catastrophes.’ He feels compelled to warn ‘some wolves will attack long before we are certain enough of their existence’. He even advocates ‘no-fault climate disaster insurance’, just like Curry.

Looks like he’s grappling with a monster, doesn’t it?

This monster is clearly unaffected by ‘the science’ — change of unknown kind, cooling and warming all have the same causes, produce the same effect and require the same people to be christened ‘experts’ and handed the keys to the kingdom. The monster, it now appears, is a reflection of individual activists and scientists who promote their discipline by positioning it as close to policy as possible, and insisting there is an interface. It is a reflection of pious science’s impulse and success in exploiting authority to stoke fears.

In close to 40 years since the book was published many of the problems scientists like Schneider threatened the world about have disappeared or dissipated. But climate science employs the same paradigm about ‘uncertainty’, the same bogeyman of ‘global change’ to imply the same catastrophe and demands a seat at the power table.

In the 1970s, when famine-struck India would request food supplies from other countries, donors ‘inquired about the progress of the family-planning program that India instituted’. Today, the World Bank system refuses aid to African countries for building coal plants. The Malthusian-ism and ‘lifeboat ethics’ which held sway and spawned the ‘monster’ — the will-to-power disguised as scientific probability — still reigns.

Academic freedom and hypocrisy

7616896258_92856640c4_k

They always come in twos and threes. Today, Roger Pielke Jr has an article in the Guardian asking excited climate-activist Australians to be tolerant of Bjorn Lomborg. He advises them:

Don’t seek to shut down debate and discussion. This means not seeking to prevent individuals from publishing their views or holding a job where they publish those views. It also means working to create a safe space for the open exchange of ideas, especially when there are social media or other shout down campaigns under way. …

How delightfully ironic. Not many years ago, when I published a piece on Wattsupwiththat.com critical of Pielke Jr’s ‘iron law’ hypothesis that is exactly what he did: ‘prevent individuals from publishing their views’. The article disappeared overnight: Pielke Jr had prevailed upon Anthony Watts to do the dirty deed.

Speaking of intolerance, everyone’s favourite troll ‘ATTP’ posted yet another diffusely worded tract about ‘the avoidance of the intellectual’. ATTP bemoans how ‘people who spend their lives trying to understand the world’ (i.e., academics like him) are ‘discouraged’ from taking a stand, and are ‘content to stay in their own little bubble, rather than engaging with the broader community.’

I don’t know about you but I can say with confidence ATTP’s online behaviour is exactly that of someone trying hard to ‘stay in his own little bubble, rather than engaging with the broader community’. In fact whenever the ‘broader community’ attempts contact, ATTP shrinks away into the bubble banishing the ‘contactees’. In the latest episode, moderator RachelM banned longtime climate commentator Tom Fuller without asking him first: Fuller was the kind of guy ATTP would have banned anyway.

There are other peculiarities here. In an interesting article on censorship on university campuses Nick Cohen points out how universities no longer support and nurture freedom of expression, in a form they traditionally did.

Michael Harris, a colleague on the Guardian, made the brilliant point to me afterwards that tuition fees had made students consumers. They no more felt they had a duty to uphold freedom of speech when they disapproved of a speaker, than shoppers thought they had a duty to visit M&S …

If tuition fees spurred by the corporatization of universities had made students into consumers, would lecturers and teachers who swim and survive in the environment be far behind? ATTP himself confirms the impression. He points out:

Universities are also now run more as a business than as some institution of learning that provides a service to the broader public …

Consumer students would think like corporate entities and open discussion is not a priority. Cohen says (emphasis mine):

I left thinking how too many left-wing academics were creating the ideal authoritarian types for the corporations, political parties and police forces of tomorrow. The abiding lesson of their supposedly liberal education was that they were entitled to suppress argument.

This precisely describes ATTP’s inclination and a broader tendency among academics. Despite the pious words, ATTP’s blog behavior is fundamentally corporate, and not ‘university-like’, and stems from his academic background.

In defending Lomborg, Pielke Jr says he welcomes a ‘discussion about academic intolerance’. But academic freedom and tolerance are no special breed. You either fight for it for all individuals, including those critical of your ideas, or you don’t. Academics make poor defenders of academic freedom. Despite what they tell you, that’s not what they want.

