A WEEK ago President Barrack Obama praised the House of Representatives for passing the ‘Clean Energy and Security Act’. Everyone agrees that it’s far reaching legislation.
The US Environment Protection Agency had one of its employees, a 35-year veteran of the agency, Alan Carlin, critique the supporting technical documentation for the legislation. Mr Carlin’s report advised that the scientific hypothesis on which the draft legislation is based is seriously flawed. Instead of considering the report in some detail, Mr Carlin was censored. The claim of censorship runs contrary to the new President’s promises of more transparency as explained by Kimberley A. Strassel in the Wall Street Journal:
“ONE of President Barack Obama’s first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science.
“The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, ‘As administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.’ In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that ‘the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over.’
“Except, that is, when it comes to Mr. Carlin, a senior analyst in the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics and a 35-year veteran of the agency. In March, the Obama EPA prepared to engage the global-warming debate in an astounding new way, by issuing an ‘endangerment’ finding on carbon. It establishes that carbon is a pollutant, and thereby gives the EPA the authority to regulate it — even if Congress doesn’t act. Around this time, Mr. Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best.
“The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. ‘We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA,’ the report read.
“The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from ‘any direct communication’ with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: ‘The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . .. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office.’ Mr. McGartland blasted yet another email: ‘With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.’
“Ideology? Nope, not here. Just us science folk. Honest.”
*****************
Notes and Links
The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic – The professional penalty for offering a contrary view to elites like Al Gore is a smear campaign. The Wall Street Journal. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124657655235589119.html
Part 1 of this series is here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/rational-advice-on-%e2%80%98carbon-act%e2%80%99-censored/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen, did you see this piece on the Carlin story:
Thomas Fuller, SF environmental policy examiner:
The politics, if not the science, is settled at the EPA. Alan Carlin, global warming and trouble
(Carlin’s comments in this article included this:)
“What’s happening in Australia (where a Senator Fielding is holding a ‘mini-debate’ with skeptical scientists and administration advocates of an Australian cap and trade policy) is fantastic–why can’t we do that here?”
Political animals are self protective. If they want to accept global warming as real and detrimental, they can’t have a foundation for greenhouse gasses that defeats the agenda. 2 months ago there was a rather limited memo from whitehouse lawyers to other whitehouse staff mention they had no provable basis for global warming and warning people to move carefully.
4 years ago, there was a move to hire a new director for the securities exchange commission. It was known by Pres Bush that there needed to be more oversight and not regulation as much as auditing and fraud disclosure. thru political maneuvering, a liberal was nominated. People knew M Jackson had drugs that could kill him.
But the science takes back seat to the agenda. It is not about the science but it is about trading carbon derivitives, futures and credits. Goldman Sachs is drooling on carbon trading. The next bubble. I have been intrigued with the weather, sailing yacht racing and agriculture. I believe in conservation. I also believe in liberty and despise these bubbles. Enron really bult this mess by originating SO2 trading 20 years ago and involvement with James hensen. I won’t say what industry I am in but a VP working for me was a key figure in getting enron ramped up in the wind business. She brought presentations and reports on the development of wind power. By the way, the world is loaded with Goldman Sachs alumni.
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html
Now to the point. The silicon breast implant scare and the alar on apples scare were promoted by the same Public relations groups that are promoting the global warming events. One of these PR firms funds Real climate. Another spinnoff promoted the NOAA incident in the whitehouse 1-2 weeks ago as a buffer to obama’s global warming surge. Goldman sachs is bolstering Chicago Climate Exchange and trading and a Joseph Romm on climate Progress works for George Soros who is also a massive market manipulator. There is a lot of money to be made and that causes pressure from the top down on agencies like the EPA.
what Carlin wrote is false. perhaps this might be a reason, why it isn t factored into reports?
No conspiracy, just a relentless social pressure to ‘do something’.
Those social pressures shape the way issues are perceived and the choices people make for what is credible.
The social pressure that has built up around AGW is massive and pernicious and may well cost us dearly, before it runs its course.
http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm?q=lindzen
A professor at MIT that has now called himself as a denier. No wishy washy skeptic.
sod. To be honest, The EPA didn’t say Carlin’s summary was false. They said it clashed with their objectives. Are you honest enough to admit none of the e-mails said it was false?
Carlin also shamed them. Any average mind can see that. He referred to the issue why they relied on second hand or external studies and didn’t use internal ones. Did they even do internal studies?
