{Note 15 August 2010: Joe has replaced his Penn State post with a new post, and so you can no longer read it.]Anyone who reads this blog knows that meteorologist Joe Bastardi is one of my favorites. Yesterday he wrote a scathing piece at his European blog about his alma mater Penn State for the way it whitewashed the Michael Mann affair, and other things.
Joe Bastardi is a graduate of Penn State, receiving a degree in Meteorology and is a leading Accuweather meteorologist. His seasonal forecasts almost always far outperform those of “climate scientists”. It’s because Joe knows what he’s talking about, the “climate scientists” don’t. A Penn State investigation of Michael Mann, author of the infamous hockey stick graph, led to his exoneration, much to the protest of the scientific community. Many called the investigation a whitewash. Bastardi agrees. At his blog he writes:
Though I have a degree from the once proud and great meteorology department, it was EARNED during its glory day, when we graduated 2/3rds of the worlds meteorologists, and were the envy of other schools. That was yesterday, and yesterdays gone.
and says:
Penn State has lost its way.
I will no longer refer to myself as a Penn State grad, nor promote the university in my appearances.
That’s pretty heavy. And if you still don’t think Joe is ashamed of Penn State, read on:
One cannot imagine the betrayal I feel at the hands of this university. AND THAT SAYS IT ALL.
The fact is the university I busted my tail for, and defended all these years, is complicit in not only advancing an agenda driven matter in the name of “science” but also trying to suppress freedom of independent, rational thinking. Its that simple.
Joe is not alone. Many share his opinion. He writes:
And believe me, there are many.. legion, that graduated PSU through the 90s that feel the same way I do.
Joe will no longer remaim silent, and that’s good. We need more figures like Joe to speak out and express a dissent that is more necessary now than ever.
I also feel a little bit that way about my own alma mater, the University of Arizona, where one of Mann’s colleagues is a professor – but thankfully not at the College of Engineering and Mines, where I studied and got my Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering. I can imagine that this has got to be really tough for Joe to do.
Write to Joe to express your support: bastardi@accuweather.com. I think he’ll appreciate it.
Italian temperament. He’s great.
I have a BS (’69) and MS (’71) from PSU in Aerospace Engr and agree completely with Mr Bastardi. I will follow his lead and hereby denounce PSU as my Alma mater until they clean house and return to being and honest and dedicated university. I have written to PSU’s president repeatedly about Dr Mann, his fraudulent “hockey stick” graphs, his deliberate removal of proxy data because it show divergence, and the “whitewash” investigation! This once proud university has become an academic joke, and a bad one at that! Dr Richard Alley, one of the scientists who analyzes ice core data revealing thar CO2 always lags Earth’s temperature changes, is another PSU professor who should be stripped of his academic position and degrees! Another bad joke. Read about his latest foolishness on sea level rise in his comments this past week to “The Guardian” in UK.
Bill Yarber
“Dr Richard Alley, one of the scientists who analyzes ice core data revealing thar CO2 always lags Earth’s temperature changes, is another PSU professor who should be stripped of his academic position and degrees!”
Not because of his finding that CO2 is lagging temperature changes I hope because that is a correct conclusion.
Thanks for reporting on Joe’s commentary, the whole world needs to know about Penn State’s intellectual corruption.
Reply: Hi Russ (you are the Russ Steele of NC Media Watch, or am I mistaken?). Visit his site folks at: http://ncwatch.typepad.com/ -PG
I empathize with Joe, The problem is that 90% of the major universities are just as corrupt. Having attempted to get many universities including MIT and Cal tech to answer the very simple question “Where is the experimental data that proves the “greenhouse gas effect”? Not one has bothered to even acknowledge that the question was asked. They are too busy going after the Million of dollar in “research and grants ” for figuring new way to lie about the Hoax of Mann-made global warming!
The fact that the “ghg effect” was first disproved in 1909 by R.W.Wood of John Hopkins University. Even John Hopkins is hiding information about Professor Wood.
There is no academic honesty anywhere in this World. The only goal is Who has the most grant money!!
I, too, am a grieving Penn Stater (Mechanical Engineering ’66). Being a career-long energy and environmental engineer, I became close to the global warming issue 20 years ago both out of technical interest and professional responsibility.
Although in the earliest years I accepted the AGW theory, continuing research showed me that the pieces of the AGW theory don’t fit and the theory is a weak one. To see Penn State’s abandonment of the scientific process is gut wrenching to me just as it is with Joe Bastardi. I can understand that his decision was a difficult one and I applaud him for it.
Based on the global warmists I have corresponded with over the past few years, it is a religion, not a science. Any information that disagrees with their dogma is rejected unread and the response to any questioning is ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps Penn State should reconfigure themselves as a religious college.
On a more serious note, the effect of this and other items such as faked studies to promote pharmaceuticals, GMO crops etc is to discredit science as a whole. That has been building for a long while, since von Liebig’s time anyway, but it has now reached a level where science in general has no more integrity than advertising. Pay us and we will give you the answers you want to hear.
I might feel inclined to take this guy more seriously if he didn’t work for a DC mouthpiece, pro-war cheer-leading TV station featuring neanderthal punks like Shill O’Reilly.
When is he going to say some similarly relevant things about his current employer?
Lots of name-calling – no substance.
It is obvious to the most casual observer that the M stands for mouth. Typical liberal fool, all bread no meat…
I worked with Joe during the Heartland Institute’s international conferences on climate change, particularly the 2010 Chicago conference that drew more than 700 scientists, elected officials, policy makers, media representatives and interested lay people, nearly all of them skeptical of the severity and causes of global warming.
Joe wore his Penn State loyalty on his sleeve — not just because of his graduation from the meteorological school, but because of his membersship on Penn State’s wrestling team. Anyone who talked to Joe for more than 10 minutes knew he was (a) a Penn State grad and (b) a Penn State wrestler who couldn’t imagine wrestling for any school other than Penn State.
It must hurt him deeply to repudiate Penn State because of the school leadership’s cowardice and intellectual whoring.
That’s what makes Joe a hero and a champion.
Dan Miller
Policy Advisor
The Heartland Institute
Chicago
I have always felt that Dr. Mann should get out and debate with the likes of Dr. Spencer, Lindzen and many others. That would have been good enough for me to show and above board mentality. What has pushed me over the edge and force me to pour out my heart on this matter, which will be settled in the next 30 years anyway, is the latest idea that this is the greatest ethical scandal ever that is coming from a PSU source. It is simply escalating. And I dont want to be associated with such things. Its that simple.
Believe me, its no sweat off PSU, they could care less what I think, its me
that whose heart is broken over saying this. It seems like everything I knew and believed about PSU meteorology has been swept away over the last 15 years. So there is nothing left for me there… its that simple
Thanks Joe for honoring values! As a fellow met (Albany St. ’90) I have been astounded by the lack of what I learned as “the Scientific Method” wrt AGW research. To those of us who learned science by being skeptcial, it’s a shame to see the vitriol that has persisted amongst the researchers in the climate field toward people whom used to be part of the “lively debate” back in the day…but now?….the characterizations (of us) are absolutely repulsive, and frankly the antithesis of science. How dare we not fall into line!
Now Penn St. has punted the ball further away from resolving the problem with society losing faith in science (and not just climate science, but ALL of the sciences).
Ciao! 😉
I have followed global warming since the 1970s,at first i was on board.Many of the conclusions didnt fit, any scientist who didnt agree was immediately labeled a heretic.Rapidly this became a cult following not science.Since when is there no debate in true science.When you follow climate as closely as i do most of there dire predictions never come to pass.Joe gives me real information and lets me decide, ohh I forgot we are not allowed to decent.Lets remove goofs like Al Gore and politics out of scientific matters and leave it to the real clear thinkers like Joe who lets me decide.
I have a great respect for Joe Bastardi and I would like to wish him good luck.
I am sure this step will hurt him more than Penn State University.
It’s really a major step if “old” students make their opinion public in such a manner. In my opinion it has become inevitable.
What’s going on right now is a disgrace.
Penn State one of the rare institutions where the football program has more integrity than the some of the academic departments and the administration.
PSU will always be great because of two Italians – Paterno and Bastardi.
For those few who think Joe is offbase, before further embarassing yourself, here’s a “google.doc” climate tutorial. After that, I suggest you google Monckton and listen to one or more of his more recent talks. Pay a visit to Joanne Nova’s website, and/or to Anthony Watts’ website “Watts Up with That”.
Joe Bastardi has an overinflated opinion of how his meteorological knowledge provides insights and rational knowledge of climate science. He has no deep knowledge of oceanography or global circulation models, he probably only had a smattering of physics, and yet he’s an “expert” (cited primarily by skeptics, of course!)
What has pushed me over the edge and force me to pour out my heart on this matter, which will be settled in the next 30 years anyway,
You better believe it, Joe. In 30 years the world will be in real trouble and you’ll be one of the complicit in causing it, unless true science triumphs.
Meteorology is not climate science, and meteorologists are not climate scientists. And they don’t know more about it than climate scientists.
“The American Meteorological Society, which confers its coveted seal of approval on qualified weather forecasters, has affirmed the conclusion of the United Nations’ climate panel that warming is occurring and that human activities are very likely the cause. In a statement sent to Congress in 2009, the meteorological society warned that the buildup of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to “major negative consequences.”
Why are so many meteorologists and weathercasters climate skeptics?
“Last September, in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, two prominent broadcast meteorologists and AMS leaders published a guest editorial (pdf), “Communicating Global Climate Change to the Public and Clients.” In it, they criticized some of their fellow weathercasters who have been speaking out skeptically about anthropogenic global warming:
“Increasing numbers of broadcast meteorologists, to whom the public looks for information and guidance on climate change and global warming, are not offering scientific information but rather, all too often, nonscientific personal opinions in the media, including personal blogs. Alarmingly, many weathercasters and certified broadcast meteorologists dismiss, in most cases without any solid scientific arguments, the conclusions of the National Research Council (NRC), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other peer-reviewed research.”
The editorial’s two co-authors were Bob Ryan, AMS past president and chief meteorologist for Washington, D.C.’s NBC-owned WRC, and John Toohey-Morales, AMS commissioner on professional affairs and chief meteorologist of NBC Telemundo’s WSCV in Miami.”
So why should Joe Bastardi’s opinion be any more respectable than Bob Ryan’s?
Because he’s right.
It’s a question of expertise. Joe’s forecasts have surpassed those of the climate modelers. Hadley is a perfect example. Their (physicists) seasonal forecasts were so bad that they gave up making them. They couldn’t even get the 3-month forecasts right, even with their super computers. You know why? Because the place is run by a bunch of physicists who somehow got the idea they could make forecasts. Forecasting has little to do with physics. These are academics who live off the taxpayer, and their careers do not depend on the accuracy. Physicists are physicists, and not forecasters. Meteorologists like Joe work on the free market, and their forecasts have to be accurate, otherwise they go out of business. Physicists and academics – give me a break, If their success depended on the free market, 99.5% would be driving taxis or waiting tables.
Physicists pretending to be climatologists and forecasters – what a joke. It takes a real sucker to believe that concept.
We also need to send stories like this to the PBS Ombudsman and ask WHY we here no such news on the NewsHour.
http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
Is there a working link to Joe’s blog? I clicked the one at the top of this article and its basically an empty page.
Oakden Wolf should open his mind . Forget religeon .
I have been enquiring for several years to Universities , Research institutions and Politician whether they can supply facts and figures regarding this disasterous global warming . Not one can produce them . Politicians had their pants scared off by the missinformation supplied by the U.N. who were advised by the I.P.P.C. , who got their information from the C.R.U. , Who were set up by the University of East Anglia . The principal scientists have admitted they supplied incorrect data and deleted vital parts of the 2005 report .
Why do so many become intent on degrading and abusing others when someone provides contrary information .?
The Royal Society has announced – Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled . is wholly incorrect
When I try to send myself the URL: https://notrickszone.com/2010/08/14/joe-bastardi-unloads-on-penn-state-corruption-feels-betrayed/ I repeatedly get the error message:
An unknown error has occurred. Subject ‘test’, Account: ‘pop1.nbnet.nb.ca’, Server: ‘smtp.nbnet.nb.ca’, Protocol: SMTP, Server Response: ‘550 Message rejected’, Port: 25, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 550, Error Number: 0x800CCC69
Any chance that the warmists have set up some sort of block?
IanM
Reply: Here the link works. I wish there was something I could write that would help. -PG
P. Gosselin:
Read what I wrote, please? Why should climate scientists be expected to provide accurate seasonal weather forecasts?
“Forecasting has little to do with physics.”
With regards to weather forecasts, you are Exactly Right. Weather forecasting depends primarily on models based on fluid mechanics — which is Not True of climate models.
So again, Bastardi has not shown any skillful grasp of climate science.
Adieu.
Yes we know what climate models are based on: a trace “greenhouse gas”, and lots of faith.
@oakden wolf
>Furthermore, weather models are strictly atmospheric models. Interactions with land and sea aren’t taken into account.
WRONG!
Climate and weather forecasting models are based on the same equations and physics. Our forecast models have had land/ocean surface parameterizations in them for over two decades. The current forecast model, the NAM (WRF) includes a land-surface physics model that includes 27 classifications for vegetation/surface character as well as 19 soil types. It also asssimilates radar data, satellite data, aircraft reports, surface observations, etc…In addition, if you’re doing a forecast that’s only 7 days long, constant boundary conditions for things like SST would be appropriate. If you want to see all the data that goes into the current forecast model, it’s at:
http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/data_processing/prepbufr.doc/table_4.htm
Climate models are parameterized to hindcast the 20th century observations (or the observations as adjusted and rigged by e.g. GIStemp) correctly under the assumption that growth in CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.
That’s just an expensive exercize in curve-fitting; they tune the aerosol sensitivity positiv or negative the way they need it to fit the curve; they ASSUME a positive water vapor feedback which has never been demonstrated experimentally; they are not yet capable of realistically simulating cloud formation, let alone thunderstorms.
Current models are worthless to predict the future.
If you can disprove anything i said, please do so, i’m eager to hear evidence to the contrary.
>they are not yet capable of realistically simulating cloud formation, let alone >thunderstorms.
Wow, that’s such a ludicrous statement it’s nearly unbelievable. We’ve been simulating thunderstorms since at least 1986. We’ve even gone downscale to simulate tornadoes within the same models using nested grids down to the scale of a few meters. Nearly all of our fairly vast theoretical understandings of thunderstorms morphology has been verified with models during the last two decades.
Joe Bastardi is my new hero! (All the others are dead, anyway.)
This is where the battle always was- on the field of morality.
That’s where it needs to be won with clear and certain finality.
It was never about weather.
You Go JoE! Do it cuz it’s right and cuz you know what right is!!
Oakden Wolf,
Please explain why weather forecasting and climate modeling should not be based on the same physics???
Oakden Wolf,
Fluid mechanics deals with time, matter and energy, making it a branch of Physics. In fact, I would say that meteorology and weather forcasting is ALL about Physics.
Hasta la Vista, Chamo!
Reply: So isn’t auto mechanics when you get down to it. But would you let a physicist try to repair your car? – PG
The members of PSU’s “investigative” team have managed to drag the good name of the university through the mud in their naked, undisguised cover-up of Michael Mann’s scientific malfeasance. To keep the university’s government research grants flowing, they have become accessories after the fact. They have disgraced themselves and the university.
How do you think I feel? Pachauri has 2 degrees and held a faculty position at my school (North Carolina State).
Oy….
PSU find themselves in good company. The three british enquiries performed the same face saving service to M Manns collegues at UEA. Three whiter than white washes. I hope that many more ex students from PSU follow Joe Bastardi’s example. I think it will hurt PSU because they know that we know there has been a stitch up and it was done with the blessing of the governing body of the university. Integrity is rapidly becoming the exception rather than the rule as has been demonstrated by this excuse for a university.
Two things here: one, in addition to utilizing weather models (not climate models), Bastardi — and any skilled weather forecaster — also employs pattern recognition, i.e., he can see conditions setting up similar to storms or droughts, or any of a number of other types of events, and predict similar outcomes.
But that’s not climate forecasting. Two, discussing the difference between weather and climate models:
How does a climate model work?
Weather models are constantly taking input from weather stations, and adjusting their forecasting according to that data assimilation. Climate models don’t do that.
Furthermore, weather models are strictly atmospheric models. Interactions with land and sea aren’t taken into account.
Earth: Melting or not?
“Current day global weather models use the second method applying the laws of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics on a 3D wire mesh grid on the globe. The atmospheric variables (temperature, humidity, wind speed…) are measured at each grid point and equations are solved to a finite numerical approximation.”
Wikipedia: “The atmosphere is a fluid. The basic idea of numerical weather prediction is to sample the state of the fluid at a given time and use the equations of fluid dynamics and thermodynamics to estimate the state of the fluid at some time in the future.”
Climate models also take into account fluxes from sources and reservoirs, and thus these change over time. The mass and energy transport from one bin to another is not found in weather models; the boundary conditions (ocean surface, stratosphere) remain constant.
I just have one question for Oakden Wolf-
If you’re trying to convince people that you have a thorough understanding of science and that they should believe your take on matters, why reference Wikipedia?!? Even most kids these days know that any mention of Wikipedia is like throwing your credibility out the window…
You do sound like you know what you’re talking about and you’re entitled to your opinions, but do yourself a favour and never cite Wikipedia as a reference.
Now, would anyone like to explain to me why the climate has been changing for billions of years (and life has existed for most of those years in some form) but this time it’s completely the fault of humans and we should now be able to control it?
“I have always felt that Dr. Mann should get out and debate with the likes of Dr. Spencer, Lindzen and many others. That would have been good enough for me to show and above board mentality. ”
Debates really helped settle the Scientific Creationism issue, didn’t they, Joe?
As a recent PSU meteorology grad, I dislike Joe Bastardi and Accuweather with a passion. They badmouth government agencies, treat their employees like Chinese children in a Nike shoe factory, and make outlandish forecasts (when they are right for once, they make a big deal about it). Unlike Bastardi, I am FAITHFUL to my alma mater. I am not a climatologist, so I know to keep my nose out of debates because I have a lack of knowledge in the subject, Joe should too. I support the decision by the university and support Dr. Mann.