The following lectures from the Prager University Foundation cover climate change, energy and the environment. The Prager University Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization has created an online resource of concise five minute lectures on environmental science topics presented by scientific experts and professionals. These offer fresh perspectives supported by fact based reasoning on contentious issues to anyone with an open mind.
"A world of new perspectives, five minutes at a time." - Prager University Foundation
Climate Change:
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say? (Dr. Richard S. Lindzen)
Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change? (Dr. William Happer)
The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate (Dr. Bjørn Lomborg)
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? (Alex Epstein)
What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change (Dr. Patrick Moore)
The Truth about CO2 (Dr. Patrick Moore)
Is Climate Change Our Biggest Problem? (Dr. Bjørn Lomborg)
Climate Change: What's So Alarming? (Dr. Bjørn Lomborg)
Energy:
Are Electric Cars Really Green? (Dr. Bjørn Lomborg)
Can We Rely on Wind and Solar Energy? (Alex Epstein)
Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy (Alex Epstein)
Why You Should Love Fossil Fuels (Alex Epstein)
Environment:
Is Organic Food Worth the Cost? (Dr. Bjørn Lomborg)
Are GMOs Good or Bad? (Dr. Patrick Moore)
Trees Are the Answer (Dr. Patrick Mooree)
Why I Left Greenpeace (Dr. Patrick Moore)
Curriculum Vitae:
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-2013); Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute (2013-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2013-Present); ISI Highly Cited Researcher
William Happer, B.S. Physics, University of North Carolina (1960); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1964); Research Physicist, Columbia University (1964-1965); Professor, Department of Physics, Columbia University (1965-1980); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1966); Co-Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Columbia University (1971-1976); Director, Columbia Radiation Laboratory, Columbia University (1976-1979); Member, JASON Advisory Group (1976-Present); Alexander von Humboldt Award (1976); Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1980-1991); Chairman, Steering Committee, JASON Advisory Group (1987-1990); Member, Board of Trustees, MITRE Corporation (1987-2011); Class of 1909 Professor of Physics Award, Princeton University (1988); Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy (1991-1993); Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1993-1995); Eugene Higgens Professor of Physics, Princeton University (1995-2003); Chairman, University Research Board, Princeton University (1995-2005); Member, National Academy of Sciences (1996); Herbert P. Broida Prize, American Physical Society (1997); Davisson-Germer Prize in Atomic or Surface Physics, American Physical Society (1999); Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award, Research & Development Council of New Jersey (2000); Member, Science and Technology Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (2002-2005); Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member, American Philosophical Society; Fellow, American Physical Society (APS); Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton University (2003-Present)
Patrick Moore, B.Sc. (Hons) Forest Biology, University of British Columbia (1969); Ph.D. Ecology, Institute of Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia (1974); Ford Foundation Fellowship (1969-1972); Vice-President, Pacific Salmon Society (1969-1972); Director, Western Canada Chapter, Sierra Club (1971-1973); Co-Founder, Greenpeace (1971-1986); Member, Board of Directors, British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (1984-1991); Founder and President, Quatsino Seafarms Ltd. (1984-1991); President, British Columbia Salmon Farmers Association (1986-1989); Member, Board of Directors, British Columbia Aquaculture Research and Development Association (1990-1993); Member, Aquaculture Advisory Council, British Columbia Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (1990-1993); Founder and Chairman, British Columbia, Carbon Project (1990-1994); Appointment, British Columbia Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (1990-1994); Member, Power Generation Working Group, Greater Vancouver Regional District (1992); Member, Economic Development and Environment Committee, Vancouver Board of Trade (1992-1994); Director, Architectural Institute of British Columbia (1995-1996); Director and Vice-President, Environment and Government Affairs, Waterfurnace International (1995-1998); Honorary Doctorate of Sciences, North Carolina State University (2005); Founding Co-Chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (2006-2013); National Award of Nuclear Science and History, National Atomic Museum Foundation (2009); Speaks Truth To Power Award, EarthFree Institute (2014); Member, Board of Directors, Forest Alliance of British Columbia (1991-Present); Co-Founder and Chief Scientist, Greenspirit (1991-Present); Chair, Ecology, Energy, and Prosperity Program, Frontier Centre for Public Policy (2014-Present)
Bjørn Lomborg, M.A. Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1991); Ph.D. Political Science (Thesis: "Simulating Social Science: The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma and Computer Simulations in Political Science"), University of Copenhagen, Denmark (1994); Georgia Rotary Student Foundation Scholarship, University of Georgia (1983); Undergraduate, Computer Science and Mathematics, University of Georgia (1983-1984); Kossack Prize of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Georgia (1984); Assistant Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1994-1996); Associate Professor of Statistics, Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, Denmark (1997-2005); Director, Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI), Denmark (2002-2004); Organizer, Copenhagen Consensus (2004); Adjunct Professor of Policy-making, Scientific Knowledge and the Role of Experts, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark (2005-2015); Director, Copenhagen Consensus Center, Denmark (2006-Present)
Alex Epstein, B.A. Philosophy, Duke University (2002); Network Model Development and Application Training, OPNET Technologies (1996-2000); Freelance Writer (2001-2004); Objectivist Academic Center, Ayn Rand Institute (2004); Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute (2004-2011); Director, Center for Industrial Progress (2011-Present); Adjunct Scholar, Cato Institute (2015-Present)
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
NOAA 1974 - Global Cooling Will Starve the World
"The poorest nations, already beset by man-made disasters, have been threatened by a natural one: the possibility of climatic changes ...perhaps throughout the world. The implications for global food and population policies are ominous..." - NOAA, 1974
In October 1974, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published an alarming article in their quarterly magazine stating that climatologists believed a recent global cooling trend would starve the world and send the planet into another ice age. [1]
Most forecasts of worldwide food production have been based on the assumption that global weather will stay about the same as it has been in the recent past. But it has already begun to change.This is consistent with the documented media hysteria of the 1970s about global cooling and demonstrates, contrary to alarmist arguments - that many climatologists did agree with the media's representation of a coming ice age apocalypse. [2]
In the Sahelian zone of Africa south of the Sahara, the countries of Chad, The Gambia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Upper Volta are enduring a drought that in some areas has been going on for more than six years now, following some 40 previous years of abundant monsoon rainfall. And the drought is spreading—eastward into Ehtiopia and southward into Dahomey, Egypt, Guinea, Kenya, Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Zaire.
Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world.
Annual average temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere increased rather dramatically from about 1890 through 1940, but have been falling ever since. The total change has averaged about one-half degree Centigrade, with the greatest cooling in higher latitudes. A drop of only one or two degrees Centigrade in the annual average temperature at higher latitudes can shorten the growing season so that some crops have to be abandoned. [...]
...the average growing season in England is already two weeks shorter than it was before 1950. Since the late 1950's, Iceland's hay crop yield has dropped about 25 percent, while pack ice in waters around Iceland and Greenland ports is becoming the hazard to navigation it was during the 17th and 18th centuries. [...]
Some climatologists think that if the current cooling trend continues, drought will occur more frequently in India—indeed, through much of Asia, the world's hungriest continent. [...]
Some climatologists think that the present cooling trend may be the start of a slide into another period of major glaciation, popularly called an "ice age."
References:
[1] CLIMATE: A KEY TO THE WORLD'S FOOD SUPPLY (NOAA Magazine, October 1974)
[2] 1970s Global Cooling Alarmism (Popular Technology.net, February 28,2013)
Saturday, January 30, 2016
The Truth about What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.
"Your resident dummy reviewer... [referring to himself]"
- Peter Miesler, Skeptical Science Forums
Peter Miesler ("Pete the Carpenter") is a brain-dead stoner / framing carpenter with a high school diploma who likes to spam emotional and unsubstantiated nonsense around the Internet under the username 'citizenschallenge'.
Pete was born in Münster, Germany on July 1, 1955, moved to Burlingame, California in 1968, graduated from Burlingame high school in 1973, had a "spiritual re-birth" at Yosemite National Park in 1974 and moved to Colorado in 1979 where he spent two decades honing his "scientific" knowledge working at restaurants before moving to the scientific big leagues as a day laborer, yet wound up filing for divorce in 2012.
When Pete is not contributing to deforestation, he spews a horrendously formatted troll blog named "What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al." that was originally created to stalk and harass skeptical meteorologist Anthony Watts but is now used to smear anyone who disagrees with his alarmist ideology. Pete's scientific "credentials" include learning about global warming in a 1970's high school science class and being a registered Democrat.
Unfortunately, Pete's limited education and intellect prevents him from being able to defend the lies, misinformation and strawman arguments he spams on his blog. His debating skills amount to copying and pasting results from amateur Google searches without reading them, fabricating conspiratorial delusions that support his emotional positions and then censoring fact-based comments that refute all of the nonsense he spams.
Pete is incapable of debating anyone where they can actually reply without being censored or having their comments hacked up and edited. When he does respond it often includes incoherent gibberish, which is a telltale sign of marijuana induced brain damage, making any such interaction futile.
While other alarmists try and smear skeptics as "Holocaust deniers", ironically Pete's late father Dieter Werner Miesler actually fought for the Nazis - something cartoonist John Cook at Skeptical Science can only dream of.
Blogs:
Citizen's Challenge
What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.
Friends of Wolf Creek
NO Village at Wolf Creek
Further Reading:
Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins
Peter Miesler Helps Expose USHCN Homogenization Insanity and Antarctic Illusions
How What'sUpWithThatWatts Argues Against Global-Warming Skeptics
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Who is …and Then There's Physics?
 |
| Meet Kenny |
On April 13, 2013 and only three days out from his pummeling at WUWT by Mr. Courtney the "Wotts Up With That Blog" was born! Yet, after less than 9 months of intense trolling and having the same dismal impact he did with his left-wing political blog, he changed the name of his troll blog to the oh-so-clever, "...and Then There's Physics".
So who is this anonymous academic blogger?
Meet Ken Rice, a Reader of Astronomy and Public Relations Director at the Institute for Astronomy, within the School of Physics & Astronomy at the University of Edinburgh (UK).
When not trolling WUWT or whining about posting there, Ken enjoys following, "skeptics are like holocaust deniers" Caroline Lucas and the "Gay-shaded author of romantic M/M short stories and novels" Nick Thiwerspoon.
