JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Time for a new rigorous Association of Scientists

Below is the O so apt resignation of  Steven J. Welcenbach from the American Chemical Society (ACS). In it he describes how the largest scientific society in the world has become a non-scientific activist group bowing to political pressure and ignoring its members objections. Such is his ire and dismay, he is not only pulling his membership but vows to do all he can to make sure ACS does not receive public money. He suggests that many former members will form a new society that rigorously follows the scientific method (hear hear).

It’s time to start talking about that new society. What would we call this international coalition of scientists who demand the highest standards of reasoning, who expect that the society would be there to serve its members, not just serve the aspirations of the committee members, or grant-seeking-associates? What would be written into its constitution? Any large entity is a target for people seeking power or seeking to use science for their own purposes. How do we stop that decay?

Where is this science association that would never dream of uttering an ad hom, or argument from authority, and would never declare that the “debate is over” and grovel before the false prophets of science? Where is the association that would outspokenly condemn any scientist who hides data, makes logical errors, and resorts to name-calling to silence the critics?

Art Robinson wrote about the how the control of the quest for knowledge itself has been usurped from individuals and private industry and taken over by the government. I discussed his excellent article in The Truth Shall Set You Free.

How soon can we start?

Jo
PS: (Thanks to Bob Carter for passing it on).

January 22, 2011

Madeleine Jacobs
Executive Director and CEO
American Chemical Society
Membership and Subscription Renewal
PO Box 182426
Columbus, OH 43218-2426
Phone: 800-333-9511
Fax: 614-447-3671
service@acs.org

Dear Madeleine,

Congratulations!

You have completed the transition you began long ago when you assumed your present position of power. The American Chemical Society (ACS), formerly the largest scientific society on Earth, has been fully transformed from a respected, credible scientific organization to a fully engaged Progressive Political Action Committee.

The respectability and credibility of ACS has been waning for quite some time, even before you took the reins as Executive Director and CEO. Rudy Baum has done a nice job of continuing the legacy you started as editor of the organizational publication, C&E News. The content of this publication has steadily become based upon hearsay and unproven claims, such as the report last fall about the “pollution fallout” of the “undersea oil plume” from the BP incident in the Gulf last spring. No data was provided. No proof required. Just speculative claims of disaster from the handsomely paid authors of calamity. Such an article typifies the scientific journalistic prowess of C&E News and thus ACS.

In 2009, I attempted to address the blatant malfeasance of Rudy Baum in addressing the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in any meaningful scientific manner in C&E News. My efforts were rewarded with a blatant dismissal by Rudy as a “Flat Earther” followed by your full support of his position and methods when I approached you with this matter. While I give Rudy credit for following our interaction up with a boatload of letters from ACS members articulating a similar position to mine, he still articulated a scientifically untenable statement: “Still the science rolls on……ice is thinning in the Arctic Ice Pack…..” as if the ONLY possible explanation for such and event is AGW and is something unusual in Earth’s history.
Regardless of this complete demonstration of unanimity of outlook and commitment by ACS executives and leadership to AGW doctrine and disregard for the scientific method, many of us felt we could effect change within the organization. One member, Peter Bonk, took it upon himself to articulate the disparity between the ACS official Policy Statement regarding AGW and scientific reality titled:

Regarding the American Chemical Society Public Policy Statement On Climate Change:

An Open Letter to Board of Directors of the American Chemical Society

After Peter got 150 members to sign the petition, a commitment from Rudy Baum that the letter would be published in C&E News, and met with you, Rudy and others in Washington DC to discuss this matter, you all went back on your word and refused to publish the letter. The validity of 25 signatures was questioned as a cover for this reversal. No documentation was ever provided to support this claim despite repeated attempts to obtain such by Mr. Bonk. After being informed of this breech of trust one member commented:

“Peter, my experience with Rudy Baum is very similar. He makes commitments and then does not follow the commitment. Can you send me the final copy of the letter/petition you submitted? I plan to talk to the President of ACS, Joe Francisco either in SF or at Purdue. None of this surprises me, in many ways it is similar to the APS response, specifically the Physics Today response which is similar to C&E News. We are dealing with macro politics. Obama’s science advisor, Holdren has put out the signal to the leadership of all the american scientific societies that they have to stay aligned with the administration or else…there is lots of R&D money at stake. There is a statement coming out of the AAAS meeting in San Diego just this month, in fact this past weekend re-affirming that the IPCC science is just fine, move along folks.”

So we see that ACS has become nothing more than an organization whose mission is to promulgate a specific political ideology based upon false claims of AGW, government control of R&D funding and “green and sustainable chemistry,” whatever that means. In other words, completely embrace and promulgate the Progressive Political agenda, the agenda where all scientists are wards of the state producing agenda-supporting “scientific research” papers, resulting in government mandates on carbon dioxide emissions, energy production, mineral extraction and private property. It other words, make scientists the thralls utilized to substantiate the radical environmental and energy policies that will kill economic growth and foster the ultimate goal of these folks, population reduction. Just look at the letters Rudy chose to publish in the last edition (January 17, 2011) of C&E News.

ACS has died as a scientific society. Confirmation of this fact arrived January 20th in my inbox in the form of the “ACS Diversity eBrief.” Apparently the mission of ACS no longer entails a comprehensive investigation of a real scientific issue like AGW. Apparently the Abiogenic Theory of Petroleum Formation holds no interest or scientific credibility to ACS members since I forwarded articles on this subject to Rudy Baum years ago for inclusion in C&E News. “Educating” ACS members on “understanding the importance of diversity” and the plight of being female in the workforce now holds priority in the enlightened ACS organization. Last time I checked the scientific method didn’t include questions about race, gender, eye color or sexual orientation.

Who needs this scientific stuff anyway? It’s SO boring!

Madeleline, you and Rudy made it abundantly clear that the opinions and goals of the membership at large mean nothing to the ACS elite running the organization.

I know many don’t consider me a real member or scientist for that matter, since I only possess a bachelor’s degree. Plus I am a huge, outspoken pain in the rear. So I am sure you’ll not miss me in that regard.

What you will miss is my $151.00 in dues I would have paid plus my dues every year after. You will also miss all of the dues of all of the other members that will follow my example and leave ACS.

This letter of my resignation will be published in many places throughout the world. It will also be forwarded directly to the vast network of ACS members and other scientists in my e-mail archive and then forwarded with my permission to anyone else they see fit to receive it. They all have my permission.

ACS has proven to truly be beyond hope. You and your cabal have systematically subverted the mission of ACS and brought it to this sorry, repulsive juncture.