The global warming hoax is growing in the undereducated classes. Remember the liberals capture successfully 70% of the votes of High school drop outs. Proctor and Gambel and lever brothers can make a lot of money developing new deodorants for the extreme heat. $$$$$$$
sod,
There you go again.
Please show us where it is false.
Sod’s claims for falsehoods are reflex responses.
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf
Alan’s boss tells us why he want alan to be quiet in the e-mail. No phone calls, no e-mails. Keep it secret. because we have an agenda of endangerment and this contradicts the agenda.
sod made an unsupported assertion.
There has been a long and ongoing debate on the role of CO2 in climate, it has been going on for over a century now. It is only now, when the debate has thrown up implications for the carbon based energy industry, that we are being told there has been no debate. Read Weart’s history of CO2. Even if you disagree with the science, you can in now way claim there has been no debate. The debate has been active and extended. To claim otherwise is a lie.
C3po Where did you say that debate happened? I don’t remember seeing it or reading about it.
I didn’t get to vote on it
In fact I didn’t get a vote on global warming at all until 2008. That was via the Renewable Energy for Public Utilities Proposition, or Prop 7 for short.
That year, same election that sent Barry to the White House, California voted Prop 7 down by supermajority. Veto proof overwhelming defeat.
But we didn’t get a debate.
Maybe you can point where the debate took place for us? So we can all share in the wisdom presented.
Google search for Henry Waxman protest rally
Kind of an amusing result.
First couple of results are “Cap & Trade Protest at Henry Waxman’s office 5/29/09″,”The rallies in front of Waxman’s LA Office and along Mira Mesa Blvd. …. The video from the protest in front of Democrat Henry Waxman’s LA …”.
The fifth result is “Calif. Democrat Henry Waxman hospitalized Jul 1, 2009 … Henry Waxman, D-Calif., was not feeling well Tuesday and was …”
Can we have a collective awwww…
Get well soon pugnose!
“‘With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research etc, at least until we see what EPA is going to do with Climate.’”
This is pretty much the John Humphreys angle on things. He claims that those of us who are against supporting policies based on these lies have already lost, and therefore we ought to just support a carbon tax on the basis that we ought to just face the fact that we’ve already lost.
He’s a traitor. And this is manifestly a quisling line of reasoning. Because just because we have a tax on retained earnings already in place, this does not mean we cannot fight for its repeal, just for one example. So it becomes irrelevant what depredations are a done deal and what aren’t. You just fight evil wherever it rears its ugly head. To much these days that ugly head is beginning to look like John Humphreys grinning mug.
“Maybe you can point where the debate took place for us? So we can all share in the wisdom presented.”
I just told you, Weart’s history of CO2. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Most people ignored it, but has been ongoing for over a century, and is still being actively researched.
“Most people ignored it, but has been ongoing for over a century, and is still being actively researched.”
Oh – and here’s me thinking that “the science is settled”, and that it’s all beyond question. Gee, now where do you suppose I might have gotten that impression?
Oh wait – maybe it was things like this .
If I didn’t read things like this , I might think there was no arguement at all!
It’s silly to say that Alan Carlin was censored. His report has been widely publicised. He endorsed it with the comment: “It should be noted, of course, that these comments represent the views of the author and not those of the US Environmental Protection Agency or the NCEE.”
And rightly so. The EPA did not ask him for this report, and simply and understandably declined to put its name to it.
Had a quick look at the link SJT provided and saw that Weart’s book was much like Plimer’s Heaven +Earth. Same history but different conclusions.
Would be interesting to get the two together and have discussion about their differences.
The real worry about the American approach to things is that it is very unlikely that any of the Congressmen would have actually read the climate bill –all 1000pages of it—before voting, and certainly not the additional 2 – 300 odd pages added at the last minute
Even the proponents Waxman and Markey are saying they havnt read it.
Does it get any sillier.
Well yes it does, here in Australia they are proposing an ETS that will add huge costs, reduce our competiveness,see most industries shift off shore anyway –and all for a miniscule reduction in the average temperature, by us, of less than 0.004c by year 2100.
So whether anyone reads anything it wont matter in the long run–we are all just as stuffed.
Can it conceivably be any dumber –and all driven by people with multiple degrees hanging on the wall playing with computers far too big for them–and not an ounce of common sense amongst the lot of them.
Nick Stokes
“The EPA did not ask him for this report, and simply and understandably declined to put its name to it.”
No nick, the EPA did not want his report because it would oppose the direction the EPA was going!
I don’t know why I bother but let’s try and get through to the thick craniums from bonehead college once again.
There just isn’t any growth left in co2 emissions in the first world when compared to countries in the developing world such as China and India, Brazil etc.
