Editor of Science Magazine Should Resign!
The 3 July 2015 issue of Science features a remarkable editorial by Editor Marcia McNutt. Titled The beyond-two-degree inferno, it suggests that an anthropogenic greenhouse (GH) warming of more than 2 degrees C (global average) will literally cause hell on earth, unless we can all agree to reduce emissions of the infernal GH-gas carbon dioxide preferably before or at a UN-sponsored mega-confab in Paris in December. This much-hyped event, to be attended by nearly 200 national delegations and thousands of hangers-on, has even been endorsed in a papal encyclical, referred to, somewhat irreverently, as a Pope-sicle by my Virginia colleague Dr Charles Battig.McNutts editorial claims a global threat to food supplies, health, ecosystem services, and the general viability of the planet. Yet none of these threats are supported by any scientific evidence -- even from the usually alarmist UN-IPCC. She fails to remind us that atmospheric CO2 is the essential ingredient for sustaining carbon-based life on Earth. The low CO2 levels during the recent ice age severely limited the rate of photosynthesis; at slightly lower levels, we and almost all living things on the Earths surface would just starve and die. And she takes for granted that rising CO2 will cause significant Global Warming (GW), with all the usual calamities that are recited by climate alarmists -- in spite of overwhelming evidence for absence of 21st-century warming.As geologist Dudley Hughes wrote in May 2007 in Environment & Climate News, [L]ittle publicity is given to the large number of qualified scientists whocontend that if CO2 plays any part in global warming, it is so insignificant that it can barely be measured, let alone be the major cause. And: [T]he claim that increased carbon dioxide is causing global warming has no more scientific foundation than the bloodletting of past generations.His words are backed by the five reports (in English) of the independent NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), issued since 2008 and based on many thousands of references collected from peer-reviewed journals by nearly 100 well-qualified climate scientists; they included many papers ignored by the IPCC. The brief Overview-NIPCC volume of 2008 was translated into several European languages; the Chinese Academy of Sciences translated and published a substantial NIPCC summary volume in 2013.But McNutt is not interested in listening to contrary evidence. The time for debate has ended. Action is urgently needed. What a strange position to take for the editor of a leading and (formerly) respected international science journal! She should resign her job and allow someone else to take her place -- someone who recognizes that debate is essential for scientific progress.Maybe McNutt really believes that GW has never really paused and that reducing CO2 levels can make a noticeable difference. That could happen only if she reads the evidence selectively and rejects all evidence to the contrary. Or maybe she is cynically playing along with current White House policy, even though it is completely uninformed and misguided, in the hope it will benefit Science mag and herself.Yet another possibility is that she is nave enough to believe that the worlds nations are actually worried about a small amount of climate warming; in reality, the game is about money and political power. She seems oblivious to the fact that China snookered Obama in their November 2014 climate agreement; but she seems really disturbed about Indias plans, and insensitive to that nations desperate need for reliable, secure, and low-cost electric power: Unfortunately, [energy minister] Piyush Goyal intends to double his nations coal production by the year 2019 to meet domestic energy requirements. Indias CO2 emissions will soon match Chinas and, together, will make irrelevant any emission reductions by the rest of the world; after all, its the global CO2 level that counts. Could someone please explain this to McNutt?As for myself, I have decided to drop my subscription to Science and my AAAS membership; Science is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I guess I will continue as an elected AAAS Fellow; but I am no longer proud of that distinction. I suppose, also, that any future contribution to Science even a Letter or a Technical Comment -- will not be welcome as long as McNutt or someone of her persuasion continues as editor.Has the global warming pause really ended?The pernicious influence of Editor McNutts ideology-driven science can be easily recognized in the promotion given to a fairly routine scientific paper by NOAA climatologist Thomas Karl and coauthors; however, it has very important policy implications. After making certain controversial adjustments to the surface temperature record, the authors concluded that there had been no GW pause (a.k.a. hiatus or plateau), which many researchers had rather reluctantly accepted, but that there had actually been a continuing warming trend during all of the 21st century. Their paper was published in Science-Express on June 4, with a lot of the publicity usually reserved for major discoveries.Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/editor_of_emscienceem_magazine_should_resign.html#ixzz3hDreMIDt Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
486 visitors
1] The "consensus" basically does not exist
2] If it did that would not be science . That would be a popularity contest .
