Scientific Hubris and Global Warming

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Guest Blogger / May 17, 2019

Scientific Hubris and Global Warming

Guest Post by Gregory Sloop

Notwithstanding portrayals in the movies as eccentrics who frantically warn humanity about genetically modified dinosaurs, aliens, and planet-killing asteroids, the popular image of a scientist is probably closer to the humble, bookish Professor, who used his intellect to save the castaways on practically every episode of Gilligan’s Island. The stereotypical scientist is seen as driven by a magnificent call, not some common, base motive. Unquestionably, science progresses unerringly to the truth.

This picture was challenged by the influential twentieth-century philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, who held that scientific ”truth” is determined not as much by facts as by the consensus of the scientific community. The influence of thought leaders, rewarding of grants, and scorn of dissenters are used to protect mainstream theory. Unfortunately, science only makes genuine progress when the mainstream theory is disproved, what Kuhn called a “paradigm shift.” Data which conflict with the mainstream paradigm are ignored instead of used to develop a better one. Like most people, scientists are ultimately motivated by financial security, career advancement, and the desire for admiration. Thus, nonscientific considerations impact scientific “truth.”

This corruption of a noble pursuit permits scientific hubris to prosper. It can only exist when scientists are less than dispassionate seekers of truth. Scientific hubris condones suppression of criticism, promotes unfounded speculation, and excuses rejection of conflicting data. Consequently, scientific hubris allows errors to persist indefinitely. However, science advances so slowly the public usually has no idea of how often it is wrong.

Reconstructing extinct organisms from fossils requires scientific hubris. The fewer the number of fossils available, the greater the hubris required for reconstruction. The original reconstruction of the peculiar organism Hallucigenia, which lived 505 million years ago, showed it upside down and backwards. This was easily corrected when more fossils were found and no harm was done.

In contrast, scientific hubris causes harm when bad science is used to influence behavior. The 17th century microscopist Nicholas Hartsoeker drew a complete human within the head of a sperm, speculating that this was what might be beneath the “skin” of a sperm. Belief in preformation, the notion that sperm and eggs contain complete humans, was common at the time. His drawing could easily have been used to demonstrate why every sperm is sacred and masturbation is a sin.

Scientific hubris has claimed many. many lives. In the mid 19th century, the medical establishment rejected Ignaz Semmelweis’ recommendation that physicians disinfect their hands prior to examining pregnant women despite his unequivocal demonstration that this practice slashed the death rate due to obstetric infections. Because of scientific hubris, “medicine has a dark history of opposing new ideas and those who proposed them.” It was only when the germ theory of disease was established two decades later that the body of evidence supporting Semmelweis’ work became impossible to ignore. The greatest harm caused by scientific hubris is that it slows progress towards the truth.

Record keeping of earth’s surface temperature began around 1880, so there is less than 150 years of quantitative data about climate, which evolves at a glacial pace. Common sense suggests that quantitative data covering multiple warming and cooling periods is necessary to give perspective about the evolution of climate. Only then will scientists be able to make an educated guess whether the 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit increase in earth’s temperature since 1930 is the beginning of sustained warming which will negatively impact civilization, or a transient blip.

The inconvenient truth is that science is in the data acquisition phase of climate study, which must be completed before there is any chance of predicting climate, if it is predictable [vide infra]. Hubris goads scientists into giving answers even when the data are insufficient.

To put our knowledge about climate in perspective, imagine an investor has the first two weeks of data on the performance of a new stock market. Will those data allow the investor to know where the stock market will be in twenty years? No, because the behavior of the many variables which determine the performance of a stock market is unpredictable. Currently, predicting climate is no different.

Scientists use data from proxies to estimate earth’s surface temperature when the real temperature is unknowable. In medicine, these substitutes are called “surrogate markers.” Because hospital laboratories are rigorously inspected and the reproducibility, accuracy, and precision of their data is verified, hospital laboratory practices provide a useful standard for evaluating the quality of any scientific data.

Surrogate markers must be validated by showing that they correlate with “gold standard” data before they are used clinically. Comparison of data from tree growth rings, a surrogate marker for earth’s surface temperature, with the actual temperature shows that correlation between the two is worsening for unknown reasons. Earth’s temperature is only one factor which determines tree growth. Because soil conditions, genetics, rainfall, competition for nutrients, disease, age, fire, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and consumption by herbivores and insects affect tree growth, the correlation between growth rings and earth’s temperature is imperfect.