These three countries make up to a third of emissions today and in another 30 years this percentage will increase to 50% at least.
Simply put the pie is getting bigger all the time, Australia produced around 2.4% of the planet’s GHG emissions in 2002 but because the pie is growing all the time we now produce about 1.4% and NZ produces around 0.1%.
Simple arithmetic should tell you that if the new BIG emitters won’t play ball the game is over, that’s if you believe this fantastic fairytale in the first place.
You can call a Copenhagen every day of the year, but while the above countries are giving you the two fingered salute nothing can change, it’s simple arithmetic.
Jonathan,
The EPA was amply justified in not adopting and circulating the report on the basis of its merit. If they wanted to propagate a contrarian screed, the recent NIPCC, for example, is a much better document. Not only is Carlin’s report full of nonsenses, including the promotion of crackpots like Beck and Miskolczi, but, as Deep Climate points out, large parts have been lifted from blogs like Pat McMichaels’ World Climate Report and Ken Gregory’s site.
Nick,
lets leave aside your prejudice against Miskolczi and Beck, are you saying that the Email quoted is a forgery?
“The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision”
It did not say “you are wrong!”
“lets leave aside your prejudice against Miskolczi and Beck, are you saying that the ”
Anyone using Beck or Miskolczi as an authority has to be a denier. The papers are so bad they are not science, they are non-science.
“The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision”
It did not say “you are wrong!”
a friendly rebuttal.
No, I’ve no reason to doubt the email. It’s saying that the report is not relevant to their decision. This could be because they think it is wrong, or bad for a variety of reasons, or just irrelevant.
Remember that it is supposed to be a response to a specific EPA document, and as such might be expected to actually focus on the wording of the document. Instead it is just a familiar contrarian screed. It is indeed simply unhelpful. They would have responded similarly if he had submitted a telephone directory.
“No, I’ve no reason to doubt the email. It’s saying that the report is not relevant to their decision. This could be because they think it is wrong, or bad for a variety of reasons, or just irrelevant.”
And deniers wonder about the lack of debate. How can you debate the irrelevant?
The debate between Gavin Schimdt and Michael Chrichton was an excellent example. Gavin debates the science, Chrichton went off on many tangents to the science and waved his hands around a lot. Chrichton won :(.
Spencer has a fair bit of hand waving himself.
Here’s the part that caught my eye.
Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by CO2 in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Its energy transfers into the air itself rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.
We know this isn’t so. Not just suspect that it isn’t right, know it. Know it like gravity. There is no middle tropospheric hot spot.
Heat doesn’t radiate back to warm the surface of the earth from the air. Can’t do it. Laws of thermodynamics violated if it did.
Here’s some more hand waving by Weart.
As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.)
Layers of air = Epicycles. The air is not opaque to infrared. The air only transfers the energy into velocity warming the air by collisions which are intensified (warmer) in high pressure zones and relaxed (colder) in low pressure zones.
Spencer Weart doesn’t qualify as a fair arbitor or referee/chronicler of this debate. He is an advocate.
Yes Neville you are dead right agreement from the developing nations is looking more and more like it will have a snowflakes chance in hell.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=aWs0Pts2Kxes India is saying here go to hell we should do nothing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8589174 Brazil says the west generated the emmisions they should fix it China and India agree that is go to hell.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8590213 a very important issue is will tarifs be imposed of countries that don’t toe the line. China and India are strongly opposed this very important. Maybe Global Financial Death is coming!
http://news.stv.tv/environment/103587-russias-medvedev-sets-goals-for-greenhouse-gas-cuts/ Russia knows what to do the have a target of 30% by 2020. That’s a increase they are talking about would that help?
So let us have the West commit suicide and the rest of the world take over. That will stop all this nonsense in its tracks. BTW the UAH is showing the world temerature is now the same as it was in 1980 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah so has the last 30 years of emmisions had no effect?
Nick Stokes July 4th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
” They would have responded similarly if he had submitted a telephone directory.”
if he had I would agree with you!
SJT you are not even funny!
SJT:
Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, not a scientist, Crichton, on the other hand, was a scientist.
You? An anonymous, self admitted scientific illiterate, and you expect Jen’s readers to take you seriously? What as? The resident equivalent of the village idiot?
Hey Louis – welcome back. We missed you. There was nobody really that wacky to bait and argue with. They were just your pesky housefly type denialists. Musca non-domestica var boringensis.
Check my new gravatar – Motty exposed us as a group. Do ya like it?
