Is this the end of the "consensus?"

[Jack Hays]

Global warming is ‘no longer a planetary emergency’

Posted on August 28, 2013 by Anthony Watts
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, reporting from Erice, Sicily

ERICE, SICILY – It’s official. The scare is over. The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency.
Continue reading →

 

[Northern Light]

I don't even recognize that source.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't even recognize that source.

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

The World Federation of Scientists (WFS) was founded in Erice, Sicily, in 1973, by a group of eminent scientists led by Isidor Isaac Rabi and Antonino Zichichi. Since then, many other scientists have affiliated themselves with the Federation, among them T. D. Lee, Laura Fermi, Eugene Wigner, Paul Dirac and Piotr Kapitza.
The WFS is a free association, which has grown to include more than 10,000 scientists drawn from 110 countries. All members share the same aims and ideals and contribute voluntarily to uphold the Federation's Principles. The Federation promotes international collaboration in science and technology between scientists and researchers from all parts of the world - North, South, East and West. The Federation and its members strive towards an ideal of free exchange of information, where scientific discoveries and advances are no longer restricted to a select few. The aim is to share this knowledge among the people of all nations, so that everyone may experience the benefits of the progress of science.
The creation of the World Federation of Scientists was made possible by the existence, in Erice, of a centre for scientific culture named after the physicist Ettore Majorana, the Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture. This Centre, which has been dubbed "The University of the Third Millennium", has attracted over 75,000 scientists from all over the world since its founding in 1963. The Ettore Majorana Centre was a precursor of the World Federation of Scientists and its action to mitigate planetary emergencies.
The World Federation of Scientists rapidly identified 15 classes of Planetary Emergencies and began to organise the fight against these threats. One of its main achievements was the drawing up of the Erice Statement, in 1982, by Paul Dirac, Piotr Kapitza and Antonino Zichichi, clearly setting out the ideals of the Federation and putting forward a set of proposals for putting these ideals into practice. Another milestone was the holding of a series of International Seminars on Nuclear War which have had a tremendous impact on reducing the danger of a planet-wide nuclear disaster and have ultimately contributed to the end of the Cold War.
In 1986, through the action of a group of eminent scientists (most of whom were members of the WFS) the International Centre for Scientific Culture ICSC-World Laboratory was founded in Geneva to help achieve the goals outlined in the Erice Statement. To achieve these, specific pilot projects have been implemented to overcome the Planetary Emergencies. The ICSC-World Laboratory works on the principle that one of the better ways of helping Developing Countries is to support the participation of their scientific elite in projects aimed at the solution of their particular problems, working in collaboration with their peers in Developed Countries and contributing to the advancement of science and human knowledge as a whole.
Other achievements have been the establishment of the Erice Prize, the Gian Carlo Wick Gold Medal Prize, the formulation of the Farnesina Statement and the Lausanne Declaration. eace

 

[Moot]

Global warming is ‘no longer a planetary emergency’

Posted on August 28, 2013 by Anthony Watts
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, reporting from Erice, Sicily

ERICE, SICILY – It’s official. The scare is over. The World Federation of Scientists, at its annual seminars on planetary emergencies, has been advised by its own climate monitoring panel that global warming is no longer a planetary emergency.
Continue reading →

lol

World Federation of Scientists (Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology) weirdness – Stoat

 

[Jack Hays]

lol

World Federation of Scientists (Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology) weirdness – Stoat

And so the orthodox warmists, feeling threatened, resort immediately to the tell tale ad hominem.eace

 

[CalGun]

Does it promote more government, regulation, taxation and redistribution? If not then its obviously not taken seriously.

 

[Threegoofs]

lol

World Federation of Scientists (Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology) weirdness – Stoat

Yeah. The double whammy of a WUWT post and the authorship of Monckton made me suspect that the World Federation of Scientists was a bit of an odd duck.

But I guess bozos who don't know the difference between the AAAS, the Royal Society, and the World Federation of Scientists will spam this on multiple message boards and threads.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah. The double whammy of a WUWT post and the authorship of Monckton made me suspect that the World Federation of Scientists was a bit of an odd duck.

