Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?

[AE 87]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...il-seek-to-sway-scientists-in-climate-debate/

In an odd bit of irony, Paul Homewood calls it both Stalinist and McCarthyism. Democrat Representative Grijalva, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, is investigating scientists called by Republicans to testify to Congress on Climate Change.

Here's a copy of the letter sent to the President of University of Colorado. Georgia Tech President received a similar letter with respect to the work of Judith Curry.

Tech's Judith Curry has a pretty thoughtful reaction: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/#more-17867

She highlights a possible political motivation by referring to our president's website:
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

So is this a political witch hunt designed to silence unwanted voices or reasonable and responsible oversight?

 

[cyptomcat]

I remember reading couple of papers from Soon a few years ago. I also remember that he clearly indicated that he received funding from Koch brothers, oil companies and other similar organizations in those papers, so I am not sure how the Soon thing is a big revelation. I actually enjoyed reading his work. I also enjoyed reading Pielke's work, and it's very sad to hear that he faced attacks forcing him to move away from the field. I thought his work was valuable.

Whatever slight omissions Soon had would be minor (because reviewers had to be familiar with Soon), and I think this issue should be between him and his employer in addition to the magazines. I don't think the house investigation is justified. Unfortunately, it's not the first time someone came after a climate scientist. Some Republicans came after UVA climate scientists a while back, but the judge found no justification for their investigation request. There is no justification for these new investigation requests as well.

It's good that Soon makes these contributions to climate science especially through peer reviewed research. Even if his contribution is through sligtly un-orthodox correlation studies. I think there is value in them.

FWIW, the Soon global analysis I read (link below) found significant contribution from greenhouse gases to global warming, but he also argued that solar irradiance was a significant factor in addition to the greenhouse gasses. One of the co-authors was Baliunas, who got famous in 90s for rejecting that CFCs caused Ozone depletion. I am not sure if she got industry money for that specifically.

Link to the paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/472/2/891/pdf/34083.web.pdf

 

[Animal02]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...il-seek-to-sway-scientists-in-climate-debate/



Tech's Judith Curry has a pretty thoughtful reaction: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/#more-17867

She highlights a possible political motivation by referring to our president's website:
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/

So is this a political witch hunt designed to silence unwanted voices or reasonable and responsible oversight?

Two things that stuck out....

"In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity."

"Well, the political approach to motivate action on climate change has been to ‘speak consensus to power’, which seems to require marginalizing and denigrating anyone who disagrees. The collapse of the consensus regarding cholesterol and heart disease reminds us that for scientific progress to occur, scientists need to continually challenge and reassess the evidence and the conclusions drawn from the evidence."

 

[cyptomcat]

Even some leading 'consensus' scientists are bashing this:

Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin
Congress does have an important oversight role, but using mechanisms of federal/state power to intimidate scientists is an abuse (1/n)

Zeke Hausfather retweeted
Eric Steig @ericsteig
@RogerPielkeJr Welcome to the new McCarthyism. Congress should not be able to investigate on a whim. You have my *unequivocal* support.

@richardabetts
@etzpcm Soon was wrong not to disclose funding, but politicians picking on @RogerPielkeJr @curryja cos of their scientific views is worrying

 

[TechnicalPossum]

One thing that rarely gets brought up in the funding debate is the assumption that government funding is "clean money", which Animal02 touched on in his comments. It most certainly should not be taken as such when the research is aimed toward proving an assumption, not just investigating. To note as well, the primary attack of the contrary research is the funding source not the science, which should be telling.

Consensus is not correctness and "settled science" means it isn't based on science.

 

[AE 87]

Soon speaks

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/02/statement-by-dr-wei-hock-soon/

 

[Animal02]

Do these concepts ring a bell?