SJT,
‘Why Debate the Irrelevant?’. What a perfect epitaph for the AGW movement.
In the bizarre-o world of AGW orthodoxy, the definition of ‘wrong’ is ‘to question AGW’.
Carlin, a 35 year veteran of the EPA, and an accomplished scientist, is now ‘wrong’.
In AGW-land, that is justification to censor him.
This is AGW-land behavior is as valid as in the days of the good ol’ USSR, when questioning the party line was proof of mental illness.
Louis,
I hope your trip was good. Welcome back.
For those who are unknowledgable about the rules of “finding harm.” The EPA is supposed to find harm using the latest scientific work. The recent incidents, Carlin being one, have underlined a truth that may derail the EPA’s finding of harm by GHG’s.
It requires that the EPA make its finding after the information is gathered and “shareholders”, the public in this case, have had a chance to give input.
You could put in a telephone directory, but it would simply be dismissed as a telephone directory.
The real problem that has been highlighted is that the EPA is alleged not to have done what the statutes require. The first claim is that the use of the IPCC rather than delevoping thier own expertise does not meet the statute. The EPA can probably mount an effective argument that reveiw and agreement with the FAR constitutes meeting a minimum “finding”. More problematic is that the IPCC does not find harm in the present tense, but finds harm in the future if we continue. It is usually accepted in U.S. courts that an action has to occur before it becomes real. The EPA may not have the authority to protect U.S. citizens from a proposed harm. The FAR itself predicts, or in their terminology, projects benefits from increased temperatures for a short time. This could be alegal problem.
The Carlin email indicates that the EPA is unwilling to consider input that they are required to consider. Easy to meet, and they are doing so already. In a reply, the EPA stated it had included some of the Carlin material. It will be difficult to somehow show that they did not.
The difficult issue is finding harm that has not yet occurred. As one critic pointed out, just about anything could be labeled harmful with such a low standard as “sometime in the future it may cause harm.” The question is, does EPA have the authority. It appears that the U.S. Supreme court ruled that EPA did have enough information to make a ruling.
Probably will be some law suits. EPA is almost certain to win.
“Crichton, on the other hand, was a scientist.”
He was a novelist and physician. He was not a scientist.
He gave a speech critical of the push to protect people from second hand smoke, and died of throat cancer after being a smoker earlier in his life. He also during the 1970s and 1980s consulted psychics and enlightenment gurus to make him feel more socially acceptable and to improve his karma.
“‘Why Debate the Irrelevant?’. What a perfect epitaph for the AGW movement.”
In other words, you have nothing.
“We know this isn’t so. Not just suspect that it isn’t right, know it. Know it like gravity. There is no middle tropospheric hot spot.
Heat doesn’t radiate back to warm the surface of the earth from the air. Can’t do it. Laws of thermodynamics violated if it did.”
You need to read up on Spencer, certified 100% ‘skeptic’.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect
SJT” “He was a novelist and physician. He was not a scientist.”
His first degree a BSc in anthropology. Bit of dishonesty there? Visiting psychics and gurus, along with shamans, witchdoctors etc is a perfectly natural thing for an anthropologist to do I should think.
Well this is awkward.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/other-gadgets/nightvision2.htm
If you can’t see infrared through the atmosphere why make infrared goggles?
Obviously you can see through it in infrared.
SJT,
Yes, do the AGW dodge. It is all you have, after all is said and done.
I have posted dozens of citations and links and quotes supporting the falsification of AGW.
You dodge and weave and misquote and misconstrue. It is really all you have or ever have had.
It is humorous, to say the least, that you would quote Spencer at all. AGW true believers hold him in great contempt. Be careful, or someone might demand to check your tinfoil hat and decoder ring.
As to Chrichton, the mental gymnastics it takes the AGW true believer to dodge and weave and belittle his betters is amazing and rather pitiful, in your case.
Maybe Dr Roy was talking about the atmosphere as a whole?
Well maybe. But if so why did they build this?
http://physics.uwyo.edu/~chip/wiro/wiro.html
The University of Wyomings 2.3-meter telescope is located at the Wyoming Infrared Observatory (WIRO) about 25 miles southwest of Laramie, WY on the summit of Jelm Mt. and at an altitude of 9656 ft. (2943m). This site was chosen because: (1) the dryness of the air, an important consideration for infrared astronomy since moisture strongly absorbs infrared radiation, …
Interesting that an infrared telescope site must worry over water vapor. Why not Co2?
Louis
While you were gone;
A nobel laurette condemned climate change deniers as planet traitors, and it’s not the one you think. The little “n” was on purpose.
