Meet The Wall Street Journal's 16 Climate 'Scientists'

it'll probably be delightful once we get used to it anyway.

'Delightful' climate change. Sounds positively charming, doesn't it?

Thanks, jfx - I needed a good laugh (and a shower) after this morning's research.

It looks to me like there is 1, maybe 2 of them

Agreed, TP. I'd say two are qualified - not a compelling list. As I wrote below, if I were trying to present a strong case for influencing a critical policy based on science, a marketing professor would never make my short list.

This would be laughable if the subject matter weren't so serious.

rls8r,

A thoughtful comment deserves a thoughtful response. I hope this suffices.

Dr. Lindzen's early work was outstanding. He has contributed much to the field of climate science, and agrees that AGW is real. He was a member of the IPCC, and added substantially to their body of work.

Dr. Lindzen disagrees with mainstream climate science on some important issues (are clouds a net positive or negative feedback, for example) - but that's SOP for science. We are quite used to that. However, Dr. Lindzen calculates that AGW will raise global temperatures by 0.3C over this century - a conclusion that even his MIT peers strongly disagree with. In fact, I know of no one who puts the number at that.

But again - that's science.

Here's where things get interesting, though. Dr. Lindzen's presentation at the Heartland Institute specifically called out other prominent scientists in the field, and accused them of towing the mainstream line for personal profit:

Lindzen called out colleagues such as Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, whose work, Lindzen said, “clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates.

However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.“

That crossed a line, especially since Dr. Lindzen is in the habit of charging oil interests considerable fees himself:

Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.

If you read my threads, you've seen me repeat this mantra many time: Refute the science. That's because the science is the only thing that matters.

So when Dr. Lindzen attacks scientists as professional prostitutes (without any proof, but while taking money from oil companies himself), I believe that it should be pointed out, and considered - just as when a Family Values politician is caught in a men's room with his pants down around his ankles.

Eventually, we'll know if the planet warms by 0.3C, or 5.5C, during this century. Several lines of research point to the fact that we're already getting close. But let's keep the debate scientific.

Dr. Lindzen's work on atmospheric dynamics was substantial. His work on climate sensitivity and feedbacks is not supported by other research. And now he makes unsubstantiated personal attacks on other scientists, while being paid by oil companies. It's actually rather sad.

rls,

Another thoughtful comment. Thanks.

I may not have been clear above. I don't believe that Dr. Lindzen's work has been 'tainted' by oil money. As I said before, much of what he's done is outstanding in his field. Really.

And while he may conclude that the warming potential of CO2 in the atmosphere is far less than mainstream research seems to show, that's science. He was also convinced that there's no meaningful link between cigarette smoking and cancer. I disagree, but that's science.

But when he makes personal attacks on scientists who disagree with him in public, that's not science. In fact, it's harmful to science.

Final note: SourceWatch has this information in his bio:

Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil, but does not appear to have filed a tax return with the IRS since 2007.

He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the U.K.-based Global Warming Policy Foundation.

^{If you have time, take a look at those links.}

You know, rls - the more I think about Lindzen, the more it seems that he just likes to take the part of the Contrarian.

I've known a number of scientists who enjoy that role - being 'contrary' is an important component of science. But it has to be balanced. At some point, one has to let the data speak.

A principled Contrarian who resists overwhelming proof has fallen into the ranks of a Crank. I've known them. You've known them. It happens.

And it's most likely to happen during times of revolutionary science. Even Einstein came up against that, when Relativity challenged Aether. Some really, really good scientists just couldn't admit/see that their life's work was incorrect.

Crane - great quote.

LOL, rls - you have a great day, too.

There certainly is a Conflict of Interests issue, Bootstraps. One has to wonder why 90% of papers that refute human-caused climate changed can be linked right back to Exxon.

But regardless of that, would you take climate science advice from a marketing professor, or a physician, or an engineer - any more than you would take medical or auto mechanics advice from a physicist?

Are those people really qualified to advise on major policy?

I add that it is a two way street.

Who funded all the climate research during the Bush years, Bootstraps? Because there was an awful lot of it pointing to the fact that this was very, very serious.

If, just once in a while, Exxon-funded research aligned with what virtually all other research on the planet said - instead of being diametrically opposed, and easily refuted - it might be different. Instead, that seems to be one of just a handful of sources of science that disagrees. Always disagrees.

