T
- Status
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
thanks theo
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
mrctv.org/blog/claim-2015-was-hottest-year-ever-bogus#.9xbj64d:zXb2
My apologies for the bad link, try the above.
The author simply uses NOAAs own numbers to counter the claim that 2015 was the hottest year, given their own report in 1997.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 3. The Fish Rots From The Head
So, my dear bishops (and everyone else), the IPCC became the leading expert witness on the guilt of CO2. That it has been thusly qualified has been summed up by John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor who proclaimed that the IPCC is the source of “the most important conclusions” about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”
But its reputation is undeserved. Something is quite rotten at the head of this whole enterprise to convict CO2 of causing dangerous global warming.
Bias
The IPCC is biased against CO2 and is incapable of writing fair and objective reports. Consider the agenda of its founding father, Maurice Strong. It serves the UNFCCC, a convention which has already accused, tried, and convicted CO2. Its founding purpose is to find evidence that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming, not to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
It’s leaders are biased. Former IPCC Rajendra Pachauri (resigned recently in disgrace) was notoriously partisan. It ranks are filled with members of environmentral organizations such as Greenpeace.
Admittedly, its assessment reports have sometimes been fairly objective. Richard Lindzen once said he was proud of the work his group did on one of the reports. However, the bias shows up in the summaries, which often deviate significantly from the underlying assessment reports.
The IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. It has systematically ignored evidence which exonerates CO2 (natural cycles within the climate system, solar influences, etc.). Read The Neglected Sun by Varenholt and Luning for a good account of, well, the neglected sun. Also important but neglected work on solar influences has been done by Shaviv and Svensmark.
It has not kept its distance from environmental activists and has let hundreds of them into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers.
Her leaders have expressed their biases openly and are hardly models of dispassionate objectivity. (Chairman Pachauri wrote a forward to a Greenpeace publication, and on another occasion wished that IPCC critics would rub asbestos in their faces.)
Expert reviewers who object to biased positions taken in the draft reports are ignored. And on and on.
So, my dear bishops (and everyone else), the IPCC became the leading expert witness on the guilt of CO2. That it has been thusly qualified has been summed up by John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor who proclaimed that the IPCC is the source of “the most important conclusions” about climate change and that these conclusions rest on: “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”
But its reputation is undeserved. Something is quite rotten at the head of this whole enterprise to convict CO2 of causing dangerous global warming.
Bias
The IPCC is biased against CO2 and is incapable of writing fair and objective reports. Consider the agenda of its founding father, Maurice Strong. It serves the UNFCCC, a convention which has already accused, tried, and convicted CO2. Its founding purpose is to find evidence that CO2 is guilty of causing dangerous global warming, not to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
It’s leaders are biased. Former IPCC Rajendra Pachauri (resigned recently in disgrace) was notoriously partisan. It ranks are filled with members of environmentral organizations such as Greenpeace.
Admittedly, its assessment reports have sometimes been fairly objective. Richard Lindzen once said he was proud of the work his group did on one of the reports. However, the bias shows up in the summaries, which often deviate significantly from the underlying assessment reports.
The IPCC has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. It has systematically ignored evidence which exonerates CO2 (natural cycles within the climate system, solar influences, etc.). Read The Neglected Sun by Varenholt and Luning for a good account of, well, the neglected sun. Also important but neglected work on solar influences has been done by Shaviv and Svensmark.
It has not kept its distance from environmental activists and has let hundreds of them into her ranks where they have served as administrators, lead authors, contributing authors, and expert reviewers.
Her leaders have expressed their biases openly and are hardly models of dispassionate objectivity. (Chairman Pachauri wrote a forward to a Greenpeace publication, and on another occasion wished that IPCC critics would rub asbestos in their faces.)
Expert reviewers who object to biased positions taken in the draft reports are ignored. And on and on.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 3 The Fish Rots From the Head continued
The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.
The IPCC’s scientific reputation is undeserved.