Roy Spencer came out with the new planet wide temperature anomoly, a good round number… Zero.
Henry of Waxman was subdued by a case of the Tea Party protesters, and retreated to hospital.
Jennifer’s sister had a heart attack, but is on the mend.
Ian outed the Luke Desk as a full time Gov position with rotating staff (nightshift Luke must have misplaced the script because he veered away from doctrine the other night, rediscovering the MWP and negative feedbacks dominating Earth climate, and reported it on the blog along with supporting studies. My guess is he was docked one day’s pay and told not to do it again).
SJT has been peddling Weart to whomever will listen, but more impressive, to me at least, he has begun answering to the moniker C3PO.
“Buz” Aldren came out as a climate realist, tossing the monkey wrench in one of Gore’s favorite lines about the moon landings, Arizona sound stages, and deniers.
Henry Chance connected the climate dots to the profiteers and con artists.
Bob Carter served up some industrial grade reality.
The 300 page last minute amendment to the Waxman/Markey bill was finally read. Unsurprisingly it is heavy on human sacrifice. The virgins are not amused.
Hunter and Sod traded jabs.
Ron Pike penned a few poems.
Tim Curtin wrote a chapter on his thesis; co2 is plantfood – We need more not less.
I think that catches you up.
James,
For the sake of accuracy, I think they are saying that the column of the atmosphere is a decent filter for the IR wavelengths CO2 is tuned to absorb. Its impact is logarithmic,
so more is better in a diminishing return sort of way.
It seems to me that the fact that ‘Luke’ has been deceptively pretending to be a single poster, but is in fact an ensemble, is actually worth exploring.
‘Luke’s has been the first and leading person to indict the integrity of those with whom he disagrees, yet ‘Luke’ is a himself a fabrication.
‘Luke’ has been challenging (unsuccessfully) many who post here, in the snarkiest tone possible, meanwhile ‘Luke’ can just trade off whenever the current member of his ensemble gets tired or needs to find a citation or whatever.
In the idiom of my region, ‘Luke’ is a ringer- someone seeking to fool others. I find that bothersome. Instead of discussing (in the case of ‘Luke’ usually a failed attempt) an issue, it is like one of those sleazy TV wrestling matches where the bad guy gets to bring in his pals when ever he gets tired or in trouble. I guess that explains why there is the default setting of angry for ‘Luke’. It means ‘Luke’ can hide the discontinuities better. Indeed, I was fooled into thinking I was dealing with one person for quite awhile.
I am not certain what this leads to, but I find it interesting that the poster here who has held himself out as the truest blue sophisticated deep believer in AGW is actually a fabrication.
“The resident equivalent of the village idiot?”
I, my family, and relatives strongly object to this characterisation of a warmer as like us.
No self-respecting village idiot would ever stoop to Warmistry (except for large, hidden, CASH payments!!)
The Village Idiot
SJT,
Please detail to us the new physics underpinning your belief of AGW.
As the old IPCC physics used in the models require a Cooling Stratosphere, Increasing Upper Tropospheric Humidity, rising Tropopause and the Infamous “Hot Spot”, none of which are happening at a scale to account for anything, if at all, you are arguing a fallacy!!!!
Luke, maybe you can help SJT out with one of your usual muddle of links that prove the Elephant Man was caused by Global Climate Change??
Here is what a physicist is saying about CO2 and its logarithmic effect:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html
Here is some data on the absorption lines of CO2:
http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/forcing/images/image7.gif
Kuhnkat,
The GCMs are engineering programs, not basic physics programs:
http://climatesci.org/2008/11/28/real-climate-misunderstanding-of-climate-models/
There are important implications to that distinction, that are conveniently ignored by the AGW community.
“Interesting that an infrared telescope site must worry over water vapor. Why not Co2?”
Because water vapour content in the atmosphere varies by a large amount by geographical location, while CO2 doesn’t. In other words, where you place the telescope can make a large difference in the case of the water vapour, but very little difference in terms of the CO2 absorption.
Louis I must take issue about your comment that SJT gives village idiots a bad name. The comparison of SJT and village idiots is an unpardonable insult. To village idiots that is!
SJT says Crichton is not a scientist but a lowly scribbler and M D.
“His issues with the English Department led Crichton to switch his course to biological anthropology as an undergraduate, obtaining his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude in 1964.[6] Crichton was also initiated into the Phi Beta Kappa Society. He went on to become the Henry Russell Shaw Traveling Fellow from 1964 to 1965 and Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom in 1965.”
His studies as a physician came after that in 1969.
