Things That Don't Happen ... But Do.
SCIENTIFIC SCEPTICISM AS HERESY
By Martin A. Knight Posted in AGW | Energy | Liberals — Comments (37) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph - 11/03/2007Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
...
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Read the whole thing.
More below the fold ...
Like a lot of us here have said before, the whole issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming offers so many opportunities for political power that it has long abandoned its exclusive connection to science and gone into the realm of politics.
We now have Senators sending letters to companies warning them against sponsoring sceptics' research or risk facing consequences. We have Governors threatening scientists who have not fallen in line with losing their jobs. We have CNN running specials slandering people who have forgotten more about climate science than the hosts will ever know in their entire lives.
And at the same time, we have people coming here denying that any of this is happening, or that it is nothing serious. But of course, a little "nothing" here, a little "nothing" there and pretty soon we're talking about a whole lot of something.
« We The People...Living In The House Of Pain — Comments (13)
Things That Don't Happen ... But Do. 37 Comments (0 topical, 37 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I think skepticism is a good thing for science and of course death threats are unacceptable. Think Michael Mann and others have ever been threatened with retaliation? Due to the highly visible and political nature of the argument, the skeptics are not alone in that arena.
Of course Rihcard Lindzen is a real scientist - one of the few remaining skeptics that is one. But his theories are losing credibility as more data has been gathered over the last decade(google "lindzen iris" - to see what his theory is an where it stands). What skeptics should be worried about is why the list of skeptics is getting shorter, and why we're not hearing any new names on the skeptical side - it's always Lindzen and someone else, isn't it?
And where is the new data to support skeptical theories? We've been gathering good quality data for at least 20 years and every year it continues to strengthen the leading scientific theory. Without new data to support their theories, the only thing skeptics have to hang on to is that they're being persecuted and there's some sort of conspiracy against them - not exactly a position of strength, now is it?
Average US temperatures for 2007
The WARMEST parts of the country are 5 to 7 degrees below average so far this year. Most of the country is 13 or more degrees below average. Are we headed for a new ice age?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
It is difficult to make any assumptions on short term observations, the planet doesn't work that way. I for one don't believe that we are the only force that is working on the environment. Clean air and water is something we all need. To that end I support the education and research necessary to bring about a cleaner environment.
I suggest that 120 years is too short a time period when trying to decide what is "normal" in our climate. Let's instead look at the trends in the past 1000 years.... no wait, that includes the medieval warm period, can't have that....
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
they didn't have any CFL's in the middle ages.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
really? you think that human activity is the only explanation for environmental changes? The climate must have been really stable before we got here!
or did you mistype that?
To that end I support the education and research necessary to bring about a cleaner environment.
Are you serious?
Honestly, are you really such a milquetoast?
Out of curiosity how will education improve the environment ?
Perhaps the word you are trying for is indoctrination ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Now repeat your data gathering over the entire globe and over a longer period of time. Let me know what you find out.
BrianH, I queried this graph last time you posted it, but you didn't answer. As far as I can tell, it says that 2007 temperatures up to Feb 9 were much colder than the longterm annual average. All that tells you is that in most parts of the US, January is a cold month, as it was in 2007.
And the map doesn't show "January is a cold month", it shows the temps in the US for the year so far have been FAR below average. Even if January were a cold month on average
It's about as meaningful as a .6 degree (+ or - .2 degree) increase over a 120 year period.
Guess what, the weather is VARIABLE. .6 degrees is nothing compared to the variations from year to year. It's noise.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I wish you'd give links or something. If January was the warmest, how come 2007 (to Feb 9th) was the coldest. But I don't believe the NOAA did say that. Here is the NOAA map of general 2007 Jan temps relative to the past - not a single part of the country was record-breaking warm (or cold). Here is the actual plot of deviations from past Januarys. The western US is cold relative to the past, the Eastern part is warm. Nothing remarkable.