- The IPCC is ultimately a governmental body comprised of 195 member governments in which the politicians rule, not the scientists. Each government selects the scientists who will participate, which compromises their independence. The governments choose the bureaucrats who conduct the day-to-day operations and control the review process. The politicians write the all-important Summary for Policymakers, and even reserve the right to edit the underlying scientific reports themselves so that they conform to the summaries
- The expertise of the IPCC is not as advertised. Former Chairman Pachauri boasted that only the world’s top experts are chosen to participate in the IPCC review process and the writing of the reports. However, Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise has shown that many world-class experts are excluded from the IPCC process. In fact many lead authors have been mere graduate students years away from getting their doctorates. Michael Mann’s Phd was only months old when he was named lead author of the paleoclimate chapter.
- The number of participating scientists and the implied agreement among them is greatly exaggerated. We are often told about the thousands of scientists (4,000 according to some) who contribute to the IPCC reports. However, once duplicate names are removed, the actual number drops down below 2,900 according to one auditor.[mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf]](http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf])
- The manner in which the IPCC arrives at its conclusions is not very scientific. As stated above, only a relative handful of participating scientists have a direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC. The policy summaries are produced by an inner core of scientists, and they are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
- The vaunted IPCC review process is not very scientific or rigorous. The review process falls far short of traditional peer review. IPCC insiders admit that there is no data quality assurance performed on the studies reviewed by the IPCC. The IPCC naively trusts the integrity of the scientific journals and their peer review process. In fact, IPCC administrators told one expert reviewer, Stephen McIntyre, that his position would be terminated if he persisted in seeking the underlying data of a particular journal article. Another problem with the IPCC review process is that lead authors are given veto power over objections raised by reviewers, which often are just summarily dismissed. Lead authors also are allowed to judge their own work as well as that of their critics. A good example of this conflict of interest in action would be Michael Mann of Hockey Stick infamy. Mann, as lead author of the 2001 paleoclimate chapter, approved his own shoddy scholarship and featured it in his chapter.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
- Chairman Pachauri boasted that the IPCC only relies on peer-reviewed articles. This claim was spectacularly proven false when it was revealed that the IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be melted by 2035 was based on an interview of one climate scientist in a magazine article. Journalist Laframboise audited the 2007 report and found that a full 28% of the references were not peer-reviewed.
Another laughable example—which also illustrates how out-of-touch Pachauri was—is the Stern Review, 700 page report written by British government economists. On the eve of the release of the 2007 report Pachauri was asked about it. He said the IPCC could only make limited use of it because it was not peer-reviewed. Turns out, according to Laframboise, that the 2007 IPCC report cited it 26 times across 12 chapters. Not only that, the Stern Review was submitted too late to be included in the 2007 report but it was used anyway. Rules? What rules?
- The IPCC is not justified in relying on the peer-review process to produce quality articles for its review because the peer-review process itself has proved to be unreliable and cannot be trusted. In this regard the urban heat island effect study by Wang and Jones, which grossly misrepresented its data, can be cited. However, the Hockey Stick studies by Mann et al are the best examples of the unreliability of normal peer-review. Mann’s studies were published in very reputable journals but received only cursory examination of their methods and no examination of their data. No due diligence work was performed until four years after publication, when Stephen McIntyre, a semi-retired mining consultant from Canada, took an interest in Mann’s work as a hobby and tried to replicate his findings. McIntyre first discovered numerous problems with Mann’s data. In some cases it was impossible to find the original data sources. The data sets had gaps and in some instances the gaps were filled in using the last available number. Some data sets were mislabeled, some were truncated, and some were obsolete. McIntyre also discovered that Mann had used data sets which were known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions but which were apparently included because they had the desired hockey stick shape. McIntyre was eventually able to prove that Mann’s Hockey Stick graph, which supposedly proved that the warming in the late 20th century was unprecedented in 1,000 years, was an artifact of his flawed statistical methods and bad data. Yet Mann’s papers sailed on through peer-review, both at the journal level and at the IPCC. See Montford’s books especially.
- That the IPCC has severe problems with is structure, procedures, and policies was resoundingly confirmed by the Interacademy Council whose report can be accessed here:
The academy’s recommendations, issued more than 5 years ago, still haven’t been implemented in a meaningful way.
Recall Holdren’s words about “…an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.” Nah!