As for Hansen “Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa.”
So what gives you more understanding of the history of our climate “biological anthropology” or “astrophysics and maths”. Hansen can live in a virtual world of his own making using GCMs. Crichton would have had to use empirical evidence. In either case if it makes no sense then educational authority just does not cut it anyway.
hunter, above, expressed a familiar concern: “The social pressure that has built up around AGW is massive and pernicious and may well cost us dear before it has run its course.”
I fear this is premised on the laudable belief that there is a responsible link between the politics of AGW and the science, but would any amount scientific commonsense announced tomorrow that exonerated anthropogenic CO2 as a climate driver, make the slightest difference to the politics now approaching fulfillment at Copenhagen?
And when these unknown drafts are finally and eagerly signed off at Copenhagen, is there any reason to believe that subsequent scientific development could lead to their repeal?
Hunts-bugger – mate don’t come the raw prawn with us – fair suck of the sauce bottle etc – only a big sepo lounge lizard like you would hang around here 24 x 7 spreading disinformation. Look mate – get it right – a ringer is a stockman – who would do you like a dinner sunshine. Do you think we’ve come down in the last shower.
Kockhead Kat – you’re slipping – where is the HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
dhmo: There is another huge and IMO significant difference Hansen has his snout in the politically funded trough Crichton was self funded.
“dhmo: There is another huge and IMO significant difference Hansen has his snout in the politically funded trough Crichton was self funded.”
What a load of crap. Chrichton was much wealthier than Hansen. If Hansens intent is only to make money, using AGW is bad career choice.
Comment from: SJT July 5th, 2009 at 11:50 am
If Hansens intent is only to make money, using AGW is bad career choice.
”””””
tell that to Gore and all the freeloading “scientists” riding on the AGW bandwagon!
Al Gore is fat, not a scientist. Climate research would be happening if there was AGW or not. Chricton made more money than any AGW scientist did. And Al Gore is fat.
SJT – Marcus really – what a gutter argument – how about the bandwagon of nano-tech scientists, or the gravy train of genetic engineering, or the vast waste of funds just to make Monsanto rich – it’s a world conspiracy, gravy train and conspiracy of quantum theory (how does Lubus Motl justify the outrage). ooooo “the astronomers …. oooo – what a gravy train”. And as for cancer research – we’ve spent billions and we still have cancer – they all need sacking too.
This sort of argument just tells you they’re going berserk – just randomly and wantonly scatter-gun attack everything in their sight. And this would be from a little arsehole that has never had to apply for, execute and be responsible for any research funds in his ill-foresaken life.
SJT – don’t they they love to focus just on Hansen and Gore for a diversion. It’s just wedge tactics by the desperate. Probably time for some vested interest sceptic stuff to ram back down their throats.
Jan I have no problem with your comment but these sort of money comparisons were started by the climate zealots. I have read (maybe Buchanan) about the difficulty of seeing faults with that which you depend on for a living. Hansen has totally committed himself to AGW and has no choice but to continue with it. Backing down is not an option since his whole career is built around it. The current trend in global temperature ought to be of great concern to him. Crichton on the other hand was independent. His income was not tied to what he was saying about AGW. More than that he only ever offered a reasoned opposing argument to the zealots. For that they try to condemn him even though he is dead. But who is paying you is nowhere near as important as the logic of your argument. The zealots would have you believe that who pays you totally determines your behaviour. They say then the argument is not worth consideration. The logic is that the validity of the argument is only a consequence of the source of funding. This means that if the head of Exxon says the sun will rise tomorrow then obviously it won’t because that is a proposition put by big oil. Bluntly I say this is bullshit and we should not play their game.
I showed that SJT’s argument that Crichton was not a scientist was totally wrong. The answer was to refer to your comment about who pays. This further confirms my opinion that Louis was insulting village idiots. The constant use of political manoeuvring on this blog is worthless and idiotic.
Luke
“don’t they they love to focus just on Hansen and Gore for a diversion. ”
Not really Luke, but if the shoe fits? It’s the warmenistas who carry on about big oil financing the sceptics, so I think it’s only fair to point out the large sums the governments are spending on AGW research. Not to mention Soros and co.
I agree with SJT that no matter, AGW or not, there would still be climate research, but I guarantee you, there would be less than half as many “scientists” involved. That’s why I made the point, “freeloaders”.
So Marcus – of CSIRO and BoM’s research team then – who exactly are the freeloaders.
‘Luke’,
That is 100% pure out back gibberish. I love it. It is about as clear as your climate thinking, and a lot more fun.