While after only 20 years as a physicist he finally took off the training wheels and published a review paper all by himself, having it accepted on September 3, 2014. Who would have believed his undoing would be linked to such an accomplishment?
Ken also appears highly obsessed with Dr. Richard Tol, likely due to the fact that Dr. Tol has over 16,000 more citations than he does.
For all those banned and trolled by Ken please feel free to contact him, as I am sure he would love to hear from you.
W. Kenneth M. Rice
Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh,
Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, UK EH9 3HJ
Phone : +44 131 6688384
Fax : +44 131 6688416
Email : wkmr@roe.ac.uk
Blogs:
To the left of centre
Wotts Up With That Blog
...and Then There's Physics
Twitter Accounts:
Ken Rice @wikimir
totheleftofcentre @leftofc
There's Physics @theresphysics
Webpages:
Ken Rice - Home Page
Ken Rice - Institute for Astronomy
Ken Rice - School of Physics & Astronomy
† Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Anthony Watts and Richard Tol for their assistance.
Update: There has been some confusion about who is largely responsible for this article likely due to the acknowledgements of assistance (now reworded) from Anthony Watts and Richard Tol. Without question I am the one almost entirely responsible for all of this, as both will surely attest to (Anthony did on Twitter). Neither one had any remote idea who Ken was until after I posted my article and both had spent some time trying to find out.
Before this information was released there had been many people online guessing about who Ken was but no one had verifiable evidence to support any of their conjecture. Ken had commented using various aliases and IP addresses including from different UK universities to multiple skeptic websites, meaning it was impossible to determine who he was using just that information.
I was able to locate verifiable evidence that narrowed him down to Scotland then Edinburgh within a few days of starting this project. After a request from me, Anthony provided the most assistance saving me probably a few days of work and Richard provided an additional tip allowing for further confirmation used in this article but neither was how I uncovered who he was, which was using personal identifiable information not provided here (I have more personal information about Ken that I am withholding for privacy reasons).
In other words, I found out who he was by another method and had to come up with a way to identify him using his professional background which took much longer. Regardless, I am very grateful to both Anthony and Richard for their assistance.
Monday, December 22, 2014
All "97% Consensus" Studies Refuted by Peer-Review
After showing how 97 articles thoroughly refuted the most prominent "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013), consensus proponents inevitably moved the goal posts and fell back on other "97% consensus" studies: Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) (which is really a 100% consensus study). However, these have all been thoroughly refuted in the scholarly literature and the following are the refutations of them.
Update: Since this article was first published additional studies have been used to perpetuate the long-debunked "97% consensus" talking point, such as Verheggen et al. (2014). While others like Stenhouse et al. (2014) actually demonstrated a marginal 52% consensus.
[1] Oreskes (2004) - "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
The Letter Science Magazine Rejected (PDF) [Archive]
(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, pp. 685-688, July 2005)
- Benny Peiser
Abstract: On 3 December 2004, Science published an article entitled "The scientific consensus on climate change" by Naomi Oreskes (Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686). Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI database using the keywords "global climate change". The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study. On 4 January 2005, I submitted these results in a letter to Science. On 18 February, editors from Science contacted me to suggest that they would consider publishing a shorter version of the letter. This shorter version was submitted on 23 February. On 13 April, Science responded, saying "After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter." No evidence was provided for this technically contrived excuse. As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis were cited anywhere. Journals such as Science have an obligation to correct errors, especially as activists, journalists and science organisations have endlessly repeated claims made in Oreskes (2004). The sad reality is that by refusing to publish corrections to a fatally flawed paper, they undermine their own credibility, that of their contributors, and the integrity of science.
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? (PDF) [Archive]
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Abstract: Fear of anthropogenic "global warming" can adversely affect patients' well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on "global climate change" found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes, who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on "global climate change" had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to "catastrophic" climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.
[2] Doran & Zimmerman (2009) - "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"
Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- Roland Granqvist
Abstract: In a summary of their survey on the opinion about global warming among Earth scientists (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman conclude that the debate on the role of human activity is largely nonexistent, and that the challenge is "how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers" and to the public. However, I argue that neither of these conclusions can be drawn from the survey. For example, one issue that is much discussed in the public debate is the role of greenhouse gas emissions in global warming. Perhaps there is not much debate about this issue among scientists, but this cannot be concluded from the survey, in which nothing is said about such emissions. In the second question of their survey, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman refer only to "human activity."
Further Comment on "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (PDF)
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 90, Number 27, July 2009)
- John Helsdon
Abstract: The feature article "Examining the scientific consensus on climate change," by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman (see Eos, 90(3), 20 January 2009), while interesting, has a primary flaw that calls their interpretation into question. In their opening sentence, the authors state that on the basis of polling data, "47% [of Americans] think climate scientists agree… that human activities are a major cause of that [global] warming…." They then described the two-question survey they had posed to a large group of Earth scientists and scientifically literate (I presume) people in related fields. While the polled group is important, in any poll the questions are critical. My point revolves around their question 2, to wit, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Note that the opening sentence of their article uses the phrase "major cause" in reporting the results of the polling, while the poll itself used the phrase "significant contributing factor." There is a large difference between these two phrases.
