There is also a 5 part series on apocalyptic greenie Paul Ehrlich in progress, first at URL#3.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...ng-scientists/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/464141a.html
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...rom-depletion/

March 15, 2010, 23:00:55 | dschnare

According to M. Mitchell Waldrop, editorial page editor for Nature, "global-warming deniers . . .
are sowing doubts about the fundamental [climate change] science." Further, Waldrop argues in his
op-ed "Climate of Fear, "scientists' reputations have taken a hit."

Let's ignore the snarky reference to "deniers" and ask: is science and are scientists under attack?
The answer is Yes. But in an intellectual sense, isn't this the essence of falsifiable,
non-verifiable physical science?

Climategate (et al.) is not simply about "deniers" and Waldrop's complaint that skeptics are
"stok[ing] the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like." It's much more
nuanced than that.

As a quick aside, perhaps Dr. Waldrop can be forgiven for failing to see the big picture. To
critics (can he tolerate them?), he is a deer in the headlights of universal, Internet-quick
scientific scrutiny. And there are a lot of smart 'amateurs' mixing it up with the pros (who likes
competition?). Consider the view of his colleague-in-arms Paul Ehrlich, who profoundly stated in
the same March 10th editorial: "Everyone is scared ****less, but they don't know what to do."

Perhaps we can help them.

Three Key Issues

Sorting this out, there are three important issues:

(1) Is science under attack?

(2) Are scientists under attack? and

(3) Who is doing the attacking?

The third questions is by far the most interesting, but let us first dispose of questions one and
two.

Is Science Under Attack?

To question one, the answer is of course it is. That's how science works. One of the simplest
explanations of this is often used by Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in
physical chemistry--in other words, a real scientist. He writes:

The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a scientist has a theory, he
searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can test it further or refine it.
The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his theory and dutifully ignores
any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data! All they have
are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been
proven to be false.

Science is always under attack, and the best science is under attack by the very scientists who
construct the hypotheses at issue. Sadly, this is not what is generally going on with climate
change.

To help our climate science friends, which would include anyone who worked on the IPCC Work Group I
report, here are just two hypotheses that they might wish to diligently examine:

a.. There is no evidence of historic temperature increases or temperature levels similar to what
we have observed in the past 40 years that could arise from natural causes.
b.. The climate models upon which the IPCC reports rely fully incorporate the influences of water
vapor, the El Nino southern, the Pacific decadal oscillation, the Atlantic multi-decadal
oscillation, the Arctic oscillation, and the causes of long-term (1,500, 5,000 and 20,000 year)
climate variation, thus eliminating the potential to mistake a natural cause in climate variation
with a man-made cause of variation.
If the IPCC scientists were able to falsify either of these, then the entire basis for alarmism
about climate change would fall apart, as these are the "fundamental" climate science about which
Dr. Waldrop is so concerned.

There is some hope, however. After being bludgeoned by criticism and demands for data from
scientists outside his personal circle of climate alarmists, and apparently a scientist within his
own offices who released the now infamous Climategate emails, Dr. Phil Jones, director of the
Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, and IPCC scion, has admitted the following
(as summarized by Indur Goklany):

a..
a..
a.. Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
b.. There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have
seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
c.. The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases,
underestimated natural variability, or both.
d.. This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based
on these models just from this factor alone.
e.. The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases
is faulty.
f.. The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
g.. There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in
the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.
Are Scientists Under Attack?

It is unusual that scientists fighting other scientists make newspaper headlines. One isn't
supposed to be bludgeoned at all, and the discourse isn't supposed to be on the BBC webpage, but
rather in the scientific literature. Hence, the second question: Are scientists under attack?

Here nuance begins to enter. Some scientists who should be under attack are under attack. Some who
should be are not, and some who should not be are. A small number of examples make this point.

Scientists at the East Anglia University's Climate Research Center (CRU), the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, and the University of Pennsylvania, to name but three, have refused to
respond to Freedom of Information requests seeking data and the code for the computer models they
have used in preparation of scientific papers. These scientists deserve to be under attack. As the
Institute of Physics explained in its submission to Parliament regarding the released CRU emails:

Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of
the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless,
the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.

