<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>I'm guessing that this is a "hot-button" issue for you.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Please be patient, and I will respond with a few reasons why I think that a couple of the most prominent climate scientists should not be fully trusted when I have the time to get everything together so I can lay it out for you in an email.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Paul<br></span></div><div><br></div><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Arial" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Rosemary Huskey
<donaldrose@cpcinternet.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>; A B <sunshinydays55@yahoo.com>; vision2020@moscow.com<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, August 26, 2011 10:58 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Vision2020 "Witch-Hunt?"<br></font><br>An example of a "witch-hunt" on Vision2020 is the extreme absurd claim<br>there is international widespread incompetence or political<br>manipulation of climate science among thousands of scientists in<br>numerous scientific organizations around the globe, to generate the<br>international scientific consensus that human impacts on climate are<br>profound, and increasing as we continue to increase atmospheric CO2<br>levels and other human impacts.<br><br>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com<br>Thu Aug 25 18:04:41 PDT 2011 wrote:<br><br><a
href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-August/077920.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-August/077920.html</a><br><br>"Maybe we should wait until we have something we<br>know we should be angry about before we start venting about it."<br>---------<br>Implying scientists are censoring journals or hiding data based on<br>criminally hacked and possibly altered private emails, before a full<br>independent investigation, is a good example of not following the<br>advice given above, an example of which be read at the following<br>Vision2020 post: [Vision2020] Hacked Climate Reseach Unit E-mails:<br>1,092 Responses to “The CRU hack”<br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/067469.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2009-November/067469.html</a><br>---------<br>"...wait until we have something we know we should be angry about..." ?????<br><br>The
author or this sage advice has refused to accept that the<br>scientists he quoted on Vision2020 from the email hack of the Climatic<br>Research Unit of East Anglia University in the UK, have been<br>investigated and cleared of any significant misconduct, as the<br>following two sources indicate:<br><br><a href="http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/08/24/michael_mann_climategate_.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2011/08/24/michael_mann_climategate_.aspx</a><br><br>"The final investigation report from the National Science Foundation,<br>published on Aug. 15, confirmed the initial investigation results from<br>a Penn State panel also investigating Mann’s research, finding that<br>“there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann,”<br>according to the document."<br><br><a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists"
target="_blank">http://www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/sixth-independent-investigation-clears-climategate-scientists</a><br><br>"In the course of 2010, five investigations—three in the U.K. and two<br>in the United States—cleared scientists working for the CRU and an<br>American scientist working at Penn State University of any scientific<br>wrongdoing.<br><br>That said, in my experience climate science is already more open and<br>transparent than most other scientific fields, with gobs of data<br>publicly available and many assessment reports and other climate<br>science products intended specifically for public consumption<br>(examples: here, here, here). No other field I can think of has been<br>laid so bare to public scrutiny."<br><br>--------------------<br>His witch-hunt has continued, with errors and misunderstandings<br>regarding climate science, repeated over and over, coupled with a<br>refusal to admit mistakes and misrepresentations of
the science on<br>this subject, when they are clearly pointed out, as can be read in my<br>response on Vision2020 below:<br><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-July/077266.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2011-July/077266.html</a><br><br>[Vision2020] Climate & Science<br><br>On 7/13/11, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:<br><br>> I find it just as frightening that *any* criticism of climate scientists<br>> is seen as a statement that there is a "paranoid extreme conspiracy". I<br>> have good reasons for not trusting some of the major figures in climate<br>> science. Mann, for example, and his "hockey stick" graph.<br>><br><br>Climate scientists criticize each other every day, and I have never<br>observed anyone behaving as though any criticism of climate scientists<br>implies a "paranoid extreme conspiracy."<br><br>The paranoid extreme conspiracy
mentality is expressed by those who<br>think the entire international field of climate science is involved in<br>a deliberate hoax to promote anthropogenic climate change as a serious<br>problem, aimed at a political or economic agenda. Many of those who<br>obsess on the email hack from the Climatic Research Unit from EAU in<br>the UK express this mentality.<br><br>The very implication you are suggesting, that there is to any<br>significant degree in the world of science, or in media or Internet or<br>any form of public discourse, a level of censur occuring that attacks<br>any criticism of climate scientists as an expression of paranoia, is<br>itself an example of paranoia!<br><br>> Climate science is a young field. The first actual degree offered in<br>> climatology was a BS in climatology offered by the University of South<br>> Queensland in Australia with the first enrollments in the degree in<br>> 2001. I think it's a
bit soon in a field that looks at time spans of<br>> 30+ years to say that we've pretty much concluded what the answers are.<br>><br><br>For one thing, study of climate science is often called meteorology.<br>Degrees in meteorology have been offered for decades, though I don't<br>know when the first one was offered. Thus some scientific<br>organizations focusing on climate are the World Meteorological<br>Organization and the American Meteorological Society.<br><br>If you examine the degress of some prominent climate scientists who<br>have been publishing in the field for decades, you won't find<br>"climatology" as a degree title: MIT's Professor of Meteorology<br>Richard Lindzen, a very often quoted and interviewed skeptic of a high<br>value for climate sensitivity (i.e. human sourced CO2 in the<br>atmosphere has a limited impact), has degrees in physics and math:<br><a href="http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf"