[3] Anderegg et al. (2010) - "Expert credibility in climate change"
Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? (PDF) [Archive]
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 39, September 2010)
- Saffron J. O'Neilla, Max Boykoff
Abstract: Assigning credibility or expertise is a fraught issue, particularly in a wicked phenomenon like climate change—as Anderegg et al. (1) discussed in a recent issue of PNAS. However, their analysis of expert credibility into two distinct "convinced" and "unconvinced" camps and the lack of nuance in defining the terms "climate deniers," "skeptics," and "contrarians" both oversimplify and increase polarization within the climate debate.
Expert credibility and truth (PDF) [Archive]
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 47, November 2010)
- Jarle Aarstad
Abstract: Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field "support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers" (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.
Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility (PDF) [Archive]
(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 107, Number 52, December 2010)
- Lawrence Bodenstein
Abstract: The study by Anderegg et al. (1) employed suspect methodology that treated publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise. Credentialed scientists, having devoted much of their careers to a certain area, with multiple relevant peer-reviewed publications, should be deemed core experts, notwithstanding that others are more or less prolific in print or that their views stand in the minority. In the climate change (CC) controversy, a priori, one expects that the much larger and more "politically correct" side would excel in certain publication metrics. They continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. The authors' treatment of these deficiencies in Materials and Methods was unconvincing in the skewed and politically charged environment of the CC hubbub and where one group is in the vast majority (1). The data hoarding and publication blockade imbroglio was not addressed at all. The authors' framing of expertise was especially problematic. In a casting pregnant with self-fulfillment, the authors defined number of publications as expertise (italics). The italics were then dropped. Morphing the data of metrics into the conclusion of expertise (not italicized) was best supported by explicit argument in the Discussion section rather than by subtle wordplay. The same applied to prominence, although here the authors’ construct was more aligned with common usage, and of course, prominence does not connote knowledge and correctness in the same way as expertise.
[4] Cook et al. (2013) - "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming"
Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) [Archive]
(Science & Education, pp. 1-20, August 2013)
- David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Abstract: Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate 'misinformation' was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) [Archive]
(Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 701-705, October 2014)
- Richard S. J. Tol
Abstract: A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook's validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) [Archive]
(Energy Policy, Volume 73, pp. 709, October 2014)
- Richard S. J. Tol
Abstract: In my critique of Cook et al. (2013), I raised a number of issues (Tol, 2014). Cook et al. (2014) respond to a few only. They do not dispute
(1) that their sample is not representative,
(2) that data quality is low,
(3) that their validation test is not passed,
(4) that they mistake a trend in composition for a trend in endorsement,
(5) that the majority of the investigated papers that take a position on (anthropogenic) climate change in fact do not examine any evidence, and
(6) that there are inexplicable patterns in the data.
Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' (PDF) [Archive]
(Environmental Research Letters, Volume 10, Number 3, March 2015)
- Benjamin John Floyd Dean
Abstract: I read the study by Cook et al with great interest [1]. The study used levels of endorsement of global warming as outlined in their table 2; however, I could see no mention as to how these levels were created and how reliable they were in terms of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa). Best practice on rater reliability indicates that both inter-rater and intra-rater should have been measured and documented in a study such as Dr Cook's [2] and I am surprised that this fact appears to have been neglected. It would be of considerable benefit to readers for some robust rate reliability metrics to be included, if at all possible.
Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature' (PDF) [Archive]
(Environmental Research Letters, Volume 11, Number 4, April 2016)
- Richard S. J. Tol
Abstract: Cook et al's highly influential consensus study (2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.
[5] Verheggen et al. (2014) - "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming"
Comment on "Scientists' Views about Attribution of Global Warming" (PDF) [Archive]
(Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 48, Issue 16, pp. 8963–8971, November 2014)
- José L. Duarte
Abstract: Verheggen et al. report a survey of scientists' views on climate change. However, they surveyed a large number of psychologists, pollsters, philosophers, etc. The number of nonclimate scientists who responded is undisclosed, and is likely unknowable given the design. Thus, the valid results of the study are unknown, and it should be withdrawn. Moreover, the core method of including mitigation and impacts researchers creates a structural inflationary bias, ultimately conflating career choice with consensus. Finally, an estimate of the consensus is unlikely to be reliable without accounting for the extraordinary personal cost of dissent, especially when an issue is moralized.
Rebuttals to Criticisms:
Criticism: "Some papers on the list are hidden behind a paywall."
Rebuttal: Whether a full copy of a paper is made freely available is at the discretion of the journal's publisher. Any similar list would have the same limitations since archiving a paper without a publisher's permission would violate copyright law. Where a full copy of a paper was found online, a (PDF) link was added after a paper's name.
Criticism: "Some papers on the list are not scholarly peer-reviewed (refereed)."
Rebuttal: This is a strawman argument, as it is not claimed that these papers were scholarly peer-reviewed (refereed) prior to publication but rather that they are a form of "peer-review" that has been published in a scholarly journal. Peer-review can be defined as an "evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by others working in the same field". In a scholarly journal like the PNAS, the document format used to "constructively address a difference of opinion with authors of a recent PNAS article. ...or point out potential flaws in studies published in the journal" are called "Letters".