The displaced scientists from ACS, the American Physical Society and other formerly scientific organizations turned Progressive Political Advocacy groups will form a new society rigorously following the scientific method and staying true to the ethical tenets that have allowed scientific discovery to flourish. I have pulled my personal funding of ACS and plan to do all I can in the coming years to make sure any and all public money ACS receives gets eliminated.

Please tell Rudy I am not abdicating my promise to him to be removed. I just came to the undeniable conclusion that ACS is beyond repair and must be replaced. So in a way I guess I am keeping my promise to him after all.

Respectfully Submitted,

Steven J. Welcenbach

(Bolding added by Jo).

Thanks to Graham for spotting the feral apostrophes. :-\

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Time for a new rigorous Association of Scientists, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/47pfcto

71 comments to Time for a new rigorous Association of Scientists

  • #
    Steve Koch

    To be included in the constitution:

    The professional scientific organization will take no collective positions on anything that is not narrowly defined to be part of the specific scientific discipline to which this scientific org is dedicated.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks so much for publishing this.

    Toward the end of the first paragraph, following the headline: “An Open Letter…” there’s a reference to “Mr. Bonk”. Perhaps this is a typo?

    Happy Valentine’s Day!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mango

    How about calling the new society The Thales Society for the Advancement of Science (for his refusal to accept religion as science) or The Francis Bacon Scientific Method Society (for founding the modern scientific method)?

    /Mango


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Steve, rather than a society of any specific discipline, I’m thinking of something generically science. It could develop subgroups, but more important than anything else is simply to be guardians of The Method. To stand up for logic and reason and the hunt for the Truth, above all else. To rise above the corrupting influences (is that possible?). To stop science being used as a tool against the people (by it’s misapplication, misappropriation, through lies by omission, or monopsonistic funding.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    I have said it before and I will say it again: It always has been, is and always will be about the money. We are all human and just about everybody has a price. If you do not give the people who give you the money what they want then they do not give you any more money. These “scientists” need to be strangled, financially. If the taxpayer’s money stopped flowing then the global warming/climate change/ climate disruption “problem” would simply fade away.

    No money = no global warming, period. In the US, the Republicans control the House of Representatives and all money bills must originate in the House. The republicans have a history, as do the democrats, of squandering opportunity. I think it is in a politicians DNA. If they follow through on their promise to defund global warming then the collapse of this house of cards will accelerate. If not, the worlds economy will collapse and the poor will, as is customary and inevitable, suffer the most.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    I do so hope this is the start of a scientific revolt!

    I applaud Steven Walcenbach. The is about rescuing the credibility of science and the role it plays in furthering human knowledge – both have been under threat due to AGW. Just as science sort to extract itself from the dictates of the church, it is now having to disentangle itself from political dogma.

    It will be interesting to see just how many scientists start to disassociate themselves from societies that have gone astray on this. Hopefully it will put paid to the claims that all the scientists agree (more like they were gagged).

    I can see the benefit of a cross disciplinary society as many issues and problems (including climate) are just that, complex. In the climate debate I have found it frustrating to hear a scientist discredit another avenue of scientific enquiry (even within the sceptic circle), because they want to have primacy on the issue or they don’t fully understand alternative scientific disciplines. This is really not helpful! Sure, scientists need to stick to their core discipline and what they know, but to also broadly know how other disciplines intersect and can inform understanding. Maybe that could be in their code of conduct? No preciousness allowed.

    Maybe this new group will come to be seen as more credible on the issue of climate than the IPCC?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Siliggy

    Sort of slightly off topic but this line leads off to a BIG story.
    “the Abiogenic Theory of Petroleum Formation”
    It seems that one of the main arguements against the Abiotic oil theories is:
    “Eventually, these hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it.”….BLAH BLAH BLAH…”(this is the Gaia model)”
    Another of the arguements boils down to “content of 13C isotopes” Hmmm but does cosmic radiation vary? Like we could know what 13c isotope ratio of this oil should be anyway!
    Not my area of knowledge but the smell of these arguments is sus.
    A whole long list of good links:
    http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Eddy Aruda: #5

    It always has been, is and always will be about the money.

    I totally agree. And since it is all about the money, that is one of the things that this society could concern itself with.

    Imagine, if you will, a situation where members were “encouraged” to lodge a copy of all applications for funding with the society, together with the success or otherwise of their application. Copies of the applications could be redacted to make them anonymous, as long as there is a mechanism to stop people skewing the system, et cetera.

    Over time, an analysis of the success/failure rate by topic area could itself be published as an ongoing research project.

    Institutions (including governments) will only fund what they are interested in, so there will always be political bias in the system. It becomes toxic when that bias is deliberately concealed from the public who are ultimately the source of the funding.

    Exposing the grants process to ultraviolet light will go some way to removing the toxicity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    The problem with scientific societies, and all such groups, is that the leadership self selects. Most of us have no desire to be tin pot dictators, so we don’t stand for our local council, or RACI committees, but some people do. I know of scientists who have been so desirous of power positions, and so inept, that they have destroyed the groups they have been in just so they can get themselves promoted to positions of power, even trivial ones.

    So, getting rid of the ACS, or AAAS or APS, RS, etc and replacing them with another society will just call the same basic instincts into play. Those who wish power and prestige will wangle themselves onto the steering committees. And because it is power and prestige they desire they will likewise attach themselves, and their societies, to whatever bandwagon that is trundling along at that time. Lately that has been global warming, which has been irresistible because it also has great floods of money attached to it. Power and prestige and money and even a chance to save the world (even if it doesn’t actually need saving), that is beyond irresistible for a certain class of people. Scientists are not immune, especially since all scientists have been dirt poor for the years they have struggled through PhD, post docs and endless short term contracts.

    No, the problem here is the tribal groups will always attach themselves to power memes like global warming. What must be done is to so discredit this meme that the power groups will dissociate themselves from it and go back to small harmless things like pushing for more labs in schools and the like.

    Our advantage is that the data is on our sceptical side. It is very clear that solar aspects, particularly the length of the previous solar cycle is overwhelmingly predictive of the average temperature of the following solar cycle. This data is unambiguous and impossible to discredit, since the sun is not influencible by humans and solar cycle length is not able to be distorted, adjusted or hidden. So pound the powers with the sun and its influence! Pound your MP’s with this!

    Unfortunately my local MP is Mr Combet, which sort of makes it difficult for me…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PJB

    The Sapiens Society

    Says it all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    Off Topic but very important!!!