But I guess bozos who don't know the difference between the AAAS, the Royal Society, and the World Federation of Scientists will spam this on multiple message boards and threads.

And again, only personal attacks from those without data.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

And again, only personal attacks from those without data.eace

LOL. The data is there. It's The Lord Monckton who doesn't have it...or his one man climatology panel (who is a mathematician, oddly enough).

But when you bring up crap like that, pretending that that 'destroys the consensus', ad hominems are completely appropriate.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL. The data is there. It's The Lord Monckton who doesn't have it...or his one man climatology panel (who is a mathematician, oddly enough).

But when you bring up crap like that, pretending that that 'destroys the consensus', ad hominems are completely appropriate.

I made no assertion. I only asked a question. Your insecurity is showing.eace

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The creation of the World Federation of Scientists was made possible by the existence, in Erice, of a centre for scientific culture named after the physicist Ettore Majorana, the Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture. This Centre, which has been dubbed "The University of the Third Millennium", has attracted over 75,000 scientists from all over the world since its founding in 1963. The Ettore Majorana Centre was a precursor of the World Federation of Scientists and its action to mitigate planetary emergencies.
The World Federation of Scientists rapidly identified 15 classes of Planetary Emergencies and began to organise the fight against these threats. One of its main achievements was the drawing up of the Erice Statement, in 1982, by Paul Dirac, Piotr Kapitza and Antonino Zichichi, clearly setting out the ideals of the Federation and putting forward a set of proposals for putting these ideals into practice. Another milestone was the holding of a series of International Seminars on Nuclear War which have had a tremendous impact on reducing the danger of a planet-wide nuclear disaster and have ultimately contributed to the end of the Cold War.
In 1986, through the action of a group of eminent scientists (most of whom were members of the WFS) the International Centre for Scientific Culture ICSC-World Laboratory was founded in Geneva to help achieve the goals outlined in the Erice Statement. To achieve these, specific pilot projects have been implemented to overcome the Planetary Emergencies. The ICSC-World Laboratory works on the principle that one of the better ways of helping Developing Countries is to support the participation of their scientific elite in projects aimed at the solution of their particular problems, working in collaboration with their peers in Developed Countries and contributing to the advancement of science and human knowledge as a whole.
Other achievements have been the establishment of the Erice Prize, the Gian Carlo Wick Gold Medal Prize, the formulation of the Farnesina Statement and the Lausanne Declaration. eace

lol

World Federation of Scientists (Permanent Monitoring Panel – Climatology) weirdness – Stoat

Moot, I do think it is a little questionable the WFS Climatology page changing drasitcally, the missing Members and Associate Members listings, the Emergency being revised. What does that all really mean? What really is going on with all that?

The questions raised as to why the members may be gone are themselves questionable, though, and are hardly the entire spectrum of possibilities. This did not seem the even handed heralding of facts, seemed more of a hit piece. So while it should be, as it was, included what wiki has leftist learning [ I know I know, redundant ] Nobel Prize Laureate Hans Bethe being quoted as saying about Zichichi, "excellent organizer, mediocre physicist" [which says nothing as to his savvy/astuteness picking out bias in the science], but left out the even more prominent, positive part, the fact showing he is a "He is an ISI highly cited researcher." That would be out of ranked journals published, so being included in the top 250 worldwide in various categories. Prominent, esteemed. So, this calls into question Bethe's opinion/judgement if nothing else. Seems from a reading of him from several angles, Zichichi seems sufficiently solid. I would almost guess that Bethe may easily had pangs of doubt about his Manhattan Project participation, going way left green, maybe over- atoning for this reflected sin, who knows? But if the article writer can throw in questions like that about Zichichi... what is it they say about turnabout and fair play?