Even during the very anti-AGW Bush Administration.

Don't you find that odd?

Bootstraps,

Let me try to say it another way.

motivation is revealed when you follow the money, I add that it is a two way street.

I see it a little differently. Regardless of who is signing the check (anti-AGW Administration, AGW-supporting Administration) the federally-funded research always says the same thing - climate change is real, and it's us.

Research in other countries agrees. In fact, every accredited scientific organization in the world agrees.

Who diagrees? Primarily (not exclusively, but primarily, as in about 90%), researchers funded by Exxon.

That doesn't look like a two-way street to me. Exxon always says 'it's not real', 'it's not us', or similar.

Mainstream research almost never does - regardless of who's signing the check. Digcreation points out why above. The peer-review part of the scientific process is designed to remove bias. Unless one's data and analysis can withstand scrutiny, it will not be published.

We have nothing to worry about, folks. Exxon says so.

Meanwhile, Exxon invests heavily in drilling parts of the (previously-frozen) Arctic.

Secondly, the main danger is the rising of the ocean levels and turbulent weather patterns? Is that correct?

Excellent question. Let me list a few of the main ones, Spike.

• Dissolved CO2 makes the oceans more acidic, and threatens the food supply for a good deal of this planet's inhabitants. Plankton may already be 40% less than it was 100 years ago. Plankton is at the very base of the ocean's food chain.
• Animal and plant species are migrating away from a warming equator, and towards the poles. This not only throws off crop cycles, it introduces invasive species and diseases, and increases the chances that bees will arrive after the flowers have already bloomed - or that pine bark beetles will survive the winter, and decimate Canada's forests. That's happening now.
• One degree of warming in the atmosphere means 7% more moisture - and a lot more energy. That means increasingly-extreme weather in many, many places. We're seeing it already.
• Decreased food supplies, disrupted by floods or drought, cause civil unrest. High food prices played a significant role in the Arab Spring. Our Pentagon has been very, very concerned about this sort of thing for more than a decade.
• Rising seas certainly will be an issue, for billions of humans, who tend to live in coastal areas around the world.
• If/when we warm enough, there are natural sources of greenhouse gases (like methane and CO2) that will be released - mostly from melting permafrost or frozen methane lying on ocean shelves in the Arctic. We can't control those sources once they begin to release those gases.

There's much more to say on this topic. You have the big picture. I've just added a few more pieces.

More great questions.

How do we know what the level of plankton was in the ocean 100 years ago?

That was a really interesting piece of research, involving a Secchi disk. From Scientific American:

Phytoplankton Population Drops 40 Percent Since 1950

animal and plant species are migrating... but can it be proven that it's not a just another cyclical trend but an exponential curve toward the extreme?

Organisms are responding to climate change at a pace much faster than scientists estimated about a decade ago, according to a new study in the journal Science

Researchers in Britain analyzed dozens of studies tracking changes in the ranges of some 1,376 species of plants, animals, and insects. They found that a warming climate is driving species toward higher latitudes at an average of nearly twice the pace that studies indicated in 2003. And species are migrating to higher altitudes nearly three times faster.

and

Climate Change Causing Massive Movement of Tree Species Across the West

"Ecosystems are always changing at the landscape level, but normally the rate of change is too slow for humans to notice," said Steven Running, the University of Montana Regents Professor and a co-author of the study.

"Now the rate of change is fast enough we can see it."

There's much more info on that, but I'll save the punchline for the end of this post.

As for:

Throwing of crop cycles?.....did we expected the cycles to remain the same for eternity?

No - not at all. But take a look at this:

New USDA plant zones clearly show climate change

The animation at that link is, simply put, astounding.

And this part bears repeating, Spike: "Now the rate of change is fast enough we can see it." Change by itself isn't bad. But we've had 5 major, rapid climate changes on this planet that created massive die-offs - they were far too fast for organisms to adapt.

The last one, the PETM, happened over the course of about 20,000 years.

This one may happen in less than 200. Species can't adapt to that.

The industries that are financing the "climate change denial campaign" share the same unethical "profit at all costs" philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry

You probably know this, ScienceGuy - but some of the very same people are involved, too.

Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly—some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole.

"Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it.

You'd think we'd learn eventually.