    AGENDA 21

    A Current Affair tonight exposed the beginning of the implementation of Agenda 21

    Agenda 21 is being implemented in Australia under the guise of SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

    (Google your local Council and in search put Sustainable Development)

    It appears that West Australia is taking the brunt to start with. Everyone will remember the FARMER UP THE TREE
    he was protesting his PROPERTY RIGHTS.

    below the link to A Current Affair tonight – see with your own eyes, that police and council have forced their way
    on to a Farmers property and demanded he plant 300,000 trees on it. THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS, this is UN AGENDA 21

    http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8210901

    THE LABOR GOVERNMENT SIGNED THE AUSTRALIA UP TO THE UNITED NATIONS AGENGA 21 without consultation
    of the Australian people. Roz Kelly was the signatory

    So does the signing of a UN charter, have RIGHTS over the Sovereign Rights of the Constitution of Australia?

    This is a WORLD WIDE Socialist Agenda, towards One World Government, and taking your property rights away.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TanftYACLmA


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    “Siliggy” (8),

    Debunking the Myth of Peak Oil – Why the Age of Cheap Oil is Far From Over

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-the-Age-of-Cheap-Oil-is-Far-From-Over-Part-1.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Eddy @ 5
    There is a saying that an honest man is someone who hasn’t been offered enough


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    lmwd: # 6

    I can see the benefit of a cross disciplinary society as many issues and problems (including climate) are just that, complex.

    I have been reading, “Chasing the Molecule”, by John Buckingham.

    It is the history of the development of organic chemistry, as a precursor to biochemistry.

    What has struck me, is that a lot of the scientists involved started their careers as apprentice apothecaries, or they were multi disciplinary in some way. For example, Michael Faraday, who is now thought of as a physist – he gave his name to the unit of capacitance – was instrumental in the understanding of valence.

    The cross-disciplinary approach to organic chemistry caused lots of arguments, but the underlying science progressed, bit by bit.

    I think you are right. Scientific disciplines have become too specialised. We are all looking at the same rock, but if we are not allowed to walk around the rock, then we can never adequately describe it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    The politicization of professional organizations, I think is a side effect of the commercialization of science.

    Sometime around the late 70s early 80s, governments decided that ARGC research funds would be directed at research that had commercial application. This had the effect of converting many scientists into technologists. Technologists, in turn, required legal and accountacy/commerce support to commercially secure the “technology”. Universities (and CSIRO) created marketing roles to assist in the collection of research funds. Over subsequent decades, we witnessed a transition in the structure of boards in universities and corporations from those with science and engineering qualifications to those with legal/accountancy/commerce/marketing backgrounds. The science no longer mattered, selling it did.

    The most recent public example of the mess this has created, the Victorian synchatron, where Prof. Larkins was trying to get some academic sanity from a politically appointed lawyer who “administers” the organization. See
    theaustralian.com.au

    The Y2K scam which creamed inordinate amounts of money from many organizations drew protests from most IT technicians (not directly employed by a Y2K project). Whose voice was heard? The technicians or the sales/marketing team and the hysterical media? Professional IT organizations were vocal in their support of this IT wastage.

    The parallels between Y2K and AGW (so far) are amazing. The major difference is that there was a cut-off date for the Y2K gravy train. Methinks the AGW scam will continue for same amount of time as it is funded.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john of sunbury

    rambler @ 16

    As a further example … (gov appointed) head of CSIRO is not a scientist but a finance expert.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Obama’s science advisor, Holdren has put out the signal to the leadership of all the american scientific societies that they have to stay aligned with the administration or else…there is lots of R&D money at stake.

    I’ve absolutely no doubt of the truth of this. The money is used as a whip to keep the peons in line. But what we fight has always been a political problem and it’s the politicians we need to expose.

    It should be quite clear by now that no politician pushing climate-whatever cares whether it’s ever going to happen or not. They see power and that really doesn’t require them to look beyond the end of their own noses into the future. So they don’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    How soon can we start?
    NOW would even be behind schedule.
    A good start might be to identify the paid lackeys, followed by treason trials.
    Am I being too harsh?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t see this as an issue that scientists need to concern themselves with. It’s more or less up to governments to implement policies that have the maximum impact on scientific progress in their constituency. If national public funding of scientists prove to have a detrimental impact on the scientific output of a country then, new policies should be put in place by new governments. Scientists should focus on science and leave politics to politicians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    So many posts, so little time to respond…..
    The best way to organize such a group is with a strong constitution AND by INVITATION ONLY! Start with the best and by invitation control who gets in. The constitution controls the ultimate goal (scientific method) and by invitation (somewhat) control the whack-ohs that get in.

    Of course You do know that there are lots of whack-ohs out there……


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Rereke Whakaaro:
    February 15th, 2011 at 7:47 am

    …Imagine, if you will, a situation where members were “encouraged” to lodge a copy of all applications for funding with the society, together with the success or otherwise of their application. Copies of the applications could be redacted to make them anonymous, as long as there is a mechanism to stop people skewing the system, et cetera.

    Rereke, I always enjoy reading your posts because they make me think. If only there were a “mechanism” to stop people from skewing the system and that the playing field was level. Unfortunately, politicians are told on their first day in office that they “go along to get along” or they, and their constituents, will do without. Once on the slippery slope they never get off. The lobbyist grease the politicians hands and if the politician fails to win reelection their cronies give them a cushy job (probably as a lobbyist) and they live off the fat of the land.

    In the U.S. we had the Gramm Rudman Hollings Act of 1985. The act was supposed to cap spending by the federal government. The current federal debt is over 14,000,000,000,000 and growing. It looks like the sign at McDonald’s showing how many customers have been served… on steroids! Hopefully, as politicians become willing to cut the deficit to save their worthless hides, they will sacrifice the global warming scam because it could, if cap and trade passes or the EPA continues to run roughshod over the constitution, derail their gravy train.

    Until the politicians are forced by necessity to defund the global warming scam the green rent seekers will continue to sup at the federal trough. Change tends to come when forced by financial necessity… because it is always about the money!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Albert:
    February 15th, 2011 at 8:05 am
    Eddy @ 5
    There is a saying that an honest man is someone who hasn’t been offered enough

    With but few exceptions everyone has their price. The “exceptions” are usually the filthy rich. They can “afford” to be honest!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Here is the name – INTERNATIONAL PURE SCIENCE ORGANISATION – IPSO. MOTTO – IPSO FACTO


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy @23 & 24,

    I beg to politely disagree with you. :-)

    A question: is Obama about money or about power? From what he does I believe its power — power to dictate every last detail of our very lives with an iron fist. His corruption hasn’t been the type that brings him large sums of money (he gets that too) but control, control, control. He acts like a dictator. He hands out our money to keep the world of science in line.

    We may be looking at the wrong motive. If Obama drops carbon taxing and regulation the whole thing will die off for lack of interest by anyone else. There’ll be no incentive to keep going if it can’t be driven from the top.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Percival Snodgrass

    OT but related to gillard’s carbon tax………
    =========

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/keneally_warns_that_gillards_green_tax_will_hurt/

    KENEALLY IS DESPERATE !!!!!!!!!!!!