Specifically "GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE FOR JANUARY HIGHEST ON RECORD, U.S. TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE FOR MONTH"
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
Include Feb in your data and your charts will change dramatically. Why is it that a single warm month can be used to support AGW, but a cold month can't be used to dispute it?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
OK, I thought you were still talking about US temperatures. But you started out with the US was running many degrees below average in 2007 (to Feb 9), with a new Ice Age pending - now we have the US just average, and the overall global temps record warm in January. I wouldn't claim that was proof of AGW, but it doesn't go against it.
A Republican Chairman of a House Committee sends a letter asking scientists for exhaustive details about their work is the same thing as a death threat?
Just read the article. Look at the underlying assumptions.
Joe Barton has connections to the fossil fuel industry, which of course makes him evil, which of course means that he wants to go all Tailgunner Joe on Warmist™ scientists.
Considering the immediate closing of ranks around the scientists in the Press and the entire Warmist™ community demanding that they be considered exempt from questioning, it's very rich of you to cite that article as proof that Warmists™ are being threatened with "retaliation."
PS: When the scientific work of Anthopogenic Global Warming skeptics are immediately denounced as sops to "evil" industry as soon as they're released, denied peer review, and the scientist threatened with blacklisting and character assasination ... I really don't think Warmists&trade are playing the role of Gallileo here.
It's only natural that the number of skeptics (not that I actually am taking your word here) is going to reduce. Scientists are people too, and not that many can withstand the heaps of scorn and oppobrium being heaped on them daily unless they fall in line.
Of course letters from congressman are not death threats. Are you suggesting that the death threats are coming from people that we should consider reasonable, like other scientists?
Please let me know which scientists are being denied peer review - not Dick Lindzen, that man is as prolific as ever.
Yes, scientists on both sides are often denounced. Look at all the hoopla and congressional testimony over the hockey stick. How come Michael Mann hasn't back down from heaps of scorn? Are you saying that skeptics are just weaker individuals?
The fact is they just don't have the data to back themselves up anymore. What ever happened to Soon and Baliunas or Patrick Michaels? Why are they publishing refined versions of their theories based on some new data data? Maybe because that data doesn't exist.
"What ever happened to Soon and Baliunas or Patrick Michaels? Why are they publishing refined versions of their theories based on some new data...? Maybe because that data doesn't exist."
Um, because that is what scientists do--or did you mean to say,"aren't they publishing"? I haven't been following them lately.
"
It seems to me the skeptics are looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. This data supports at least the suggestion that the current CO2 levels are the effect of global warming not the cause.
What bothers me about the whole issue is there is an implication that science knows a great deal about how the Earth and its climate works. In reality an honest scientist will tell you there is still much more that we don't understand than what we do. Even what we think currently understand we have not known for very long. It takes a great deal of chutzpah for either side to claim they can reliably predict the average temperature of the Earth 100 years from now.
In any event, it would really help if the multitude of scientists that support the current anthropomorphic global warming theory would provide answers or explain why temperatures declined for decades during the current warming that began in 1890 and how the Earth warmed during the Medieval Warm Period when CO2 was so low.
I have not seen(maybe I missed it)any scientific consensus on the answers to those two points.
It seems to me the skeptics are looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions.
For example?
In reality an honest scientist will tell you there is still much more that we don't understand than what we do.
Maybe, but if you understand the dominant processes that is usually enough. There's still much to know about gravity, but we can still send people to the moon.
would provide answers or explain why temperatures declined for decades during the current warming that began
The current thought is increased levels of aerosol particulates (i.e. pollution) - global dimming - which started receding around the time of the Clean Air Act. Although some are worried that the same effect may be masking the impact of current AGW.
how the Earth warmed during the Medieval Warm Period
from natural variations that aren't currently in play.
For example?
The issue we are discussing. Graph of CO2 climbing along with temperature.
Maybe, but if you understand the dominant processes that is usually enough. There's still much to know about gravity, but we can still send people to the moon.
Not if you have yet to identify the dominant process and don’t know it. Would you be so bold to say we know the Earth’s climate as well as we know gravity?
The current thought is increased levels of aerosol particulates (i.e. pollution) - global dimming - which started receding around the time of the Clean Air Act. Although some are worried that the same effect may be masking the impact of current AGW.
