Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers
Physics Today ^ | February 2012 | Toni Feder

Posted on 02/19/2012 8:59:22 AM PST by reaganaut1

Receiving an email with a statement like “You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” would be unsettling enough. But they “pale compared to what other climate scientists are getting,” says Raymond Orbach, director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin, at whom the first threat above was aimed.

Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography, among other disciplines—have begun to fight back. “I think the community is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, whose work has largely focused on identifying the human influence on global climate, and who once answered a late-night knock to find a dead rat on his doorstep.

(Excerpt) Read more at physicstoday.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: climatechange; climategate; climategate2; fakegate; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; heartlandinstitute
Physics Today is published by the American Institute of Physics, the primary organization for physicists in the U.S. This article reads as if it is from a political magazine, not a scientific one, as commenters at the site have noted.
1 posted on 02/19/2012 8:59:30 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

global warming ping


2 posted on 02/19/2012 9:01:01 AM PST by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Skepticism is the heart of science, remove it and you have faith.


3 posted on 02/19/2012 9:02:19 AM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...

Thanks reaganaut1.


4 posted on 02/19/2012 9:05:16 AM PST by SunkenCiv (FReep this FReepathon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
“You should resign, and if you don’t, I’ll work to see that you are fired” or “I know where your kids go to school” ...

This reeks like a noose found on a faculty door.
5 posted on 02/19/2012 9:09:05 AM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The feeling is mutual.


6 posted on 02/19/2012 9:12:12 AM PST by Libloather (The epitome of civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"We can't account for the lack of warming and it's a travesty that we can't."

- Part of an email from an AGW droid that was released in Climategate.

7 posted on 02/19/2012 9:13:05 AM PST by JPG ("I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; TenthAmendmentChampion; SolitaryMan; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; grey_whiskers; ...
Thanx for the pings reaganaut1 & SunkenCiv !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

8 posted on 02/19/2012 9:15:45 AM PST by steelyourfaith (Expel the Occupy White House squatters !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

My sense is that this is part of a planned PR campaign. This is the primary theme in Mann’s new book. Judging from the comments on various environmental blogs such as Revkin’s or the Amazon reviews for Mann’s book there is no real differnece in the level of nastiness from either side of this debate.


9 posted on 02/19/2012 9:17:40 AM PST by bjc (Check the data!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"“I think the community is finding a voice,” says Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"

hahahaha, it's a quote from the would be pugilist:

"Ben "I am going to punch Pat Michaels" Santer"

10 posted on 02/19/2012 9:18:03 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
The fight to defend a failing paradigm is always political in the end. When your theory fails to predict, what else do you have left?
11 posted on 02/19/2012 9:19:57 AM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
POLARFLA
12 posted on 02/19/2012 9:22:06 AM PST by FrankR (You are only enslaved to the extent of the entitlements you receive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
"...what else do you have left?"

Peer review?

13 posted on 02/19/2012 9:23:23 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
My stance on Global Warming is the same as the democrat party's is on the National Debt. I am too old for it to affect me, so let the children and grandchildren worry about. Not my problem.

That was sarcasm. I do not buy into the Global Warming BS.

14 posted on 02/19/2012 9:24:16 AM PST by w1andsodidwe (Barrak has now won the contest. He is even worse than Jimmah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

LOL, the chief perpetrators of intimidation are supposed to be the victims of it.


15 posted on 02/19/2012 9:26:12 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Now climate scientists—in atmospheric physics and chemistry, geophysics, meteorology, hydrology, and oceanography, among other disciplines—have begun to fight back.
Poor babies. Where is my tiny violin?
16 posted on 02/19/2012 9:26:54 AM PST by Timaeus (Willard Mitt Romney Delenda Est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"This past September, rapid response team cofounder Scott Mandia and others launched the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. The nonprofit group raises money for climate scientists embroiled in legal battles.

As of December, it had raised more than $20 000 for Mann, who is fighting Freedom of Information Act demands by the American Tradition Institute think tank for 5000 pages of his email correspondence. The fund also offers informal counseling to harassed climate scientists and plans to hire a staff attorney to offer quick and experienced help.

“Many scientists think they can win by blocking punches. You have to throw them,” says Mandia, who teaches physical sciences at New York’s Suffolk County Community College. “The main thing is that the world understands there is a group that will defend climate scientists who are being harassed.”"