    KENEALLY MUST PEOPLE ARE DEAF, DUMB AND STUPID IF SHE THINKS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE FOOLED BY HER FAKE “CONCERN” ABOUT A CARBON TAX !!!!!

    SHE WILL SAY ANYTHING TO GET REELECTED !!

    DON’T BE FOOLED BY HER AND HER ALP (Australian LIERS party) !!!!!!

    HER AND HER SCUMBAG PARTY HAVE TO GO !!!!!!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    David

    Slightly off-topic, but related nonetheless – here in the UK we get some jaw-droppers on a daily basis…
    A recent government sub-committee on ‘Electricity Market Reform’ took witness comments from – amongst others:
    The RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)
    Greenpeace
    WWF (World Wildlife Fund), and
    Friends of The Earth..!!
    All well versed in the economics of the electricity market, I’m sure – not one of them wanting to sway the sub-committee in the direction of ‘renewables’….
    Here’s another – the BBC Breakast news show, did a feature on the fact that a lot of local authorities are switching off their traffic speed cameras due to funding cuts. Cue reporter standing by a speed camera – brief spiel, then turns to a guest for comment:
    Someone from a motoring organisation..?
    A local authority official..?
    Nah – a guy from Friends of The Earth..!!
    You couldn’t make it up…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    It’s sad to see ‘traditional’ scientists resigning from scientific associations like the ACS and APS. Welcenbach uses the term “Progressive Political Advocacy groups” to describe what they’ve become. Perhaps they should be called PAPS? Progressives Advocating Politicized Science?

    Pointman


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I like IPSO. (thanks Darren)

    Let’s keep brainstorming…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Charles

    Any time a difference of opinion results in personal attacks you can be reasonably sure the attacker is not confident of his position. Otherwise he would stick to the facts as he knows them and let others come to their own conclusions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Eddy Aruda # 23

    I don’t disagree. The point I was trying to make, was that you can get some interesting stats if members are “encouraged” to report requests for funding.

    As examples:

    a) Which fields are members currently working in, and on what aspects;
    b) What level of funding are they requesting (yeah, I know, very contentious);
    c) Which funding sources are they applying to;
    d) Which funding sources are accepting applications, and in what fields;
    e) Which funding sources are rejecting applications, and in what fields;
    f) Which fields are currently “fashionable”, and by how much;
    g) Which fields are currently dead in the water?

    The same thing works the other way around, if funding sources are requesting applications (request for proposals) in particular aspects of a field.

    If nothing else, it will tell you who is in the driving seat for a lot of stuff.

    We tend to focus on the scientists, but as you rightly point out, it is the funding sources who call the tune, either directly or indirectly. It would be good to know who they were and be able to dig into their motives, don’t you think?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Maybe it’s just because it’s early and the caffeine levels are low, but I read that headline as ‘Assassination of Scientists.’ Whoa, I thought, Jo’s finally taken off the kid gloves.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] JoNova berättar om, och förmedlar, det senaste protestbrevet i raden. Det är skrivet av Steven J. Welcenbach från American Chemical Society (ACS). Han inte bara förklarar att han, liksom så många andra, tänker lämna sällskapet. Dessutom tänker han arbeta aktivt för att sällskapet skall bli av med sina offentliga medel. Och han föreslår också att han och alla andra vetenskapsmän som tröttnat på de existerande sällskapens politiska korrekthet bildar en ny, gemensam organisation där man verkligen håller sig till god vetenskaplig metod och etik. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The respectability and credibility of ACS has been waning for quite some time. [...] The content of [C&E News] has steadily become based upon hearsay and unproven claims, such as the report last fall about the “pollution fallout” of the “undersea oil plume” from the BP incident in the Gulf last spring. No data was provided. No proof required. Just speculative claims of disaster from the handsomely paid authors of calamity. Such an article typifies the scientific journalistic prowess of C&E News and thus ACS. [h/t Jo Nova] [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    If the association just had basic rules of logic, along with “transparency” (of data and method) as it’s constitution that would be enough. The less complex the better.
    It ought to censure members who break laws of reasoning, and disbar members who hide data and methods.

    Harder to police though is peer review. Perhaps there is a way to expose or evict those who misuse or manipulate the peer review process.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Rereke Whakaaro @ 33

    Your observations and comments are spot on! Thank you for your kind words.

    Roy Hogue @ 26

    A question: is Obama about money or about power?

    Obama lives by the “other” golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules! Money and power go hand in hand. Power is bought with money, power then generates more money and it is a self sustaining cycle that will probably continue as long as humans are the dominant species on the planet. Don’t worry, Roy! Barack Obama translates into english as “one termer”! ;)

    The saddest thing about politicians is that they are, for the most part, a reflection of those who voted them into power. That is to say, all of us.

    The scientists will continue to gorge themselves at the public trough until they become a liability. That day is almost upon us. Jo and other brave bloggers have shone the light of truth on these corrupt scientists. Eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately, those who would rob us of our freedom are already building their next trojan horse. Thus, the need for eternal vigilance!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Arguably the worst thing that ever happened to science was the PhD. Rather than scientists learning a wide variety of skills over several decades they are shoehorned into a very narrow discipline very early in their careers. In many cases they waste an enormous amount of effort because they can’t think laterally due to lack of broad knowledge. Some of the greatest research has been made by outsiders. None of the major researchers into the structure of DNA know much about genetics. James Watson was an expert in bird behaviour, Rosalind Franklin and Francis Crick were crystallographers and Maurice Wilkins was a physical chemist.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Steven J. Welcenbach resigns. He sounds like an opinionated, cantankerous, self-righteous, grumpy old man (and I should recognise such a beast). What is it about the elderly that makes them dislike AGW so much? Why are grumpy old men so disposed to see venal motives everywhere? I don’t think it is just their many years of exposure of the world making them wise. Of course you guys will just think that age and experience have given you the insight to tell the difference between bullshit and brilliance – but I’m not convinced.

    As for scientific standards, are you sure that you aren’t worried about them just because they get results you don’t like?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GaryL

    This is a very interesting development. As a long time ACS member who has submitted several letters to the editor on the subject of ACS’s promulgation of AGW propaganda (which were summarily ignored, btw), I had considered resigning my memebership this year. Unfortunately, there appears to be little alternative in the way of scientific societies that are not already tainted by the AGW machine. Since my employer reimburses the dues and one is expected to keep abreast of the field, I held my nose and submitted my renewal (Ugh).

    The formation of a new, scientifically credible and disciplined organization will be most welcome to those of us in this quandry. I will be watching this development closely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    The peer review process must be “re-invented” to take advantage of the Internet era of “instantaneous” global communications.