Currently, growth rings cannot be regarded as a valid surrogate marker for the temperature of earth’s surface. The cause of the divergence problem must be identified and somehow remedied, and the remedy validated before growth rings are a credible surrogate marker or used to validate other surrogate markers.

Data from ice cores, boreholes, corals, and lake and ocean sediments are also used as surrogate markers. These are said to correlate with each other. Surrogate marker data are interpreted as showing a warm period between c.950 and c. 1250, which is sometimes called the “Medieval Climate Optimum,” and a cooler period called the “Little Ice Age” between the 16th and 19th centuries. The data from these surrogate markers have not been validated by comparison with a quantitative standard. Therefore, they give qualitative, not quantitative data. In medical terms, qualitative data are considered to be only “suggestive” of a diagnosis, not diagnostic. This level of diagnostic certainty is typically used to justify further diagnostic testing, not definitive therapy.

Anthropogenic global warming is often presented as fact. According to the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, a single conflicting observation is sufficient to disprove a theory. For example, the theory that all swans are white is disproved by one black swan. Therefore, the goal of science is to disprove, not prove a theory. Popper described how science should be practiced, while Kuhn described how science is actually practiced. Few theories satisfy Popper’s criterion. They are highly esteemed and above controversy. These include relativity, quantum mechanics, and plate tectonics. These theories come as close to settled science as is possible.

Data conflict about anthropogenic global warming. Using data from ice cores and lake sediments, Professor Gernot Patzelt argues that over the last 10,000 years, 65% of the time earth’s temperature was warmer than today. If his data are correct, human deforestation and carbon emissions are not required for global warming and intervention to forestall it may be futile.

The definitive test of anthropogenic global warming would be to study a duplicate earth without humans. Realistically, the only way is develop a successful computer model. However, modeling climate may be impossible because climate is a chaotic system. Small changes in the initial state of a chaotic system can cause very different outcomes, making them unpredictable. This is commonly called the “butterfly effect” because of the possibility that an action as fleeting as the beating of a butterfly’s wings can affect distant weather. This phenomenon also limits the predictability of weather.

Between 1880 and 1920, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not associated with global warming. These variables did correlate between 1920 and 1940 and from around 1970 to today. These associations may appear to be compelling evidence for global warming, but associations cannot prove cause and effect. One example of a misleading association was published in a paper entitled “The prediction of lung cancer in Australia 1939–1981.” According to this paper, “Lung cancer is shown to be predicted from petrol consumption figures for a period of 42 years. The mean time for the disease to develop is discussed and the difference in the mortality rate for male and females is explained.” Obviously, gasoline use does not cause lung cancer.

The idea that an association is due to cause and effect is so attractive that these claims continue to be published. Recently, an implausible association between watching television and chronic inflammation was reported. In their book Follies and Fallacies in Medicine, Skrabanek and McCormick wrote, “As a result of failing to make this distinction [between association and cause], learning from experience may lead to nothing more than learning to make the same mistakes with increasing confidence.” Failure to learn from mistakes is another manifestation of scientific hubris. Those who are old enough to remember the late 1970’s may recall predictions of a global cooling crisis based on transient glacial growth and slight global cooling.

The current situation regarding climate change is similar to that confronting cavemen when facing winter and progressively shorter days. Every day there was less time to hunt and gather food and more cold, useless darkness. Shamans must have desperately called for ever harsher sacrifices to stop what otherwise seemed inevitable. Only when science enabled man to predict the return of longer days was sacrifice no longer necessary.

The mainstream position about anthropogenic global warming is established. The endorsement of the United Nations, U.S. governmental agencies, politicians, and the media buttresses this position. This nonscientific input has contributed to the perception that anthropogenic global warming is settled science. A critical evaluation of the available data about global warming, and anthropogenic global warming in particular, allow only a guess about the future climate. It is scientific hubris not to recognize that guess for what it is.

Bramston Reef Corals – The Other Side of the Mud Flat

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

charles the moderator / May 6, 2019

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s blog

May 6, 2019 By jennifer

THE First Finding handed down by Judge Salvador Vasta in the Peter Ridd court case concerned Bramston reef off Bowen and a photograph taken in 1994 that Terry Hughes from James Cook University has been claiming proves Acropora corals that were alive in 1890 are now all dead – the fringing reef reduced to mudflat.

Meanwhile, Peter Ridd from the same university, had photographs taken in 2015 showing live Acropora and the need for quality assurance of Hughes’ claims.

Both sides were preparing evidence for over a year – with the lawyers apparently pocketing in excess of one million dollars – yet there was no interest in an independent assessment of the state of Bramston reef.