17 posted on 02/19/2012 9:29:07 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: w1andsodidwe
It certainly all fits a comprehensive plan...and it's anti-american and another "follow the money" SCHEME.

Don't drill and force the "green" plans down our throat. The first mistake was the damn ethanol fiasco. I know farmers who have totally abandoned other crops for corn for "ethanol" only. Changed the entire price structure of the food market and it sure wasn't good news for the consumer.

The green cause IS A MESS!!

18 posted on 02/19/2012 9:32:01 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Why should they as long as socialists are willing to pay them megabucks to lie?


19 posted on 02/19/2012 9:34:32 AM PST by Caipirabob (I say we take off and Newt the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Now climate scientists...’

These aren’t scientists. They’re political hacks and thieves trying to shove fascism down our throats. As for the threats, that’s about the only thing leftists understand.


20 posted on 02/19/2012 9:40:31 AM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

“The feeling is mutual.”

Inga: “Mmmmmmmmm....the feeling is moochal!”.


21 posted on 02/19/2012 9:42:26 AM PST by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Conservative talk show host Phil Valentine’s recently released movie, An Inconsistent Truth, can’t be helping. It is the rebuttal to Al Gore’s movie. Here it is on IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1806777/


22 posted on 02/19/2012 9:49:17 AM PST by Boiling point
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Of course there is global warming.

From where I type the Laurentide ice sheet was a mile thick - must have been all those Native American campires in the south 10,000 years ago that ended the last ice age.


23 posted on 02/19/2012 9:55:31 AM PST by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Climate scientists not cowed by relentless climate change deniers truth

"We've decided that climate change is real, and by Gaia, no amount of fact-laden rhetoric is going to convince us otherwise," said Dr. O. Sean Plummet, head of the Ministry of Propaganda for the Society of Environmental Marxist Redistributionist Fearmongers.

24 posted on 02/19/2012 9:59:00 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I appreciate in the linked article, Gavin Schmidt bemoans there is not a (penalty) price on the use of carbon based fuels. One might likewise notice there is no penalty price placed upon the climate doom advocates for their suggested costly prescriptions to avert “doom.” I could offer a compromise.

Climate doom advocates should construct a falsification scenario by which certain observations would be able to invalidate the current AGW postulate. Being clever and modern scientists, they could agree on the conditions under which AGW could no longer survive as a valid theory. Further, to reintroduce the power of “costs” which so interests Gavin Schmidt, these same climate doom advocates should agree that upon the occurrence of the falsification scenario, all of the earnings amassed by AGW proponents, including those estates of former advocates, should be forfeited to public use to remediate against the unnecessary excessive costs that these same scientists have heaped upon civilizations. They further agree to having their scientific credentials stripped and will never again work in any science capacity or in any capacity of any government or government funded institution.

If Gavin wants a price to be paid for damaging actions, Gavin should have his price.


25 posted on 02/19/2012 10:03:19 AM PST by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
LEAVE AGW SCIENTISTS ALONE!!!


26 posted on 02/19/2012 10:20:03 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

I can’t believe the tone of that article. Talk about political ideology. I’m surprised it was published. What’s next, a resurgence in Lysenkoism?


27 posted on 02/19/2012 10:21:06 AM PST by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1; All
Added this minutes ago:

Sierra snowpack study instantly attacked because it undermines AGW claims

28 posted on 02/19/2012 10:39:56 AM PST by QT3.14 (European-American)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The AGW “cause” is seriously harming the credibility of scientists in general.

When I read anything that includes “scientists say ...” I immediately put my skeptic’s hat on these days.

This piece, in a supposedly credible science journal using loaded terms like

“climate change deniers”,

unsupported statements like

“Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is happening, although details of how it will play out are uncertain. “,

and then having the unmitigated gall to quote Michael “Hockey Stick/Hide the decline” Mann without any reference to legitimate questions as to his credibility regarding the very subject of the article is unbelievable.

“Scientists” had better recognize the harm the AGW movement is doing to their general reputation and return to the true scientific method if the creditability of “scientists” is to be restored.


29 posted on 02/19/2012 10:51:14 AM PST by Tunehead54 (Nothing funny here ;-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Ask this question: Does a rise in temperature cause a subsequent rise in CO2, or do rises in CO2 cause a rise in temperature? The answer is that the rises in temperature cause more CO2. How much CO2 comes from the volcanic activity on the bottom of the oceans? What device do you use to measure CO2 emissions coming from the ocean? Without this data, then I have to say that it is pretty hard to say that man is cuasing any rise in temperature and subsequently CO2, or politically motivated “global warming” and now morphed into “climate change”.