    I suggest that papers to be published be placed in a pool that’s completely visible, with details of the paper viewable at the level of abstract; if not entirely. Papers must be accompanied by all data; raw and processed, along with the methods used to process the data; available for reviewers for unrestricted analysis.

    Those placing the papers in the pool would be editors of journals who’d have dibs on first publication rights. Or they can call for “bids” from editors of other publications. Potential reviewers, who’d be registered with the galactic :-) society of scientists, put their names up as potential reviewers, if necessary, stating what aspects of the paper will be the focus of their review.

    The registrations of interest sent to the society and to the editor, with the editor then making the choice with the primary aim being to get the broadest perspective of review and the deepest level of review possible. Review comments go back to the author(s) for feedback and perhaps a review or even withdrawal of the paper. Review comments are held in quarantine until after publication or withdrawal.

    In case of a paper being withdrawn, the author attaches a statement as to the reasons, leaving the paper in view but clearly as unpublished. The aim is to be able to learn from failures. A post-mortem can be more instructive than the life of the beast.

    Reviews maybe re-initiated if a paper is modified. Original reviewers having priority to re-review but the editor having the option of adding other reviewers to cover potential new material or analysis in the updated paper.

    The editor decides when a paper is ready to publish.

    As in the current review process (well, better!), the identity of reviewers and authors must not be revealed until publication or withdrawal; whereupon all are identified. Sources of funding for the process of all parties must be published.

    Just an outline.

    The highlight of the process is transparency at all stages and independent auditability of editors’ decisions.

    Authors, readers and publishers will be able to see which editors are most effective.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    February 16th, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    What is it about the elderly that makes them dislike AGW so much? Why are grumpy old men so disposed to see venal motives everywhere? I don’t think it is just their many years of exposure of the world making them wise.

    Mostly, it is the financial motive. (No, not the checks from Exxon! ;-) ) So many vocal AGW critics are either retired scientists, scientists in other fields, or professors with tenure because their careers and livelihoods can’t be effectively targeted by the CAGW alarmists and their government supporters. (You can buy a lot of support with $80 Billion.) (Also, it’s irritating to have the clueless demand you sacrifice for their stupidity or venality.)

    Read the Climategate emails, John. Read the news. One way you know the CAGW crowd is using bogus science is that they make every attempt to ruin the careers of anyone who dares criticize them. They don’t hesitate to personally attack their critics and their funding (although they seem somewhat squeamish about actually engaging in a discussion with them). Nice guys you have aligned yourself with.

    Of course you guys will just think that age and experience have given you the insight to tell the difference between bullshit and brilliance – but I’m not convinced.

    Why not? We’ve got you pegged :-)

    Actually, there are plenty of younger scientists who know it is BS (I know some personally), but aren’t willing to go public because they have families to support and house payments to make.

    As for scientific standards, are you sure that you aren’t worried about them just because they get results you don’t like?

    You really are the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted here, John. We can always depend on your inability to analyze the data. This blog is full to the brim with references to scientific studies and data that demonstrate that CAGW is nothing more than political fear mongering — and for those who can’t follow the science, the behavior of the fear mongers (referenced above) should be a clue.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John, thanks for dropping by. It just wouldn’t be the same here without you.

    And I meant to say thanks for the offer of a beer on a thread a while back. I was touched. Shucks!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    GaryL:
    February 17th, 2011 at 12:01 am

    The formation of a new, scientifically credible and disciplined organization will be most welcome to those of us in this quandry. I will be watching this development closely.

    A promising development to watch is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. They are developing an open-data, open-source analysis of all the temperature measurements on the planet. (All they can get data from, anyway: No more letting one station stand in for all of Northern Canada; No more ignoring the hundreds of Siberian stations, etc.)

    Their data, algorithms and code will all be completely open source, and they invite anyone to examine and critique it. They don’t have any pre-determined results to reach (not dependent on political funding), and couldn’t do it anyway without being caught out.

    Their goal:

    The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project has the following objectives:

    1. To merge existing surface station temperature data sets into a new comprehensive raw data set with a common format that could be used for weather and climate research
    2. To review existing temperature processing algorithms for averaging, homogenization, and error analysis to understand both their advantages and their limitations
    3. To develop new approaches and alternative statistical methods that may be able to effectively remove some of the limitations present in existing algorithms
    4. To create and publish a new global surface temperature record and associated uncertainty analysis
    5. To provide an open platform for further analysis by publishing our complete data and software code as well as tools to aid both professional and amateur exploration of the data


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: (again)
    February 16th, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    As for scientific standards, are you sure that you aren’t worried about them just because they get results you don’t like?

    Regarding the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: If their methods are as transparent as they intend, I will be satisfied with whatever result they come up with.

    I’m an engineer — I want data. It’s the CAGW alarmists who modify their standards to produce the results they like (and get paid for).

    As someone commented on WUWT:

    You can fake the science, but hiding the ice and snow is not going to work.

    And, if the ice and snow go away, you can’t hide that either. Selecting (or “adjusting”) data to fit your theories is simply a complicated way to delude yourself.

    (Jo @ 44: Perhaps you think I’m too hard on John. I’ll politely answer his logical arguments when he makes them, but I have little patience for his ad hominem attacks on people he doesn’t know anything about.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike Patrick

    @ John Brooks

    Us old guys have lived long enough to know that consensus has nothing to do with facts. We simply choose to believe hard data. In years of looking for the proof of AGW, the only place I’ve found it to exist is in computer models. Computer models are not data, and they are not proof. Stop bobbing and weaving and show me the data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 16th, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    He sounds like an opinionated, cantankerous, self-righteous, grumpy old man (and I should recognise such a beast). What is it about the elderly that makes them dislike AGW so much? Why are grumpy old men so disposed to see venal motives everywhere? I don’t think it is just their many years of exposure of the world making them wise. Of course you guys will just think that age and experience have given you the insight to tell the difference between bullshit and brilliance – but I’m not convinced.
    As for scientific standards, are you sure that you aren’t worried about them just because they get results you don’t like?

    Opinionated, cantankerous, self-rightous… argumentum ad hominem!

    What is it about the elderly that makes them dislike AGW so much? Argument from age, bad analogy, complex question

    Why are grumpy old men so disposed to see venal motives everywhere? Complex question

    I don’t think it is just their many years of exposure of the world making them wise. Straw man, non sequitur

    Of course you guys will just think that age and experience have given you the insight to tell the difference between bullshit and brilliance – but I’m not convinced. Straw man and a baseless opinion.

    As for scientific standards, are you sure that you aren’t worried about them just because they get results you don’t like? Straw man, needling, Dicto simpliciter, John Brooks…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BobC @ 46

    Perhaps you think I’m too hard on John.