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims
Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation
Lack of openness to testing by other experts
Absence of progress
Use of misleading language

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The libs will do anything possible to stifle debate on this issue. There is little proof to back AGW IMO. Look, I love being outdoors, love and respect Mother Nature, and I hate pollution (why aren't the libs here screaming at China?). I just am not swayed by proponents of AGW.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sun is the primary engine of our climate. None of the models "proving" AGW factor in the sun, smh. If you want to look at real world evidence...just take a look around the world. But global climate fluctuations have always been chaotic. Glaciers for instance shrink and grow. Take a look at Greenland for goodness sake. When the Vikings settled Greenland it truly was just that. Ice now covers the vast majority of Greenland and the old Viking settlements are literally buried beneath it. Is this then evidence of anthropogenic global cooling?

 

[IEEEWreck]

Two reactions:

1. As a student, Curry took a dive off the deep end and lost any credibility on the conflict of interest issue with me when she accuses the NSF of biased funding of poorly designed experiments. That's so far beyond the pale, so disconnected from reality, and so slanderous of hard working, eminent scientists and engineers (including, among others, one of three men most responsible for GT's ECE department becoming a world class research institution) that despite my respect for Curry's work, I'm frankly now unlikely to believe anything she says outside of a peer reviewed publication. The issue that Curry dodges is that while conflicts of interest don't particularly mean anything to soundly executed science, it is quite possible to create poorly designed experiments that seem legitimate and provide political fodder for people supremely uninterested in the scientific conclusion.

I still don't think that describes Curry, but I don't like that she pretends that this doesn't exist. Those 'studies' showing that leaded gasoline is fine, and that the particular form of lead is harmless were knowingly designed to achieve bad results by deliberately adding sources of error in order to overwhelm the explanatory variables. I guess it's possible to be a good scientist in the lab, and a political operative in the press at the same time. If all your work is funded by Shell and your work is valid, well, you get more vigorous peer review but it does no harm to your work or your point. If your work is all funded by Shell and you're lying by means of statistics, well, then a little scrutiny seems in the public interest.

2. Yay for economic decline and American sclerosis, I guess? The correction for greenhouse gas emission isn't some anti-technology fern gully pipe dream, it's more advanced, higher technology industry. I almost don't care if global warming is anthropogenic or not- do you have any idea how much growth shifting to nuclear power on a large scale would engender? How cheap power could be, how many data centers and manufacturers we could attract if we decided to invest a bit?

Advocating for wallowing in poverty and rejecting technology for political reasons is the province of that place in Athens, friends.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Nuclear is cleaner than all but solar and hydro. Solar is still amazingly inefficient and a space hog. Hydro is wonderful but there are only so many rivers out there to tap (and the greenies won't stand for damming another and "changing" the environment. Which brings me back to nuclear. We are only now growing nuclear again in a very small way.....and the greenies hate that also.....I just wonder if they are willing to freeze in the dark with the rest of us if they ever get their way...somehow I don't see their fearless leader Al Gore doing so.

 

[AE 87]

Two reactions:

1. As a student, Curry took a dive off the deep end and lost any credibility on the conflict of interest issue with me when she accuses the NSF of biased funding of poorly designed experiments. That's so far beyond the pale, so disconnected from reality, and so slanderous of hard working, eminent scientists and engineers (including, among others, one of three men most responsible for GT's ECE department becoming a world class research institution) that despite my respect for Curry's work, I'm frankly now unlikely to believe anything she says outside of a peer reviewed publication. The issue that Curry dodges is that while conflicts of interest don't particularly mean anything to soundly executed science, it is quite possible to create poorly designed experiments that seem legitimate and provide political fodder for people supremely uninterested in the scientific conclusion.

I still don't think that describes Curry, but I don't like that she pretends that this doesn't exist. Those 'studies' showing that leaded gasoline is fine, and that the particular form of lead is harmless were knowingly designed to achieve bad results by deliberately adding sources of error in order to overwhelm the explanatory variables. I guess it's possible to be a good scientist in the lab, and a political operative in the press at the same time. If all your work is funded by Shell and your work is valid, well, you get more vigorous peer review but it does no harm to your work or your point. If your work is all funded by Shell and you're lying by means of statistics, well, then a little scrutiny seems in the public interest.

