Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry rips ‘march for science’ as ‘a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists’ — A ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum
The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with is a march in support of themselves? – Roger Pielke Jr
A mega March for Science has been planned for Earth Day (April 22) in Washington DC. The web site states:
The March for Science demonstrates our passion for science and sounds a call to support and safeguard the scientific community. Recent policy changes have caused heightened worry among scientists.
….
So far, the March for Science seems to be shaping up as a self-serving navel gazing exercise for scientists — sort of a ‘we don’t like Trump’ tantrum. The impression that this will have on policy makers and the public will be to cement scientists as a politicized special interest group, just like any other lobbying group. In short, I very much fear that this March will do more harm than good.
It’s not too late to turn this around. We need to rethink the contract between scientists and government, and develop a new model for the the 21st century. Here are some recommendations:
- Embrace science as a process, not a collection of ‘facts’; invite the public to engage in the process of science.
- The institutions of science need to reform themselves, and scientists need to get out of the ivory tower and engage with the real world [link]
- Universities need a new business model and incentive structure for faculty members that doesn’t rely on massive federal research grants but rewards faculty for educating students at all levels and serving the needs of society
- Scientists need a much better understanding of the policy process, the role that science plays, and how complexity, pluralism and uncertainty in science is accommodated in the policy process. Evidence-based policy making is a good political slogan, but not a good description of the policy process [link]
- Scientists need to stop using science to support desired political outcomes.
- Scientists need to do more than push back against flawed arguments and bad policy. We need to engage the public, and, even more, invite the public, across the political spectrum, to engage with science. [link]
The CON-sensus: The History of the ‘97% Consensus’ Claims On ‘Global Warming’
By MICHAEL BASTASCH
But how many proponents of “climate action” have actually bothered to read the research that underlays such a popular talking point? How many realize the “consensus” the research claims to find is more of a statistical contortion than actual agreement?
Probably not many, so let’s talk about the 2013 study led by Australian researcher John Cook claiming there’s a 97 percent consensus on global warming.
What Does The ‘Consensus’ Really Mean?
Cook and his colleagues set out to show just how much scientists agreed that humans contribute to global warming.
To do this, Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.
Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.
Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.
In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.
But Cook also invited the authors of these papers to rate their endorsement of the “consensus.” Cook emailed 8,574 authors to self-rate their papers, of which only 1,189 authors self-rated 2,142 papers.
Again, 35.5 percent, or 761, of those self-rated papers took no position on the cause of global warming. Some 62.7 percent, or 1,342, of those papers endorsed the global warming “consensus,” while 1.8 percent, or 39, self-rated papers rejected it.
Twisting the numbers a bit, Cook concludes that 97.2 percent (1,342 of 1,381) of the self-rated papers with a position on global warming endorsed the idea humans were contributing to it.
Other studies written before and after Cook’s attempted to find a consensus, but to varying degrees, finding a range of a 7 to 100 percent (yes, no disagreement) among climate experts, depending on what subgroup was surveyed.
Cook’s paper is probably the most widely cited, having been downloaded more than 600,000 times and cited in popular media outlets.
Criticisms
Left-wing politicians and environmental activists pushing for laws and regulations to …
Study: Human CO2 contribution to atmosphere only 4%, and only 15% since pre-industrial era
China’s Electric Cars Sales Plunge After Subsidy Cuts
China’s Electric Cars Sales Plunge After Subsidy Cuts
http://www.thegwpf.com/chinas-electric-cars-sales-plunge-after-subsidy-cuts/
Electric vehicle sales in China plunged 75% in January after the government cut subsidies by more than a fifth starting this year, raising the question of whether the country can sustain demand for green cars without generous grants. China is considering dialing back or delaying proposed measures aimed at pushing automakers to produce more electric vehicles, after industry feedback that the targets are overly ambitious. Under draft rules released in September for public consultation, automakers will be required to obtain a new-energy vehicle credit score of 8 percent next year, derived from different weightings assigned to various types of zero- and low-emission vehicles. Companies that fail to meet the requirement face fines or have to buy credits from those that exceeded the minimum. Average production of new-energy vehicles last year may have contributed only about 3 percent of the score required, 5 percentage points short of the proposed 2018 target, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers. German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel told German media in November that he expressed the view to his Chinese counterpart that the 2018 targets were not attainable. Miao Wei, China’s minister of industry and information technology, told Bloomberg News in an interview in Beijing on Sunday that his ministry is considering either lowering the credit requirement in percentage terms or delaying the implementation date. “We are still working on the regulation,” Miao said on the sidelines of the opening of the annual session of the National People’s Congress. “It may be finalized around May or June.” Government Subsidies Electric vehicle sales plunged in China in January after the government cut subsidies by more than a fifth starting this year, raising the question of whether the country can sustain demand for green cars without generous grants. Sales of new-energy vehicles, the term China uses to refer to battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell cars, dropped 74 percent in January from a year earlier to 5,682 units, according to data released by the auto association. Full story