Censorship by Judith Curry: the devolution of climate blogs keeps pace

Kool-aid-drinking-gun-toting-skeptical-parrot

The climate skeptic: it is a ‘Kool-Aid’ drinking gun-toting parrot

On a blog post about ‘blog discussions’, Judith Curry bumped off a comment from me that included the sentence “ATTP does not belong in the climate debate”. Curry’s post claims ATTP’s ‘warm blog’ has a magic touch and is heavily commented. Sure.

What is the “magic touch” for a warmie blog? First, you write about the topics running on well-trafficked skeptical blogs. This brings two advantages (i) you don’t have to scratch you head thinking about what to write, (ii) you draw commenters from the well-trafficked blogs. Second, you practice blatant one-sided censorship. This announces and consolidates your partisan status, and earns a stable of commenters who need protection to thrive. Ta da – ‘magic touch’.

The formula is clear: you can examine almost any climate consensus blog – they don’t survive and grow without the golden combination of borrowed skeptic points and censorship.

The opposite does happen. If you go back, there was Bart Verheggen’s blog which hosted, among others, a remarkable discussion thread that ran for thousands of comments with participants of all stripes. Then Keith Kloor’s Collide-a-scape became the venue for interesting discussions. In both the spark lasted as long as the hosts held back, allowing emergent conversation to flow.

Others think it is pesky commenters that destroy good discussion. Marcel Crok’s Climatedialogue and Michael Quircke’s Climate Change National Forum (CCNF) marshaled original climate content and catastrophist Michael Tobis made a hermit of himself at the gated community Planet 3.0. All appear to be motivated by a sense of dread about the barbarians (i.e, commenters).  Climatedialogue and CCNF cordoned commenters into a separate second-class area whereas Planet 3.0 required vetted registration. As far as I can see no ‘magic’ happened. It is no one’s fault but just confirmation of the formula.

Curry now declares she will ensure ‘stricter moderation’ on her blog. Her blog flourished because there was a groundswell of support for someone from the orthodoxy willing to state unpalatable truths. It is unique for the torrent of comments that would put legions of online marketing pundits to shame. It is sad she’s decided to go hunting to remove critical comments.

Climate money and adjustments: keeping things in perspective

Kent Clibze has been trying to get hold of documents that record the ‘rationale, methodology and discussions’ relating to temperature adjustments carried out by NOAA.

NOAA in turn has informed the FOI requester it needs money to comply with the request:

money

That’s right – NOAA whose annual budget request exceeded $5.5 billion dollars in 2015, is asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars from a private citizen to provide information. On their colourful website NOAA declares it will accomplish lots of good things with their budget ‘while maintaining strong fiscal discipline’. Perhaps this is how they do it.

The rejection letter proclaims the request amounts to work searching for information going back 30 years, as the organization collected temperature data and slathered layer upon layer of adjustment and quality-control.

Messages can’t be given because, we learn, ‘very few if any letters, phone logs, memos, and other communications on this subject would be available’. ‘Historic archived emails’ cannot be had as they are ‘expensive to access and analyze’. In fact we are told almost anything would be be too much. The schizophrenic NOAA proudly states it has been a steward of temperature data ‘for decades’ it has accumulated so much information it would be impossible to find records pertaining to temperature adjustments among them.

If ‘stewardship’ means collecting data and throwing it randomly in the backroom, sure, decades of such accumulation would be difficult to dig through. In case you had doubts ‘thrown-in-the-backroom’ is not how national agencies archive temperature and climate data this should dissuade you:

14015679426_b76495ea32_z 14015740106_c50c0c7373_z 14035560111_4dd74ce23e_z 14035614612_764173ba23_b

From top to bottom, these are climate data archives at Mozambique, El Salvador, Paraguay and Saudi Arabia respectively. It smacks of hypocrisy for NOAA which is undoubtedly the largest and best-funded climate organization in the world to be asking for money to produce records. In effect, NOAA’s letter claims their records are the electronic equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s paper records.

The problem is worse: a clear trail of why each adjustment was adopted, the supporting evidence and relevant authorities’ signing off on them, has to be on file. This is reproducible data science 101. It is inconceivable an organization like NOAA would have functioned in an ad-hoc manner w.r.t one of their public products – the global average temperature record. Procedures must be in place.

The only conclusion is Clizbe’s request has been unfairly turned down.

Climate scientists perform fossil-fuel funded research

Can I interest you in some advice from hypocrites?

After pouncing on Willie Soon for not disclosing funding in his journal papers, it turned out scientist Jon Koomey had done the same thing in several of his own papers (e.g, here, here, here).