It more than once crossed my mind, that with all the money floating around for reef research and lawyers … there could perhaps be some mapping, or just one transect, at this most contentious of locations supposedly indicative of the state of the Great Barrier Reef more generally.

In his judgment Judge Salvadore Vasta was left to simply conclude that it was unclear whether there was now mudflat or coral reef where an extensive area of Acropora coral had been photographed back in 1890, but that Peter Ridd nevertheless had the right to ask the question.

Indeed, the court case and the appeal which must be lodged by tomorrow (Tuesday 7th May), is apparently all about ‘academic freedom’ and ‘employment law’, while the average Australian would perhaps be more likely to care if they got to see some coral and some fish – dead or alive.

I visited Bramston Reef over Easter because I couldn’t wait any longer to know if the corals in Peter Ridd’s 2015 photographs had been smashed by Cyclone Debbie that hovered over Bowen two years later, in April 2017.

As I drove into Bowen, I took a detour towards Edgecombe Bay, but I didn’t stop and explore – because I saw the signage warning of crocodiles.

Peter Ridd had told me that his technicians had approached from the south south-east in a rubber dinghy to get their photographs. The day I arrived (April 18, 2019), and the next, there was a strong south south-easterly wind blowing, and no-one prepared to launch a boat to take me out.

On the afternoon of Easter Friday – ignoring the signage warning of crocodiles – I walked through the mangroves to the water’s edge. I found the mudflat which Terry Hughes had claimed now covers once healthy Acropora coral and walked across it. The other side of the mudflat there was reef flat with beds of healthy Halimeda. This area of reef flat over sand extended for nearly one kilometre – before it gave way to hectares of Acropora coral.

Professor Hughes had just not walked far enough.

When, with much excitement, I showed my photographs of all the Acropora to a Bowen local. He described them as, “rubbish corals”. He seemed ashamed that the corals I had photographed at Bramston reef were not colourful.

For a coral to make the front cover of National Geographic it does need to be exceptionally colourful. Indeed, for a woman model to make the cover of Vogue magazine she needs to be exceptionally thin. But neither thin, nor colourful, is necessarily healthy. Indeed, Acropora corals are generally tan or brown in colour when they have masses of zooxanthellae and are thus growing quickly – and are healthy.

White corals have no zooxanthellae and are often dead, because they have been exposed to temperatures that are too high. Colourful corals, like thin women, are more nutrient starved and often exist in environments of intense illumination – existing near the limits of what might be considered healthy.

Such basic facts are not well understood. Instead there is an obsession with saving the Great Barrier Reef from imminent catastrophe while we are either shown pictures of bleached white dead coral, or spectacularly colourful corals from outer reefs in nutrient-starved waters … while thousands of square kilometres of healthy brown coral is ignored.

Peter Ridd did win his high-profile court case for the right to suggest there is a need for some quality assurance of the research – but I can’t see anyone getting on with this. The Science Show on our National Broadcaster, hosted by a most acclaimed scientist journalist, has reported on the case just this last weekend. Rather than launching a dinghy and having a look at Bramston Reef, Robyn Williams has replayed part of a 2008 interview with Peter Ridd, and let it be concluded that because Peter Ridd holds a minority view he is likely wrong.

Understanding the real state of the Great Barrier Reef is not a trivial question: it has implications for tourism, and the allocation of billions of dollars of public monies … with most currently allocated to those properly networked – but not necessarily knowledgeable or prepared to walk beyond a mudflat to find the corals.

Signage warning of crocodiles.

Photographs of the Acropora out of the water where taken about here

There is a mudflat to the west of Bramston Reef.

That mudflat is teeming with life, as expected in an intertidal zone.

This Porites coral is a healthy tan colour.

After the mud flat there was reef flat, with coarse sand and lots of Halimeda. All healthy, and typical of an inner Great Barrier Reef.

Halimeda is a green macroalgae, it was healthy.

Acropora corals with a view to Gloucester Island.

I did find one bleached coral.

Most of the Acropora was a healthy brown colour suggesting good growth, rather than beauty.

There were also corals to the south east.

Looking across to Gloucester Island, in front of the mangroves when the tide was in, early on 19 April.

Looking towards Gloucester Island, the day before.

To be sure to know when I post pictures at this blog, and to get the latest news regarding the Peter Ridd court case including the possible appeal by James Cook University, subscribe for my irregular email updates.