Tim,

If I were going to make a push for influencing a major national policy, with scientific foundations, I'm quite sure that a professor of marketing would not make my short list. Ever.

And when discussing climate change, a heart/pediatric physician, electrical engineer, and polymer chemist wouldn't be my strongest hand, either.

Or someone with a Bachelor's Degree in aeronautical engineering.

There are some very big hitters out there. Virtually none of these people would be on my short list. But even these people, in the end, say nothing more than 'Don't panic'.

My pleasure, Super. Spread it around.

The WSJ had their day. Now it's time for facts.

How do people who call themselves scientists reconcile the knowledge (which they surely have) that the vast majority of the scientific community has overwhelming evidence conflicting with their "opinions"?

That really is the million dollar question, Mal.

It's something that's bothered me for a very long time. These people have children too, right?

Maybe this article will shed some light on it. It did for me. If you don't have time to read the whole thing, just click on Figures 3 and 4 to enlarge - they tell most of the story.

But when people have invested a lifetime in their views, they're very reluctant to give those views up. For most of history, we had to wait until the established generation retires before revolutionary ideas can take hold.

This pot calling the kettle black routine is getting a little old.

Just part of a strategy honed during the Tobacco Wars, polished during the CFC debates, and perfected for Climate Change. I think we've talked about this before - Merchants of Doubt. Even some of the same people are involved.

They're very good. Figure out what your opponent might be able to use against you (profits, etc.) and accuse them of it first. Sound familiar?

Great cartoon BTW!

;-)

I would like to see figure 3 for oil and gas, too.

Absolutely. There's so much information in a well-constructed graph. That one really tells a story. As does Fig. 4.

I bet this holds for every advance in science, technology, and politics.

I'm sure you're right about that, Tim. Cultural change is extremely difficult. All the momentum is going in the other direction.

The analysis of a society's adoption of revolutionary science is interesting, especially when one breaks out scientist and non-scientist groups.

I read a book a long time ago, about how scientists who were second children were much more likely to accept Darwin's ideas quickly than scientists who were first/only children (can't remember the name). At it's core, I think the two ideas are linked.

Glad you like the piece. I thought it was excellent.

Mal,

so who was pushing back on relativity... parts of the the scientific community???

Absolutely. Luminiferous aether was around for nearly 200 years before Einstein, and was developed to explain the propagation of light through space. It had been suffering some serious body blows before Einstein - but Relativity was pretty much the definitive nail in the coffin.

Of course, scientists whose working hypotheses depended on aether were reluctant to let go of it. Human nature - sound familiar?

Humorous side note - a recent uprising of Relativity-denialists (parallel to Creationists/IDers) is getting some attention.

So, apparently, the 'controversy' continues. Time to make a new T-shirt. I understand you're good with PhotoShop, Mal ;-)

nSZ,

Figure 4 was informative . A useful comparison would be the same chart for the "discovery" of the Piltdown Man.

LOL - I think that might be better represented by a Bell curve. Dawson was nothing if not persistent - as Piltdown II showed.

Personally, I think Fig. 3, 'tuned' to Piltdown, would be fascinating. In general, British paleontologists were quite supportive of Piltdown's 'authenticity', while French and American paleontologists ranged from skeptical to highly dismissive.

'Home boy makes good' and all that ;-)

Why why why WHY do we have to have a society that relies on 5 word slogans as its primary source of information?????

I don't know, Mal.

Why do 20% of Americans think that the sun orbits the earth? Here's one explanation I read. It actually made some sense to me, although I can't vouch for it's accuracy.

This was the logical result of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in the 1968 and '72 elections...

These same racists in the South were starting private "religious" schools associated with their churches that were all White, without any sort of curriculum review.

They were also fueled by the rejection of the nationally promoted science and math curricula which taught Evilution and the "New Math."

...There was also a resurrection of Young Earth Creationism onto the religious conservative scene driven by the 1961 publication of "The Genesis Flood" by John C. Whitcomb, and Henry M. Morris (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House) which is still in print BTW.

So, the newly re-segregated private Christian Academies had their science from recycled Seventh Day Adventist dogmas, and their math from accounting.

Their history books told how the brave Christian Patriots beat the British to found the Christian White People's America, with a fractional vote count based on the happy happy slaves strumin' on the ol' banjo and too stupid to actually be allowed to vote.