2. Yay for economic decline and American sclerosis, I guess? The correction for greenhouse gas emission isn't some anti-technology fern gully pipe dream, it's more advanced, higher technology industry. I almost don't care if global warming is anthropogenic or not- do you have any idea how much growth shifting to nuclear power on a large scale would engender? How cheap power could be, how many data centers and manufacturers we could attract if we decided to invest a bit?

Advocating for wallowing in poverty and rejecting technology for political reasons is the province of that place in Athens, friends.

Thanks for this post; however, I'm not sure that I followed everything. I experienced it more as an emotional rant than the informed opinion that I think you intended. For exampke, if she accused the NSF of biased funding in some area, I'm not sure that means that everything they fund is suspect. On the same token, if they fund some solid science, that doesn't mean that some bias doesn't exist in some areas. So, I'm not sure that I followed exactly what she said that was so offensive or your reason for finding it so. I had similar difficulties throughout, but maybe that's just my reading comprehension problem.

 

[IEEEWreck]

Thanks for this post; however, I'm not sure that I followed everything. I experienced it more as an emotional rant than the informed opinion that I think you intended. For exampke, if she accused the NSF of biased funding in some area, I'm not sure that means that everything they fund is suspect. On the same token, if they fund some solid science, that doesn't mean that some bias doesn't exist in some areas. So, I'm not sure that I followed exactly what she said that was so offensive or your reason for finding it so. I had similar difficulties throughout, but maybe that's just my reading comprehension problem.

That could be because there's a fair bit of emotional rant in there.

Accusing NSF of funding biased studies doesnt make much sense given the elaborate process and how much time and effort it would take to be politically selective in that environment. Also, given the accusation is as substantive as 'teh feds fund stuff too!' I think its less an argument than a 'can I get an amen?' From a choir that already has decided that anything government is lies.

Also, for a scientist to refuse to acknowledge the history of industry subverting science (prominent in, among other places, 4lead in gasoline and cancer from cigarettes) seems suspicious. Thats basic, every STEM ethics course stuff.

My second point is that im disappointed in Republican politicians for taking easy 'there is no warning' viewpoints instead of advocating for infrastructure that can put America back into a decade of growth.

Consider this: China is fine with people literally choking to death and swimming in pollution. Why would they do anything about a much less pressing pollution unless they saw economic growth in doing so?

So... yeah. Rant over, I guess?

 

[AE 87]

That could be because there's a fair bit of emotional rant in there.

Accusing NSF of funding biased studies doesnt make much sense given the elaborate process and how much time and effort it would take to be politically selective in that environment. Also, given the accusation is as substantive as 'teh feds fund stuff too!' I think its less an argument than a 'can I get an amen?' From a choir that already has decided that anything government is lies.

Also, for a scientist to refuse to acknowledge the history of industry subverting science (prominent in, among other places, 4lead in gasoline and cancer from cigarettes) seems suspicious. Thats basic, every STEM ethics course stuff.

My second point is that im disappointed in Republican politicians for taking easy 'there is no warning' viewpoints instead of advocating for infrastructure that can put America back into a decade of growth.

Consider this: China is fine with people literally choking to death and swimming in pollution. Why would they do anything about a much less pressing pollution unless they saw economic growth in doing so?

So... yeah. Rant over, I guess?

Thanks. I'm still not able to parse reasoned point from emotional rant. I'm sure it's on me now.

Anyway, I reckon there are serious hard working honest scientists working for big business dollars and politically motivated biased scientists going after big government dollars. I think it's too simplistic to curse one and bless the other, not that you were doing that.

 

[Animal02]

You only have to look at the collapse of the "food pyramid" that was advocated for decades by the feds. It is comical to talk of industry subverting science and yet turn a blind eye to government malfeasance. Industry has limited resources, governments do not. Handwaving away government favoritism based on a "elaborate process" is just silly.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I am amazed at how much paranoia there is on this thread. I know the government can be biased when it comes to investigations, just look at the fiasco know as the "Benghazi investigations." They became an endless money drain and the laughing stock of late night and cable comedy for a reason. And they are the comedy gift that just keeps on giving. Except the tin foil hats actually think there is a "there" there.