Oh, and Jack, many thanks for always bringing up all these thoughtful articles generally plugged with science, news about science and plenty of good arguments for the side we both know to be at minimum the more prudent... if not correct. Although I fully believe it to be correct. My view being that we just do not know, cannot know at where we are in our limited actual understanding of how it all works, that warming is probably more natural and, in any event, is better than going the other direction, perhaps far better. At best we do not make the mistake of foisting upon ourselves bad economies worldwide causing more misery than necessary, with choosing what would be the opportunity cost, spending the money more wisely, not doing so bringing even more misery.

Not with what we don't know.

And would say that some of those quoted documents, i e, the Erice Statement has some iffy stuff as well as the spot on, as do the rest, the LD, Farnesina Statement...Václav Klaus seems to intimately know of what he speaks, understands the political nature of the IPCC. He really calls it out well.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And so the orthodox warmists, feeling threatened, resort immediately to the tell tale ad hominem.eace

How is it an "ad himinem attack" to point out that a "panel" consists of a single person? Is that like a "committee of one?"

Without further information on just how he arrived at this determination, why should the opinion of a single person be taken with greater seriousness than a consensus of experts in the field? Just because this single person is the sole member of a "panel" within a scientific fraternity and makes a speech at a gathering of the fraternity?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

LOL. The data is there. It's The Lord Monckton who doesn't have it...or his one man climatology panel (who is a mathematician, oddly enough).

But when you bring up crap like that, pretending that that 'destroys the consensus', ad hominems are completely appropriate.

Ha ha ha, talk about your double whammy, looks like Jack got you there twice, no data as well as ad hominem attacks... oh wait, triple whammy, he asserted nothing of which you accuse. So wrong/out of line on all three accounts. Sweetly succinct at it, too. :doh

 

[Jack Hays]

How is it an "ad himinem attack" to point out that a "panel" consists of a single person? Is that like a "committee of one?"

Without further information on just how he arrived at this determination, why should the opinion of a single person be taken with greater seriousness than a consensus of experts in the field? Just because this single person is the sole member of a "panel" within a scientific fraternity and makes a speech at a gathering of the fraternity?

It's not clear that the blogger actually proved the panel was only one person, but even if that is conceded his attack on the one person is an ad hominem.eace

 

[Captain Adverse]

It's not clear that the blogger actually proved the panel was only one person, but even if that is conceded his attack on the one person is an ad hominem.eace

Actually, it would be that a single opinion is insufficient to support your thesis of an "end to consensus." Consensus does not indicate unanimity of opinion, it is merely an indication of the majority opininon. A "voice in the wilderness" is still only ONE voice, however eminent the speaker may be.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, it would be that a single opinion is insufficient to support your thesis of an "end to consensus." Consensus does not indicate unanimity of opinion, it is merely an indication of the majority opininon. A "voice in the wilderness" is still only ONE voice, however eminent the speaker may be.

That's why I asked a question rather than make a declaration.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, it would be that a single opinion is insufficient to support your thesis of an "end to consensus." Consensus does not indicate unanimity of opinion, it is merely an indication of the majority opininon. A "voice in the wilderness" is still only ONE voice, however eminent the speaker may be.

And the consensus continues to erode?

[h=2]Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[/h] Posted on August 29, 2013 by Anthony Watts

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.
Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
Continue reading →eace

 

[Captain Adverse]

And the consensus continues to erode?

[h=2]Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons[/h] Posted on August 29, 2013 by Anthony Watts

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.
Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
Continue reading →eace

(SIGH) Another "opinion piece" published in a scientific journal.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

He starts by attacking most proponents of global warming as "mediocre scientists," all seeking grant money by using "alarmist tactics." Then while your blogsite source states "he begins by discussing key aspects of global warming models" here is the "discussion."

Climate science is, of course, a huge topic, but here I would like to focus on one matter: the very notion of the globally and annually averaged temperature anomaly (that is, departure from a reference value or long-term average) as a unique metric of climate.

He posits some points on this single topic, then goe off on a comparison of "Eugenics" in the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin and it's advocate Lysenko.

Big deal, his own summation does not refute global warming issues, he just wants people to consider it more "objectively." As if those scientists who form the consensus don't?