NY Times Climate Reporter Admits Paper ‘Categorically’ Excludes ‘Deniers

PA Pundits International

By Julia A Seymour ~

It’s clear The New York Times has its mind made up about climate change and the debate is over — at least in their newsroom.

Speaking on a journalism panel on April 30, International climate change reporter Somini Sengupta boiled down scientific dissent on the subject of climate change to the insulting and loaded phrase “three climate deniers.”

“What we don’t do is engage in a false debate. We don’t turn to the three climate science deniers on every story. And no one has ever asked me as a reporter to do that. We don’t categorically do that,” she said.

Sengupta was one of several journalists participating in Columbia Journalism Review’s event demanding the media “transform” coverage of climate change.

She said the job of the “Times climate team” was “to make it compelling, to make it rich, to make it personal. That…

View original post 201 more words

Dr. Peter Ridd vs. James Cook University – Arguments Completed

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Anthony Watts / March 29, 2019

Professor Peter Ridd writes:

We finally got home from Brisbane where the court hearing was held about 1200 km to the south, and it has been good to reflect on events. I am very hopeful and Judge Vasta seemed to indicate that he would try to hand down his judgement around Easter. So, until then we should wait and see.

As mentioned, the case delivered by Stuart Wood QC was brilliant. He did not focus on legal technicalities but instead concentrated on the concept of Intellectual Freedom. This was a very deliberate decision – if we are to win, it had to be on this point because in the end this was the root cause of the problem and the reason that there was wide public interest. Academics with controversial ideas on anything, including climate change and whether the damage to the Great Barrier Reef is being exaggerated, should be allowed to speak. In fact, they should be encouraged to speak. In addition, the focus on the wider problem might mean that the final judgement will have broader implications to the way our universities operate.

We contend that I had my Intellectual Freedom taken away under the context of a vague Code of Conduct. Stuart Wood QC argued how this was legally in error. He also demonstrated how this was totally contrary to the way a university should work. One of many highlights was when Wood QC used the JCU barristers’ own words that described my offending comments as “inappropriate” to show how the Code of Conduct could restrict any controversial comment. Who decides if my words are inappropriate – the university. “Inappropriate” sets a very low bar and a sensible academic knows that the best strategy is to either say nothing or make sure it is in agreement with the university administration – i.e. there is no freedom. By the Code of Conduct, a challenge as insignificant as a nasty look or a steely glare could be defined as a breach. And by JCU’s construction, the intellectual freedom clauses in our work contract are no protection.

Wood QC started with a discussion of the centrality of debate and disagreement in the rise of western civilisation and science. He quoted interesting examples of famous debates, which if they had occurred today at JCU and most other universities, would have resulted in both sides of the debate being fired for breaking what boils down to the Code-of-Politeness- Political-Correctness-and-What-the-University-Administration-Decides.
I must get a full transcript of Wood’s address for more detail but he then narrowed down to the specifics of my misdemeanours. These boiled down to 9 main categories and Wood took his time on each one. He gave the background and context, he looked at the detailed evidence (generally email trails from JCU’s search-for-dirt), and then demonstrated how in every case the University had broken its obligation to intellectual Freedom.

Wood QC finally considered the confidentiality directions that JCU used to try to keep everything secret and considered the clause in my work contract that was there to protect me against JCU releasing my information without my consent. This was completely opposite to JCU’s interpretation which was that it ALWAYS gave them the power to ALWAYs keep matters secret. One has to wonder why they are so ashamed that they needed to keep it secret.

The way the legal team worked was remarkable. Wood QC is by general agreement the top Industrial Relations lawyer in Australia and he had two barristers and two solicitors backing him up and feeding him the documents as he talked. He spoke non-stop for 4 hours in the final afternoon and it was like watching the reloading and firing of a 15 inch naval gun at the JCU ship. It was withering, relentless, and merciless. I wish there was a video of it. In my opinion, and let’s hope the Judge agrees, by the time he had finished JCU’s position was a sinking hulk. I felt sorry for their barristers (but maybe they will have the last laugh)

In the final analysis this case will be decided on whether the Code of Conduct trumps Intellectual Freedom or vice-versa. If JCU is correct, then it can no longer be considered to be a proper university and the government will have to do something about the way universities are governed and funded. If we are right, we will have to then look at how similar work contracts are likely being misused in most other Australian universities, and I suspect, around the western world.

