the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Free the Scientists

Posted by Jeff Id on June 30, 2010

There is too much pressure on climate scientists.  The way Mann attacked everyone in the climategate emails for not presenting the consensus view was disgusting.

Typically, in my experience, scientists enjoy the imagining of something different to the status quo, even more than publishing the standard.  It’s in the nature of these people that something new and different is exciting.  It’s no fun repeating the same stuff over and over,  and nothing is gained.  My guess is that climate scientists often find the global warming politics tedious but what choice do they have.  If you are a young scientist bent on discovery, do you want a piece of the billions tenths of trillions in funding or do you want to take the role of the skeptic.  You want something different but in time your understanding leads to money.  After all, if you find that the Arctic is warming and that CO2 in the past corresponds to warming, is it worth ignoring the obvious causality capriciousness? After all, we know temperature causes higher CO2 and  CO2 can cause higher temperatures!!  But that does NOT bring funding.

Gore’s left hand found the real answer ($$$) but climate science has forced itself down a path which on the whole has some serious questions to answer. Everything leads to warming, warming leads to strife, strife leads to ecological collapse and death of everyone!!! And growth of. um…… more animals. Never mind that not a single ecological disaster has EVER been predicted ten years in the future,in history let alone a hundred. Find one so I can be wrong.

Anyway, climate science has struggled desperately since the lies were exposed by climategate.  None of the lies were new to those of us who were studying.  The difference today is that in my first introspective blogging lapse in two years, I’m really starting to grasp the pressures on these people created by the true believers in the cause.  They are forced or extremely pressured to do science to the limits of the bounds of reason – in support of the AGW mantra.  It is logically identical to a prayer to your preferred god, except that no indeterminate and ancient text exists to guide them.   That sounds extreme, but if you really discover something with climate, it’s very simple to attach it to AGW at least to a remote degree.  Extremely simple.

Although it didn’t seem that way at the time, I was lucky recently to be the blogger on which the climategate files were noticed.    The entire climate taxation angle is damaged beyond my wildest hopes and not because I don’t believe in AGW, it’s that I don’t believe that they are certain enough to do the economic damage they demand. They do demand!  The state of climate knowledge is nowhere near as certain as they would like to present.   Nobody, except reporters, really know the truth of our future climate, the future is unknown and we can all thank our gods for that.

Science and government are two ugly partners for sure and it’s not going to get better considering the current governmental situation around the world.


20 Responses to “Free the Scientists”

  1. timetochooseagain said

    “Never mind that not a single ecological disaster has EVER been predicted ten years in the future,in history let alone a hundred. Find one so I can be wrong.”

    If a prediction made was vague enough, they would only have to wait around. Just by chance something bad would be bound to happen eventually. Funny thing, they have this self destructive habit of attaching dates to everything. And just like the Jehovah’s Witnesses (no offense intended to any) when the deadline comes and goes, this is all forgotten about and a new date is given. Next time my friends, next time.

  2. “After all, we know temperature causes higher CO2 and CO2 can cause higher temperatures!! But that does NOT bring funding.”

    Not so. Recently, the sceptics were a-twitter over the paper by Frank et al on this very topic. It appeared in Nature – not much suppression there. And they acknowledged funding from “the Swiss National Science Foundation (NCCR-Climate) and the European Union projects Carbo-Extreme (226701) and Millennium (017008)”.

  3. gallopingcamel said

    Once upon a time, we in academia seeking research funds used to look to corporate America. However, most of us have found out where the real money is; today we “sing for our supper to DARPA, AFOSR, NRL, DoE and the other government patrons of research.

    I have pointed out that this “Soft Lysenkoism” is much more dangerous than the hard kind implemented by Josef Stalin. Is anyone listening?

  4. M. Simon said

    Drug War science was in the same state for about 70 or 80 years. It started telling the truth about 10 years ago. DNA, brain chemistry, and the discovery of the endocannibanoid system in every organ of the body forced reality on the science. The public is still far behind.

    What will bring climate science back to reality is a little ice age.

  5. Gallopingcamel is right.

    Scientists must “sing for their supper” to NASA, NSF, DARPA, AFOSR, NRL, DoE and the other government patrons of research.

    Those who sing the tune written by NAS (the National Academy of Sciences) in unison receive promotions, more research funds and awards. The Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee even recognized Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC consensus team as great scientists!

    NAS, the Association of National Science Academies worldwide, and the UN’s IPCC are modern versions of the Truth Ministries described in George Orwell’s book, “1984”.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

    http://www.omatumr.com

  6. Brian H said

    Nick;
    The reason it was noticed was its rarity. The wall is cracking, at last.

    Jeff;
    A very amusing question to ask the CAGW believers is ‘What causes Global Cooling? Especially after/during a period of CO2 increase?’

    The twisting and turning is hilarious!

  7. Sean said

    Scientist may do back flips to generate funds but there is a “trendiness” to science as well. People want to be on the hot topic. As the uncertainties come to the forefront and the climate’s temperature continues to plateau, I think we’ll find that the fringe followers of the science who are trying to tap climate science funding with very weak connections will soon drop off. If the climate cools a bit over the next 5 years (without a major volcanic eruption) a lot of re-evaluation and refinement of the science will go on as it should. I also think that the total ocean heat content from the Argo Bouy network results will come to the forefront over the next 5-10 years. It’s showing no significant trends in the 5-7 years its been operation, in direct contradiction to predictions made by Hansen. If those trends continue or the temperature drops off, those results will demand reconciliation with the energy balance measurements by satellites and by the models. In other words, climate science will transition from “post normal” to normal.