Criticism: "Tol (2014) was rejected by other journals for being flawed."
Rebuttal: Dr. Tol's 2014 paper was actually censored by Environmental Research Letters (ERL) due to having multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) and politely declined by two other journals for being "out of scope" (off topic) not flawed.
Criticism: "Tol (2014) has 24 errors."
Rebuttal: Dr. Tol refuted all of these claims in a post online and in his published rejoinder.
Criticism: "Dr. Tol confirmed the 97% consensus."
Rebuttal: This misleading claim originated with one of the co-authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli. Dr. Tol refuted this claim in a scathing editorial he wrote for The Guardian:
"Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up. [...]
In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless." - Dr. Richard Tol
Criticism: "Dr. Tol claims the consensus is actually 91%."
Rebuttal: This misleading claim originated with one of the co-authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli and falsely spread by websites like Politifact. Dr. Tol refuted this claim in an email to Politifact.
"I never claimed that the consensus rate is 91%. [...]
Do check the grammar: "would […] in that case" does in no way indicate my agreement with the number. In fact, I make it very clear that any number based on Cook’s data is unreliable." - Dr. Richard Tol
Friday, December 19, 2014
97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"
The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.
- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts [brief summaries] of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 64 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (humans are the primary cause). A later analysis by Legates et al. (2013) found there to be only 41 papers (0.3%) that supported this definition. Cook et al.'s methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing the 97% consensus, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. The second part of Cook et al. (2013), the author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with the abstract ratings.
Methodology: The data (11,944 abstracts) used in Cook et al. (2013) came from searching the Web of Science database for results containing the key phrases "global warming" or "global climate change" regardless of what type of publication they appeared in or the context those phrases were used. Only a small minority of these were actually published in climate science journals, instead the publications included ones like the International Journal Of Vehicle Design, Livestock Science and Waste Management. The results were not even analyzed by scientists but rather amateur environmental activists with credentials such as "zoo volunteer" (co-author Bärbel Winkler) and "scuba diving" (co-author Rob Painting) who were chosen by the lead author John Cook (a cartoonist) because they all comment on his deceptively named, partisan alarmist blog 'Skeptical Science' and could be counted on to push his manufactured talking point.
Peer-review: Cook et al. (2013) was published in the journal Environmental Research Letters (ERL) which conveniently has multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) where the paper likely received substandard "pal-review" instead of the more rigorous peer-review.
Update: The paper has since been refuted five times in the scholarly literature by Legates et al. (2013), Tol (2014a), Tol (2014b), Dean (2015) and Tol (2016).
* All the other "97% consensus" studies: e.g. Doran & Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010) and Oreskes (2004) have been refuted by peer-review.
[ Journal Coverage ]
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis (PDF) (October 2014)
Energy Policy - Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder (PDF) (October 2014)
Science & Education - Climate Consensus and 'Misinformation': A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change (PDF) (August 2013)
[ Media Coverage ]
American Thinker - Climate Consensus Con Game (February 17, 2014)
Breitbart - Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart (September 8, 2014)
Canada Free Press - Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction (May 27, 2014)
Financial Post - Meaningless consensus on climate change (September 19, 2013)
Financial Post - The 97%: No you don't have a climate consensus (September 25, 2013)
Forbes - Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims (May 30, 2013)
Fox News - Balance is not bias -- Fox News critics mislead public on climate change (October 16, 2013)
Herald Sun - That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama (May 22, 2013)
Power Line - Breaking: The "97 Percent Climate Consensus" Canard (May 18, 2014)
Spiked - Global warming: the 97% fallacy (May 28, 2014)
The Daily Caller - Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? (May 16, 2014)
The Daily Telegraph - 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! (July 23, 2013)
The Guardian - The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up (June 6, 2014)
The New American - Global Warming "Consensus": Cooking the Books (May 21, 2013)
The New American - Cooking Climate Consensus Data: "97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked (June 5, 2013)
The New American - Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud (May 20, 2014)
The Patriot Post - The 97% Consensus -- A Lie of Epic Proportions (May 17, 2013)
The Patriot Post - Debunking the '97% Consensus' & Why Global Cooling May Loom (August 7, 2014)
The Press-Enterprise - Don't be swayed by climate change ‘consensus' (September 10, 2013)
The Tampa Tribune - About that '97 percent': It ain’t necessarily so (May 19, 2014)
The Wall Street Journal - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' (May 26, 2014)
Troy Media - Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change "consensus" (February 18, 2014)
WND - Black Jesus' Climate Consensus Fantasy (June 25, 2013)
[ Organization Coverage ]
Competitive Enterprise Institute - Consensus Shmensus (September 5, 2013)
Cornwall Alliance - Climate Consensus? Nonsense! (June 16, 2014)
Friends of Science - Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming (May 21, 2013)
Friends of Science - Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus (May 28, 2013)
Friends of Science - 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) (February 3, 2014)
Friends of Science - Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth (February 4, 2014)
George C. Marshall Institute - The Corruption of Science (October 5, 2014)
John Locke Foundation - The 97% consensus on global warming exposed (July 3, 2014)
Liberty Fund - David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming (February 27, 2014)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) (September 2, 2013)
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'Consensus' And Its Critics (PDF) (September 8, 2014)
National Center for Policy Analysis - The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming (July 30, 2014)
National Center for Public Policy Research - Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? (February 10, 2014)
Principia Scientific International - Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim (May 23, 2013)
The Heartland Institute - What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do (May 12, 2014)
[ Weblog Coverage ]
Australian Climate Madness - 'Get at the truth, and not fool yourself' (May 29, 2014)
Bishop Hill - 'Landmark consensus study' is incomplete (May 27, 2013)
Climate Audit - UnderCooked Statistics (May 24, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus' (July 26, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% 'consensus': Part II (July 27, 2013)
Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) - The 97% feud (July 27, 2014)
Climate Resistance - Tom Curtis Doesn't Understand the 97% Paper (July 27, 2013)
JoNova - Cook's fallacy "97% consensus" study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for (May 17, 2013)
JoNova - That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% (July 1, 2013)
JoNova - "Honey, I shrunk the consensus" - Monckton takes action on Cooks paper (September 24, 2013)
JoNova - John Cook's consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it (May 18, 2014)
JoNova - Uni Queensland defends legal threats over "climate" data they want to keep secret (May 21, 2014)
JoNova - Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus (June 6, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% (August 28, 2014)
José Duarte (Ph.D.) - The art of evasion (September 9, 2014)
Making Science Public - What's behind the battle of received wisdoms? (July 23, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them (May 21, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus (June 1, 2013)
Popular Technology.net - Cook's 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed (June 4, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The Consensus Project: An update (August 16, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Biases in consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More irregularities in the consensus data (August 24, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland (August 27, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project (August 28, 2013)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - The 97% consensus (May 10, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - My First Audioslide (May 20, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - A new contribution to the consensus debate (June 4, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - 24 errors? (June 8, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - More Cook data released (July 21, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (July 23, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus (August 1, 2014)
Richard Tol (Ph.D.) - ERL does not want you to read this (October 14, 2014)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means (May 15, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - On the Consensus (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% (May 17, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Why Symmetry is Bad (May 19, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses. (May 20, 2013)
The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) - Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW (May 21, 2013)
The Lid - Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! (May 21, 2014)
The State of the Climate - Cook's survey not only meaningless but also misleading (May 17, 2013)
WUWT - The Collapsing 'Consensus' (May 22, 2013)
WUWT - Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper (June 4, 2013)
WUWT - 'Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature': a comment (June 24, 2013)
WUWT - On the 97 percenters: 'You Must Admit, They Were Careful' (July 28, 2013)
WUWT - What Is Cook's Consensus? (July 29, 2013)
WUWT - Cooks '97% consensus' disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors (September 3, 2013)
WUWT - 97% Climate consensus 'denial': the debunkers debunked (September 9, 2013)
WUWT - Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the '97% consensus' (September 20, 2013)
WUWT - The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey (November 20, 2013)
WUWT - 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (February 26, 2014)
WUWT - John Cook's 97% consensus claim is about to go 'pear-shaped' (May 10, 2014)
WUWT - An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook's '97% consensus' paper (May 22, 2014)
WUWT - The climate consensus is not 97% – it's 100% (June 11, 2014)
WUWT - The disagreement over what defines 'endorsment of AGW' by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn't a 97% consensus (June 24, 2014)
WUWT - If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped (November 18, 2014)
Rebuttals to Criticisms:
Criticism: "Tol (2014) was rejected by other journals for being flawed."
Rebuttal: Dr. Tol's 2014 paper was actually censored by Environmental Research Letters (ERL) due to having multiple outspoken alarmist scientists on its editorial board (e.g. Peter Gleick and Stefan Rahmstorf) and politely declined by two other journals for being "out of scope" (off topic) not flawed.
Criticism: "Tol (2014) has 24 errors."
Rebuttal: Dr. Tol refuted all of these claims in a post online and in his published rejoinder.
Criticism: "Dr. Tol confirmed the 97% consensus."
Rebuttal: This misleading claim originated with one of the co-authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli. Dr. Tol refuted this claim in a scathing editorial he wrote for The Guardian:
"Dana Nuccitelli writes that I “accidentally confirm the results of last year’s 97% global warming consensus study”. Nothing could be further from the truth. I show that the 97% consensus claim does not stand up. [...]
In his defence, Nuccitelli argues that I do not dispute their main result. Nuccitelli fundamentally misunderstands research. Science is not a set of results. Science is a method. If the method is wrong, the results are worthless." - Dr. Richard Tol
Criticism: "Dr. Tol claims the consensus is actually 91%."
Rebuttal: This misleading claim originated with one of the co-authors of Cook et al. (2013) - Dana Nuccitelli and falsely spread by websites like Politifact. Dr. Tol refuted this claim in an email to Politifact.
"I never claimed that the consensus rate is 91%. [...]
Do check the grammar: "would […] in that case" does in no way indicate my agreement with the number. In fact, I make it very clear that any number based on Cook’s data is unreliable." - Dr. Richard Tol
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Mark Steyn's Compliment Defense
Re: Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review vs. Michael E. Mann DC court case.
When Mark Steyn made his comment about Michael Mann at the National Review,
Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change "hockey-stick" graphIt was clear he was making a compliment of how skilled Mann is at making Hockey Sticks.
fraudulent - "using or inclined to use trickery" (Wordsmith)
trickery - "an act or instance of using a trick or tricks." (Wordsmith)
trick - "a particular craft or skill in doing something." (Wordsmith)
As the group that Michael Mann is a part of at RealClimate once said,
Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to "a good way to deal with a problem"
Monday, June 16, 2014
Who is Steven Mosher?
"Mosh[er] is indeed a scientist..." - Willis EschenbachUnlike apparently most of those who entertain his comments I took the time to research Mr. Mosher's credentials and found them long but completely devoid of any scientific education or experience.
Steven M. Mosher, B.A. English, Northwestern University (1981); Teaching Assistant, English Department, UCLA (1981-1985); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Corporation [Grumman] (1985-1990); Vice President of Engineering [Simulation], Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Corporation (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment, Creative Labs (1995-2006); Vice President of Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); Founder and CEO, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-2012); Vice President of Sales and Marketing, VizzEco Inc. (2010-2011); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-2013); Advisory Board, urSpin (n.d.); Team Member, Berkeley Earth 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization unaffiliated with UC Berkeley (2013-Present)
Ironically, the #1 word that appears on his LinkedIn profile is Marketing.
Since he has been a frequent commentator on various climate related websites [Climate Audit, Climate Etc., The Blackboard and Watts Up With That?] his status has grown into somewhat of an urban legend. Yet, he is only notable in the global warming debate for two main things:
1. Writing a book on the Climategate scandal in 2010 - "Climategate: The Crutape Letters" and,
2. Outing Peter Gleick over the fake Heartland Institute Memo in 2012.
While both are legitimate, neither has anything to do with scientific research and both lend to his English language skills. The problem with trying to determine his education and experience is his background changes depending on the source and various positions and titles appear to have evolved over time.
Background Inconsistencies and Misrepresentations
Sometimes it appears even Mr. Mosher does not know who he is.
* In a March of 2012 resume Mr. Mosher posted to Indeed.com he claims to have a "Ph.D. in English" but in an interview in 1999 he explicitly stated, "I quit my Ph.D. in English to become a full time operational analyst."
 |
| Source: Steven Mosher Resume posted to Indeed.com |
* Depending on the source Mr. Mosher's degree from Northwestern University reinvents itself:
"B.A. English Literature and Philosophy"
"B.A. Philosophy and English"
"Philosophy, Linguistics"
"B.A. English"
Northwestern University does not offer majors in "English Literature and Philosophy", "Philosophy and English or "Philosophy, Linguistics" so these appear to be embellishments on his English degree. If he did receive a double major or multiple degrees at Northwestern University he would have made sure to mention this but never does. (Update: this is now mentioned on his LinkedIn Profile)
* Mr. Mosher's profile for urSpin claims that he was a "Professor at UCLA" but an online profile he posted states he was just a "Teaching Assistant".
* In an October of 2013 comment at Climate Etc., Mr. Mosher claimed that, "between 1985 and 1993 I worked as an aerospace engineer." Yet, in an interview in 1999 he stated his work related to war gaming and flight simulators during this time. He even played the title of his position at Northrop down, "An old college buddy from Northwestern got me a summer internship at Northrop Aircraft, doing operational analysis. That's a fancy term for war gaming."
* Mr. Mosher's title of "Vice President of Engineering" at Eidetics International is misleading since one of his online profiles claims he was "Vice President of Simulation" and "Designed Flight Simulators". This is confirmed by U.S. Department of Defense Grants he received during this time specifically relating to flight simulators. A departmental title like this is also relatively insignificant at smaller companies with only 40 employees like Eidetics International.
* The bio for Mr. Mosher's book claims, "He later joined Northrop Aircraft where he worked as an threat analyst and director of analysis until transitioning to the commercial world in 1995 when he joined Creative Labs" but all of his online profiles say he worked for Eidetics International, Kubota Graphics and Criterion Software between 1990 and 1995 after he left Northrop.
* Mr. Mosher appears to have held six or more titles during his 11-year career at Creative Labs which is rather unusual:
"Director of Marketing and Product Development"
"Director of Graphics Marketing"
"Vice President of Emerging Technology"
"Vice President of New Technology"
"Vice President of Graphics Business Unit"
"Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment"
I was able to confirm that he was a Vice President at Creative Labs and most likely the Vice President of Personal Digital Entertainment since he was representing Creative Labs at a technology conference in 2004 with this title but some of the others may have been manufactured.
* Mr. Mosher's profile at Vizzeco claims he was responsible for "launching the very first MP3 player". Yet, the first Creative Labs MP3 player the NOMAD was released in April of 1999, while companies like Diamond Multimedia had already released an MP3 player the RIO in September of 1998 and the very first MP3 player the Saehan MPMan was released a year earlier in March of 1998.
* In a January 2010 article at Breitbart and in a February 2010 article in The Guardian they both claim Mr. Mosher is an "open-source software developer". Yet, in a March 2010 comment to DeSmogBlog Mr. Mosher stated he was actually only an "open-source advocate". These are two vastly different things, one is a profession the other is a cheerleader. Mr. Mosher could have easily gotten this misinformation corrected since he was also an author at Breitbart but failed to do so.
