A couple of days ago I posted a comment given by Joe Bastardi on the 20 academics who penned a latter to the Department of Justice calling for an investigation of dissident views on climate science and their supporters.
It has since turned out that at least one of these academics is really in the green, which raises eyebrows on issues like objectivity and ethical conduct.
I also have gotten comments from Georgia Tech professor Judith Curry and geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning.
First Prof. Curry’s comment:
I am astonished by the naiveté of these scientists, who are damaging their reputation by their naive meddling in a complex policy debate. They seem not to realize that the tables could easily be turned on them if the political winds change (say with the election of a Republican U.S. President), and the heat would then be turned on green advocacy groups and the scientists that engage with them. The science is sufficiently uncertain to allow several rational narratives for what has caused 20th century warming and how the 21st century climate will evolve. These 20 scientists damage not only their own reputations, but they also damage the public perception of scientists as trustworthy sources of information. Most seriously, the coercion of scientists implied by this letter will discourage objectivity in scientific research and will discourage scientists from entering/staying in the field of climate research.”
“Undemocratic and unprofessional”
Sebastian Lüning also finds the whole affair a bit odd and “unprofessional”. He wrote:
Rather than criminal lawsuits, we urgently need an objective “scientific court” where arguments of both IPCC and skeptic sides are technically and open-mindedly discussed. It is undemocratic and unprofessional to silence scientists by legally threatening them if they do not subscribe to the official interpretation / party line. There are many historic examples where science pioneers such as Galileo Galilee or Alfred Wegener would have ended up in prison.”
Finally Prof. Nicola Scafetta of Duke University also provided a short comment:
Let us hope that this evident politicization of science ends soon.”
With all that’s been found out about this “climate change” FRAUD, the credibility of any scientific theory is going to be zilch in my mind and that’s not going to change in my lifetime! They are damaging their credibility by politicizing not only the scientific process but also by choosing sides in order to promote an “agenda”?
The word “scientist” has become a joke!
What’s next for those who are “In the green”. Fight “dissenters” on the streets?
And we’re all off to Dublin in the green, in the green
Where the helmets glisten in the sun
Where the bayonets flash and the rifles crash
To the rattle of a Thompson gun
(Traditional Irish republican song)
I think this letter just ended the politicization of science. The hutzpah of the lead signatory is breathtaking. The authorities have no choice but to investigate him. All the other signatories should immediately and very publicly renounce their support or risk fatally damaging their careers.
Judith Curry says, “The science is sufficiently uncertain to allow several rational narratives for what has caused 20th century warming and how the 21st century climate will evolve.”
Has there been 20th century “warming” or a just a recovery from earlier cooling?
Why was it so cold previously and why did it stop being so cold? Why was it so much warmer before it got so cold and why did it then stop being so warm?
No-one knows. However, whilst everyone is arguing about how many angels you can get on the head of a pin, as Joe D has said in the past, viz the current exchanges at WUWT, where Willis is attempting to neutralise the papers quoted in the previous post, the political game is being played out and the globalists are after your money, all based on the 20th century CO2 paradigm.
The climate for Paris is heating up and we are being efficiently distracted.
Re-read the names/books in the second paragraph of Jagadish Shukla’s RICO letter http://www.iges.org/letter/LetterPresidentAG.pdf . The actions of the “corporations and other organizations”, as Shukla describes it, have NOT been extensively documented, that’s a literal talking point I covered in my blog post here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2907 . The repetitions are no more than global warming alarmist book author Ross Gelbspan’s accusation, who is the central promulgator of the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid / instructed by industry people to lie and fabricate false climate assessments.
Regarding the list of names/books, I covered Brulle’s tie to Gelbspan here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1237 , Hoggan here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2728 , Oreskes here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2009 , and the UCS’ Climate Deception Dossiers here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2891 . I can also directly tie David Michaels’ “Doubt is their Product” book and Eric Pooley’s “The Climate War” book to Gelbspan’s accusation. Plus, Senator Whitehouse’s diatribe about a skeptic / industry conspiracy is nothing new, I trace that back to Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt circa 1997 here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2842 , whose pronouncements about “a conspiracy to hire pseudoscientists to deny the facts” came out rather suspiciously close to the publication of Gelbspan’s book.
Shukla and his pals attempt to fire a shot across the bow of skeptic climate scientists’ ship, but what they inadvertently do here is torpedo their own effort.