Please ask that member of your ensemble to do it more often.
SJT,
Defending the execrable Hansen, who is joined at the hip with Gore, while trying to belittle Crichton, who actually studied and created and built his wealth honorably makes you look more than a little creepy.
“of CSIRO and BoM’s research team then – who exactly are the freeloaders.”
I can think of a certain ensemble in- Queensland, is it?- that seems to have a great deal of time on their hands…….
Luke
You obviously did not read this, and this is only in OZ
http://sciencespeak.com/ClimateFunding.pdf
Now if you are telling me that all those involved were either needed, effective or produced useful work, than I say to you, “you are indeed living in an other universe”
Ps. CSIRO and BOM could probably have been involved in more useful activity!?
Am I reading this correctly that “Luke” is just a bunch of bloody govt. boffins!
Ahahahahahahahahaha
No wonder ,
we’re dealing with clowns who live in cloud cuckoo land ,not the real world !!
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
SJT: “What a load of crap. Chrichton was much wealthier than Hansen. If Hansens intent is only to make money, using AGW is bad career choice”.
Obviously I have promoted you beyond Village Idiot level – no one was talking about Hansen vs Crichton’s personal wealth – rather that the funding Hansen gets is from the US Taxpayer, while Crichton funded his research from his own funds.
As I have pointed out before, you seem to have particular difficulties in english comprehension – this being merely the latest.
It would be fun comparing your KPI, and Luke’s as well – getting high scores from Ms Wong for posting here and pestering the skeptics?
As for Luke resembling an “ensemble” – hmm – I claim priority – I used the metaphor of “Medusa” some time back – though I would not have thought of Medusa being an “ensembe”.
And sincere apologies to the Village Idiots here for elevating SJT to te level of Village Idiocy – I just discovered a few errors in his KPI and he is summarily demoted.
To what however, boggles the mind – since it means going back to PreCambrian times to find the appropriate life form equivalent.
So you can’t name anyone then in our Aussie research organisations wasting climate change funds.
YOU PATHETIC CLOWNS.
Baseless bunkum allegations from political shonks !
(No Mack – alas you’re incorrect but we laugh ourselves silly how you conspiracy theorists love to talk yourself into all sort of things – you just feed off each other and auto-suggest to the max – which is why you’re so amenable to denialist propaganda – you’re all totally uncritical and jump on any new theory – love Qld Climate Change Alliance)
“I can think of a certain ensemble in- Queensland, is it?- that seems to have a great deal of time on their hands…….”
It certainly has been an interesting exercise, watching how the denialist mind works.
A random rumour becomes accepted fact in the matter of a few posts. The mind boggles. It is good to have some direct and hard evidence of how poor their acceptance of any evidence that is anti-agw is, and how they manufacture it.
Denialsim = pathetic.
Luke
You have a very good MO. you wear people down, by obnoxiously ignoring what they say and repeating your own line over and over.
I admit it works on me because I don’t like hitting my head against the wall and arguing with you is just like that.
For me a questionable warming of less than a degree over a century, produced by shady manipulations, relying on instruments where the error zone is greater than the resultant warming, is just a political, Machiavellian way to extract more money and gain tighter control over the population.
In the senate paper I linked to, I would say 99% of the recipients did not deserve to be funded for AGW research.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-MIDDfckw
Which one of the ensemble is you SJT – fess up !
But of course I must say it’s fun slaying denialists to such great art.
And look here’s the IPCC in unison delivering the sombre news. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7cwbGBFyEQ&feature=related
God where would we be without Mahler. Ensemble casts hand over brows and exits stage left (of course)
The Waxman-Markey Bill seems to offer the clue to what we are in for – the Eco-Fascist State – meaning a sharing of power between the state, big business and big trade unions – all under the umbrella of “environmentalism”. Loser? The individual and his/her rights.
And what happens when you criticise the State’s (here the US EPA) procedural protocal?
Welcome to another Dark Age – strange that it happens when the global climate tanks temperature wise…..
Seems the Fabians have finally realised their goal since Maynard Keynes and the Bloomberries started off on their long march.
Luke is one person.
He’s studied to grade 8 piano hence the classical music references and that makes him well above your average okka.
He’s an excellent writer and expresses himself far better than most here – and he’s no fool.
No I don’t think he’s gay – dissatisfied with his marriage? well obviously, as he’s here most nights.
I actually think he’s coming around and he’s realised AGW is falling apart. 🙂
So why aren’t we celebrating? the planet is not going to die and we aren’t going to die with it.