* In a November 2010 article in the New York Times it claims Mr. Mosher is a "software developer" but there is no evidence of him ever being professionally employed in this role. On his LinkedIn profile under the self-appointed title of "Marketing Consultant" it is claimed that he is an "R Software Developer" but this is a misnomer, as there is no evidence of him writing new software applications using the R programming language but rather he uses it to analyze data. Ironically, in a March 2010 comment to DeSmogBlog he stated, "I stopped writing code ages ago".
Climategate Role
Mr. Mosher is frequently given far too much importance relating to Climategate breaking in November of 2009 when actually he was akin to a courier, being one of the first people who was given the hacked emails by the WUWT moderator who found them, Charles Rotter, and only because they happened to be roommates at the time. The anonymous hacker had posted an FTP link to multiple sites such as Warren Myer's Climate Skeptic, Patrick "Jeff" Condon's The Air Vent and of course to Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That?, none of which were to Mr. Mosher's blog which had been up since June 2009. Despite delusions of grandeur ["Steven Mosher is to Climategate what Woodward and Bernstein were to Watergate"] and ridiculous assertions ["He was just the right person, with just the right influence, and just the right expertise to be at the heart of the promulgation of the files"] Mr. Mosher was nothing more than a temporary go-between that he used to inflate his importance in the matter. He was never directly contacted or targeted by the anonymous hacker as a source to leak the emails since he was not prominent in the climate skeptic community and it required no special "expertise" to read emails, nor special "influence" to contact people like Steve McIntyre. In the end it was Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter who "broke" the story at WUWT where the anonymous hacker had originally intended. This did not stop Mr. Mosher from making ridiculous claims to have "alerted the internet" to the Climategate emails.
Is he a Scientist?
It is rather odd that the Berkley Earth team would bestow upon Mr. Mosher the misleading title of "Scientist" when he has clearly not earned it through education and experience.
He first appeared on the Berkley Earth website in July of 2012 as a "Consultant" but an online profile he posted claims he started in January of 2012 as an "Open Source Volunteer". It seems once professional scientists climatologist Dr. Judith Curry and statistical scientist Dr. David Brillinger left the team in early 2013, he was quickly promoted to the title of "Scientist" but why? My emails to Berkley Earth asking for an explanation as to what qualifies Mr. Mosher to the title of "Scientist" were not answered. His LinkedIn profile claims he has been a "Scientist" with Berkley Earth since March of 2013, which is the same time he was first listed as a co-author (notably always last) for a couple of insignificant papers (Rhode et al. 2013, Wickham et al. 2013). This is rather weak criteria, considering it would allow just about anyone to use the title of "Scientist", including many graduate students who may have assisted a professional scientist with research for a paper and were rewarded with their name as a co-author. What is even weaker is that his role with Berkley Earth by his own admission is one of a technical nature similar to a data analyst not a scientist, "I am currently writing and maintaining R code devoted to the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project."
Sometimes the answer is rather simple. Since the founder of Berkeley Earth, Richard A. Muller, is a Professor of Physics at the University of California Berkeley, it is incorrectly believed that Berkeley Earth is affiliated with the University but further research reveals that it is an independent 501C(3) Non-Profit Organization registered to a house in Berkeley California and completely unaffiliated with UC Berkeley. This gives the organization the facade of a scientific authority when in reality they can fabricate whatever titles they feel like. If Berkeley Earth wants to be taken seriously they should begin by not manufacturing credentials for people who have clearly not earned them, as this does a disservice to professional scientists who have put in the years earning advanced degrees and doing scientific research at research institutions and universities.
Mr. Mosher also conveniently appears to be the main contact for the Berkeley Earth website and potentially maintains it.
In Conclusion
In the end, Mr. Mosher may be very good at marketing (especially himself) but the evidence clearly shows he is not a scientist.
Update 1
* In response to a discussion about his background where all of my comments were censored at Climate Etc., Mr. Mosher links to a technical paper about flight simulators he co-authored while at Eidetics International. The paper is redundant, as it has already been established in this article that he worked on flight simulators at Eidetics International and a technical paper on the results of "flight simulator experiments" still does not make him an "aerospace engineer".
* Mr. Mosher also claims to have been responsible for the artificial intelligence in a 1998 video game Falcon 4.0 but his name does not appear anywhere in the manual.
* As an example of transparency and openness, Judith Curry is extensively censoring my comments at her website Climate Etc. to protect Mr. Mosher who cannot handle tough questions about his background.
Update 2
As further evidence that he is not a professional software developer, Mr. Mosher lacks elemetary knowledge of the difference between the Windows ME (Millennium) and Windows 2000 operating systems.
Rebuttals
Criticism: Anyone who follows the scientific method is a scientist.
Rebuttal: Claiming anyone can be a "scientist" makes the title meaningless. There is a big distinction between an amateur scientist and a professional scientist. A professional scientist is "a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems." Since Mr. Mosher has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist, the only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.
* scientist (defined) "a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems" - Merriam-Webster
* scientist (defined) "someone who is trained in science, especially someone whose job is to do scientific research" - Macmillan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)