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 3 The Fish Rots from the Head continued
Other Bad Acts
There are numerous documented instances of cheating and other bad behavior which prove the IPCC cannot be trusted. The Climategate emails arguably show that IPCC insiders are guilty of journal tampering and of conspiring to violate Freedom of Information Act laws. The emails also contain disturbing evidence of collusion between a journal editor and IPCC insiders. IPCC rules and deadlines are routinely ignored when convenient. Scientific evidence is often misrepresented in reports and evidence has been manufactured. See Montford’s Hiding the Decline.
Key IPCC player Michael Mann is the poster-boy of bad behavior and conduct unbecoming a scientist. He was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.
Phil Jones is a key figure in the paleo field and and also the IPCC. He is director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which maintains a prominent temperature data set. When pressed for access to the CRU’s temperature data he said, “Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it.” He hid the decline. He knowing violated FOIA laws and encouraged other to do the same. He is guilty, along with Mann, of journal tampering.
Wang and Jones. A big issue with regard to the surface temperature data sets is the extent to which they are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Phil Jones wrote an influential paper on the subject which used data from a another study by a guy named Wang. Turns out that Wang seriously and undeniably misrepresented his data and was called on it by an investigator of scientific misconduct named Keenan. Jones perhaps can be given a pass because he wasn’t directly involved in collecting the data. But Jones cited Wang’s study in an IPCC report even after he knew it was highly problematic.
Other Bad Acts
There are numerous documented instances of cheating and other bad behavior which prove the IPCC cannot be trusted. The Climategate emails arguably show that IPCC insiders are guilty of journal tampering and of conspiring to violate Freedom of Information Act laws. The emails also contain disturbing evidence of collusion between a journal editor and IPCC insiders. IPCC rules and deadlines are routinely ignored when convenient. Scientific evidence is often misrepresented in reports and evidence has been manufactured. See Montford’s Hiding the Decline.
Key IPCC player Michael Mann is the poster-boy of bad behavior and conduct unbecoming a scientist. He was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.
Phil Jones is a key figure in the paleo field and and also the IPCC. He is director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia which maintains a prominent temperature data set. When pressed for access to the CRU’s temperature data he said, “Why should I give you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it.” He hid the decline. He knowing violated FOIA laws and encouraged other to do the same. He is guilty, along with Mann, of journal tampering.
Wang and Jones. A big issue with regard to the surface temperature data sets is the extent to which they are contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Phil Jones wrote an influential paper on the subject which used data from a another study by a guy named Wang. Turns out that Wang seriously and undeniably misrepresented his data and was called on it by an investigator of scientific misconduct named Keenan. Jones perhaps can be given a pass because he wasn’t directly involved in collecting the data. But Jones cited Wang’s study in an IPCC report even after he knew it was highly problematic.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 3 The Fish Rots From the Head continued
Prior Inconsistent Statements and Admissions
Regarding the present halt in global warming, IPCC bigwig Kevin Trenberth said privately to his colleagues: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. [Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009]
The IPCC would have us place a lot of confidence in the ability of its computer models to predict the future. However, in its Third Assessment Report it admitted this: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (TAR, p.774.)
Again with respect to the predictive ability of computer models, Kevin Trenberth admitted there are no climate predictions at all.
There are many other possible examples.
Prior Inconsistent Statements and Admissions
Regarding the present halt in global warming, IPCC bigwig Kevin Trenberth said privately to his colleagues: "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. [Trenberth in Climategate1, 2009]
The IPCC would have us place a lot of confidence in the ability of its computer models to predict the future. However, in its Third Assessment Report it admitted this: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (TAR, p.774.)
Again with respect to the predictive ability of computer models, Kevin Trenberth admitted there are no climate predictions at all.
There are many other possible examples.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 3 The Fish Rots From the Head continued
Reputation for Dishonesty
Many witnesses, insided and outside the CSE, are available to testify concerning the reputation of Mann, Jones, et al for dishonesty.
Dr. Eugene I. Gordon, of Bell Labs (in an email to a colleague regarding Mann and the Hockey Stick):
Reputation for Dishonesty
Many witnesses, insided and outside the CSE, are available to testify concerning the reputation of Mann, Jones, et al for dishonesty.