If honest science is to survive, the information underlying scientific studies must be available to
anyone seeking to validate or replicate the work. Any scientist who stands in the way of that
principle should not only be under attack, they should be cashiered from the profession.

Now, as to those who are not under attack but should be. These are often individuals who have
reached emeritus status and are "too big to fail", one supposes. Let me offer but one example,
Professor Steven Schneider. He served as a climate researcher for the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades and is one of the most ardent advocates
of the Global Warming Theory. He joined the faculty of Stanford University in 1991 and remains
there today. He has stated the following:

a.. It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the global warming theory] as
though it were a question of balance." (Quoted in the Boston Globe, May 31, 1992.)
b.. "Looking at every bump and wiggle. is a waste of time.. I don't set very much store by
looking at the direct evidence." (Quoted in the Washington Times, June 12, 1992)
c.. § "[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little
mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being
effective and being honest." (Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet, 1990)
Schneider is a Hertzberg propagandist. He and his fellow travelers should be the focus of intense
examination as they seek to deflect debate away from the science itself. I don't, however, see the
bastions of science, including the National Academy, cleaning up its own messes. These supposed
leaders of science have the rostrum and they are not going to give it up. They control the science
purse strings, access to journals, and most of the lay press. They are the emperors without
clothing.

These propagandists are not to be confused with the majority of scientists who have no political
agenda and who simply want to be scientists. These are often the scientists who are under attack
and should not be. Among them are Richard Lindzen, MIT, Roger Pielke, Sr., University of Colorado -
Boulder, and John Christy, UAH. These people refuse to go beyond where observation takes them. They
are under attack because they refuse to participate in the propaganda campaigns.

Who's Doing the Attacking?

Now for the fascinating question, who is attacking the "settled science"? The answer reflects an
entirely new paradigm.

In the past, adversarial science most often played out in the courts. A perfect recent example is
found in the recent matter of Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell. The court held that government
scientists were arbitrary and capricious in their decision-making because they relied on models
instead of actual observation. Specifically, the Forest Service attempted to claim that a 40,000
acre area of sagebrush was a breeding ground for the sage grouse, even though they had diligently
looked for these birds and had not been able to find either one bird or one breeding site in over
15 years. Nevertheless, the government scientists claimed that their habitat model suggested that
it should be a breeding ground and thus it was one and thus it demanded protection. As the court
stated, that "just doesn't cut it."

Notably, in dissent, one judge was prepared to rely on the authority of the government instead of
the science itself. That is, of course, the crux of the problem. It is time to get past "authority"
and get to the science, and that is the new paradigm.

Propagandists like Steve Schneider loudly argue that the "deniers" or "skeptics" should be
disregarded. To him the debate should be within the scientific community. The skeptics aren't
scientists but shills for Big Oil. Even, Nature editor Waldrop proclaims that "the IPCC error
[regarding glaciers] was originally caught by scientists, not skeptics". (Brit. Spelling).

Schneider and Waldrop are wrong. There is a new breed of scientist in this fray, and they don't
take money from Big Oil (or little oil), and they publish in the peer-reviewed literature and they
are not afraid of big data sets or complex computer code. I call them the "mad-as- hell,
won't-take-it-anymore"
scientists.

Who are These Guys?

In the main, these are the now retired baby-boomers who have nothing better to do with their time
than apply their considerable skills in attempting to replicate or falsify climate alarmism
science. Steve McIntyre, working with Ross McKitrick, destroyed Michael Mann's infamous "hockey
stick", and in the process demonstrated that data does exist to show that natural causes can result
in temperatures higher than what we observed in the 1990's.

McIntyre continues to seek the data underlying the IPCC reports. Although McIntyre and McKitrick
publish in the peer-reviewed literature, their work on the Internet at Climate Audit has been the
more powerful driver for scientific openness and honest analysis. They put science on open display
in a manner that allows others to replicate or critique their work. Others of this ilk are Ken
Stewart, Anthony Watts, S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, Chauncey Starr, and the father of the Gaia
theory, James Lovelock.