It is the new system which will be employed on the new site . I suggest you try opening up several tabs , one for each major topic you are following . This one would be under Environment/Climate .
Merchant of meaningless political deception :
Heartland Institute
"The discredited Heartland Institute is attempting to present its new NIPCC report, Climate Change Reconsidered , as a legitimate alternative authority to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Butthe NIPCC report is not a credible scientific undertaking, and the Heartland Institute has no credibility, scientific or otherwise ."
- ...
Climatesciencewatch is a single purpose propaganda site .
Fish are birds. Birds are fish. Trees are monkeys. Monkeys are rocks.
Babble is babble . "Consensus" is not science . It's a popularity contest .
I've seen quite a few that have come to a different conclusion . Will you ask for a list or are you afraid to read them ?
So they didn't agree then ...
Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2C (3.6F) over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making. [13] [14]
However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated, and that impacts for a 1C rise are now expected to be as great as those previously assumed for a 2C rise. [11] In a July 2011 speech, climate scientist Kevin Anderson explained that for this reason, avoiding dangerous climate in the conventional sense is no longer possible, because the temperature rise is already close to 1C, with effects formerly assumed for 2C. [15] [16] Moreover, Anderson's presentation demonstrates reasons why a temperature rise of 4C by 2060 is a likely outcome, given the record to date of action on climate, economic realities, and short window of time remaining for limiting the average surface temperature rise to 2C or even 3C. [15] He also states that a 4C rise would likely be an unstable state, leading to further increases in following decades regardless of mitigation measures that may be taken. [15]
The consequences of failing to avoid dangerous climate change have been explored in two recent scientific conferences: the 4 degrees and beyond climate change conference held at Oxford University in 2009; and the Four Degrees Or More? Australia in a Hot World held at the University of Melbourne in July 2011.
The author of the seeded article has some interesting baggage he's Fred Singer.
What is it with you righties? Your love of rogues and liars who perpetuate the myths underlying your agenda is consistent and should embarrass you.
I will be around to at least enable both sides of "the story."
And again, when a "report" turns out to be a fake, there's always an underlying agenda.
I suggest you read about Singer's other agendas.
To continue to ignore this for political reasons is foolhardy, at best...
What is with you lefties ? I offered to show a list of studies which don't agree with AGW . But you are clearly afraid to read it ... or are you gonna take the plunge ?
Show the list and list the sources and the authors and we'll go from there.
In the past, I've specifically addressed your articles remember the one that claimed the polar ice was expanding I showed the observation regarding the melting and consequential spreading like that of a melting ice cube whose footprint expands while its overall volume decreases.
Then there was the one about the polar ice getting higher. That too was the result of GCC as warmer, more intense winds PILED THE FRACTURING ICE UPON ITSELF.
But really; post the list and the source(s) and we'll have at it.
For the record, I have a degree in Biology with specialties in limnology and ichthyology; I know what climate change does to populations and ecosystems.
See you after dinner.
If you have a problem with John's or anyone else's content, you can go to it and mount a rebuttal. I'm not carrying your water
I don't askyouto be "fair and balanced." You fire the first shot regularly and frequently surely you can deal with others who take their shots
you can, right?
As a person of faith, you must be familiar with JOHN
JOHN 8:7 that is. You know, thatotherJohn.
Another attack the messenger non-rebuttal!
The "Heartland"?
Interesting as in The Heartland Institute for example.
"Consensus" is not science . It's a popularity contest."
How would you have people decide which of the scientists to take seriously? Surely you don't believe that we're all equally equipped to understand climate science? Having studied a lot of climate science myself, I've concluded that it is VERY, very challenging to comprehend. It takes a lot of study to get even the basics.
Are you honestly suggesting that half of one percent of those who call themselves expert in climate science are the ones who are correct about how to interpret the available scientific data?
I'm often opposed to "the consensus". But not in this case! I mean, I think much of mainstream "scientific medicine" is corrupted by the meddling influence of Big Pharma and the insurance industry (big money generally). So I'm open minded about possible corruption.
But -- at the end of the day -- I'll accept the scientific consensus from the actual climate scientists ... over the money-driven interests of the schmucks and arseholes who shill for Mega Oil, Coal & Gas.
"So, since there is not one definitive study of climate change, there were in fact 928 of them that all came to approximately the same conclusion.