---

John Roskam explains why Dr Peter Ridd deserves to continue his vital work at JCU and what JCU are costing themselves and Australia with their actions. WATCH:

Blowing the whistle on the climate of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Reblogged from Watts Up With That:

Guest Blogger / March 28, 2019

A brief overview of on-going climate research.

by Dr. Bill Johnston

Background

Australian taxpayers spend inordinate amounts of money each year on “saving” the Great Barrier Reef and to keep the bucket brimming with cash there is little wonder that the myriad of organizations involved want careful control over the spin and the people who do the work. The dust-up between Peter Ridd and James Cook University (JCU) is a case-in-point.

The Reef is indeed wonderful, big, can be seen from space; its worth this much or that depending on how its counted and of-course the bigger the better and therefore whatever they spend is an ‘investment for future generations’ … And JCU defends “Peter’s right to make statements in his area of academic expertise …”; except of course doubts he may have about other researchers’ research (otherwise known as the failing-to-act-in-a-collegial-way-and-in-the- academic-spirit-of-the-institution gotya). It does not help that with 15 coauthors, the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies Professor Terry Hughes makes the ambit claim that “Global warming is rapidly emerging as a universal threat …to the long term future of these iconic ecosystems” in the prestigious journal Nature (http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2); especially if it isn’t true.

The Number-1 problem faced by the Reef

The biggest problem faced by the Reef in the 21st century is the feeding-frenzy resulting from too much money being flung at too many institutions all [peddling] their own exaggerated versions of catastrophe so they can demand more money and thus keep the gravy train puffing along. The players have habits to support – boards, over-paid vice chancellors and professors; administrators of this and that, travel budgets, meetings, multiple media-teams etc. all of which are proportionally paid-for from the Australian Research Council’s cash-for-science bucket. For every dollar that actually lands on the Reef, three or four dollars or more is likely to be swallowed by such overheads. Then there are the well-organised and well-funded climate drum-beaters like WWF, Nature Australia, GetUp!, Greenpeace, the Climate Council and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition doom-merchants, who prey on vulnerable children who are integral to the success of the enterprise.

It follows that if 50% of the big-spenders were forced to find something more useful to do, the amount of research done on the Reef could double or treble; alternatively, more could be spent on more pressing issues somewhere else. The question is, do the boards of the organizations, consisting mostly of lawyers, engineers, lobbyists, accountants and mates ever undertake due-diligence on their ‘brand’ or on the research they supposedly oversee?

As cause de jour for everything, climate change is looking very wobbly. Careful analysis cross-referenced by documents, plans and aerial photographs held by the National Library and National Archives of Australia shows that the Bureau of Meteorology has questions to answer about how data have been gamed to warm the climate. It is not feasible they can’t remember locations of the original Aeradio weather stations at Cairns, Townsville and Rockhampton and when they moved and changed. Rather than reciting untrue claims about climate warming to The Conversation, ABC and the Fairfax press, Blair Trewin et al. should front-up to taxpayers and explain how badly and why they got it so wrong. For their part, from CSIRO down, the good ol’ mates and fellows on flag-waving boards and in science institutes and academies have failed dismally to uphold their glossy governance statements. It is clear that scientists like Peter Ridd should be free to do their work without the burden of implied support for climate change, for which there is no evidence in any Australian weather station dataset. It’s also valid for scientists of Peter’s standing and repute to call out peers doing poor or shifty work especially where the hierarchy is more protective of their brand-and-gravy than they are concerned about excellence in science.

Behind the closed doors of political correctness and vested interests, Australian science has lost its way and it’s a hideous situation that taxpayers are constantly misinformed and manipulated by organizations they once held in high-regard. Despite the Bureau’s best efforts, including deliberate bias (https://s3.amazonaws.com/jo.nova/guest/aust/bom-audit/johnston-bill/2018/bourke/back-of-bourke-v1.3_10.pdf), there is no evidence the climate has changed or warmed or that climatic extremes are increasing. Except in fluffy-duck-science stories based on modelling, which are mainly perpetuated by competing doomsayers and institutional catastrophists via the left wing press; neither the Reef nor the Murray-Darling Basin are or have been under threat from climate warming.

Temperature across Australia are being reported as getting warmer because in November 1996 the Bureau changed to networked automatic weather stations, and over the ensuing 2 decades sacked their trusty observers and reduced the size of instrument shelters (Stevenson screens) from 230 to 60-litres. Without even considering site biases (obvious in time-lapse Google Earth Pro satellite images) unattended small screens beside dusty tracks and at airports are biased-high from accumulated grime. Biased data that changes the colour of summer from red to purple looks scary, but doesn’t change the climate.