  8. stan said

    I don’t think you can discount the allure of being the savior of the world.

  9. David Jay said

    This is paralleled by various schemes. I was just doing some web research on the notorious Moeller Air Car. This is the one that has, in one form or another, showed up on the front cover of either PM or PS every 5 years or so for the last three decades.

    It will always go into production next year.

    In God We Trust, all others show code and data

  10. David Jay said

    Okay, I tried to blockquote and respond to this by TimeToChooseAgain:

    “when the deadline comes and goes, this is all forgotten about and a new date is given.”

  11. Steven Mosher said

    Nick,

    What did you make of that Frank/Esper paper? Is it worthwhile to discuss? Kinda missing the blog posts where people dissect papers in detail.

  12. Steven Mosher said

    Brian H.

    “Jeff;
    A very amusing question to ask the CAGW believers is ‘What causes Global Cooling? Especially after/during a period of CO2 increase?’”

    I’m a believer in AGW and I think it’s a really smart question. One can only hope that going forward we continue to see these kind of episodes.

  13. Layman Lurker said

    #10 Steve Mosher

    I “second” your suggestion of a discussion on Frank/Esper. I have not read the paper yet but it seems intriguing. I admit I am all “a-twitter”.

  14. Re: Steven Mosher (Jul 1 13:28),
    Steven, I had a post on the Frank paper here. CO2 feedback attracts undue attention because of its other AGW role. It was minor relative to H2O feedback following Ice Ages, and is minor now.

    But no-one doubts that it is real. Figures vary widely, and Frank’s results are not exceptional.

  15. Brian H said

    Steve: “Brian H.

    “Jeff;
    A very amusing question to ask the CAGW believers is ‘What causes Global Cooling? Especially after/during a period of CO2 increase?’”

    I’m a believer in AGW and I think it’s a really smart question. One can only hope that going forward we continue to see these kind of episodes.”
    _______

    One would then be a fool. Global Cooling causes massive disruptions of global agriculture, migrations, starvation, territorial wars, and mass misery and death. Global Warming eras have been boom times for civilization and the rest of Nature.
    _______
    Nick:

    “But no-one doubts that it is real. Figures vary widely, and Frank’s results are not exceptional.”

    Many doubt it deeply. It is scientifically and mathematically impossible to derive an effect for CO2 from either the existing (vanishingly scanty) or any conceivable feasible data set. The 4th-power interations are aggressively non-linear, and insoluble with any current or projected math or computer resources. The existing “models” are purely “scenarios”: i.e., illustrations of what might happen if the creator’s laundry-list of assumptions and hyper-simplifications were true.

  16. Brian H said

    typo: “interactions”, not “interations”.

  17. Brian H said

    Never forget that climatology is not even a field, much less a science:
    “Rather, the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism is a conjecture [= preliminary guess without evidence, which may lead to a hypothesis with pass-fail proposals, which may eventually qualify as a theory], which may be proved or disproved already [= previously] in concrete engineering thermodynamics [95{97]. Exactly this was done well many years ago by an expert in this field, namely Alfred Schack, who wrote a classical text-book on this subject [95]. [In] 1972 he showed that the radiative component of heat transfer of CO2, though relevant at the temperatures in combustion chambers, can be neglected at atmospheric temperatures. The influence of carbonic acid on the Earth’s climates is definitively unmeasurable [98].”

    “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, v23, n03, January 6, 2009, pp. 275-364. Free download at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf.

  18. Andrew said

    13-Real, yes, but slooooooow. The lag in Ice Cores indicates that it takes hundreds of years for the out-gassing to kick in. What this suggests to me that it is mostly if not entirely irrelevant to AGW in the present.

    I think that it amounts to ~20 ppm per degree C of global change (based on the glacial-interglacial change of ~5 degrees C and ~100 ppm) which would translate to some forcing, the problem being that the amount of forcing is dependent on the level, but not linearly, so the apparently linear relation of ppm CO2 to temp, suggests that this feedback will become even less important in the future.

  19. opit said

    Love that falsification link.
    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb itself was well worth the download.
    Because I have followed media manipulation for quite a while now, the statement that fasification is the rule rather than the exception actually sounds about right…for a number of topics.
    But for climate itself, the furball between AGW proponents who call all others ‘Deniers’ in fervent prayerful respect to their fiscal benefactors is ‘framed’ quite adequately by those who only go so far as to dispute this assertion as twaddle. Concentrating on this artificial construct quite nicely overpowers notes on thoughts outside its chosen limitations – which then effectively ignores real postulations and theorizing.
    Which is to say….they are BOTH lying : one to enact a ‘Global Tax on the Use of Fire’ and the other to preserve ‘Untrammeled Rape of the Planet’.
    I promise no simple answers – except one. We are not yet Gods.

    http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com/2010/03/climate.html

  20. Brian H said

    Opit;
    “untrammeled rape of the planet” is just a Warmist attempt to lump polluting and wasteful practices in with CO2 generation, and blacken by association. CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a scarce plant nutrient.

    The “renewable” projects, if analysed from stem to stern, generate more toxins and abuse of land than conventional sources of equivalent energy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: