Posted on 09/20/2011 1:44:12 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Below are excerpts from a story by Paul Roderick Gregory, in Forbes, plus an examination of how desperate the website SkepticalScience seems to have become in the way they treat professionals.
Excerpts from Forbes:
================================================
Three recent events have brought the controversy over climate science back into the news and onto my radar screen:
First, Ivar Giaever, the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, resigned from the American Physical Society over his disagreement with its statement that “the evidence (on warming alarmism) is incontrovertible.” Instead, he writes that the evidence suggests that “the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Second, the editor of Remote Sensing resigned and disassociated himself from a skeptical paper co-authored by University of Alabama Climate Scientist Roy Spencer after an avalanche of criticism by “warmists.” His resignation brings to mind Phil Jones’ threat to “get rid of troublesome editors” (cited above).
Third, the New York Times and other major media are ridiculing Texas Governor Rick Perry for saying that global warming is “not proven.” Their message: Anyone who does not sign on to global warming alarmism is an ignorant hayseed and clearly not presidential material.
What lessons do I, as an economist, draw from these three events?
First: The Giaever story starkly disputes warmist claims of “inconvertible evidence.” Despite the press’s notable silence on such matters, there are a large number of prominent scientists with solid scholarly credentials who disagree with the IPCC-Central Committee. Those who claim “proven science” and “consensus” conveniently ignore such scientists.
…
Second: As someone with forty years experience with peer reviewed journals. I can testify that the Remote Sensing editor’s resignation and public discreditation of Spencer’s skeptical paper would be considered bizarre and unprofessional behavior in any other scholarly discipline.
…
Third: The media is tarring and feathering Rick Perry, we now see, for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists. I guess if Perry is a know-nothing Texas hick (or worse, a pawn of Big Oil) so is every other scientist who dares to disagree with the IPCC Central Committee. Such intimidation chillingly makes politicians, public figures, and scientists fearful of deviating one inch from orthodoxy. They want to avoid Orwell’s “watching their comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.” How many are willing to shoulder that burden?
=========================
Read the entire piece here.
For a recent example of “watching their comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes” one needs to look no further than Dr. Roger Pielke’s attempt to have a dialog with the oxymoronically named website “SkepticalScience.com”. Bishop Hill described what happened there as self immolation, Shub Niggurath lists it as A dark day in the climate science debate.
Whatever is is, it’s the worst example of climate ugliness I’ve seen this month, though not the all time worst (see the “corrections” at the end). It is surprising though, that for a website that recently won the prestigious national Eureka award in Australia, that they’d have to stoop to this level of juvenile behavior reminiscent of Animal Farm, cited by Paul Roderick Gregory in his Forbes article.
Strikeout of opposing commentary, especially that of a professional scientist writing something that doesn’t even appear inflammatory or off topic (since he’s responding to another commenter), is so “grade school”.
Can you imagine the howling that would ensue if I did the same thing to NSIDC’s Walt Meier when he posts something here I might disagree with?
From my perspective, while I once said that John Cook was at least “civil in his discourse with me”, and for that reason I gave Skeptical Science a place on my blogroll. I’m rethinking that now after seeing this latest ugliness.
One thing Shub Niggurath said caught my eye:
More recently however, the tone at [SkepticalScience] has turned shrill. The main proprietor John Cook, who is a climate change communication award winner, apparently approves. These changes have especially been noticeable after a certain ‘dana1981′ – likely referring to the author being born in 1981, began his contributions to the website.
…
And to top it all, in their narrow and monomaniacal attempts at interpreting Roger Pielke Sr’s blog posts, the readers/moderators and authors including ‘dana1981′ were completely blinded to the fact, that one of them – ‘dana1981′ – had in fact, carried out the very same thing they so vehemently denied.
That reminds me of something I once said about the Internet:
Anonymity breeds contempt
I wonder if Cook will rise to the level of respect that the Australian National Museum has granted him with their Eureka award and fix this mess “dana1981″ has created, or will he turn a blind eye and take one for “The Team”? I’ve done my part to be reasonable and adopt suggestions, the ball is now in John Cook’s court. Ironically, in the attempt to muzzle Dr. Pielke and have him acquiesce to demands, they handily proved his original point.