Pushed from the top by CSIRO and the Australian Research Council’s money bucket and from the bottom by green groups; climate change is a billion-dollar scam the likes of which Australians have never experienced before. Chairman David Thodey who heads-up the CSIRO brand has no relevant scientific credentials (https://www.csiro.au/en/About/Leadership-governance/Minister-and-Board/Members), yet via silo-structures it is Thodey and his Board that oversees the Bureau and signs-off on “The State of the Climate”; “Climate change: Science and Solutions for Australia”; “Climate projections”; … “Climate Adaptation” ….. It is a problem that individual weather station data don’t support their rhetoric. Unlike Peter Ridd, Thodey didn’t have the spine to push back. He and his Board have allowed science to be hijacked for political purposes and the Great Barrier Reef gravy train is the product of that failure. Further, it’s well known that like JCU; within the Bureau and CSIRO, jobs are on the line for speaking-out.

In the name of ‘climate-justice and ‘climate-action’ and with a general election looming, it is time to put climate fallacies to bed so Australians can get on doing and making things that build wealth and contribute to the country’s future; and hopefully, so wannabe-politicians co-opted by vested interests like WWF don’t run amok and make decisions that affect everyone for all the wrong reasons.

Exemplified by Peter Ridd vs. JCU and for the sake of our nation’s future, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison should commit to an open inquiry into climate change including the role of the Bureau of Meteorology in creating trends and changes that don’t exist.

---

Here’s the backstory, complete with photos and diagrams:

GBR climate backstory_1.1

ClimateGate continues – the Mann Hockeystick University of Arizona emails are now public

Reblogged this BLOCKBUSTER post from Watts Up With That [Hifast note: These emails are 18 years old; it took eights years of litigation under FOIA to get these public.]

Anthony Watts / March 4, 2019

After years of trying to suppress their release, and finally being ordered to be released by a judge, they are now public, and we have them here. This will remain as a “top post” for a day, new stories will be below this one.

There’s quite a treasure trove, but also some duplications from previous releases.

First a look at the release letter from University of Arizona:

The files released cover emails from Michael Mann to Malcolm Hughes, Eugene Wahl, Caspar Amman, Ray Bradley, and Jonathan Overpeck. Plus there were additional requests for anything out of UEA (Phil Jones at CRU).

The FOIA request goes all the way back to December of 2011, it’s taken this long to get released. Mann fought the release all the way.

Here is a sample, where Keith Briffa of CRU says that Mann’s data (and others) do in fact show a Medieval Warm Period.

There’s further arguments from Keith Briffa about Mann’s data, along with Mann claiming that the “screening” process to decide whether or not to include certain proxy data is actually a good thing. There was some blowback a few years ago when it was discovered that Mann’s pre-screening really skewed the results in his favor….yet in these email exchanges, he thinks the process is “objective”:

Here’s Mann responding to the publication of the McIntyre and McKittrick paper in E&E:

There’s quite a bit to wade through, and some emails are duplicated from the original Climategate release.

I invite readers to read and review these documents, and to point out any items of interest in comments.

Here are the documents, available for download:

 Chris Horner, Government Accountability Oversight – Response Close 2-27-19 (00115527xC3E11)

  00249611

  00249725

  E E matter. Exemplar Records Release Privilege Log (00115528xC3E11)

00249611

  00249725

  ATI-U-of-A-Hughes-Overpeck-FOI-Request

  E E – Overpeck. Log of Responsive Nonresponsive Records (00114879xC3E11)

  E E. Overpeck email records released to E E 2-5-19 per court order (00114885xC3E11)

  Malcolm Hughes – Log of Redactions Peer Review Withholding (00115522xC3E11)

NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases

The article was removed some time between 20 Dec 2010 and 19 Jan 2011.

Here’s the Wayback link to the 20 Dec 2010 page: https://web.archive.org/web/20101220042958/http://science.nasa.gov:80/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

Repost from Jo Nova:

The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2.

Today that page says Share the science and stay connected,  and “Access Denied”.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

 

The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100416015231/https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/

View original post 451 more words

Cliff Mass: victim of academic political bullying

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.

View original post 2,520 more words

AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism

From No Tricks Zone: AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism

By Kenneth Richard on 27. August 2018

A 2017 peer-reviewed paper authored by physicist Dr. Hermann Harde drew considerable response upon its publication in the journal Global and Planetary Change.  Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions was deemed unacceptable by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) viewpoint.  A critical reply to the paper was consequently published, but it included assumptive errors and misrepresentations of the original points.  Harde’s exhaustive reply to the criticism has been refused publication, which has effectively silenced scientific debate on this salient topic.