I reckon that’s the kind of good news even Luke can celebrate.
SJT: “What a load of crap.”
Are you saying Crichton had his hand in the public purse?
I thought he had done rather well giving the people of the world what they want :- entertainment.
I agree Hansen’s horror stories haven’t done as well.
Luke might be one person janama but he has a tag team of researchers constantly at his disposal it seems……Qld Climate Change Alliance which Hunter and others are up against.
This group of boffins need to move a little further south to appreciate global cooling.
In fact if they came to where I live in the Sth Island NZ at the moment they would lose all their AGW beliefs in a second.
mack – I spent by teenage years in the south Island of NZ and got out as fast as I could because it was so damned cold!
Nah – Luke can’t beat the onslaught of opinion against him, it’s as simple as that.
Also janama when you see the word “Alliance” think hammer and sickle.
We have an Alliance Party here in NZ.
There are stylistic differences and tonal differences that leads me to guess ‘Luke’ is several posters.
It is interesting that Australia is so rich that it can afford to have a team of government workers take so much time to post so drivel as a fictional character.
‘Luke’,
Thanks for the Vivaldi. It is nice to be reminded that in a different age, people realized that the variations in weather, season and climate were beautiful and inspirational. Something to be appreciated and not fear mongered.
Here is a video that I think truly honors your valiant effort to defend the true faith of AGW from the unworthy who would move psat it:
Slight mistake on my part janama ,the Alliance Party is no more but its leader Jim Anderton has become the one man band called’ The Progressives’ ….. and thats a contradiction of terms. Regressives more like it.
Mack I have a greenie brother in Dunedin who reckons we are all going to cook soon. So I am interested in your comment “In fact if they came to where I live in the Sth Island NZ at the moment they would lose all their AGW beliefs in a second” why do you say this? I saw reference to a cold snap at Queenstown but could not find anything that showed such weather in Dunedin. Any info would be much appreciated.
“Are you saying Crichton had his hand in the public purse?”
I’m saying that if all you want to do is make some money, there are better ways to do it than becoming a scientist. The pay scales for the CSIRO would not attract a single MBA.
The local temps. for June about 2 thirds down ‘ Harsh words for deniers from nobel laurete’,dhmo. I cannot believe anybody living in Dunedin would think we’re going to cook.
The poor wretches have been snowed in several times already this year with the panelbeaters doing a roaring trade.
Mack: My neighbour, on a holiday to NZ , slipped on some “global warming” and broke his arm.
In these days of Ocupational Health and safety, shouldn’t Global Warming come with a warning?
Quite right chris ,but the media will say it was ‘sunstroke’ that caused his fall.
SJT “The pay scales for the CSIRO would not attract a single MBA.”
How much they are paid is NOT the issue, one issue is independence.
The other is the fact that you attempted to create the impression that Crichton despite being a novelist which helped him to be independent (and a physician) was in not in fact a scientist i.e and anthropoligist. Since this is the obvious source of your information you cannot claim ignorance.
Then there is the rest of your failed attempt to poison the well. If the science is beyond you at least have the good manners to remain silent.
Mack fortunately you don’t know my brother and his friends. Do you have any links to weather reporting in Dunedin please?
Sorry dhmo Im computer illiterate. You’ll have to look after yourself there.
apologies.
“How much they are paid is NOT the issue, one issue is independence.
The other is the fact that you attempted to create the impression that Crichton despite being a novelist which helped him to be independent (and a physician) was in not in fact a scientist i.e and anthropoligist. Since this is the obvious source of your information you cannot claim ignorance.
Then there is the rest of your failed attempt to poison the well. If the science is beyond you at least have the good manners to remain silent.”
Yeah, business is a huge source of income for pure research ….. not. They want to apply the results that can be commercialised, that’s usually about as far as it goes.
He was not a scientist. Tell me what he published.
By the way dhmo don’t take too much notice of your brother and friends . Dunedinites are compulsive liars when it comes to talking about their weather.
I should know I’ve lived there 8 years and trust me it’s perishing.
Try TVNZ weather.
Little Will: “He was not a scientist. Tell me what he published.”
Being a scientist is a matter of training you keep on going off in in irrelevant directions.
I’m sure all those molecular biologist, histologists chemists, biochemists that work in the path labs that test the tissue samples (you didn’t really believe that doctors do the test like in House did you?) would be pleased to hear that you have unilaterally demoted them to amateur status because they don’t and are never likely to publish.
Any person living in Dunedin still believing in global warming illustrates perfectly the degree of firm fixedness with which these ostriches have their heads buried in the sand.