    I think John is too hard on himself. He seems tortured by AGW fear and anguish so he comes here to “check”. Secretly he hopes that we’re right and his fears are unfounded. Unfortunately for John he has a problem with guilt and with authority. Just look at his color! He is blue in the face that CAN”T be good.

    P.S Bob, another thing we seem to be invisible to John anyway.

    P.P.S. Is that the same Berkeley that does the SETI project? They haven’t found ET yet I wonder if they’ll find warming?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Looking at the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature site I find this:

    About Berkeley Lab: Bringing Science Solutions to the World

    In the world of science, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is synonymous with “excellence.” Eleven scientists associated with Berkeley Lab have won the Nobel Prize. Fifty-seven Lab scientists are members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one of the highest honors for a scientist in the United States. Thirteen Berkeley Lab scientists have won the National Medal of Science, our nation’s highest award for lifetime achievement in fields of scientific research.

    Berkeley Lab is a member of the national laboratory system supported by the U.S. Department of Energy through its Office of Science. It is managed by the University of California (UC) and is charged with conducting unclassified research across a wide range of scientific disciplines.

    I wonder if we can count on zero bias……….

    Good summary statement though: http://www.berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_Earth_Summary.pdf

    And more (the source of funding) as found here: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/12/forthcoming-new-surface-temperature-record/

    The project has been organized under the auspices of the nonprofit Novim group.

    Novim’s mission is to provide clear scientific options to the most urgent problems facing society, to explore and explain the feasibility, probable costs and possible consequences of each course of action, and to distribute the results without advocacy or agenda both quickly and widely.

    Novim builds on a set of scientific collaborative tools developed at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at UC Santa Barbara.

    Novim’s motto is interesting food for thought:

    The greatest challenge to any thinker is stating the problem in a way that will allow a solution.

    The project is funded by:

    * The Lee and Juliet Folger Fund
    * Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program
    * William K. Bowes, Jr. Foundation
    * Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates)
    * Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
    * The Ann & Gordon Getty Foundation
    * a number of private individuals

    Project participants are:

    * Robert Rohde, Physicist (Lead Scientist)
    * Richard Muller, Professor of Physics (Chair)
    * David Brillinger, Statistical Scientist
    * Judith Curry, Climatologist
    * Don Groom, Physicist
    * Robert Jacobsen, Professor of Physics
    * Elizabeth Muller, Project Manager
    * Saul Perlmutter, Professor of Physics
    * Arthur Rosenfeld, Professor of Physics, Former California Energy Commissioner
    * Charlotte Wickham, Statistical Scientist
    * Jonathan Wurtele, Professor of Physics

    A visit to the Novim website is not encouraging to me. http://www.novim.org/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Funding for the Berkeley project supplied by, among others:

    Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

    That would be on of the Koch brothers (Doug and Dinsdale), who don’t like AGW.

    Still, I’m prepared to believe that they are willing to finance this out of genuine interest in the science. My bet, for what its worth, is that the end result will be a similar temperature record to what we’ve already got, with skeptics rolling on the ground like an Italian soccer player crying “foul”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    February 17th, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Funding for the Berkeley project supplied by, among others:

    Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

    That would be on of the Koch brothers (Doug and Dinsdale), who don’t like AGW.

    Why is it John, that you seem to be unable to come up with a non-fallacious argument? (The above was just another ad hominem.)

    I don’t doubt NASA’s conclusions because I don’t like James Hansen — I doubt them because they keep modifying 100 year old temperature readings and the records of pristinely-sited stations (if they are not hot enough, that is) without adequate explanation, and because there is no warming in the raw data — it is all added by their non-transparent “adjustments”. (Additionally, they have dropped thousands of reporting stations without justification — many of which just happen to be in the northern parts of Canada and Siberia. The “adjusted” temperatures in these regions experienced a jump upward shortly afterward. Talk about “Human-caused warming”!)

    If the keepers of the “official” world temperatures were as open as the Berkeley group says they are going to be, I would accept their conclusions — instead, they conspire to destroy raw data and avoid legally required disclosures.

    My bet, for what its worth, is that the end result will be a similar temperature record to what we’ve already got, with skeptics rolling on the ground like an Italian soccer player crying “foul”.

    Not everybody shares your disdain for the facts, John. If engineers made decisions based on what they wanted to be true, nothing would work. I will make my decision based, not on the results, but on the process.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    bananabender:
    February 16th, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    Arguably the worst thing that ever happened to science was the PhD. Rather than scientists learning a wide variety of skills over several decades they are shoehorned into a very narrow discipline very early in their careers.

    Science fiction writer Issac Asimov (who had a PhD in biochemistry) had this to say about getting a PhD: “You learn more and more about less and less until you finally know everything about nothing.”

    Specialization may be necessary, but I am struck by how many inventions mine the space between specializations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sure John and because Getty is listed I’m sure that the warmists will cry Foul! “They’re just shills for Big Oil……”
    .
    But did you notice in the interest of full disclosure I posted a non edited list? We’ll see what the project ultimately comes up with. In the end it won’t matter much with regard to global warming. If you have read my thinking before you’ll recall that I can accept that it has been warming because we were coming out of a cooling period. Just the same I could willingly accept that we cannot tell beyond any reasonable error band. The earlier data simply being too sparse.

    The project may offer insights on the trustworthiness of some climate research scientists.

    Either way, the issue is IF Co2 (especially Man caused) has any impact at all.

    My bet, for what its worth, is that the end result will be a similar temperature record to what we’ve already got,

    But John, are you willing to make a gentleman’s bet on whether or not the Berkeley project duplicates the “Hockey Stick”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Hey Eddy@48, you’ve really nailed me there! Trouble is, I’ve got a sneaky feeling that I’m actually right.

    Mark D asks:

    But John, are you willing to make a gentleman’s bet on whether or not the Berkeley project duplicates the “Hockey Stick”?

    I didn’t realise they were going back that far. If they are, then my bet will be that they find that the current decade is the hottest in the last 1000 years. Good enough for you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    GBees

    I’d like to see a new Engineers Australia institution as well. Their climate policy has been hijacked by left leaning zealots. It represents no scientifically verifiable statements, just ideological statements.

    http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/da/index/getfile/id/7382


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John @ 51:

    Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

    That would be on of the Koch brothers (Doug and Dinsdale), who don’t like AGW.