 

Image Source: https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/climate-unscience

We have yet another example of AGW advocates like Gavin Schmidt running away from real scientific debates with skeptics.

After receiving appeal-to-authority pressure from Gavin Schmidt and other activists at RealClimate.org, the overseers of the Elsevier journal Global and Planetary Change have refused to allow the public to read the exhaustive response to criticisms levied against a peer-reviewed paper they originally agreed to publish.

Image Source: Harde, 2017

Critiquing Via Misrepresentation and Models

Within months after the Harde paper was published, Köhler et al. (2017), was quickly cobbled together and published in Global and Planetary Change in an attempt to “refute” the conclusions of the Harde (2017) paper.

The problem was, Köhler et al. (2017) did not accurately critique the actual points made in the original paper, but instead they devised alternative or erroneous versions of Harde’s positions and then critiqued those instead.  In other words, they used the straw man argument tactic in their “rebuttal” paper.

In an unpublished response to the Köhler “critque” paper, Harde contends that Köhler et al. also employ “ad hoc”argumentation, “circular reasoning”, the “failure of logic” inherent in the practice of “validation by consensus”, and an overall reliance on models and assumptions rather than observation.

Excerpts from the unpublished response to Köhler et al. (2017):

“Köhler et al. list the production of anthropogenic carbon from 1750 to 2010 as 518 PgC, corresponding to 1,901 Pg of CO2. Of this, about 45% is assumed to have accumulated in the atmosphere. This value, the so-called “Airborne Fraction” (AF), is ad hoc – an artifact of presuming that increased CO2 follows exclusively from anthropogenic emission. During the same period, cumulative natural emission and absorption were 100 times greater: 727.3 Pg/yr x 260 yr = 189,000 Pg. Cumulative anthropogenic CO2 was therefore less than 0.5% of total emission into the atmosphere. If the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 is arbitrarily assumed, absorption of anthropogenic CO2 follows directly. The result, however, derives from circular reasoning. It is no more reliable than the assumption upon which it is based.”

“Despite huge uncertainties, climate models are invoked to claim that absorption of anthropogenic CO2 will quickly become saturated, forcing anthropogenic CO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere: ‘Uptake of anthropogenic carbon will become slower if we continue to increase anthropogenic CO2 emissions’. Like others, this claim rests upon models that are largely ad hoc. It is therefore speculative.”

“[O]bserved absorption, in the record of 14C, exhibits no evidence of saturation. Climate models are even invoked to claim in which layers of the ocean carbon will accumulate and, thereby, lead to acidification. Such claims are little more than hypothetical. Observations necessary to substantiate or falsify them are nonexistent. The models upon which the claims rely are themselves grossly under-constrained.  Observations are simply too scarce to configure model parameterizations uniquely.”

“Köhler et al. present an inventory of carbon which is purported to quantify changes in the various surface and sub-surface reservoirs, thereby isolating absorption of anthropogenic CO2. To claim that extraneous systems, like the carbon content of soil, vegetation (canopy and below, as well as decomposing), the sub-surface ocean, and marine sediments, are known with even close to the precision necessary to quantify those properties globally is preposterous. … Without global observations necessary to quantify those properties, the purported inventory of changes that could be associated with absorption of anthropogenic CO2 is fanciful.”

“Köhler et al. also argue that the analogy to radiocarbon is incorrect – because, they claim, changes in the bulk inventory of CO2 would be confused with changes in tracers at minute concentration. What is confused is Köhler et al.’s interpretation. Carbon 14 is a tracer of overall carbon, which is dominated by carbon 12. 14C is therefore a tracer of atmospheric CO2. Exponential decay of 14C following elimination of the nuclear source (Fig. 1) is then a direct measure of overall absorption of CO2 – because, with the elimination of that perturbing source, the conservation law for 14C reduces to (3).”

“Köhler et al. argue that the signature of absorption in 14C is corrupted by dilution via fossil fuel emission, which is mostly free of 14C (the so-called Suess effect). The claim is specious. Dilution by fossil-fuel emission that is 14C-free has negligible influence on the decay time of 14C (Appendix B).10 Far more influential is re-emission of 14C from the Earth’s surface: 14C that was recently absorbed from the atmosphere, for example, by vegetation that subsequently decomposes and re-emits that 14C along with
other CO2.”

