Vile Global Warming Politics

I need to begin by stating that Roger Pielke, Jr. is a friend of mine. Roger was a member of the board of directors of WeatherData, Inc. and we have remained friends since. I have a high opinion of his intellect and integrity.
Roger has been subjected to vociferous personal attacks this past week for having the temerity to accurately write that disasters (when adjusted for inflation and normalized by national wealth), so far, have not increased due to global warming. Judy Curry tells the full story here.

Judy is a climate scientist and former believer in catastrophic global warming. As the scientific case for the catastrophic part of global warming has crumbled the last decade, her views have changed. Fine. That is how things are supposed to work. The evidence changes, views change. Right? Unfortunately, that is not how things work in climate 'science.' Judy wrote Thursday:

As recently as 5 years ago, I never thought I’d live to see the day when I am very grateful that I have tenure at a university, which provides my job with some protection against politically inconvenient scientific analyses.

Why did award winning, tenured Judy feel the need to add that statement? What is the academic and research environment like these days?

Here is an example. The photo below is of Lawrence Torcello, a philosopher from the Rochester Institute of Technology. Torcello wrote an article (i.e., his words rather than
those of a reporter) claiming that it is "criminal" to be a global warming "denier" and clearly implies we (I meet his definition of "denier") should be jailed. He also states, while offering no evidence whatsoever, there is "well documented funding of global warming denialism."

He has since backed off a bit claiming his own words have been "misrepresented."

What I find fascinating is that a person who has studied philosophy, with no education in science (as far as I can tell from looking at his his university biography), has the chutzpah to claim to be an expert in determining who is right and wrong in forecasting future weather and then claiming those that disagree with his point of view are criminals.

He further goes on to say,

I am honoring the wishes of my university, which supports my academic freedom, and I am not accepting media requests at the present time.

Think about this for a moment: he claims "academic freedom" for himself but also wants to criminalize people that disagree with him on the future state of the climate. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Climate science has always had an unfortunate authoritarian streak. Lately, it has been especially ugly. So, I am disappointed in the American Meteorological Society and similar organizations as they sit silently while these attacks on personal freedom and free and open scientific exchange continue and multiply.

Fortunately, I work for AccuWeather which supports its employees having diverse views on climate change.

To sum up, ask yourself a question: Would a political movement (and that is what it has become, genuine science is now secondary) that has the facts on its side behave in this manner? Of course not. It would cite data rather than attacking people. Big Climate is losing the scientific battle as, month after month, (the graphic below includes February, 2014, data), temperatures stubbornly refuse to rise.
British Hadley Center data, the same used by the IPCC
Roger and I do not agree on every aspect of climate science. Judy and I don't agree on everything. That is actually a good thing because studying and examining other points of view is part of the method by which science advances. I have learned a lot from Roger. We want to encourage, not discourage, a variety of scientific views and approaches to global warming and innumerable other scientific challenges.

It well past time to recognize that mainstream climate 'science' has, tragically, morphed into a political, rather than scientific, movement. Scientists that disagree with the political movement's ideology are increasingly, both literally and metaphorically, shouted down. That is a shame. Since many of these people are paid by the taxpayers we deserve far better. 

A very wise Kansan, President Dwight Eisenhower, said in his farewell address:

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect -- as we should -- we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is past time for scientists in general, and atmospheric scientists in particular, to push back against the ugly authoritarian nature of today's climate 'science.'

Comments

  1. It's even worse than that - when you use reasonable things like the IPCC's and NOAA's own reports stating hurricanes and cyclones are not worse you get called a denier.

    Apparently the IPCC and NOAA are deniers but only if you notice they actually have some reasonable positions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hilary's Forecast Path Shifts West; Updated 9:20am PDT

Dangerous Travel Conditions - People Reportedly Stranded

The East Coast Severe Weather Threat is Over