Dr. Eugene I. Gordon, of Bell Labs (in an email to a colleague regarding Mann and the Hockey Stick):
E
Ender
Guest
Here’s a fun picture.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A wind turbine in Sweden got iced up and had to be thawed out…relying on a carbon fueled helicopter spraying hot water heated by a carbon fueled burner brought to the site by a truck burning…carbon fuel. This is what killed parody. You can’t make this stuff up.
Ender
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
A wind turbine in Sweden got iced up and had to be thawed out…relying on a carbon fueled helicopter spraying hot water heated by a carbon fueled burner brought to the site by a truck burning…carbon fuel. This is what killed parody. You can’t make this stuff up.
Ender
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Ender,
Thanks fed sharing. They are going to put up millions more of those dang things. In my neck of the woods they are proliferating, and we as a nation become poorer as each one is put up. Why didn’t they consult with Spain or Denmark to see if this is a good idea.
Thanks fed sharing. They are going to put up millions more of those dang things. In my neck of the woods they are proliferating, and we as a nation become poorer as each one is put up. Why didn’t they consult with Spain or Denmark to see if this is a good idea.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 4. The Rottenness of the Rest of the CSE
My dear bishops (and everyone else), how much credibility does the CSE now have, the Bestest Climate Authority in the World having been so devastatingly discredited?
Leaf rightly maintains that the task of demonstrating the extent of the rot beyond the head remains. But this work is already accomplished in part by the take-down of the IPCC.
The Hockey Stick Scandal.
The Hockey Stick scandal does much to illuminate the corrupt inner workings of the the IPCC and the general climate science community. The establishment covered for Michael Mann and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s critical comment because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors and the IPCC flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable. But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.
So just from one episode we see the rot extending outside the IPCC to elite scientific journals such as Nature and elite scientific organizations such as the NSF and NAS.
My dear bishops (and everyone else), how much credibility does the CSE now have, the Bestest Climate Authority in the World having been so devastatingly discredited?
Leaf rightly maintains that the task of demonstrating the extent of the rot beyond the head remains. But this work is already accomplished in part by the take-down of the IPCC.
The Hockey Stick Scandal.
The Hockey Stick scandal does much to illuminate the corrupt inner workings of the the IPCC and the general climate science community. The establishment covered for Michael Mann and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s critical comment because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors and the IPCC flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable. But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.
So just from one episode we see the rot extending outside the IPCC to elite scientific journals such as Nature and elite scientific organizations such as the NSF and NAS.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 4. The Rottenness of the Rest of the CSE, continued
Paleo-climate
An entire sub-discipline, paleo-climate, has also been shown to be corrupt and not trust-worthy. First clue: It has been dominated by Mann and Jones. Secondly, consider the findings of the Wegman study. Part of Wegman’s work was to answer how could such a rotten study pass peer-review and be given such prominence in 2001 IPCC report. Wegman showed that the paleo-community is in-bred and insular. These people were reviewing their own work. They didn’t adequately consult with professional statisticians who could have warned them about their unorthodox and ad hoc methods. They coordinated and collectively employed Mann’s tactics of stone-walling and obfuscation. They even “lost” their data to prevent McIntyre from doing his audit. The climategate emails make it clear this was all about the “cause” not the pursuit of truth. If you want names, read Montford.
Paleo-climate
An entire sub-discipline, paleo-climate, has also been shown to be corrupt and not trust-worthy. First clue: It has been dominated by Mann and Jones. Secondly, consider the findings of the Wegman study. Part of Wegman’s work was to answer how could such a rotten study pass peer-review and be given such prominence in 2001 IPCC report. Wegman showed that the paleo-community is in-bred and insular. These people were reviewing their own work. They didn’t adequately consult with professional statisticians who could have warned them about their unorthodox and ad hoc methods. They coordinated and collectively employed Mann’s tactics of stone-walling and obfuscation. They even “lost” their data to prevent McIntyre from doing his audit. The climategate emails make it clear this was all about the “cause” not the pursuit of truth. If you want names, read Montford.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 4. The Rottenness of the Rest of the CSE, continued
NASA, NOAA, CRU
The CSE occupies the high ground in the climate debate because they control the surface temperature records. Phil Jones heads the Climate Research Unit (CRU), an organization which is joined at the hip with the IPCC. Nuff said.