    I’m sure you meant Charles and David didn’t you? http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_H._Koch

    They too are oilmen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    alan neil ditchfield

    ENDANGERED SPECIES
    a.n.ditchfield
    ______________________________________________________.______________________________________________________________________________

    For forty years, environmental activists have been indifferent to the fate of a widespread endangered species, on a path to extinction evidenced by its declining birth rate. A species beset by enemies who treat it as plague that must be destroyed before it destroys the planet. Homo sapiens is the name of the endangered species. The enemies of the species have three principles they accept with an act of faith:
    · · We are running out of space. The world population is already excessive for a limited planet, and grows at exponential rates, with effects that will be disastrous.
    · · We are running out of resources. Non-renewable resources of the planet are being depleted by ever increasing consumption, at a rate that renders further expansion of a global economy unsustainable.
    · · We are running out of time, as tipping points are reached making climate processes irreversible. The carbon dioxide emitted by human activity brings about global warming that will soon cause catastrophic climate change making the planet uninhabitable.
    We are asked to believe because Prince Charles believes the Main Stream Media journalists believe the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes the scientists believe. The daisy chain of acts of faith is too long to hold. Belief has no place in dealing with measurable physical phenomena. When issues are quantified, the contrast between true and false stands clear.

    THERE IS PLENTY OF SPACE
    Is overpopulation a serious problem? So it may seem to the city dweller of a congested metropolis living under local discomfort, but it is not something that can be generalized for the planet. The sum of U.S. urban areas amounts to 2% of the area of the country, and to 6% in densely populated countries like England or Holland. And there is plenty of green in urban areas. If the comparison is restricted to the ground covered by buildings and pavements, the area around the world amounts to 0.04% of Earth’s land area. It was estimated that 6 billion people could live comfortably on 100 000 square miles, the area of Wyoming, or 0.2% of total land. With about 99.8% of free space, the idea that the planet is overpopulated is an exaggeration. Demographic forecasts are uncertain, but the most accepted ones of the UN foresee stability of the global population to be reached in the 21st century. According to some, the world population will start to decrease at the end of this century; aging population is what emerges as the issue of concern. With so much available space it is untenable that the world population is excessive or has the possibility of becoming so. Such facts are denied only by flat-earthers or by those ignorant of geometry.

    RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE
    It is argued that, ultimately, a limited planet will not allow unlimited growth. It can also be counter-argued that, ultimately, non-renewable natural resources do not exist on a planet governed by the Law of Conservation of Mass, which in popular form, states that “nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything changes.” It is a fact denied only by believers in other doctrines, dropped when Lavoisier stated the law of conservation.
    Human consumption never subtracted one gram from the mass of the planet and, in theory, all material used can be recycled. The feasibility of doing so depends on the availability of low cost energy. When fusion energy becomes operational it will be available in virtually unlimited quantities. The source is deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen found in water in a proportion of 0.03%. A cubic kilometer of seawater contains more energy than would be obtained from combustion of all known oil reserves in the world. Since the oceans contain 3 billion cubic kilometers of water is safe to assume that energy will last longer than the human species. Potable water need not be a limitation, as is sometimes said; innovative nanotube membranes hold the promise of reducing energy costs of desalination to a tenth of current costs, which would make feasible the use of desalinated water for irrigation along the coast continents (750,000 km).
    There is no growing shortage of resources signaled by rising prices. Since the mid-19th century, The Economist periodical, has kept consistent records of prices of commodities; in real terms, they fell over a century and a half, with technological progress. The decline has been benign. The cost of feeding a human being was eight times higher in 1850 than it is today. Even in 1950, less than half of the world population of 2 billion had a proper diet of more than 2000 calories per day; today, 80% and have it, while the world’s population tripled.
    No historical precedent backs the notion that human ingenuity is exhausted and that technology will henceforth remain stagnant at current levels. Two centuries ago, this idea led to the pessimistic Malthus prediction about the exhaustion of resources to feed a population that then seemed to grow at exponential rates.

    MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING IS UNCERTAIN
    A scientific consensus is alleged on climate change issues, but such a notion is inexact. What is fair to say is that there is wide political acceptance by European governments of ideas of a faction of climate researchers who believe that there is worrisome global warming, from carbon dioxide generated by human activity.
    Until recent times no university offered a B.Sc. degree in climate science. Climate studies rely on a hundred fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, botany, zoology, paleontology, etc… Indeed, there is no climate science with forecasting power comparable to that of astronomy and such power may never come into existence. Climate has a chaotic behavior, in the mathematical sense, and is thus subject to a high degree of uncertainty, which will not be diminished by advances in scientific knowledge.
    Given the uncertainties of honest science, opinions became polarized between two political camps, each with its own agenda. One camp appeals to the authority of climate research professionals in support of an anti-industrial policy, admitted as painful but necessary, the other camp claims lack of scientific basis for such a policy, which it qualifies as suicidal. At each pole there are interests that turn the alleged global warming into a political and a journalistic phenomenon, with no resemblance to a scientific one.
    Suspect from the start is the haste with which restrictive measures are promoted to curtail fuel use on the grounds that we are reaching tipping points of irreversible climate change. There are political circles that use this unverifiable hypothesis as a pretext for taxation to inhibit economic expansion. They put in the dock an Industrial Revolution, which has over the last two centuries redeemed much of humanity from extreme want. However, one quarter of humanity still has no access to electricity and suffers from all the evils arising from it. It is fair to apply to the matter a maxim of Roman law, In dubio pro reu, which states that where there is doubt, justice should benefit the accused. It also expresses the rigor of true science, skeptical of unproven links of cause and effect.
    Two reasons stand against the hypothesis of a correlation between increased carbon dioxide and global warming. One reason is the constancy or decline in temperature since 1995, after the temperature rise for the two previous decades that triggered the alarm of environmental activists. It now becomes clear that there are natural forces shaping the climate, of magnitude greater than the effect of carbon dioxide. These include cyclical swings in ocean temperatures, sunspot activity and the effect on cosmic rays of the sun’s magnetic activity. While these natural cycles are known, mankind can do nothing for or against forces of this magnitude. Sensible public measures are welcome to mitigate effects of climate change, if and when they occur and whatever the cause.
    A second reason is the discredit of climate studies released by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after the revelation of misconduct in what became known as Climategate; it led to questioning the credibility of studies assembled by so called professionals. They can err. There is no place for Magister dixit, a Byzantine reference to the authority of the word of Aristotle as final because the master says so. This argument merits retort with the Royal Society’s motto, Nullius in verba, according to which science rejects the word of authority above proof backed by verifiable experimental evidence and logical deductive reasoning.
    Lacking support in solid theory and empirical evidence, the mathematical models underpinning the UN IPCC predictions are speculative thought, reflecting the assumptions fed into models to support interests of sponsors. These computer simulations provide no rationale for public policies that inhibit economic activity “to save the planet.” And carbon dioxide is not toxic or a pollutant. It is a plant nutrient in the photosynthesis that sustains the food chain of all living beings on the planet.