All gases and dust in the atmosphere cool the planet. Doesn’t seem to be many real scientists anymore.
“All gases and dust in the atmosphere cool the planet. ”
That is false. clouds cool by day and warm by night. Start from the beginning, again….
Clouds warm the planet in the night? You might want to reconsider that particular line of BS. Hint: Clouds! Are! Not! WARM!
Clouds warm??? ha ha ha ha
“Clouds warm?”
I really have to say, i am seriously shocked by this amount of ignorance.
We had a beautiful sunny day here yesterday. Then it got brutally cold in the evening. The situation would have been very different, if we had some clouds.
If you do not accept that fact, you can not discuss climate.
So, sod, how WARM is a cloud.
Ever been in one? I’ve been.
“So, sod, how WARM is a cloud.”
How warm is an emergency blanket?
http://media.thereadystore.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/e/b/eb0023-emergency-blanket-base_3.jpg
You are dodging the question. Clouds in the evening keep earth warm at night. This is direct experience and you can see that on the evening weather news every other day. Denying this is plain out stupid.
“How warm is an emergency blanket?”
“You are dodging the question.”
At least give me a chance to answer before accusing me of dodging a question.
“That is false. clouds cool by day and warm by night.”
[…]
“Clouds in the evening keep earth warm at night.”
You are now claiming something different than what you started with.
So back to your original claim. HOW does a COLD object WARM a WARMER object?
Please explain by applying the laws of thermodynamic.
See, a normal person would have said, ok, I misformulated that, let me rephrase that. But look at how you react, you say “If you do not accept that fact, you can not discuss climate.”. You are such a cocksure warmunist that I pity you not the least for preparing for the exact opposite of what is happening – and have your priorities all wrong.
At the moment you warmunists are not even in the top ten of crazy parasitic movements. Trenberth is so desperate he demands anyone who disagrees with him be jailed! A sorry picture compared to the heyday of top warmunists Hansen and Schneider. An inverse hockeystick in actual power, and a hockeystick in comedic value.
“See, a normal person would have said, ok, I misformulated that, let me rephrase that. ”
I did not misformulate.
I said: “clouds cool by day and warm by night” and that is right.
Why do you not attack WuWt? They say exactly the same thing:
“Some types of clouds help cool the Earth and some types of clouds help warm it.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/05/clouds-the-wild-card-of-climate-change/
Why do you not attack the claim that i answered to? it is obviously false, according to you:
“All gases and dust in the atmosphere cool the planet.” (as warm gases and dust would obviously warm the planet, not cool it)
Why do I not attack this, or that, or that? Tsk. You should feel honored that I talk to you. I find your behaviour as the member of a dying cult, still 100% on the party line, most fascinating.
“You should feel honored that I talk to you. ”
i do feel honored.
so please educate me. Do the cold cloths that you put on in the morning warm your body or should we just skip the idiotic clothing things.
Will you cover yourself under a cold blanket for the night or do you wait for some law of thermodynamics to keep your body warm?
Please educate yourselves about this topic!
” The role of clouds is enigmatic because clouds can exert opposing forces: Some types of clouds help cool the Earth and some types of clouds help warm it. ”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/05/clouds-the-wild-card-of-climate-change/
Wrong again, Sod!
Forgotten the page, but somewhere Karl Popper must have said that real science is what’s left over after a decision by the Judge, Pope, or Potus. This is not the first time that in the USA the Judge was asked to decide about scientific issues.
[…] Fonte: Leading climate scientists blast letter by 20 academics as naive […]
Can someone please provide the addresses of these NAZIS so some can have a serious conversation with them before their irrational behavior leads to something dangerous.I am having flash backs to HITLER. Best to nip it in the….
[…] She wrote that the 20 scientists damage not only their own reputations, but also the public perception of scientists as trustworthy sources of information: “Most seriously, the coercion of scientists implied by this letter will discourage objectivity in scientific research and will discourage scientists from entering/staying in the field of climate research.” […]
[…] She wrote that the 20 scientists damage not only their own reputations, but also the public perception of scientists as trustworthy sources of information: “Most seriously, the coercion of scientists implied by this letter will discourage objectivity in scientific research and will discourage scientists from entering/staying in the field of climate research.” […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2015/09/23/leading-climate-scientists-blast-letter-by-20-academics-as-naive-… […]