Claim: Climate scientists are being censored

[TheNZThrower]

An Epoch Times article (EDIT: link added) claimed that climate skeptic Patrick J. Michaels had his paper refused by multiple journals as they had to past a higher standard than other papers:

Academic research that casts doubt about the consensus dogma is rarely seen in academic journals, a phenomenon that began in the 1990s. Michaels said in UK Channel 4's 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy that if a person's point of view is politically unacceptable, then there will be trouble. His paper was rejected by more than one academic journal. When he asked a journal editor why, the answer was that his paper must pass a higher evaluation standard than others.

There exists a transcript of the documentary, in which Michaels says the following:

People who have a point of view which may not be politically acceptable are going to have problems. That's not surprising. I have had experiences with editors of more than one journal who have said that my papers have been rejected because they are held to a higher standard of review than others. I believe this is because what they say is not popular. That's OK: I'm a big boy. I know I would have been more successful if I had said the world is coming to an end, but I can't bring myself to do that.

Here is the documentary itself where Michaels makes the aforementioned statement (timestamp 46:21):


Now why is it the case that his papers are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny, as I'm not that familiar with the peer review process. AFAIK, this could mean that certain journals rejected his papers before he found one that was willing to publish it, not that he has papers that were never published by any journal at all.

 

[Mendel]

An Epoch Times article claimed that climate skeptic Patrick J. Michaels had his paper refused by multiple journals as they had to past a higher standard than other papers:

Academic research that casts doubt about the consensus dogma is rarely seen in academic journals, a phenomenon that began in the 1990s. Michaels said in UK Channel 4's 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy that if a person's point of view is politically unacceptable, then there will be trouble. His paper was rejected by more than one academic journal. When he asked a journal editor why, the answer was that his paper must pass a higher evaluation standard than others.

For context, this is the source:

Article:

Chapter Sixteen, Part II: The Communism Behind Environmentalism (UPDATED)

The specter of communism did not disappear with the disintegration of the Communist Party in Eastern Europe

The Epoch Times is serializing an adaptation from the Chinese of a new book, How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World, by the editorial team of the Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party.

Source: https://m.theepochtimes.com/chapter-sixteen-the-communism-behind-environmentalism-part-ii_2786362.html

It helps here to remember that the Epoch Times was founded by Chinese who had fled communist China.

The article starts its assault on climate change (branding it as "dogma") with this:

Climatology is a young subject with only a few decades of history. Yet the hypotheses surrounding global warming have been prematurely taken as fact.

Climatology is in fact a field with a history as long as nuclear physics or computer science, and climate change had been well established within the field by 1990.

Article:

A few people worked to lift meteorology and climatology above the traditional statistical approach. Helmut Landsberg's 1941 textbook Physical Climatology and a 1944 Climatology textbook written by two other meteorologists demonstrated how familiar physical principles underlay the general features of global climate, and provided a rallying-point for those who wanted to make the field truly scientific.

Leading the movement was a group at the University of Chicago, where in 1942 Carl-Gustav Rossby had created a department of meteorology.

The new thinking was displayed in full at a 1965 symposium held in Boulder, Colorado on "Causes of Climate Change." While the meeting made little special impression at the time, in retrospect it was a landmark.

Source: https://history.aip.org/climate/climogy.htm

The greenhouse effect had been so well established by 1990 that the Sagan Standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", would have applied to papers denying it. Michaels's "evidence" would not have been good enough.

Further discussion of Michaels's claim would profit from examining a copy of the allegedly rejected paper. I suspect history will not have been kind to it.

 

[Ann K]

Now why is it the case that his papers are subject to a higher degree of scrutiny, as I'm not that familiar with the peer review process. AFAIK, this could mean that certain journals rejected his papers before he found one that was willing to publish it, not that he has papers that were never published by any journal at all.

If it is a scientific publication, he is going to have to have evidence for his conclusions. Although the occasional lemon gets through, in most cases peer reviewers (those with a high degree of familiarity with the subject) are not going to accept opinions or obviously cherry-picked data.

I suspect that his statement about a higher degree of scrutiny (if it is true at all and not just an excuse on his part for not getting it published) refers to the fact that overthrowing an overwhelming consensus is a serious matter, one which requires very solid evidence sufficient to invalidate the mountains of evidence which already exist to the contrary.

His statement throwing politics into the mix is unfortunate, and probably more indicative of his own political bias. Politics has no legitimate place in scientific study, but that camel's nose is well and truly under the tent.

 

[TheNZThrower]

Anyways, The Epoch Times claim that in Michael's book, he claimed that the governor of Virginia has demanded he can no longer speak on the issue as a state climatologist:

Because he insisted that changes in the climate would not lead to disaster — and this optimistic stance was inconsistent with the consensus dogma — he was told one day by the governor of Virginia that he could not speak on global warming as a state climatologist. He ultimately chose to resign.

Looking to contemporary articles, DesmogBlog claims that this was a result of conflicts of interest between Michaels and an electricity co-operative (IREA) that gets most of its power from coal:

DeSmogBlog and ABC News uncovered a leaked memo written by the president of the Intermountain Rural Electrical Association that linked to Patrick Michaels' consulting firm.

In the memo, Stan Lewandowski, General Manager of IREA discusses a coordinated campaign by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups to push back against "alarmism" on climate change: (emphasis added)...

They then quote the Washington Post, who mentioned that the governor of Virginia requested he not use the title of State Climatologist when conducting his consulting business:

This summer, news reports revealed that Michaels had asked for money for his research from coal-burning utilities. Such companies often are criticized for emitting pollutants that lead to global warming, and critics have said this fundraising proves that Michaels's views are calculated to please his financial backers. Michaels said it doesn't prove anything.

"I was working on climate change long before I worked as a consultant" to outside groups, he wrote in an e-mail to The Washington Post, "and my views have been quite consistent over that period."

After the fundraising reports came out, the Kaine administration investigated how Michaels had come by his title, and officials determined that he worked for the university, not the governor. So they sent Michaels a letter asking him to make it clear that he was not speaking for the state during his "outside activities" or consulting.

So whaddya guys make of it? Is there any information I may have missed?

 

[Mendel]

The Epoch Times claim that in Michael's book, he claimed that the governor of Virginia has demanded he can no longer speak on the issue as a state climatologist:

I'm not sure how much bearing this has on the original claim. The use of a title (or not) doesn't seem like much of a censorship issue to me.

 

[Ann K]

They then quote the Washington Post, who mentioned that the governor of Virginia requested he not use the title of State Climatologist when conducting his consulting business:

it sounds as if he tried to use an official state title in conducting his personal business, which is definitely a no-no. It smacks suspiciously of two different problems: touting his own importance, and a nudge-and-wink statement of "Hire me, I have influence".

 

[TheNZThrower]

it sounds as if he tried to use an official state title in conducting his personal business, which is definitely a no-no. It smacks suspiciously of two different problems: touting his own importance, and a nudge-and-wink statement of "Hire me, I have influence".

To play devils advocate, his letter he received from the University of Virginia didn't mention specifically that this applied to his consulting per a preview of his book:

I wasn't asked to do the impossible, merely the impossibly awkward. The University of Virginia Provost wrote to me: You should refer to yourself as the "AASC-designated state climatologist" and your office as the "AASC-designated State Climatology Office," or if you prefer, "AASC-designated State Climatology Office at the University of Virginia." I recognize that the titles may be awkward but the
message from the Governor's Office was very clear about what they expected.
https://www.scribd.com/read/3226834...l-Warming-Science-They-Don-t-Want-You-to-Know

 

[Mendel]

To play devils advocate, his letter he received from the University of Virginia didn't mention specifically that this applied to his consulting per a preview of his book:

I wasn't asked to do the impossible, merely the impossibly awkward. The University of Virginia Provost wrote to me: You should refer to yourself as the "AASC-designated state climatologist" and your office as the "AASC-designated State Climatology Office," or if you prefer, "AASC-designated State Climatology Office at the University of Virginia." I recognize that the titles may be awkward but the
message from the Governor's Office was very clear about what they expected.
https://www.scribd.com/read/3226834...l-Warming-Science-They-Don-t-Want-You-to-Know

Yes, that's very helpful.
The point here is that the state of Virginia (this includes the governor, the state government and the state legislature) was not involved in selecting the state climatologist, and didn't pay anyone to hold that office.

Compare:

Article:

For the AASC to officially recognize a state agency as an ARSCO, three basic documents must be submitted to the AASC President:

1. A document that details current and planned activities that demonstrate a willingness and commitment to meet the ARSCO Terms of Reference. (See Section III.)
2. A letter of support from the state's Regional Climate Center Director (See Appendix B for a sample letter.)
3. A letter of support from at least one National Weather Service Forecast Office serving the state. (See Appendix C for a sample letter.)

Once the documents have been received and approved, the AASC President will notify the state agency and the NCEI.

Source: https://stateclimate.org/arsco/

ARSCO stands for "AASC recognized state climatologist office", so that's similar to the title Michaels was required to use back then.

So then this means it doesn't have anything to do with the consulting business? It's simply about not creating the impression that he's a state official, which he wasn't. And again, that's not a censorship issue.

 

[Mendel]

More quotes from the book's preface:

My faculty position was "Research Professor and State Climatologist, Department of Environmental Sciences." My salary was paid in its large majority by a separate line in the university's budget, labeled "State Climatology Office," itself a part of the overall budget for the Commonwealth of Virginia. I was appointed Virginia State Climatologist on July 7, 1980. Like most other State Climatologists, I was faculty at a major public institution, and the appointment was without term, although the faculty position itself was without academic tenure.

About the long form of his title:

Needless to say, this quickly became unworkable. Newspaper editors wouldn't suffer such encumbering verbiage, it didn't fit on a TV Chiron, and making a disclaimer every time I spoke about climate that my views didn't reflect those of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the University of Virginia (despite their being correct!) would never fit in a sound bite. So I had the choice of speaking on global warming and having my salary line terminated, or leaving.

So the state had the problem that their "state climatologist" was a guy at a university whom they couldn't fire, and still denied climate change in 2009. So what the state is doing is trying to distance themselves from him, and he perceives that as de facto censorship.

But it's not. It's just that he's gotten used to being presented as "state climatologist" and not as "crackpot professor whom they can't fire", and he enjoyed that, and threw a tantrum over not being allowed to be presented like that any more. He was 59 years old when he left that university position. I don't know if he held on to his position at the Cato institute.

 

[TheNZThrower]

The point here is that the state of Virginia (this includes the governor, the state government and the state legislature) was not involved in selecting the state climatologist, and didn't pay anyone to hold that office.

According to the WaPo article mentioned prior in this thread, it appears that the then Governor was involved in appointing Michaels as a state climatologist.

Michaels was appointed to his position by Gov. John N. Dalton (R) in 1980, a year after Michaels received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin. And it's hard to find anyone who faults his work in keeping the state's weather data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...critics/1bd66873-9fcc-40af-b9af-6e5808649af3/

 

[TheNZThrower]

The greenhouse effect had been so well established by 1990 that the Sagan Standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", would have applied to papers denying it. Michaels's "evidence" would not have been good enough.

Further discussion of Michaels's claim would profit from examining a copy of the allegedly rejected paper. I suspect history will not have been kind to it.

Expanding upon my original post, The Epoch Times claimed that because the IPCC said that the warming as of 1990 was within the range of natural variability, Michaels' paper was probably not rejected on the grounds that his paper was making any extraordinary claims outside of consensus:

According to the 1990 IPCC report, the understanding at the time was that the extent of global warming was equivalent to natural changes in climate. Therefore, although Michaels's point of view was different from that of many others, it could not be regarded as particularly heretical.

Their source is from the First Assessment Report's executive summary:

Global mean surface air temperature has increased by 0 3°C to 0 6°C over the last 100 years, with the five global-average warmest years being in the 1980s Over the same period global sea level has increased by 10-20cm These increases have not been smooth with time, nor uniform over the globe

The size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability, alternatively this variability and other human factors could have offset a still larger human-induced greenhouse warming The unequivocal detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect from observations is not likely for a decade or more

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

What do you make of this?

 

[Ann K]

@TheNZThrower
We have been overlooking the elephant in the room, namely that this whole thing comes from The Epoch Times. From Media Bias, we have this assessment of its credibility as a source, below. While the state's position may be stated accurately, Michaels' complaint sounds more like a poor-pitiable-me excuse, one which a right wing paper with its own axe to grind might promote. That's the essence of a conspiracy theory, and the source has a reputation for that. Scientific papers, properly peer reviewed, are often rejected because the science itself is unfounded or inaccurately portrayed. That does not mean that the author is being "censored", but that his work is inadequate to prove whatever point he wished to make.

 

[Mendel]

Therefore, although Michaels's point of view was different from that of many others, it could not be regarded as particularly heretical.

That's wishful thinking: first, it's not a "point of view", it's a scientific claim; secondly, it's not merely "different", it's contradictory; thirdly, it's not "many others", it's the majority of experts in the field; fourth, "heretical" typically refers to belief systems and not scientific knowledge; and finally, if your scientific claim contradicts the majority of people who make up the field, of course it's going to be regarded as nonsense, unless it has strong evidence.

What this sentence really means is, "if science was a belief system and not evidence, we could bend it so that Michaels is seen to adhere to that belief system because his position looks similar to an established position if you take it out of context".

If you're calling the establishment "The Greenhouse Conspiracy (1990)" (see your OP), you're deliberately adopting a heretic stance. No nitpicking gets you out of that.

 

[Mendel]

Their source is from the First Assessment Report's executive summary:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

And they've been correct!

 

[TheNZThrower]

That's wishful thinking: first, it's not a "point of view", it's a scientific claim; secondly, it's not merely "different", it's contradictory; thirdly, it's not "many others", it's the majority of experts in the field; fourth, "heretical" typically refers to belief systems and not scientific knowledge; and finally, if your scientific claim contradicts the majority of people who make up the field, of course it's going to be regarded as nonsense, unless it has strong evidence.

What this sentence really means is, "if science was a belief system and not evidence, we could bend it so that Michaels is seen to adhere to that belief system because his position looks similar to an established position if you take it out of context".

If you're calling the establishment "The Greenhouse Conspiracy (1990)" (see your OP), you're deliberately adopting a heretic stance. No nitpicking gets you out of that.

That aside, the IPCC also mentioned that the model predictions as of then accurately measured the amount of warming observed. It also mentioned that natural variability and anthropogenic causes could have masked or slowed down the warming. The general conclusion from that section is that the IPCC can't automatically infer anthropogenic causes based on the then evidence.

Of course, The Epoch Times also is engaging in mere speculation about the stances and content of Michaels' paper.

 

[Mendel]

The general conclusion from that section is that the IPCC can't automatically infer anthropogenic causes based on the then evidence.

No, that's out of context. They couldn't infer anthropogenic causes based on the historical data alone, but the "smart" indirect evidence was very convincing, see the "we are certain" section I quoted above.

The problem is that demanding direct evidence of some calamity is the antithesis to prevention: if you predict something, and then prevent it, someone's always going to doubt your prediction; and but you let it happen, you've lost the opportunity to prevent a predictable calamity. So at some point, you've got to ask yourself, how reasonable is that doubt really? How much is that doubt going to cost us in the long run?

 

[TheNZThrower]

[snip]

Michaels also claimed to have done consulting for the EPA as well, this implication being that this indicates he did not have significant conflicts of interest in the aforementioned book of his:

I fully used my privileges as a University of Virginia faculty member, which included the right to consult for whomever I wanted without jeopardizing my position or the academic freedom that went with it. Which meant, of course, consulting for entities ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to power producers with a dog in the global warming hunt.

However, whistleblower.org has noted that Michaels has ran a bulletin funded by the Western Fuels Association:

The Western Fuels Association had been funding Michaels' newsletter, World Climate Review (a dead-tree precursor of the now blogified World Climate Report) since at least 1991—and failing for some time to disclose Western Fuels' sponsorship.
The fossil-fuel and electric industries' funding of Michaels is a long story, and part of their tangled web of PR and lobbying offensives to raise doubt about legitimate science on climate change. Much of this story is spelled out and documented by Pulitzer-winner Ross Gelbspan in his books Boiling Point (2004) and The Heat Is On (1997).
https://whistleblower.org/politiciz...ologist-a-critical-perspective-on-the-issues/

 

[TheNZThrower]

Western Fuels is a coal supplier per their website:

Western Fuels is a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utilities throughout the Great Plains, Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions.
https://www.westernfuels.org/about

 

[TheNZThrower]

Going back to Michael's state climatologist position, this article from The Daily Progress to mention that his position is not subject to gubernatorial (governor) appointment:

Article:

Delacey Skinner, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's communications director, said, "I don't have any comment." Kaine's office had declared last year that Michaels, who had been appointed once to the post of state climatologist in 1980 by Gov. John N. Dalton, was not a gubernatorial appointee and could not speak for the governor on global warming.

Source: https://archive.md/cP9nn#selection-3641.0-3641.337

But doesn't being appointed by a past governor make you a gubernatorial appointee? I'm not very familiar with US politics so I appreciate if anyone from the US can chime in on this one.

 

[DavidB66]

The greenhouse effect had been so well established by 1990 that the Sagan Standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", would have applied to papers denying it. Michaels's "evidence" would not have been good enough.

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree that if Michaels denied the existence of the greenhouse effect he would have needed extraordinary evidence to support his position. But I don't see any evidence that he did deny it, and I don't think that is (or was) the position of most people who called themselves climate skeptics, such as Andrew Montford, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg or the late Freeman Dyson (who could hardly be accused of not understanding the math). As I recall, most skeptics accepted the underlying principle of the greenhouse effect, but maintained one or more of the following views:

1. The anthropogenic causation of observed 'global warming' was (at the time) unproven.
2. The claimed adverse effects of warming were exaggerated or oversimplified. For example, Freeman Dyson argued that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was beneficial to plant growth, and therefore to agriculture.
3. The measures usually proposed to counteract global warming (e.g. banning the use of fossil fuels) were unnecessary or disproportionately damaging to other desirable ends, such as economic growth. This was especially argued by Bjorn Lomborg.
4. The methods and arguments used by (some) climate scientists were dishonest, notably the so-called 'hockey stick' diagram. Also a tendency to misrepresent the position of the skeptics, for example by accusing them of 'climate change denial'! [Edit: I forget to mention the attempt to smear Matt Ridley by claiming that his position on climate change was motivated by his financial interest in the coal industry. ]

I have generally used the past tense in the above comments, because I have the impression that climate skepticism has lost its impetus in the last ten years or so, as evidence to support the importance of anthropogenic climate change has accumulated.

 

[MapperGuy]

Going back to Michael's state climatologist position, this article from The Daily Progress to mention that his position is not subject to gubernatorial (governor) appointment:

Article:

Delacey Skinner, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's communications director, said, "I don't have any comment." Kaine's office had declared last year that Michaels, who had been appointed once to the post of state climatologist in 1980 by Gov. John N. Dalton, was not a gubernatorial appointee and could not speak for the governor on global warming.

Source: https://archive.md/cP9nn#selection-3641.0-3641.337

But doesn't being appointed by a past governor make you a gubernatorial appointee? I'm not very familiar with US politics so I appreciate if anyone from the US can chime in on this one.

The answer to that can be a bit hazy. Some titles like that last until you are fired or resign, others only last while the person who appointed you remains in office.
The real question, to me, is if this was an appointment to a state position, with salary and benefits, or was this a declaration by the then governor that he was "his" climatologist. Who that governor would consult on issues related to climate.
Did his name appear on lists of state officials, for every administration since 1980, or only during that governors term of office?
I would have no problem with him calling himself a state climatologist, if the governor used that term when he was appointed. Just as former Cabinet officers still get referred to as former Cabinet officers long after they have left that post.
But the question is if he has been acting as, and being treated as, the official state climatologist every years since 1980?

 

[Mendel]

I'm coming late to this discussion, but I agree that if Michaels denied the existence of the greenhouse effect he would have needed extraordinary evidence to support his position. But I don't see any evidence that he did deny it, and I don't think that is (or was) the position of most people who called themselves climate skeptics, such as Andrew Montford, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg or the late Freeman Dyson (who could hardly be accused of not understanding the math). As I recall, most skeptics accepted the underlying principle of the greenhouse effect, but maintained one or more of the following views:

1. The anthropogenic causation of observed 'global warming' was (at the time) unproven.

compare post #14 https://www.metabunk.org/threads/claim-climate-scientists-are-being-censored.12451/post-292300
IMO the opposite position (no anthroprogenic causation) required extraordinary evidence in 1990.

2. The claimed adverse effects of warming were exaggerated or oversimplified. For example, Freeman Dyson argued that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was beneficial to plant growth, and therefore to agriculture.

not about global warming per se

3. The measures usually proposed to counteract global warming (e.g. banning the use of fossil fuels) were unnecessary or disproportionately damaging to other desirable ends, such as economic growth. This was especially argued by Bjorn Lomborg.

again, about effects, as long as it isn't argued that these measures would not be effective

4. The methods and arguments used by (some) climate scientists were dishonest, notably the so-called 'hockey stick' diagram. Also a tendency to misrepresent the position of the skeptics, for example by accusing them of 'climate change denial'! [Edit: I forget to mention the attempt to smear Matt Ridley by claiming that his position on climate change was motivated by his financial interest in the coal industry. ]

"Climate change denial" is IMO the proper term.

I have generally used the past tense in the above comments, because I have the impression that climate skepticism has lost its impetus in the last ten years or so, as evidence to support the importance of anthropogenic climate change has accumulated.

Well, yeah. Now that it's too late.

 

[Ann K]

4. The methods and arguments used by (some) climate scientists were dishonest, notably the so-called 'hockey stick' diagram.

The opposition to the 'hockey stick' has spread the story that it is basically dishonest, but that is a self-serving MYTH on the part of the climate change denialists.

The hockey graph was first published in a 1999 paper (pdf) by Michael Mann and colleagues, which was an extension of a 1998 study in Nature. The graph was highlighted in the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Since 2001, there have been repeated claims that the reconstruction is at best seriously flawed and at worst a fraud, no more than an artefact of the statistical methods used to create it (see The great hockey stick debate).

Details of the claims and counterclaims involve lengthy and arcane statistical arguments, so let's skip straight to the 2006 report of the US National Academy of Science (pdf). The academy was asked by Congress to assess the validity of temperature reconstructions, including the hockey stick.

"Array of evidence"

The report states: "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world".

Most researchers would agree that while the original hockey stick can – and has – been improved in a number of ways, it was not far off the mark.
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

 

[DavidB66]

IMO the opposite position (no anthroprogenic causation) required extraordinary evidence in 1990.

I agree. But no anthropogenic causation would have been an extreme position. The disagreement (I think) was about how much of the observed warming was proven to be anthropogenic, as distinct from natural processes like solar cycles. Skeptics liked to point to examples like the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when the (pre-industrial) climate seemed to be warmer than in the 20th century, followed by the 'Little Ice Age' of colder weather. Incidentally, this shows the inaccuracy of the term 'climate change denier' as applied to the skeptics, since it shows that they accepted the existence of historically recent climate change.

I believe the reality of the MWP is still generally accepted, but the mainstream view is now that it was not a global phenomenon, but mainly confined to western Europe and China, which is coincidentally where the best historical records are found.

 

[Ann K]

...examples like the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when the (pre-industrial) climate seemed to be warmer than in the 20th century, followed by the 'Little Ice Age' of colder weather.

That was a regional anomaly, not a global one. The difference matters. Citing those examples is about as valid an argument as Senator Imhoff claiming his snowball was proof that global warming wasn't happening.

 

[Mendel]

Incidentally, this shows the inaccuracy of the term 'climate change denier' as applied to the skeptics, since it shows that they accepted the existence of historically recent climate change.

straw man
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate change denial

climate change denial : rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity

It's a shortened expression, and the inaccuracy comes from that simplification, but it's generally understood meaning is corrrect.

 

[DavidB66]

straw man
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate change denial

climate change denial : rejection of the idea that changes in the Earth's climate or weather patterns are caused by human activity

It's a shortened expression, and the inaccuracy comes from that simplification, but it's generally understood meaning is corrrect.

As I've pointed out before, if you want a shortened expression, 'climate skeptic' is short, relatively accurate, and neutral, unlike the terms 'denier' and 'denial', which are pejorative, even if they are not intended as a dog-whistle association with Holocaust denial.

 

[DavidB66]

That was a regional anomaly, not a global one. The difference matters.

That is now the prevailing view, but it hasn't always been. Why else would a mainstream climate scientist have said 'We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'?

 

[Mendel]

As I've pointed out before, if you want a shortened expression, 'climate skeptic' is short, relatively accurate, and neutral, unlike the terms 'denier' and 'denial', which are pejorative, even if they are not intended as a dog-whistle association with Holocaust denial.

"Denial" is descriptive. There is no better way to say the same thing.
Denial is not the same as scepticism.
Nobody here even thought about the holocaust.

Article:

Never in history has humanity had more access to education and evidence-based information than today. Concurrently, false information and misleading claims are widespread. Most people accept science (Hendriks et al., 2016), but the abundance of both accurate and false information spreads confusion, provides a fruitful ground for developing distrust and conspiracy theories, and undermines the legitimacy of science-based messages and interventions (Oreskes & Conway, 2010; Zarocostas, 2020). Consequently, even topics that are widely considered unquestionable among scientists – such as the occurrence of climate change, benefits of vaccination programs, that HIV exists and causes AIDS, and that the Earth is not flat – are still questioned and debated (e.g., Hansson, 2017). From a democratic perspective, it is important to acknowledge that individuals have a right to form opinions and draw conclusions independently, even if it entails a refusal to accept scientific evidence. However, science denial must be taken seriously because it can have adverse consequences at individual and societal levels and even for the future of our planet. It is, therefore, critical to identify and understand the processes that can contribute to the rejection of science.

[..]

We define science denial as the dismissal of well-established scientific evidence or the scientific method as a means to gather reliable evidence. That is, people can reject certain information that has been researched scientifically and/or consider scientific practices to provide insufficient methodology altogether. Denial of scientific evidence tends to build on pseudoscientific claims, which are claims that relate to scientific research topics, are founded on unreliable evidence, and aim at creating deviant doctrine by being presented as the most reliable knowledge (Hansson, 2017). As such, and in line with previous conceptualizations that resemble ours (see, e.g., Hansson, 2017; Jylhä, 2016; Normand, 2008; Lewandowsky et al., 2016; Schmid & Betsch, 2019), we explicitly differentiate science denial from skepticism, which is (in its true form) an attitude or a practice characterized by careful scrutiny of evidence before accepting a claim and when updating conclusions. To highlight this, we included the word "established" in our definition to acknowledge that individuals can practice healthy scientific skepticism by not accepting novel or understudied evidence without this constituting denial.

Source: https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/1016-9040/a000487

 

[Mendel]

Why else would a mainstream climate scientist have said 'We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'?

Unless you source that, I doubt that's an accurate quote.

Article:

A related quote (also included in the Telegraph article) claimed that climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck asserted that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)." This is a fabrication — Overpeck actually said, "I'm not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature."

Source: https://www.desmog.com/2019/11/18/3-climategate-myths-have-not-aged-well/

 

[deirdre]

Unless you source that, I doubt that's an accurate quote.

Article:

A related quote (also included in the Telegraph article) claimed that climate scientist Jonathan Overpeck asserted that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)." This is a fabrication — Overpeck actually said, "I'm not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature."

Source: https://www.desmog.com/2019/11/18/3-climategate-myths-have-not-aged-well/

it's the same thing.

He was speaking in front of laymen, so maybe clarified the meaning.

Article:

December 6, 2006 09:30 AM
Dr. David Deming
College of Earth and Energy, University of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Source: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=BFE4D91D-802A-23AD-4306-B4121BF7ECED&Statement_id=361256C4-11DC-4E5D-8D1D-9FEDF082D081

 

[Ann K]

He was speaking in front of laymen, so maybe clarified the meaning.

He did not clarify it, though. He did exactly the opposite; he misquoted it and thus changed the meaning. He didn't say "the warm period", he said "MISUSE of supposed warm period terms and myths".

Nevertheless, what one person said one time (and the subsequent misquotations) is hardly evidence of anything.

 

[Mendel]

That is now the prevailing view, but it hasn't always been. Why else would a mainstream climate scientist have said 'We've got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period'?

To be very explicit:
The reason a mainstream climate scientist spoke out against the misuse of MWP data is not that the science around it wasn't settled; it was because denialists used the terms and data to mislead people into thinking it wasn't settled science when it actually was.
(Climate sceptics would've looked at the evidence and not done that.)

 

[Mendel]

it's the same thing.

He was speaking in front of laymen, so maybe clarified the meaning.

No, he was not "speaking in front of laymen". This is very clear when you follow up the source link in the article, and even your own source confirms this was a professional email. I have no idea where you could have gotten the notion that Overpeck was speaking to laymen, or why you claimed he did.

It looks like Overpeck was emailing his co-authors about a section in a book they were writing.

Article:

From: Jonathan Overpeck <[removed]>
To: Keith Briffa <[removed]>, t.osborn <[removed]>
Subject: the new "warm period myths" box
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:45:38 -0700
Cc: Eystein Jansen <[removed]>, Valerie Masson-Delmotte <[removed]>

<x-flowed>
Hi Keith and Tim - since you're off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein
hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box.
In reading Valerie's Holocene section, I get the sense that I'm not
the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of
supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics
and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for
current warming too - pure rubbish.

So, pls DO try hard to follow up on my advice provided in previous
email. No need to go into details on any but the MWP, but good to
mention the others in the same dismissive effort. "Holocene Thermal
Maximum" is another one that should only be used with care, and with
the explicit knowledge that it was a time-transgressive event totally
unlike the recent global warming.

Thanks for doing this on - if you have a cool figure idea, include it.

Best, peck
--
Jonathan T. Overpeck
Director, Institute for the Study of Planet Earth
Professor, Department of Geosciences
Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Mail and Fedex Address:
[removed]

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210815225440/http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt

It stands to reason that this is the email Deming remembers, and that he paraphrased it badly 10 years later in the hearing.

Edit: The time frame doesn't match, Deming's testimony was only 2 years later. But Deming doesn't even name the author, so...
Edit²: Deming also testified, in 2006, in that hearing, "Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent."

 

[DavidB66]

Unless you source that, I doubt that's an accurate quote.

OK, I was relying on a second or third hand source, and quite possibly the quote was inaccurate in the source. I quoted accurately from that source, which I think is essentially the same as the one (a Senate Committee statement by Deming) mentioned by Deirdre at #31 above. The alleged quote from Overpeck cannot be taken from the same email as the one referred to in your #30, because that email was addressed to Briffa, while the one mentioned in #31 was addressed to Deming. Possibly Overpeck sent somewhat different emails to more than person. Stranger things have been known.

The reality or otherwise of the MWP may be settled now, but I doubt that it was before 2000. I note that even now it hasn't exactly been 'got rid of': according to the Wiki entry on the topic

The Medieval Warm Period... was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that lasted from c. 950 to c. 1250. Climate proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, which indicate that the MWP was not a globally uniform event.

The Wiki article also seems to imply that warming was not confined to the North Atlantic, since it refers to evidence of warming in China and even New Zealand which overlaps with that in Europe.

 

[Mendel]

The alleged quote from Overpeck cannot be taken from the same email as the one referred to in your #30, because that email was addressed to Briffa, while the one mentioned in #31 was addressed to Deming. Possibly Overpeck sent somewhat different emails to more than person. Stranger things have been known.

Or that email was being forwarded, in which case Deming may well have seen it.

The reality or otherwise of the MWP may be settled now, but I doubt that it was before 2000.

Overpeck emailed 1/2005, Deming testified 12/2006.
Compare:

Article:

The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarized newer research: "evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' are chiefly documented in describing northern hemisphere trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."[11]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Settled science in 2001 already.

 

[deirdre]

I have no idea where you could have gotten the notion that Overpeck was speaking to laymen, or why you claimed he did.

Deming was the one who said the quote. not Overpeck. It was Deming, saying the quote, that i quoted.

and Demings "paper" was in 1995. so long before the Overpeck email.

Article:

In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
...

Source: https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=BFE4D91D-802A-23AD-4306-B4121BF7ECED&Statement_id=361256C4-11DC-4E5D-8D1D-9FEDF082D081

although..the telegraph does name Overpeck. which is weird

Article:

The MWP was such a fly in the ointment in the case for man-made global warming that in 1995 one scientist at the IPCC - Jonathan Overpeck - wrote an email to a colleague claiming 'we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.'

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20210324031807/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/0/climate-change-facts-fake-news-or-real-global-threat-science/

 

[Mendel]

and Demings "paper" was in 1995. so long before the Overpeck email.

Yes. Deming is wrong about the date he remembers having seen that email.

That is one problem with vague unsourced references. The other is that a "clarification" may well be a distortion.

 

[deirdre]

The other is that a "clarification" may well be a distortion.

well obviously, since we now know we dont know what email he was referring to.

 

[Mendel]

The greenhouse effect had been so well established by 1990 that the Sagan Standard, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", would have applied to papers denying it. Michaels's "evidence" would not have been good enough.

https://xkcd.com/2889