“It should be noted that the heading of Köhler et al.’s Section 3 is misleading. We did not claim to model carbon in the complete Earth-atmosphere system. That would require a wider analysis, accounting for processes within extraneous systems and exchanges between them. Our analysis focuses upon CO2 in the atmosphere, which is controlled by the governing conservation law. Köhler et al. characterize this physical law as a flawed 1-box description – because, they claim, a single balance equation does not account for details in other reservoirs, systems that are extraneous to the atmosphere. Köhler et al.’s interpretation is confused. With the inclusion of surface fluxes eT and a, which account for influences on the atmosphere, the balance equation (1) entirely determines the evolution of CO2. Details of extraneous systems, which are largely unobservable, are then irrelevant.”

“Köhler et al. claim that the ice core record of CO2 perfectly matches the modern record of actual atmospheric measurements. With respect, this claim is preposterous.”

“Köhler et al. claim that references to material which inspired our investigation but which has either been criticized provincially, on dubious merits, or has not appeared in a journal are invalid. Among the treatments invoked by Köhler et al. to discount contradictory evidence are treatments which were shown in Section 1 to be unphysical. Köhler et al.’s complaint over source is ironic, contradicting their own position. To challenge our demonstration of fundamental physics, they cite material, even casual opinion, that was published on the internet. Accordingly, Köhler et al. expect one standard for others, but another for themselves.”

“Köhler et al.’s Comment is devoid of concrete analysis. Its tenor is to inundate the reader with citations, a reiteration of the IPCC catalogue. It amounts to validation by consensus, a failure of logic that has been quashed repeatedly in the history of science (see, e.g., Hawking, 1988).”

Köhler et al. Contradicted By Observed Evidence

“The observed behavior of carbon 14 demonstrates that this is not the case (Fig. 1). Its rapid decay following elimination of the perturbing nuclear source makes it clear that present absorption of CO2 is 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than that claimed by Köhler et al.”

Image Source: Harde, 2017b

“The treatment of absorption is specious. Notice: Absorption of CO2 is nonzero even if CO2 concentration vanishes. CO2 is therefore removed from the atmosphere even if there is no CO2 in the atmosphere. What world such treatment describes is unclear. What is clear is that it is not the physical world. This error is fatal. Changes of CO2 relying on it cannot satisfy the conservation law which is satisfied by CO2 in the atmosphere (Fig. 1).”

Image Source: Harde, 2017b

Links To The Censorship Sequence

Below is a summary of the silencing of scientific debate by the bloggers at RealClimate.org and by the overseers of the Global and Planetary Change journal.

1. The original (full) paper published in Global and Planetary Change:

“Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”

2. The RealClimate.org (blog) response is immediate.  Dr. Gavin Schmidt insists that the paper must not have been properly peer-reviewed:

“Something Harde to believe…” (Dr. Gavin Schmidt, RealClimate.org)

3. The Köhler et al. (2017) (full) critical response to the paper:

Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere” by H. Harde

4. Elsevier acknowledges their transgression in publishing a paper that didn’t conform to AGW dogma:

“Flawed climate science paper ‘exposed potential weaknesses’ in the peer review process”

5. Dr. Hermann Harde’s Reply (full) to criticism of his paper goes unpublished, censoring debate:

Reply to Comment on “Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere”

---

Uncensored access to the full Reply paper is available here:

Harde, 2017b, Reply to Köhler et al., 2017

Prosecuting Climate Chaos Skeptics With RICO

PA Pundits International

Al Gore, Torquemada Whitehouse, Democrat AGs threaten to silence and bankrupt skeptics

By Paul Driessen ~

It’s been a rough stretch for Climate Armageddon religionists and totalitarians.

Real World science, climate and weather events just don’t support their manmade cataclysm narrative. The horrid consequences of anti-fossil fuel energy policies are increasingly in the news. And despite campaigns by the $1.5-trillion-per-year government-industry-activist-scientific Climate Crisis Consortium, Americans consistently rank global warming at the very bottom of their serious concerns.

But instead of debating their critics, or marshaling a more persuasive, evidence-based case that we really do face a manmade climate catastrophe, alarmists have ramped up their shrill rhetoric, imposed more anti-hydrocarbon edicts by executive fiat and unratified treaty – and launched RICO attacks on their critics.

Spurred on by Senator Sheldon “Torquemada” Whitehouse (D-RI), Jagadish Shukla and his RICO-20 agitators, and their comrades, 16 of the nation’s 18 Democratic attorneys general…

View original post 1,196 more words