That's not a popularity contest, Petey."
Amen.
They call this approach "pulling a tobacco". It was the tobacco industry which taught the rest of 'em just how to manipulate folks with this "heartland" stuff.
"You shouldn't attack "the heartland" (eveyday, regular folk in the middle of the country).... Sheesh.
Petey Coober :"What is with you lefties?"
Natural systems do not care what your political views are. Water boils at a certain temperature at a certain elevation without regard to your political views. Same with other natural processes. In other words, climate science has nothing whatsoever to do with your political views, or anyone else's. I wish it were not so, but there we have it.
And I wish it were not so because I'd love it if we could solve this horrible problem politically -- as it would offer a better hope for a decent future on Earth.
Reply by A. Macarthur :
"Limiting the average global surface temperature increase of 2C (3.6F) over the pre-industrial average has, since the 1990s, been commonly regarded as an adequate means of avoiding dangerous climate change, in science and policy making. However, recent science has shown that the weather, environmental and social impacts of 2C rise are much greater than the earlier science indicated."
Remember when the IPCC said we have X-number of units left in our "carbon budget". Well, we don't. That's what I've concluded after a long and careful look at the question. We've used up whatever carbon budget we once had, and should simply try to phase out fossil fuels as quickly as possible, knowing that -- by now -- we've already altered our planet's climate system in ways we'll surely wish we had not.
Maybe, just maybe, we can preserve the larger portion of the biodiversity on the planet -- by a miracle -- over the next century or so ... as we learn how (hopefully) to draw carbon down out of the atmosphere without creating further (and possibly worse) havoc. There may be methods to do so which are yet only vaguely imagined.
Sadly, unfortunately, in the USA, the climate change (or climate catastrophe) question is largely treated not as a scientific question but as a theological one (primarily) and a political one (secondarily). Millions and millions of Americans view such questions about the future of our planet in terms of "What God would want" or "What is in God's plan".
If they decide that God would like to preserve the Earth's biodiversity, well, that pretty much settles the question -- and leaves science well out of it.
Yup there are ways but they don't require our efforts :
...
Massive 'carbon sinks' detected beneath world's deserts
New research suggests aquifers flowing beneath the world's deserts are hiding away large amounts of CO2. According to the new study, these "carbon sinks" may hold more carbon than all the planet's plants combined.
I'd like to encourage you to research and learn about the topics of your interest ... as a higher priority than the promotion of your viewpoints. Promoting viewpoints and winning arguments is not so valuable a cause as truly understanding the issues and matters at hand.
And yet this is not a politics seed. Its about climate and the environment. The article was encouraging discussion and debate on a key issue saying no one should have a closed mind on a science issue.
Everything you seed is ultimately "political," but aside from that, few issues have become more politicized than GCC. And the author of the seeded article has been discredited at least twice for false accusations made against those who disagree with his "science" (I posted that information in this thread). Further, the author appears to have a history of being a shill for Big Energy and Big Tobacco.
Good advice.
Take it.
Disagree; it is the editor's accuser, the-one-with-the-documented-history-of-false-accusations who needs to not only open his mind, but to reveal his hidden agenda.
Here ya go :
The original paper has lots more references . I'm sure you can find a link here :
Uh ... did you write a paper about this ? YOU SHOWED it how exactly ? <==== see that ?It's a question . Answer it !
What makes you think climatology is a science ? Maybe in a few more decades it will be but as of now it is merely a cult .
Nah :
How about responding to my replies ? They were directed to you ...
Petey,
I'm familiar with Soon and Ballunas' "study".
How 'bout that! I used YOUR LINK which you should have read down to the bottom as I did and quoted!
" the paper should not have been published as it was."
No, like you, I showed studies the difference being that the studies I showed were not flawed like those you show.
Don't grandstand, Dude!
NEXT!
Discredited where ? By whom ? You can't deal with it nor the Soon & Baliunas meta-paper . You are incapable of reading or understanding a real science journal . But feel free to prove me wrong . Read the Soon & Baliunas paper if you dare ...
Thanks for showing your ignorance on the subject of science so openly . Do you have any idea what makes something a science [as opposed to just a study] ? Ball in your court ...
By its publisher, Otto Kinne if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
So , read the Soon & Baliunas paper and give us a report . But of course you won't . You'd rather throw out personal accusations , in other words the actions of a typical blockhead ...