Lovelock, the 90-year-old British scientist, who has worked for NASA and paved the way for the
detection of man-made aerosol and refrigerant gases in the atmosphere, called for greater caution
in climate research. Reflecting on the current status of climate science, Lovelock makes the pithy
point that "quite often, observations done by hand are accurate but all the theoretical stuff in
between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with climate change."

Conclusion

So, what would a real scientist do? Perhaps they should look backward to see what their retired
parents are doing and try to do as well. Bit embarrassing when the old man or old woman takes the
children to task for abandoning the touch stone of science. Happily, until they are dead, it looks
like the grey-haired old biddies are going to look askance at their propaganda progeny.

David W. Schnare, Esq. Ph.D., is director of the Center for Environmental Stewardship, Thomas
Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. For more biographical information on Dr. Schnare, see here.

On 3/16/2010 10:30 AM, Eric Gisin wrote:
There is also a 5 part series on apocalyptic greenie Paul Ehrlich in
progress, first at URL#3.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...ng-scientists/

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/464141a.html
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/0...rom-depletion/


March 15, 2010, 23:00:55 | dschnare

According to M. Mitchell Waldrop, editorial page editor for Nature,
"global-warming deniers . . .
are sowing doubts about the fundamental [climate change] science."
Further, Waldrop argues in his
op-ed "Climate of Fear, "scientists' reputations have taken a hit."

Let's ignore the snarky reference to "deniers" and ask: is science and
are scientists under attack?
The answer is Yes. But in an intellectual sense, isn't this the essence
of falsifiable,
non-verifiable physical science?

No, it is the essence of mob rule. In any totalitarian revolution,
the scientists are some of the first against the wall.



Climategate (et al.) is not simply about "deniers" and Waldrop's
complaint that skeptics are
"stok[ing] the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere
and the like." It's much more
nuanced than that.

Not really, no.


As a quick aside, perhaps Dr. Waldrop can be forgiven for failing to see
the big picture. To
critics (can he tolerate them?), he is a deer in the headlights of
universal, Internet-quick
scientific scrutiny. And there are a lot of smart 'amateurs' mixing it
up with the pros (who likes
competition?). Consider the view of his colleague-in-arms Paul Ehrlich,
who profoundly stated in
the same March 10th editorial: "Everyone is scared ****less, but they
don't know what to do."

Perhaps we can help them.

Three Key Issues

Sorting this out, there are three important issues:

(1) Is science under attack?

(2) Are scientists under attack? and

(3) Who is doing the attacking?

The third questions is by far the most interesting, but let us first
dispose of questions one and
two.

Is Science Under Attack?

To question one, the answer is of course it is. That's how science
works.

Lie. Science results are generally under "attack" , not science
itself. Now we are told by conservatives that science is "magic."


One of the simplest
explanations of this is often used by Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy
meteorologist with a PhD in
physical chemistry--in other words, a real scientist. He writes:

The difference between a scientist and propagandist is clear. If a
scientist has a theory, he
searches diligently for data that might contradict it so that he can
test it further or refine it.
The propagandist carefully selects only the data that agrees with his
theory and dutifully ignores
any that contradicts it. The global warming alarmists don't even bother
with data!

Lie.

All they have
are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with
reality and have already been
proven to be false.

Lie.


Science is always under attack,

Lie.

and the best science is under attack by
the very scientists who
construct the hypotheses at issue.

Different issue.

Sadly, this is not what is generally
going on with climate
change.

Lie.


To help our climate science friends, which would include anyone who
worked on the IPCC Work Group I
report, here are just two hypotheses that they might wish to diligently
examine:

a.. There is no evidence of historic temperature increases or
temperature levels similar to what
we have observed in the past 40 years that could arise from natural causes.