    RECKLESS ALLEGATIONS OF ZEALOTS
    Stories of disaster are reported in strident tones, typical of the propaganda of totalitarian regimes that once incited masses duped by demagogues. Anything that happens on earth is attributed to global warming: an earthquake in the Himalayas; the volcanic eruption in Iceland; the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean; tribal wars in Africa; heat wave in Paris; plague of snails on the tiny Isle of Wight; in Australia, wildfires, dust storms in the dry season and floods in rainy season; recent severe winters in North America, the collapse of a bridge in Minnesota, the hurricane season in the Gulf of Mexico, in cycles long known. Evo Morales blames the U.S. for summer floods in Bolivia.
    THE GREEN POLITICAL AGENDA
    Reckless allegations of cause and effect are explained by Chris Patten: “Green politics at its worst amounts to a sort of Zen fascism; less extreme, it denounces growth and seeks to stop the world so that we can all get off”. In the view of Professor Aaron Wildavsky global warming is the mother of all environmental scares. “Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist’s dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population’s eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.”
    It is the hippie dream of a life of idleness, penury, long hair, unshaven face, blue jeans, sandals and a vegetarian diet; a personal choice to be foisted upon the world by dictatorial decree of an eco-fascist regime with worldwide power and justified by fantasies about a doomed planet.
    An agenda to impoverish mankind as a prelude to its extinction is a fad that is not politically sustainable for long. The species will prevail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    No Mark D, I’m pretty sure I meant Doug and Dinsdale, here is their bio:


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Bugger. Note to self, don’t try and embed video. See this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:20 am

    …my bet will be that they find that the current decade is the hottest in the last 1000 years. Good enough for you?

    I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I would bet that, in the US, the hottest decade in the instrumental record will be the 1930′s, based on the number of unbroken temperature records. (These records are set by the raw data — it is only in the adjusted data sets that the 2000′s dominate.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    I like the invitation only idea, but it may not be practical, somehow. I.e., I might not be invited! Needs study. Maybe someone can build a model…nah! At this point, I’d like to propose the name “The Vavilov Society,” for reasons we should all be familiar with.

    http://www.vaviblog.com/wp-content/themes/thesis_17/custom/rotator/vavilov2.jpg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    phinniethewoo

    The money used for windmills and all these “progressive” societies filled to the nook with parked pseudo scientists, could be used to fund an open r&d marketplace. Internet based peer 2 peer review wikis instead of fancy magazines. a new education and research paradigm is needed.

    A novel approach to copyright is needed as well. one that favours information dissemination , not an establishment for 75 years.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    BobC:

    I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I would bet that, in the US, the hottest decade in the instrumental record will be the 1930′s, based on the number of unbroken temperature records. (These records are set by the raw data — it is only in the adjusted data sets that the 2000′s dominate.)

    Yeah, there it is again, that strange fascination with what is happening on 2% of the earth’s surface. Remind me, why is that bit is so important again?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Graham

    alan neil ditchfield @#58

    Thanks for all that, Alan. My goodness, you’ve covered so much ground eloquently and logically. I enjoyed reading your work. All of it. Well done, sir!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes:
    February 18th, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Yeah, there it is again, that strange fascination with what is happening on 2% of the earth’s surface [the USA]. Remind me, why is that bit is so important again?

    Sure John, glad to.

    It’s important when weather events there can be used to argue for AGW — like droughts and heat waves, high intensity hurricanes, and rapidly increasing temperatures that can be claimed to be the “hottest ever!”.

    When, however, the public catches on that heat waves and droughts were worse in the 1930′s; the frequency and strength of hurricanes hasn’t changed significantly in 100 years; and the temperature record has been tampered withthen what happens on this 2% of the Earth’s surface is unimportant.

    What’s the matter — lost your copy of the “CAGW Playbook”?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    RobJM

    Here is an idea for a new scientific body
    Society of Concerned Humans who Insist on the Scientific Method! of SCHISM for short


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:20 am
    Hey Eddy@48, you’ve really nailed me there! Trouble is, I’ve got a sneaky feeling that I’m actually right.

    Mark D asks:
    But John, are you willing to make a gentleman’s bet on whether or not the Berkeley project duplicates the “Hockey Stick”?

    I didn’t realise they were going back that far. If they are, then my bet will be that they find that the current decade is the hottest in the last 1000 years. Good enough for you?

    The medieval warm period (950-1250 A.D.) was warmer than today. See http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php for a list of peer reviewed published papers that show that the MWP existed, was global and was warmer than it is today. While your at it, John, why don’t you explain how it was warmer during several time periods of this current interglacial ( by more than 4 degrees) than it is today and yet CO2 levels were lower? Were there other forcings at work? If so, what were they? Yeah, I can picture you in my mind’s eye just staring at your computer like a deer caught in the headlights!

    Let me guess, you were the kid in school that got beat up by everybody and suffered from malnutrition because the other kids kept taking your lunch money from you, right?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    John Brookes:
    February 18th, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Yeah, there it is again, that strange fascination with what is happening on 2% of the earth’s surface.

    A good analogy could be constructed using your brain. Many of us are fascinated by the 2% of your brain that you use. The other 98% appears to be uninhabited!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    AusieDan

    On a different but relayed issue, I propose a new system of Certified Peer-to-Peer Review for Professional Climate Journals.

    For some time, there has been a growing unease that submissions to Climate Journals are handled either with velvet or iron fisted gloves, depending on the attitude of the editor towards the climate debate. A root and branch reformation of the whole professional journal publishing and review process is now required.

    In contrast, papers published on the web are open to comment and criticism by all. The web is international and has a vast following by experts from every field and calling. This process often gives a submission a more thorough examination, than is possible by the small group of reviewers used in the traditional publishing process. This new happening has become known as Peer-to-Peer Review.

    The following draft code for climate journals, attempts to incorporate the benefits of this new process, while preserving the best traditions of the existing system. The whole procedure to be called Certified Peer-to-Peer Review.

    A draft Code of Conduct, incorporating many of these concepts is now submitted for general discussion. It is not intended that this is a finished document, but rather a sketch which may eventually form the basis of a useable set of guidelines. That will require the input of a number of experienced practitioners.

    Comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome at http://ausiedan.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lord Beaverbrook

    Jo,
    IPCC is toast and the Hockey team are looking for new jobs.

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/

    “Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request”

    Members of Congress are asking something novel of NASA: to actually study space, not global warming.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/congress-to-nasa-study-space-not-climate-thats-not-space/?singlepage=true

    For many years, NASA has been spending vast sums of money to study global warming, despite the efforts already undertaken at other federal agencies where such research is more appropriate. The letter asks that NASA refocus on what it was created to do, which is to maintain and develop our space program.

    Get the bubbly on ice it could be a good year!


    Report this

    00