The way defenders of climate science are acting these days, it does indeed beg the question Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?
h/t to Kevin Hearle for the Forbes article
fyi
Dear AGW fanatic,
If you can quit name calling for a moment and please answer the following questions:
Given CO2 is an 800 year lagging response to temperature, how is it assigned the role as a causitive factor?
Given the lack of any global temperature rise in the last 12 years, what is it we’re supposed to be concerned about?
The few recent, isolated temperature records are surpassing records set 80 to 150 years ago, by only a single degree. What was driving temperatures then?
Why do you refuse to investigat Solar cycles as the most significant contributor to climate change?
That’s nothing.
The Nobel committee only recognized Einstein for his paper on the photoeletric effect.
And the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics is crap.
Now I feel better. ;)
***************************************EXCERPT******************************************
Mr Lynn says:
Just read the article and the comments so far. The Warmists are piling on, e.g.:
glennpecker 8 hours ago
Are you trying to discredit a person or an entire field of science? If you want to expose an individual for trying to suppress facts, I’m all for it. But the data supporting man induced climate change is [sic] overwhelming and to try to attack an entire field of science over a few emails and individuals is absurd. . .
I wonder where those “overwhelming” data are. . .
/Mr Lynn
climate scientist is to science
as a witch doctor is to medicine
***************************EXCERPT**************************************
Roger Knights says:
Third: The media is tarring and feathering Rick Perry, we now see, for agreeing with Nobel laureate Giaever and a host of other prominent scientists.
Huntsman challenged Perry at the recent Republican debate by saying that 97% of climatologists were in agreement. Here’s what Perry should come back with:
“I wouldn’t be surprised if 97% of them were Democrats.”
*******************************EXCERPT************************************
JPeden says:
Can We Really Call Climate Science A Science?
Hey, at least they repeat and repeat, and repeat, the same old “tried and true” cynical Political Science Propaganda tactics! And if they “win”, we all know what that would mean in the real world. That’s right, you’d have to listen to the likes of Hansen and Gore 24/7!
I am a scientist.
I know that if I “used a trick” to “hide the decline” I would be out on my ear.
For whatever reason climate “science” seems to work under a different set of rules.
I know that if I was caught trying to ‘change the peer review process if we have to’ to keep out dissent I would be out on my ear.
For whatever reason climate “science” seems to work under a different set of rules.
Apparently a regular science peer review process would destroy their carefully built up “consensus” by illustrating that there were gaping holes that they couldn’t account for.
Usually in science if a theory cannot account for all the evidence or respond intelligently to peer reviewed scientific challenges - the theory is either changed, modified, or abandoned.
Apparently climate “science” works under a different set of rules.
climate scientist is to science
as a witch doctor is to medicine
***
Taking a page from Michael Savage:
climate scientist is to science
what rap music is to music
climate scientist is to science
what our politicians are to statesmanship.
In fact someone can probably start a Twitter Feed where people can submit similes and metaphors like these.
Good one Forbes.
We don’t have a short term, i.e. one year model on climate. For 60 years we’ve known that complex systems cannot be predicted.
Why this is above the heads of the otherwise smart MSM types escapes me, unless they are not as smart as I thought.
Then again, John Daley is insanely smart, but look where he is politically.
as a witch doctor is to medicine
As Darwinism is to biology.
I remember how the famous evolution scientist Samuel Holmes dressed monkeys up in suits and photographed them sitting in parlor rooms.
Apparently climate “science” works under a different set of rules.
It borrows some rules from evolution science.
Yes, and creationism doesn’t have any rule but one - any and all evidence must be explained away in favor of what the person has always and will always believe.
In that they are very similar to these climate charlatans.
30 years ago it was global cooling, and man (specifically capitalism) was to blame. Now it is global warming, and man (specifically capitalism) is still to blame.
It seems that their only universal is that man is definitely to blame and that capitalism must be curtailed!
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.