Nah . You have never read it or even looked at it . What you have read is political hit pieces on it . Since it is a meta-paper it merely summarizes the works of other scientists , works you are afraid to even look at . How do I know ? We have done this dance B4 . You didn't read it then and you won't read it now . Do you want a link ?
Uh OK . How was it flawed ? Explain it to us ... in your own words , not with massive cut/paste jobs .
It just hit me the Kangaroo
Petey's KANGAROO COURT!
ITS PUBLISHER EXPLAINED THAT. IF YOU'D BOTHER TO READ WHAT I CUT AND PASTE TO EDUCATE YOU, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO ASK!
Mac's sarcasm posing as knowledge ! Mockery combined with ignorance ... I think the word for that would be "lout" .
Have you ever read any of the papers in the meta-study ? Nah . And you won't because you are strictly political , not at all scientific
I guess here is as good as any place to put this. "Chickenshit" and "Blockhead" isn't going to get it. Keep the name calling from everyone out of the conversation, please. "Six"
Can't you read English ? That's a press release , not the paper , DUH!
Thanks for proving you don't understand my question . Prove that climatology is currently a science rather than merely a study . Just because universities grant degrees in it does not mean it is a science , anymore than a degree in English literature is a science .
I can send you a copy of the paper in PDF form but why bother ? You don't read links of any kind due to the blockhead creed against that .
PS : you are fooling someone ; yourself ...
And, as per the established protocol, we have come to the name-calling phase of the discussion.
DidWillie Soon and Sallie Baliunas have degrees granted upon them?
So repeat what he said . The press release I posted gave a good description of the paper . Was there anything in the press release which was contradicted by the publisher's words ? If not it's just more politics .
Yeah , thanks for the kangaroo comment insulting my avatar . Your avatar is nothing to gloat about ... And you still are AFRAID to read any of the papers in the meta-study . Pure chickenshit is what comes out of you !
I don't respond to blockheads ... That's because they don't read in general . By contrast Mac is a chickenshit who won't read due to fear he might learn something .
You read how many pages of this PDF but object to a cut and pasted set of paragraphs?
Would you coddle our lazy asses and summarize the thing?
Moderators, please DO NOT DELETE PETEY'S COMMENT.
It defines him.
By definition, climatology is a science.
The press report linked above is an excellent summary . But I will add this much . It lists a great many papers by other authors on the subject of climate . Many of them did not support the global warming hypothesis . If I post a list of them will you read them or will you chicken out ? That is your consistent MO . You won't read anything that contradicts your existing beliefs . However if you agree to look them up I will agree to post a list here . And I will expect to hear your "educated" commentary on them [if you can put down the politics for once] .
Thanks . I think my comment just defined you . Your fear of learning something that contradicts your existing beliefs is quite prominent !
I would love to reclassify you but I still haven't seen you read someone else's links . Is it that much work ... or are you innumerate ?
BTW, I can't recall what your educational background includes; please disclose degrees and other relevant information since I like to know the deal about people who talk down to me.
Yup completely innumerate . That's what I thought .
Frankly , I have no interest in displaying bragging rights from my degree . Knowledge really is power all by itself . The fact that you [and many on this site ] are largely innumerate is fine but when you pretend to know what you are talking about while you haven't a clue , that is just false pride . That's when you deserve to be taken down a notch . So ... are you interested in reading some numerically based journal articles or do you want to persist in your past beliefs ? I'm gonna guess you have no interest in real scholarship of that demanding a nature especially if it contradicts your existing beliefs .
I am sad for you, Petey.
Strut if you must and have the last word if you choose to do so.
Pose if you must . I think it's pathetic . Be proud of your ignorance but can you do it a little less loudly ?
Look at the article you seeded. No, really LOOK at it. It is another one of your "I hate liberals" articles, designed to engender-- not discussion, but disgust. The only point of publishing this article is to make yourself feel superior, over all the other little people who just may disagree with you. The other hateful piece is this:
Then you get upset when people who are a little to the left of Attila the Hun are upset with it? You reap what you sow.
I say the same thing, XX-- can't we all just get along? But then, you come up with this utterly false piece of putrified garbage and put it on the front page. Don't be coy and don't play stupid. You want to get along? Stop publishing hate pieces like this.