This false history is still promoted by David Barton and his "WallBuilders" outfit which promotes textbooks teaching that the American Founders were all conservative Christians who believed in a future legal system based on the Bible (Old Testament of course...

http://www.amazon.com/forum/science?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=FxZ58KVEERYS5E&cdThread=Tx257G9FR0R1B9U

I talked to a friend of mine from the South about this. He was raised there during segregation. He thinks this comment has some validity - especially the all-white Christian Academy part.

Is that where all this started? Are we reaping that harvest now?

nSZ,

Your question was intriguing, so I did a little research.

So far I found this, published in the peer-reviewed Public Library of Science (PLoS). It's a somewhat similar study by Miller. Looks like he's been doing this type of research for decades - for the National Science Foundation, the National Academy of Engineering (his current project), and many other clients:

Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology

To measure public acceptance of the concept of evolution, Miller has been asking adults if “human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals” since 1985.

He and his colleagues purposefully avoid using the now politically charged word “evolution” in order to determine whether people accept the basics of evolutionary theory.

Over the past 20 years, the proportion of Americans who reject this concept has declined (from 48% to 39%), as has the proportion who accept it (45% to 40%).

Confusion, on the other hand, has increased considerably, with those expressing uncertainty increasing from 7% in 1985 to 21% in 2005.

Because simple true–false questions exaggerate the strength of both positions, Miller also asked more nuanced questions in 1993 and 2003.

Again, the proportion of adults holding tentative or uncertain positions increased, but the percentage holding strong positions remained steady over the past 10 years.

One-third of Americans think evolution is “definitely false”; over half lean one way or another or aren't sure.

Only 14% expressed unequivocal support for evolution—a result Miller calls “shocking.”

I have to agree - 14% expressing unequivocal support for evolution is indeed shocking.

There's much more at the link. Hope this provides some insight.

Line up seven people...

And that was nearly 7 years ago. No wonder this kind of stuff is happening. From The State Of Science Standards (2012), beginning on page 9:

In June 2008, for example, Louisiana passed its infamous Science Education Act, ostensibly an “academic freedoms act” meant to give teachers and students legal cover to debate the merits and veracity of scientific theories.

In practice, the measure pushes a pro-creationist agenda—and gives cover to those looking to teach intelligent design creationism. Though the act is a free-standing statute with no direct link to the Pelican State’s academic standards, it does damage by allowing for the introduction of creationist teaching supplements—thereby affecting classroom instruction without explicitly altering the state’s standards.

Louisiana is not the only state that has tried to undermine the teaching of evolution through legislation.

In 2011 alone, eight anti-evolution bills were introduced in six state legislatures. (Thankfully, none made it into law.)

And two similar bills were pre-filed in New Hampshire for the 2012 legislative session, as well as one in Indiana.

nSZ,

a corresponding increase in confusion

That was the part that really jumped out of the data, IMO. I can think of several reasons why that might be so, but don't have any data at hand to understand exactly why. Still, it's remarkable.

Tim,

I care about undermining science in general

I agree - that and an apparent loss of interest in teaching/learning critical thinking skills. Which are both actually kind of important, as it turns out.

Zelda,

Excellent point.

Once again - there are a lot of heavy hitters out there. Why are a marketing professor and a doctor on that list at all?

monser,

Skeptical Science has done a complete analysis on the WSJ claims, and the signatories.

I think you might find it interesting. I certainly did.

Super,

Thanks for the link. A bit stomach-turning.

Murdoch and Forbes seem to be driving the popular media promotion of 'anti-AGW' misinformation.

And as Tim pointed out in a comment recently, Forbes has hired uper-conservative James Taylor to cover tech/science issues. Mr. Taylor is a proud member of the Heartland Institute.

I swear I'm not making this up.

Interestingly, the newspaper involved is, like Fox News, owned by Murdoch.

“Sewer Mining” – Efficient Water Recycling Coming to a Community Near You

The Pennant Hills Golf Club in Sydney, Australia, has cut its potable water use by 92 percent by mining a sewer that runs through the course and treating it onsite in the plant nestled among the trees adjacent to the 10th fairway.

That really does make sense, CO Bob.

Phoenix began using 'grey water' - basically anything that doesn't go through a toilet - to water public greens, etc. as early as the 1980s. This seems to have even more potential.

Of course, it's all part of Agenda 21, so it probably won't work here.