But the point is, government is not some nameless "them." Government, for better or worse is us. Benghazi investigations and all. In a democracy we get exactly the government we deserve. Right now "truth" is only understood in partisan terms for the vast majority of Americans. That means that whatever I see as the truth can only be challenged by someone who is nefarious, devious and deliberately trying to stop the truth for financial gain. The most partisan among us always accuse the other side of doing the very thing that we are completely oblivious to if it supports our beliefs.

I have enjoyed this thread whenever it has simply dealt with the science. When ideological presuppositions get mixed into responses as if they are incontrovertible fact it gets very tedious.

 

[AE 87]

I am amazed at how much paranoia there is on this thread. I know the government can be biased when it comes to investigations, just look at the fiasco know as the "Benghazi investigations." They became an endless money drain and the laughing stock of late night and cable comedy for a reason. And they are the comedy gift that just keeps on giving. Except the tin foil hats actually think there is a "there" there.

But the point is, government is not some nameless "them." Government, for better or worse is us. Benghazi investigations and all. In a democracy we get exactly the government we deserve. Right now "truth" is only understood in partisan terms for the vast majority of Americans. That means that whatever I see as the truth can only be challenged by someone who is nefarious, devious and deliberately trying to stop the truth for financial gain. The most partisan among us always accuse the other side of doing the very thing that we are completely oblivious to if it supports our beliefs.

I have enjoyed this thread whenever it has simply dealt with the science. When ideological presuppositions get mixed into responses as if they are incontrovertible fact it gets very tedious.

You seem to be missing the point coming up in all these threads: can we actually get to science unaffected by ideological presuppositions?

 

[TechnicalPossum]

You seem to be missing the point coming up in all these threads: can we actually get to science unaffected by ideological presuppositions?

No.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I am amazed at how much paranoia there is on this thread. I know the government can be biased when it comes to investigations, just look at the fiasco know as the "Benghazi investigations." They became an endless money drain and the laughing stock of late night and cable comedy for a reason. And they are the comedy gift that just keeps on giving. Except the tin foil hats actually think there is a "there" there.

But the point is, government is not some nameless "them." Government, for better or worse is us. Benghazi investigations and all. In a democracy we get exactly the government we deserve. Right now "truth" is only understood in partisan terms for the vast majority of Americans. That means that whatever I see as the truth can only be challenged by someone who is nefarious, devious and deliberately trying to stop the truth for financial gain. The most partisan among us always accuse the other side of doing the very thing that we are completely oblivious to if it supports our beliefs.

I have enjoyed this thread whenever it has simply dealt with the science. When ideological presuppositions get mixed into responses as if they are incontrovertible fact it gets very tedious.

This is a derail now so I apologize...couldn't avoid taking the bait tho. re Benghazi..... Congress is certainly wasting time and money on any investigation they are pretending at....for a variety of reasons. But the administration handled that event deplorably. It is shameful that our ambassador and so many other good Americans were left hung out to dry in that manner...while the cowards in the White House sat there doing no more than contemplate the spin they would put on the event. And I couldn't give 2 #%#%#s what any entertainer or comedian thinks about any of it. A shameful moment in American history.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It is shameful that our ambassador and so many other good Americans were left hung out to dry in that manner...while the cowards in the White House sat there doing no more than contemplate the spin they would put on the event.

There is absolutely no truth to this and no evidence. There have been over 50 different investigations, almost all with partisan intent, and nothing was found to support this accusation. The spin that says otherwise is exactly why comedians have had a field day with it. And exactly why America is having a harder time finding consensus on any single important issue today. Even saying the earth is not 5000 years old is now considered a political statement. My friend, we have entered the dark ages of logical thinking.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion stinger. I find it laughable you claim my opinion is inaccurate.

My opinion is that the State Department / administration knew, or should have known, the situation on the ground was not stable and was unsafe for the mission and intelligence assets present. The Brits had the common sense to pull their people out. We did not. After choosing to remain we failed to provide adequate military assets to protect our people. This was a failure in leadership pure and simple (also an opinion) God save us from decision makers who would repeat these mistakes.