Notice he says nothing about rates. lol


b.. The climate models upon which the IPCC reports rely fully
incorporate the influences of water
vapor, the El Nino southern, the Pacific decadal oscillation, the
Atlantic multi-decadal
oscillation, the Arctic oscillation, and the causes of long-term (1,500,
5,000 and 20,000 year)
climate variation, thus eliminating the potential to mistake a natural
cause in climate variation
with a man-made cause of variation.

A pathetic attempt to stack the deck with short range phenomena.


If the IPCC scientists were able to falsify either of these, then the
entire basis for alarmism
about climate change would fall apart, as these are the "fundamental"
climate science about which
Dr. Waldrop is so concerned.

Nope, they're made-up strawmen.


There is some hope, however. After being bludgeoned by criticism and
demands for data from
scientists outside his personal circle of climate alarmists, and
apparently a scientist within his
own offices who released the now infamous Climategate emails, Dr. Phil
Jones, director of the
Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, and IPCC scion,
has admitted the following
(as summarized by Indur Goklany):

a..
a..
a.. Neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
b.. There was no significant warming from 1998-2009. According to the
IPCC we should have
seen a global temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.

Cherry-picking of 1998. lol


c.. The IPCC models may have overestimated the climate sensitivity for
greenhouse gases,
underestimated natural variability, or both.
d.. This also suggests that there is a systematic upward bias in the
impacts estimates based
on these models just from this factor alone.

Nope, not in the real world. It just means they are subject to
change, and they are.


e.. The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed
man-made greenhouse gases
is faulty.

A moronic lie.


f.. The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
g.. There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient
findings, especially in
the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.
Are Scientists Under Attack?

It is unusual that scientists fighting other scientists make newspaper
headlines.

Actually, it is scientists fighting propagandists, usually.


One isn't
supposed to be bludgeoned at all, and the discourse isn't supposed to be
on the BBC webpage, but
rather in the scientific literature. Hence, the second question: Are
scientists under attack?

Here nuance begins to enter. Some scientists who should be under attack
are under attack. Some who
should be are not, and some who should not be are. A small number of
examples make this point.

Scientists at the East Anglia University's Climate Research Center
(CRU), the NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, and the University of Pennsylvania, to name
but three, have refused to
respond to Freedom of Information requests seeking data and the code for
the computer models they
have used in preparation of scientific papers. These scientists deserve
to be under attack.

Lie.


As the
Institute of Physics explained in its submission to Parliament regarding
the released CRU emails:

Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the
verification of the integrity of
the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information
legislation. Nevertheless,
the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary.

If honest science is to survive, the information underlying scientific
studies must be available to
anyone seeking to validate or replicate the work. Any scientist who
stands in the way of that
principle should not only be under attack, they should be cashiered from
the profession.

Unfortunately, "information underlying studies" does not mean the
computer code in the studies. lol



Now, as to those who are not under attack but should be. These are often
individuals who have
reached emeritus status and are "too big to fail", one supposes. Let me
offer but one example,
Professor Steven Schneider. He served as a climate researcher for the
National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado for two decades and is one of
the most ardent advocates
of the Global Warming Theory. He joined the faculty of Stanford
University in 1991 and remains
there today. He has stated the following:

a.. It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides [of the
global warming theory] as
though it were a question of balance." (Quoted in the Boston Globe, May
31, 1992.)

True.

b.. "Looking at every bump and wiggle. is a waste of time.. I don't set
very much store by
looking at the direct evidence." (Quoted in the Washington Times, June
12, 1992)

True.

c.. § "[We] have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic
statements and make little
mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the
right balance is between being
effective and being honest." (Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the
Planet, 1990)

Sad, but true.


Schneider is a Hertzberg propagandist. He and his fellow travelers
should be the focus of intense
examination as they seek to deflect debate away from the science itself.

There is no debating the science. you don't debate science, you
disprove it.

Where is the disproof?


I don't, however, see the
bastions of science, including the National Academy, cleaning up its own
messes. These supposed
leaders of science have the rostrum and they are not going to give it
up. They control the science
purse strings, access to journals, and most of the lay press. They are
the emperors without
clothing.

Made-up crazyassed crap.