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies is totally in the CSE camp and has been since James Hansen took over the helm. James Hansen became famous in 1988 or so when he starred in Al Gore and Tim Wirth’s staged congressional hearing on global warming. As director of GISS Hansen was an outspoken alarmist and remains so today in his retirement. His bias is undeniable. His sidekick Gavin Schmidt is equally partisan and actively participates in Mann’s pro-CSE website Real Climate.
During Hansen’s tenure he often cited individual year temps of evidence of global warming. “2005 Warmest Year in a Century,” etc. Early on it was difficult to make such claims because the 30’s were known to be so hot. No problem. Via multiple adjustments the 30’s were cooled down, thus making the late 20th century warming hotter.
Is there a chance that NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is independent of the IPCC? Nope. Lamframboise reports that NOAA devoted a page in one of its publications celebrating the fact that “more than 120 NOAA scientists contributed” to the 2007 IPCC report.
More recent evidence of NOAA’s corruption are its recent fiddling with the surface temp records and their dishonest (a la Hansen) proclamation that 2015 was the hottest year ever. See wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/ Thanks Styrg.
Academia
As with scientific journals, the universities who employ the likes of Mann and Jones refuse to hold them to account.
See section on Wang and Jones above. After Keenan called Wang on his misrepresentation, Wang refused to retract his claims. Keenan followed through with a complaint to his university, the University of Albany. Result: not guilty. Albany didn’t even interview Keenan.
In the wake of the climategate emails the University of Pennsylvania “investigated”
the charges against Michael Mann. The best account of the whitewash is given by Montford. In short, Penn State did not interview MM or any other of Mann’s critics. They ignored strong evidence in the emails that Mann was guilty of cooperating with Jones’s efforts to thwart FOIA requests, violated peer review confidentiality, and other conduct unbecoming a scientist. The panel’s findings in some cases simply were contradicted by plain fact or missed the point entirely.
As with Mann, the CRU and the University East Anglia aided and abetted Phil Jones all the way. Yet he was found not guilty on all counts by multiple inquires. Montford sums it up this way:
None of this is surprising given that universities are predominantly leftist in orientation and on board with the larger green cause. But more importantly, universities are all on the government dole when it comes to funding and will do nothing to jeopardize that.
NASA, NOAA, CRU
The CSE occupies the high ground in the climate debate because they control the surface temperature records. Phil Jones heads the Climate Research Unit (CRU), an organization which is joined at the hip with the IPCC. Nuff said.
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies is totally in the CSE camp and has been since James Hansen took over the helm. James Hansen became famous in 1988 or so when he starred in Al Gore and Tim Wirth’s staged congressional hearing on global warming. As director of GISS Hansen was an outspoken alarmist and remains so today in his retirement. His bias is undeniable. His sidekick Gavin Schmidt is equally partisan and actively participates in Mann’s pro-CSE website Real Climate.
During Hansen’s tenure he often cited individual year temps of evidence of global warming. “2005 Warmest Year in a Century,” etc. Early on it was difficult to make such claims because the 30’s were known to be so hot. No problem. Via multiple adjustments the 30’s were cooled down, thus making the late 20th century warming hotter.
Is there a chance that NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is independent of the IPCC? Nope. Lamframboise reports that NOAA devoted a page in one of its publications celebrating the fact that “more than 120 NOAA scientists contributed” to the 2007 IPCC report.
More recent evidence of NOAA’s corruption are its recent fiddling with the surface temp records and their dishonest (a la Hansen) proclamation that 2015 was the hottest year ever. See wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/21/failed-math-in-1997-noaa-claimed-that-the-earth-was-5-63-degrees-warmer-than-today/ Thanks Styrg.
Academia
As with scientific journals, the universities who employ the likes of Mann and Jones refuse to hold them to account.
See section on Wang and Jones above. After Keenan called Wang on his misrepresentation, Wang refused to retract his claims. Keenan followed through with a complaint to his university, the University of Albany. Result: not guilty. Albany didn’t even interview Keenan.