target="_blank">http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf</a><br><br>NASA's climate scientist James Hansen, who in his book "Storms of My<br>Grandchildren" ( <a href="http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/" target="_blank">http://www.stormsofmygrandchildren.com/</a> ) called<br>Lindzen the "dean" of anthropogenic climate warming skeptics, has<br>degrees in physics, math and astronomy:<br><a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html" target="_blank">http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html</a><br><br>Climate science has been a major field of scientific study for over<br>100 years, at least since Nobel winner Arrhenius in 1896, sometimes<br>referenced as publishing the first serious attempt to quantify climate<br>sensitivity. Here is long list of published scientific studies of<br>climate sensitivity, from 1896 to past 2006:<br><a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html"
target="_blank">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a><br>Levenson in detail addresses the often heard comment that climate<br>models are untestable or unreliable here:<br><a href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html" target="_blank">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html</a><br><br>I recall you once wrote on Vision2020 Levenson's climate sensitivity<br>list reveals climate sensitivity to be "all over the board." Yet when<br>I responded that in fact all the results show temperature increases,<br>that none show temperature decreases from negative feedbacks that<br>overcome the radiative forcing of atmospheric CO2, so therefore these<br>results are not "all over the board," you ignored this rather<br>compelling fact.<br><br>I dispute that climate science it is a "young" science, as is often<br>stated, to undermine the credibility of climate predictions. It could<br>be argued modern genetics is a
younger science, given DNA was not<br>fully unraveled till the 1950s, yet we trust DNA evidence in court.<br><br>Climate science has researched time scales of millions of years of<br>Earths history, as anyone studying the subject knows, as revealed<br>here: "Climate Change: Evidence from the Geological Record"<br><a href="http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange" target="_blank">http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange</a><br><br>The peer reviewed publication in this field are vast. Consider just<br>one, GFDL climate scientist Manabe's publication record, 164<br>publications, from 1955 to 2011, counting articles now "in press."<br><a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php" target="_blank">http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/results.php</a> Manabe is well know<br>for publishing in 1980 what is sometimes considered the first serious<br>discussion of "polar amplification": Manabe, Syukuro, and Ronald J<br>Stouffer, 1980:
Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase<br>of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical<br>Research, 85(C10), 5529-5554. available in full (26 pages pdf) free<br>here: <a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf</a><br><br>While on the subject of meteorology, read the statements on human<br>influenced climate change from the AMS and WMO:<br><br><a href="http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html" target="_blank">http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html</a><br><br>How will climate change in the future?<br><br>There will be inevitable climate changes from the greenhouse gases<br>already added to the Earth system. Their effect is delayed several<br>decades because the thermal inertia of the oceans ensures that the<br>warming lags behind the driving forcing. For the next several
decades<br>there is a clear consensus on projected warming rates from human<br>influences among different models and different emission scenarios.<br>----------------------<br><a href="http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php" target="_blank">http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php</a><br><br>Since the industrial revolution, human activity has increased the<br>amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (shown in the graph to<br>the right). The increased amount of gases which absorb heat, has<br>directly lead to more heat being retained in the atmosphere and thus<br>an increase in global average surface temperatures. This change in<br>temperature is known as global warming. The increase in temperature is<br>also leading to other effects on the climate system. Together these<br>affects are known as anthropogenic (human caused) climate change.<br><br>> There may indeed be a well funded,
politically supported junk science<br>> agenda, I wouldn't know. That's not where I get my info.<br><br>How many times have you posted to Vision2020 defenses of junk climate<br>science websites and articles? More times than I can count...<br><br>I''ll reference one notable example, a website you have referenced<br>numerous times.<br><br>National Snow Ice Data Center director Mark Serreze called Anthony<br>Watt's junk climate science website "Watts Up With That" an expresion<br>of "breathtaking ignorance."<br><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/realpolitic/worlds-oceans-warmest-on-_n_289210_31196131.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/realpolitic/worlds-oceans-warmest-on-_n_289210_31196131.html</a><br><br>Yet you vigorously defended Watt's confirmation bias filtered<br>statements on Arctic sea ice extent predictions for 2010 from "Watts<br>Up With That," with profanity laced responses, revealed in
the<br>following Vision2020 posts from June and July 2010:<br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070679.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070679.html</a><br><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070799.html" target="_blank">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-July/070799.html</a><br><br>The final Arctic sea ice extent for 2010 refuted Watt's scientifically<br>irresponsible spring predictions, a result you never followed up on<br>regarding our discussion of Watt's confirmation bias filter.<br>------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br><br>On 8/25/11, Rosemary Huskey <<a ymailto="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com" href="mailto:donaldrose@cpcinternet.com">donaldrose@cpcinternet.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Paul,<br>> Please help us to understand what you mean by "witch hunts" and "over<br>>
reactions."<br>><br>><br>> Rose Huskey<br>><br>><br><br><br></div></div></div></body></html>