These propagandists are not to be confused with the majority of
scientists who have no political
agenda and who simply want to be scientists. These are often the
scientists who are under attack
and should not be. Among them are Richard Lindzen,

Tobacco denialist.


MIT, Roger Pielke,
Sr., University of Colorado -
Boulder, and John Christy, UAH.

Made a fraudulent presentation to congress about the time his faulty
data had to be corrected. lol


These people refuse to go beyond where
observation takes them. They
are under attack because they refuse to participate in the propaganda
campaigns.

They are attack because they lie continually.



Who's Doing the Attacking?

Now for the fascinating question, who is attacking the "settled
science"? The answer reflects an
entirely new paradigm.

In the past, adversarial science most often played out in the courts. A
perfect recent example is
found in the recent matter of Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell. The
court held that government
scientists were arbitrary and capricious in their decision-making
because they relied on models
instead of actual observation. Specifically, the Forest Service
attempted to claim that a 40,000
acre area of sagebrush was a breeding ground for the sage grouse, even
though they had diligently
looked for these birds and had not been able to find either one bird or
one breeding site in over
15 years. Nevertheless, the government scientists claimed that their
habitat model suggested that
it should be a breeding ground and thus it was one and thus it demanded
protection. As the court
stated, that "just doesn't cut it."

Notably, in dissent, one judge was prepared to rely on the authority of
the government instead of
the science itself. That is, of course, the crux of the problem. It is
time to get past "authority"
and get to the science, and that is the new paradigm.

Propagandists like Steve Schneider loudly argue that the "deniers" or
"skeptics" should be
disregarded. To him the debate should be within the scientific
community. The skeptics aren't
scientists but shills for Big Oil. Even, Nature editor Waldrop proclaims
that "the IPCC error
[regarding glaciers] was originally caught by scientists, not skeptics".
(Brit. Spelling).

Schneider and Waldrop are wrong. There is a new breed of scientist in
this fray, and they don't
take money from Big Oil (or little oil), and they publish in the
peer-reviewed literature and they
are not afraid of big data sets or complex computer code. I call them
the "mad-as- hell, won't-take-it-anymore"
scientists.

Too bad they do not exist.


Who are These Guys?

In the main, these are the now retired baby-boomers who have nothing
better to do with their time
than apply their considerable skills in attempting to replicate or
falsify climate alarmism
science. Steve McIntyre, working with Ross McKitrick,

...both climate liars, and neither a climatologist. McKittrick is a
mining consultant. lol


destroyed Michael
Mann's infamous "hockey

A lie.


stick", and in the process demonstrated that data does exist to show
that natural causes can result
in temperatures higher than what we observed in the 1990's.

Not relevant.


McIntyre continues to seek the data underlying the IPCC reports.
Although McIntyre and McKitrick
publish in the peer-reviewed literature, their work on the Internet at
Climate Audit has been the
more powerful driver for scientific openness and honest analysis. They
put science on open display
in a manner that allows others to replicate or critique their work.
Others of this ilk are Ken
Stewart, Anthony Watts, S. Fred Singer, Frederick Seitz, Chauncey Starr,

Nice list of liars. Fred Singer is another tobacco denialist! lol


and the father of the Gaia
theory, James Lovelock.

Lovelock, the 90-year-old British scientist, who has worked for NASA and
paved the way for the
detection of man-made aerosol and refrigerant gases in the atmosphere,
called for greater caution
in climate research. Reflecting on the current status of climate
science, Lovelock makes the pithy
point that "quite often, observations done by hand are accurate but all
the theoretical stuff in
between tends to be very dodgy and I think they are seeing this with
climate change."

Conclusion

So, what would a real scientist do?

This dumb**** can't even distinguish a real scientist from an
industry shill or a mining consultant. lol

NEWS: Can Smiley Faces (and a 14-Step Program to Stop Overconsumption)
Save the Global Climate?

When rational appeals fall short, environmentalists enlist social and
economic incentives-and even neuroscience-to get the public in on
national efforts to combat climate change

http://cl.exct.net/?qs=922569c2f8af7...f990f2adb81fb7