In the wake of the climategate emails the University of Pennsylvania “investigated”
the charges against Michael Mann. The best account of the whitewash is given by Montford. In short, Penn State did not interview MM or any other of Mann’s critics. They ignored strong evidence in the emails that Mann was guilty of cooperating with Jones’s efforts to thwart FOIA requests, violated peer review confidentiality, and other conduct unbecoming a scientist. The panel’s findings in some cases simply were contradicted by plain fact or missed the point entirely.
As with Mann, the CRU and the University East Anglia aided and abetted Phil Jones all the way. Yet he was found not guilty on all counts by multiple inquires. Montford sums it up this way:
Read Chapter 12 of Montford’s book Hiding the Decline for his complete account.
None of this is surprising given that universities are predominantly leftist in orientation and on board with the larger green cause. But more importantly, universities are all on the government dole when it comes to funding and will do nothing to jeopardize that.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 4. The Rottenness of the Rest of the CSE, continued
Scientific Journals
That leading scientific publications have all staked out editorial positions in favor of the CSE and have aided and abetted the misconduct of bad scientists is undeniable. Nature, Scientific American, …
Scientific Organizations
The National Academy of Science dominated by the likes of Paul Ehrlich (the most discredited scientist in the world!), Susan Solomon (IPCC bigwig) and John Holdren. Ralph Cicerone, the honcho at the NAS, played a lead role in the fight to save the Hockey Stick. For years the Academy has been admitting light-weight activist scientists such as these via an expedited back-door process. In short, they have gone political.
Joining the NAS in shame is the British Royal Society, which played a key role in the climategate cover-up.
That these two elite organizations have signed up for the cause is evident from the April 9, 2010 letter to the Financial Times by Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, and Ralph Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has very helpfully parsed this letter as follows: “Rees and Cicerone are saying that regardless of the evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide. Nothing could better epitomize the notion of science in the service of politics – something that, unfortunately, has characterized so-called climate science.”
Or take the American Meteorological Society. Their first alarmist statement published in 2006 was the product of small committee and was adopted over the strong protest of the general membership. The same story with the American Geophysical Union.
Please read the resignation letter of Professor Harold Lewis to his beloved American Physical Society. heartland.org/policy-documents/hal-lewis-resignation-letter-american-physical-society
No, my dear bishops (and everyone else), you will search in vain for scientific organizations within the CSE fold who are honest brokers in this debate.
In summary, the prosecution will find it very, very difficult—if not impossible—to find some residue of the CSE not affected by the rot. The IPCC, the head, is rotten. The rot extends to government agencies, elite scientific organizations, journals, and universities.
Scientific Journals
That leading scientific publications have all staked out editorial positions in favor of the CSE and have aided and abetted the misconduct of bad scientists is undeniable. Nature, Scientific American, …
Scientific Organizations
The National Academy of Science dominated by the likes of Paul Ehrlich (the most discredited scientist in the world!), Susan Solomon (IPCC bigwig) and John Holdren. Ralph Cicerone, the honcho at the NAS, played a lead role in the fight to save the Hockey Stick. For years the Academy has been admitting light-weight activist scientists such as these via an expedited back-door process. In short, they have gone political.
Joining the NAS in shame is the British Royal Society, which played a key role in the climategate cover-up.
That these two elite organizations have signed up for the cause is evident from the April 9, 2010 letter to the Financial Times by Martin Rees, President of the Royal Society, and Ralph Cicerone, President of the US National Academy of Sciences. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has very helpfully parsed this letter as follows: “Rees and Cicerone are saying that regardless of the evidence the answer is predetermined. If the government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide. Nothing could better epitomize the notion of science in the service of politics – something that, unfortunately, has characterized so-called climate science.”
Or take the American Meteorological Society. Their first alarmist statement published in 2006 was the product of small committee and was adopted over the strong protest of the general membership. The same story with the American Geophysical Union.
Please read the resignation letter of Professor Harold Lewis to his beloved American Physical Society. heartland.org/policy-documents/hal-lewis-resignation-letter-american-physical-society
No, my dear bishops (and everyone else), you will search in vain for scientific organizations within the CSE fold who are honest brokers in this debate.