30 posted on 02/19/2012 10:53:54 AM PST by CIDKauf (No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

31 posted on 02/19/2012 11:04:45 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Mitt Romney is SEVERELY conservative - so severe, it hurts him to be conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Tired of the disruptions?


32 posted on 02/19/2012 11:20:30 AM PST by RedMDer (Forward With Confidence!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CIDKauf
The CO2 coming from warming oceans can be estimated by pv=nrt where raising the ocean temperature a degree or two (natural warming after the Little Ice Age) yields about a rise in atmospheric CO2 from about 280 to 290. Instead we have gone to 390. Underwater volcanoes are not a complete explanation for the difference (probably only account for a small fraction, plus terrestrial volcanoes do not do much to the overall CO2 level.)

it is pretty hard to say that man is cuasing any rise in temperature and subsequently CO2, or politically motivated “global warming"...

A better statement of the facts is "man has caused a rise in CO2 well beyond that expected from natural warming; that rise in CO2 may or may not cause a rise in temperature based on feedbacks (pos or neg) which are poorly understood"

33 posted on 02/19/2012 11:29:00 AM PST by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
An established liberal trick is to send out hate male as if it was FROM conservatives. Too bad the 'press' can follow about 20 of those letters back to the writers and discover the truth.
34 posted on 02/19/2012 11:35:54 AM PST by GOPJ (GAS WAS $1.85 per gallon on the day Obama was Inaugurated! - - freeper Gaffer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
"This past September, rapid response team cofounder Scott Mandia and others launched the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund..."

Not sure why he needs a defense fund. Why doesn't he just use his super powers?

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/23/supermandia-and-the-most-supersilly-climategate-rebuttal-ever/

35 posted on 02/19/2012 11:46:04 AM PST by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GOPJ

That is true and there are many poseurs in the climate skeptic camp who have done that. When they are not sending out hate mail they are sending ad homs to anybody who disputes their version of physics that “proves” that the greenhouse gas effect is an illusion.


36 posted on 02/19/2012 11:49:17 AM PST by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: palmer
The CO2 coming from warming oceans can be estimated by pv=nrt where raising the ocean temperature a degree or two (natural warming after the Little Ice Age) yields about a rise in atmospheric CO2 from about 280 to 290.

Why are you using the ideal gas equation to discuss solubility of gas in a liquid?

And what are your units on the 280 and 290?

Perhaps filling in a couple of the missing steps would be helpful.

A better statement of the facts is "man has caused a rise in CO2 well beyond that expected from natural warming; that rise in CO2 may or may not cause a rise in temperature based on feedbacks (pos or neg) which are poorly understood"

An even better statement is that "there are quite possibly a large number of competing equilibria beyond the few we are cherry-picking for our sensationalist rhetoric; but we insist on starting a search for climate heretics in order to squelch even the appearance of dissent, the better to secure our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred dishonor."

Cheers! Cheers!

37 posted on 02/19/2012 11:59:47 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: palmer

He’ll need those tall boots to keep wading through the Team’s BS.


38 posted on 02/19/2012 12:09:19 PM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
You're right. The partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere immediately above the ocean depends on the concentration in ppmv (parts per million by volume) and 280 preindustrial is 280/1000000 * 1.52 * 101325 = 43 Pa The 1.52 is because CO2 is heavier than air and the 101.325 is Pascals in 1 atmosphere although those don't matter since we just want the ratio and they cancel out. For the current 390 the partial pressure is 60 Pa. That's a ratio of 1.4 to 1 in partial pressure.

For seawater the partial pressure of CO2 doubles for every 16K in temperature increase (because wikipedia says so). That means a 6.4K increase in ocean temperature to get the increase we have seen. But we have seen only 1K or a bit more since the end of the Little Ice Age, so the bulk of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is not from ocean warming but from something else (tree clearing, fossil fuel burning, etc)

39 posted on 02/19/2012 3:31:18 PM PST by palmer (Before reading this post, please send me $2.50)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: palmer
It'd be interesting to get reasonable estimates (with some kind of sane error bars) for the increase in plant biomass (retreat of glaciers = greater forestation = carbon sink) vs. increase in animal biomass (carbon sink vs. exhales CO2) resulting from the retreat of the glaciers...

Cheers!

40 posted on 02/19/2012 6:53:59 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson