 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
Michael Duffy
November 8, 2008
QUOTE: "In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and computer
programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely
determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of
professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special
advantage."
QUOTE: Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in
America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the
spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al
Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist
web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental
causes.
QUOTE: next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of
climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail.
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the
University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the
most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade
it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at
a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate than before".
Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those
temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's
been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of
these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has
happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure,
interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary
greatly, but the facts are clear.
So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous,
and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real
situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the
occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those
who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who
deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence
could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself
had fudged only a few hours earlier?
In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is
shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned
about it on Lateline. Still, there's no doubt a majority of climate
scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.
Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of
affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we're right, then an
awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?
This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard
Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts
Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent
global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way
science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among
American scientists.
Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of
that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up
public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or
space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer
themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with
the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is
attached to the scientific grants.
Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also
science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He
notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and
small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for
large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large
programs unconstrained by specific goals.
"In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and computer programs
have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines
the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of
professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special
advantage."
Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and
Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the
spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al
Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist
web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental
causes.
None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist
or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow
the money trail.
Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources
sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some
money from energy companies.)
Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting
global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.
Someone else who's looked closely at scientific journals (although not
specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John
Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached
the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved
false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some
eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his
case "quite convincingly".)
Why might this be so?
Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal
editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than
that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications
and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication
practices might be distorting science.
It's possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued
climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to
involve) disastrous change rather than stability.
Rajenda Pachauri's recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively
new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/tru
ly-inconvenient-truths-about-climate-change-being-ig
nored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html?page=fullpage
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
On Nov 10, 6:00 am, "Bonzo" <z...@...com> wrote:
> Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored
>
> Michael Duffy
>
> November 8, 2008
>
> QUOTE: "In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and computer
> programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely
> determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of
> professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special
> advantage."
>
> QUOTE: Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in
> America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
>
> Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the
> spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al
> Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist
> web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental
> causes.
>
> QUOTE: next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of
> climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail.
>
> Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of
> the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the
> University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the
> most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade
> it represented temperatures climbing sharply.
>
> As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at
> a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate than before".
>
> Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those
> temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's
> been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of
> these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has
> happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure,
> interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary
> greatly, but the facts are clear.
>
> So it's disturbing that Rajendra Pachauri's presentation was so erroneous,
> and would have misled everyone in the audience unaware of the real
> situation. This was particularly so because he was giving the talk on the
> occasion of receiving an honorary science degree from the university.
>
> Later that night, on ABC TV's Lateline program, Pachauri claimed that those
> who disagree with his own views on global warming are "flat-earthers" who
> deny "the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence". But what evidence
> could be more important than the temperature record, which Pachauri himself
> had fudged only a few hours earlier?
>
> In his talk, Pachauri said the number of global warming sceptics is
> shrinking, a curious claim he was unable to substantiate when questioned
> about it on Lateline. Still, there's no doubt a majority of climate
> scientists agree with the view of the IPCC.
>
> Today I want to look at why this might be so: after all, such a state of
> affairs presents a challenge to sceptics such as me. If we're right, then an
> awful lot of scientists are wrong. How could this be?
>
> This question was addressed in September in a paper by Professor Richard
> Lindzen, of the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate at Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology. Lindzen, probably the most qualified prominent
> global-warming sceptic, suggested that a number of changes in the way
> science is conducted have contributed to the rise of climate alarmism among
> American scientists.
>
> Central to this is the importance of government funding to science. Much of
> that funding since World War II has occurred because scientists build up
> public fears (examples include fear of the USSR's superiority in weapons or
> space travel, of health problems, of environmental degradation) and offer
> themselves as the solution to those fears. The administrators who work with
> the scientists join in with enthusiasm: much of their own funding is
> attached to the scientific grants.
>
> Lindzen says this state of affairs favours science involving fear, and also
> science that involves expensive activities such as computer modelling. He
> notes we have seen "the de-emphasis of theory because of its difficulty and
> small scale, the encouragement of simulation instead (with its call for
> large capital investment in computation), and the encouragement of large
> programs unconstrained by specific goals.
>
> "In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and computer programs
> have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines
> the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of
> professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special
> advantage."
>
> Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and
> Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.
>
> Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem: the
> spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al
> Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist
> web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental
> causes.
>
> None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist
> or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow
> the money trail.
>
> Sceptics are not the only ones who have received funding from sources
> sympathetic to their viewpoint. (And yes, Lindzen did once receive some
> money from energy companies.)
>
> Lindzen claims that scientific journals play an important role in promoting
> global warming alarmism, and gives a number of examples.
>
> Someone else who's looked closely at scientific journals (although not
> specifically those dealing with climate science) is epidemiologist John
> Ioannidis of the Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston. He reached
> the surprising conclusion that most published research findings are proved
> false within five years of their publication. (Lest he be dismissed as some
> eccentric, I note that the Economist recently said Ioannidis has made his
> case "quite convincingly".)
>
> Why might this be so?
>
> Later work by Ioannidis and colleagues suggests that these days journal
> editors are more likely to publish research that will make a splash than
> that which will not. They do this to sell more copies of their publications
> and of reprints of papers in it. Ioannidis believes these publication
> practices might be distorting science.
>
> It's possible the forces described by Lindzen and Ioannidis have imbued
> climate science with a preference for results that involve (or seem to
> involve) disastrous change rather than stability.
>
> Rajenda Pachauri's recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively
> new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/michael-duffy/tru
ly-inconvenient-t...
> --
>
> Warmest Regards
>
> Bonzo
Not so much as you do, Sir
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
What The Global Warming Fearmongers Won't Tell You
Scarewatch: Global Cooling Is Really Global Warming!!
Huffington Admits Bias On Climate Change Scam
How Embarrassing, Global Warming Horror Flick Put on Ice!
Up