If I read the link correctly they are only saying aerosols have a negative forcing on climate but it is very difficult to predict the future effects. I didn’t find anything mentioning the decades of lower temperatures. I suppose that is your speculation?
It is interesting how in explaining the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period it’s all about regional trends and local climate. In the report you reference they admit the data from other parts of the world is very spotty compared with the Northern Hemisphere but that does not stop them from concluding they were local phenomena.
Rarely do I see such subtlety when AGW advocates discuss Antarctic ice sheets and receding glaciers.
Not if you have yet to identify the dominant process and don’t know it.
Well, the models are matching up pretty well - that usually means the dominant processes are understood.
Would you be so bold to say we know the Earth’s climate as well as we know gravity?
Given that 96% of the gravitational forces in the universe are not at all understood, I'd say we know much more about the climate.
If I read the link correctly they are only saying aerosols have a negative forcing on climate but it is very difficult to predict the future effects.
Negative forcing means a decrease in temp if nothing else is acting on the system. Look here to see how sulfates became important in the 1940's but then were overcome by greenhouse gasses in the 1980's.
It is interesting how in explaining the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm period it’s all about regional trends and local climate. In the report you reference they admit the data from other parts of the world is very spotty compared with the Northern Hemisphere but that does not stop them from concluding they were local phenomena.
Yes this is discussed further and more precisely in the latest IPCC report due out this year.
Rarely do I see such subtlety when AGW advocates discuss Antarctic ice sheets and receding glaciers.
Stick to the IPCC reports to get the latest scientific consensus on these. There isn't much subtlety on global glacial melting, bu there is a little more on Antarctic ice sheets.
.2-.4 if you use 140 years. Do you really think that this signal which is little more than noise is significant ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
that any kind of GW happening is step backwards isn't it. What is the temp difference between now and the last ice age?
1. What step backward and how do you go from a statement that we have had a small increase in temperature to denying that the temp is increasing.
2. I'll be glad to look that up as long as you concede that its not man made.
Not bad 1 non related concept per sentence. I don't know what the redstate record is.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
First of all, the actual temperature change in the last 140 years is closer to 0.8 deg. C. And the temperature change between now and the last ice age is about 4-5 deg C. (8 deg. C at the coldest point).
The point is 10% - 20% of the change measured since the last ice age and also the largest change in the last 450,000 years is not exactly noise, now is it?
Thats why I chose a 140 years instead of 120. The AGW proponents like to start measurement in a ditch.
I like your graph do you want to play dueling graphs
Now not to be pedantic, but we are in an ice age. What you mean is glacial period. The current era is an interglacial period within the current Ice Age.
As to it not being noise ? Seeing as the actual temperatures are nearly continuously being adjusted up or down by amounts as large or greater than the state margin of error yes its noise.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1175
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In the data. Or are you still holding that the signal you are talking about is little better than noise ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yes its as good as yours. The inherent difficulties in getting a good measure of global temperature make certain it will be well within the error bounds.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Try again. Perhaps data from an actual journal?
Without the normalized curve and the standard deviations, you can't determine whether it is noise or not. A 10% change on a system with 1% variation is data. A 10% change on a system with 20% data variation is not.
Now, since we've only been gathering data for perhaps the last 150 years, all the rest are projections and conjectures, and not actual data. Which makes the 450,000 year figure male bovine waste at best.
Here's the IPCC graph. There's nothing more refereed than an IPCC report. The 450,000 year graph is based on actual deuterium data - you can see it on an NOAA site.
I predict the global temperature will continue to increase. Mother nature in her wisdom will decide when the temperature will again decrease (Ice age cometh), at which time those yelling for cold will begin yelling for heat. Currently there is a lot of taxpayers monies being spent for naught.
Cui Bono?
Haven't you heard. The most important debate remaining is... well, among scientists.
Not much of a consensus there, and I think you're exactly right.
scientist would deny anthropogenic global warming. And we've also been repeatedly told that stories of retaliation against REAL scientists are a myth. How can this story be true?
I know, it's obvious that since he denies AGW he must not be a REAL scientist and MIT is not a real college so it's OK to pull his funding and make other threats against him.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.