Now again, I am no expert and I do want to know the truth. I don't like scare tactics whoever uses them. But I am also aware of major climate changes between my childhood and now. There is no argument that the polar caps are melting, the sea is rising, and our weather is Effed up! Based on that I'd side with the consensus and not the "nothing to see here folks" advocates.

 

[Jack Hays]

(SIGH) Another "opinion piece" published in a scientific journal.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

He starts by attacking most proponents of global warming as "mediocre scientists," all seeking grant money by using "alarmist tactics." Then while your blogsite source states "he begins by discussing key aspects of global warming models" here is the "discussion."

Climate science is, of course, a huge topic, but here I would like to focus on one matter: the very notion of the globally and annually averaged temperature anomaly (that is, departure from a reference value or long-term average) as a unique metric of climate.

He posits some points on this single topic, then goe off on a comparison of "Eugenics" in the Soviet Union during the reign of Stalin and it's advocate Lysenko.

Big deal, his own summation does not refute global warming issues, he just wants people to consider it more "objectively." As if those scientists who form the consensus don't?

Now again, I am no expert and I do want to know the truth. I don't like scare tactics whoever uses them. But I am also aware of major climate changes between my childhood and now. There is no argument that the polar caps are melting, the sea is rising, and our weather is Effed up! Based on that I'd side with the consensus and not the "nothing to see here folks" advocates.

The point of the post is not the validity of any point of view, but that the "consensus" may be eroding. As for your claim: "There is no argument that the polar caps are melting, the sea is rising, and our weather is Effed up!" There is plenty of argument about those things.eace

 

[Threegoofs]

(SIGH) Another "opinion piece" published in a scientific journal.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf
.

Not really. I've been in medicine my whole life and never heard of this journal.

Its not a scienific journal, its a POLITICAL journal. The publishing organization is a bunch of doctors who formed a society to "prevent the government takeover of health care".

Another joke link from Mr Hays.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not really. I've been in medicine my whole life and never heard of this journal.

Its not a scienific journal, its a POLITICAL journal. The publishing organization is a bunch of doctors who formed a society to "prevent the government takeover of health care".

Another joke link from Mr Hays.

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did wonder why someone with a Ph.D in a non-medical area was publishing in such a "medical" journal. Since I am no physician I just took for granted that it was just allowed in some opinion section they had.

I also wonder why the OP keeps using this "What's Up With That" blog as a source.

Thanks.

 

[Threegoofs]

I also wonder why the OP keeps using this "What's Up With That" blog as a source.

Thanks.

Thats easy... because WUWT is responsible for 90% of the crap these guys come up with. Hays is just the only one dim enough to post his source, the other guys pretend that they "scan the literature" and learn it via their extensive scientific reading.

 

[Jack Hays]

I did wonder why someone with a Ph.D in a non-medical area was publishing in such a "medical" journal. Since I am no physician I just took for granted that it was just allowed in some opinion section they had.

I also wonder why the OP keeps using this "What's Up With That" blog as a source.

Thanks.

As I pointed out to 3G, the point is Lindzen's scientific prominence, not the quality of the journal. That such a respected figure would launch such an attack is quite relevant on a thread about the "consensus."eace

 

[Jack Hays]

Thats easy... because WUWT is responsible for 90% of the crap these guys come up with. Hays is just the only one dim enough to post his source, the other guys pretend that they "scan the literature" and learn it via their extensive scientific reading.

Another empty ad hominem.

 

[Moot]

And the consensus continues to erode?

Nah, what continues to erode is your evidence.

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ – Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda,....<snip>.... writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.
In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.
Continue reading →eace

Richard Lindzen works for the oil industry and OPEC. He also testifed for the tobacco companies before congress that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. LOL

Apparently, Lindzen is quite the joke among his peers....

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

"....Richard Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[8] "Lindzen a "hood ornament" for the fossil fuels industry."

In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."........He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.....

Lindzen was a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center[1], a Maryland-based think tank which had been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil[21], but does not appear to have filed a tax return with the IRS since 2007.

Oh my, Lindzen is a tax evader, too.



Hey Jack, can I interest you in buying some ocean front property in Arizona? :lamo