In summary, the prosecution will find it very, very difficult—if not impossible—to find some residue of the CSE not affected by the rot. The IPCC, the head, is rotten. The rot extends to government agencies, elite scientific organizations, journals, and universities.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Chapter 5 Searching for Explanations for the Pervasiveness of Corruption Within the CSE
That the rot has spread from the head is beyond question. How did this happen?
Richard Lindzen wrote a paper on this back in 2008 entitled Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/16330
Here is the abstract:
*For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible.
Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former.
Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding.
When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
*
Lindzen talks about a change in the scientific paradigm. Another development in that vein is the growth of so-called post-normal science (See Ravetz and Funtowisz), which encourages activist, policy-driven, and PR-driven—not to mention, mendacious-- science. Melanie Phillips puts this in the context of post-modernism in her book The World Turned Upside Down.
But we will let Mike Hulme, a prominent UEA professor and part of the CSE, articulate in a Guardian article this post-normal vision of climate science:
Pat Michaels gives a very illuminating lecture on climate science and the regulatory state and the inherent bias of summary science: youtube.com/watch?v=WpNzwzwm-xU
Conventional climate science serves many causes and many varied interests have rallied around it. As we have seen, in its inception the IPCC was designed to serve the radical anti-population, environmental and global governance agendas. The international socialists are all in, along with a whole host of crony capitalists. Bjorn Lomborg talks about the “climate-industrial complex.” Christopher Horner documents it all very well in his books Red Hot Lies and Power Grab.
That the rot has spread from the head is beyond question. How did this happen?
Richard Lindzen wrote a paper on this back in 2008 entitled Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/16330
Here is the abstract:
*For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible.
Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former.
Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding.
When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
*
Lindzen talks about a change in the scientific paradigm. Another development in that vein is the growth of so-called post-normal science (See Ravetz and Funtowisz), which encourages activist, policy-driven, and PR-driven—not to mention, mendacious-- science. Melanie Phillips puts this in the context of post-modernism in her book The World Turned Upside Down.
But we will let Mike Hulme, a prominent UEA professor and part of the CSE, articulate in a Guardian article this post-normal vision of climate science:
quote from Melanie Phillips’ book The World Turned Upside Down, p 278.
Pat Michaels gives a very illuminating lecture on climate science and the regulatory state and the inherent bias of summary science: youtube.com/watch?v=WpNzwzwm-xU
Conventional climate science serves many causes and many varied interests have rallied around it. As we have seen, in its inception the IPCC was designed to serve the radical anti-population, environmental and global governance agendas. The international socialists are all in, along with a whole host of crony capitalists. Bjorn Lomborg talks about the “climate-industrial complex.” Christopher Horner documents it all very well in his books Red Hot Lies and Power Grab.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
It depends what you consider a good idea. If you think green energy is a justification which can be used to funnel money to cronies in industry (like GE), it is a great idea.
Of course, when the subsidies go away providing the profit, the windmills go idle. Even Warren Buffet admitted that they aren’t financially viable without government funds (via tax credit, direct subsidy, etc. etc.)
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Do you have any hard facts to back this up? I don’t give a hoot what Warren Buffet says, so forget that. But in looking into it, the best criticism I could find was based on the variability of wind power - the fact that without power storage, wind power can never replace other continuously-operating sources, like coal and nuclear. But I don’t see that as a valid argument. Even without any storage at all, using wind power when it is available allows conventional power stations to generate less power, and save on fuel. I suspect that over the lifetime of a coal-fired power plant, the largest overall cost would be the cost of fuel. It would overwhelm the cost of construction and maintenance - things that need to be paid for whether you use the power or not. So anything that saves on fuel saves substantially on total cost of energy.
As long as we don’t try to build so many wind turbines that we end up generating way more power than we can effectively trade off for conventional power, I don’t see a problem. The only potential argument I can see is if one could demonstrate that the total cost of construction and maintenance of wind turbines is greater than the cost of the energy generated over its lifetime. Do you have any hard facts that prove that?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Yes. Companies will not invest in them without the government covering a considerable amount of the cost. They do not generate enough power to pay for themselves. Especially true in today’s energy market with fossil fuels being far cheaper. They are not economically viable- hence Warren Buffet’s statement.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Like I said, where is the hard data to back that up? Specifically, the “They do not generate enough power to pay for themselves”?
- Status