Acccording to Gavin Schmidt, any reasons Soon might have not disclosing funding are not even ‘remotely defendable’ as ‘similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices’.

Behind every believer hankering after purity likely lies a sinful past. Thus one finds Schmidt’s colleague Michael Mann admitting to activist-cum-activist Brendan Montaugue in The Ecologist that his own career was supported by grants from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Mann, who doesn’t miss an opportunity to label his opponents as ‘industry-funded’ or ‘fossil-fuel funded’, worked under scientist Barry Saltzman who he acknowledges in the Climategate emails, ‘got significant support from the EPRI through the years’.

Mann’s own work was supported by grants from the dreaded ‘coal-industry front group’ EPRI. He published not one but two papers with such acknowledgements as shown below:

Mann EPRI funding

Mann’s acknowledgments for funding in the Journal of Geophysical Research (left) and Journal of Climate (right)

 The support did not stop there. From the Climategate emails we see how in c.2005 paleoclimate scientists were faced with some trepidation over accepting ‘industry-related sponsoring’ for a workshop. One of them wrote in an email (emphasis mine):

Maybe unsurprisingly, EPRI 

seems to have a general philosophy of handing climate change by adaptation rather than mitigation, on which not everyone may agree. On the other hand, this is beyond our objectives of reconstructing and understanding climate change. Nevetheless, in the light of this, points that we think needed clarifying and assuring are 1) that the science remains independent.
2) that the credibility of the group and the results does not suffer from industry-related sponsoring.

If these two points can be dealt with, then this could be a good opportunity to get the initiative going. Keith and Mike, it would be important to have your opinions on this. It is clear that all of us addressed here had to be comfortable with EPRI sponsoring and the way this is handled.

Setting aside the excessively over-developed political sensitivities of a scientist who saw the mere accepting of funds from those who favoured ‘handling climate change by adaptation’ as morally objectionable, there was ‘industry sponsorship’ involved. Horror of horrors, that should have been enough for Mike to put his foot down.

But that’s not what he happened (emphasis mine):

Thanks for the update and summary. Having the endorsement of EPPRI (sic) for this could actually be helpful. There is nothing intrinsically anti-industry about the science (though some may feel there is), and so having EPPRI’s (sic) stamp of approval could be helpful for both us and the broader community.

My Ph.D advisor (Barry Saltzman) got significant support from EPPRI (sic) through the years, and he never fealt that they in any way tried to place any constraints on what he did, published, etc

I personally don’t see a problem with this. […]

Hilariously, Mann is oblivious to the evil of accepting support from ‘industry’ but instead answers to the opposite moral conundrum, i.e, one of accepting money from industry to produce research they knew were set to harm it!

Importantly Mann vouched for the impartial nature of EPRI’s funding support.

The ‘four-day workshop’ did take place with EPRI support in Wengen Switzerland in 2006. The meeting, the esteemed scientists wrote in the AGU in-house journal Eos  was a ‘unique setting of the snow-covered Bernese Alps’ that ‘provided a good setting for informal discussions’.

Interestingly, the email thread around the ‘the Wengen paper’—born from discussions at the Swiss resort—runs all the way through rebuttals to the hockey stick, Steve McIntyre, FOI requests from David Holland, down to Climategate.

Back to the EPRI, the ‘industry sponsorship’ of climate scholars did not stop at Wengen. In 2008 Mann, and Schmidt, were in sunny Trieste sipping the good stuff discussing more paleoclimate at yet another ‘industry-funded’ workshop

Mann and Schmidt and others in Trieste, Italy. Sponsored by EPRI.

Mann and Schmidt and others in Trieste, Italy. Sponsored by EPRI.

With all the above, one has to ask – why is accepting support from fossil-fuel industry front groups ok according to … Mann?

In 1994 Mann and his co-author begin their EPRI fossil-fuel funded paper declaring ‘in the face of possible anthropogenic effects on global climate, there is a need to characterize better the nature of historical climate variability’. Just the thing a ‘denier’ would say. Soon is different – he’s given the dirty eye for accepting funding from the same EPRI which turns into a ‘lobby shop’ for the coal-dominated US electricity sector.

Scientists who obtained funding but failed to declare them in their papers, like Koomey, and the alarmist ones who obtained funding from industry sources, like Mann, should step up and speak out – in support of Willie Soon.

« Older Entries