Your devotion to the cult of AGW is noted . I notice you too have no interest in reading journal articles which show disagreement ...
I have read them, Petey, your own links-- and laughed at them. Once you suggested that I look at the base data from which they are deriving their numbers. Considering that there are 89,000 stations with 50+ to 100+ years of data, collected 6X per day, and that there are currently 4 super-computers crunching those numbers, I think it's beyond just me.
I studied climate in college, too. Yes, that was a long time ago, but the basics haven't changed. I'm not a number person-- I'm a geologist. But, I used calculus in my work, almost every day.
Do you work for the oil industry or something? I'm asking only to try to understand your viewpoint. The preponderance of evidence shows that Global Warming is real. Why can you not accept that? Why do you continually obfuscate the issue that is scientifically accepted?
No I don't work for the oil industry . I have said it B4 and I see that I need to repeat it : climatology is not science ! Don't give me a dictionary definition again . Lexicographers don't know science .
Can you tell me the difference between a science and a study ? If you can do that then we have something to talk about ...
I found this, which expresses it better than I could:
I see an environmental study to be a more localized scientific query. I practiced a science-- geology. I conducted studies on specific well fields within a more localized area, or studied a single spill. It seems to be a bit gray, on things, because they overlap. If I didn't understand the science, I could not have completed the studies... My reports dealt with both the science and the study, and included both sets of questions. My primary focus was-- How do we clean this up?
Climate is a study, but climatology is a science.
I am going for a different approach than you took . What I'm getting at is that a science is about being able to predict events given the initial conditions . Usually that kind of knowledge is obtained by performing controlled experiments . Clearly that is not possible in climatology .
From my perspective a subject is a study in its early stages and only becomes a science later after there is sufficient knowledge gathered . For example chemistry became a science after its "apprenticeship" of alchemy . I think climatology is still in the stage alchemy was in before it became scientific . And the reason I say that is that it is a complete failure at making predictions . If a study depends on a consensus rather than experimental results it is still a study ... not yet science .
Nobody here should take Petey as a genuine, sincere person. Just look at the record of his participation in these fora!
He pretends to care about science, but he thinks he's better informed than 99.5% of the actual climatologists, even to the extent of pretending that climatology "isn't a science"! This, ladies and gentlemen, is one big useless distraction.
I think Petey is really only a character played by somebody, and the character is really a caricature, a spoof ....
...
Here's another buffoon who doubts climatology is a science.:
If this guy is SERIOUS (!) he's way, way too ignorant to have half of a clue about his own ignorance! Sheesh! Is this the level of the game -- the utterly ignorant arguing with the utterly ignorant?
Is any honest person going to pretend to know about climate science (or climatology) and be completely bereft of the slightest clue about what distinguishes climate and weather? REALLY?!
...
That author said, " This kind of denialism is playing Russian roulette with our entire civilization."
Oh, if only we were so lucky! It's far, far worse than that!
In terms of what is at stake, it's much worse! Civilizations have come and gone, but the human species has remained. Having not gone extinct in the process, humans have had a chance to try again, evolve and grow some more..., wise up. But if humanity messes up the climate system enough, it is sure our species -- and most others -- may will become forever extinct from this planet. This is the part that seldom gets mentioned! Worst case scenarios for climate change are very plausible, indeed. And these consequences involve a massive extinction event, not a mere inconvenience like massive disruption of human civilization.
Russian roulette? A six shooter has sixcylinders. Take all of the shells out of those cylinders but one, spin the cylinder, pull the trigger ... if the odds are random you've got a 1 in 6 chance of blowing your brains out. Climate science, on the other hand, is much more predictive than that. We know if we stay on course and burn fossil fuels at a rate anything vaguely resembling the current trend that we will create utter and terrible -- catastrophic -- levels of average (global) warming of the atmosphere. And ecologists now know that doing so will cause a spasm of massive extinction events planet-wide, and could (at the worst) extinguish most of the life forms which now inhabit Earth.
Climatology is not science . It is a political movement designed to get funding for more climatology .
BTW , the least convincing evidence is a personal attack rather than an argument directed at the subject matter . In that respect you are becoming both predictable and pathetic . The important thing is to cover up your deep ignorance about science with personal attacks . Are readers being fooled by your shenanigans ? I doubt it .