— gReader Pro…
New York Won’t Allow Cost Of Green Energy Mandates To Appear On Power Bills
New York Won’t Allow Cost Of Green Energy Mandates To Appear On Power Bills
Knowing the costs of green energy would just be too confusing for customers
— gReader Pro…
A primer on the hatred of climate skeptics – one woman saw the light and is no longer a leftist
A primer on the hatred of climate skeptics – one woman saw the light and is no longer a leftist
In case you missed it, our friends at americanthinker.com had a fantastic column (which won’t load now due to internal server error, but is cached by Google, so I repeat it here) by Dr. Danusha V. Goska in 2014. She was a life-long leftist and wrote that she has abandoned that philosophy. Here, she gives her…
— gReader Pro…
Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years
Historical Grape Harvest Dates Show Modern Temperatures No Warmer Now Than Most Of The Last 1,000 Years
Grape Harvest Date Evidence: No Significant Modern Warmth Source In a late February (2017) interview on a U.S. news program, mechanical engineer Bill Nye claimed that the settled science says humans have been warming the planet at a rate that is unnaturally and “catastrophically” fast since the year 1750 . “It’s a settled question. The speed that climate change is happening is caused by humans. Instead of climate change happening on timescales of millions of years or 15,000 years, it’s happening on the timescale of decades, and now years. … Humans are causing it [climate change] to happen catastrophically fast. [Without human activity], the climate would be like it was in 1750.” When pressed to identify the signature change affirming this rapid human-caused acceleration, Nye immediately cited viticulture evidence, or grape-growing practices in England and France. “Britain would not be very well suited to growing grapes as it is today [if not for human activity]. French winemakers would not be buying land to the north, as they are now [if not for human activity].” Apparently Bill Nye believes it is quite unusual to grow grapes in England. Or maybe he believes that this has never happened before given his perceptions of the unprecedentedly fast pace of climate change since 1750. Perhaps he doesn’t realize that grape vineyards have been growing in England for thousands of years, or that grape harvesting occurred 100s of kilometers further north than it does today as recently as during the latter stages of the Medieval Warm Period (~1100 to 1300 A.D). Considering how very sensitive grapes are to climate conditions, and that grapes can only be harvested successfully after ripening in climates that average a specified number of warm days per year, the use of grape harvest dating as a proxy for temperature has long been thought to be both promising and reliable. Unfortunately for Bill Nye and those who believe modern warmth is exceptional, or that the climate has changed at a catastrophically fast pace since 1750, scientists who use grape harvest dates to reconstruct historical temperatures have not found that modern warmth is either unusual or unprecedented. In fact, grape harvest date evidence suggests the opposite conclusion reached by Bill Nye is more accurate: there is nothing unusual about the modern climate and its “well-suitedness” to …
U.S. Shale Production Growing At An Unprecedented Pace
U.S. Shale Production Growing At An Unprecedented Pace
http://www.thegwpf.com/u-s-shale-production-growing-at-an-unprecedented-pace/
The oil markets have long expected that U.S. shale production would rebound once oil prices started to rise. But the comeback of shale could be much faster and stronger than many once anticipated. As Bloomberg Gadfly points out, the rise in U.S. oil production since output bottomed out at the end of last summer has been swift. Since September, U.S. production has climbed roughly 125,000 bpd on average each month, pushing total production above 9 million barrels per day. That is a much faster pace of growth than the original shale boom that began years ago. The corresponding period for the 2011-2014 shale boom saw monthly growth of just 93,000 bpd. There are a few reasons for this. First, the industry is leaner than it once was, with some of the least efficient companies forced out of the market and the consolidated sector is now moving quickly with oil prices stabilized in the $50s per barrel range. Second, oil drillers have a lot more experience in shale than they did years ago. Improved drilling techniques, which include longer laterals, more wells per wellpad and stronger fracking processes are yielding more oil per rig and per well. Third, instead of drilling everywhere, companies are focusing on the best spots this time around. Finally, it isn’t just the small companies drilling in U.S. shale – the oil majors are increasingly getting into the shale game. Relatedly, low oil prices have paradoxically made shale more attractive. With all but the most profitable large-scale projects off of the table, everyone is trying to get into relatively low-risk shale. Even though shale has famously suffered from higher breakeven costs, the upfront costs are low and returns are quick, making shale wells a safe bet. ExxonMobil has decided to allocate more than $5 billion to shale drilling in Texas and North Dakota this year, a dramatic shift from the megaproject-focus that the company has had for decades. That all means that U.S. shale is now one of the most highly-prized areas for new oil investment. “North American oil companies are going to increase their spending by 25 percent in 2017 compared to last year,” Daniel Yergin, oil historian and Vice Chairman of IHS Markit, told Bloomberg. “The increase reflects the magnetism of U.S. shale.” More rigs and more investment could mean stronger gains in shale production this time around compared to the …
Brexit Could ‘Derail’ EU Attempts To Fight Climate Change, MEPs Warn
Brexit Could ‘Derail’ EU Attempts To Fight Climate Change, MEPs Warn
http://www.thegwpf.com/brexit-could-derail-eu-attempts-to-fight-climate-change-meps-warn/
European Carbon Trading Scheme (ETS) could lose £1.7bn worth of UK funding once Britain exits the trade bloc. The United Kingdom is committed to providing almost €2bn (£1.7bn) worth of funding for the scheme, without which it is not yet clear how the system will survive. Through ETS a cap is placed on total emissions and allowances are provided to member states. Companies which fall under the remit of the scheme have to hand in an allowance for every tonne of carbon they release. They are allowed to buy and sell these allowances, which are priced to incentivise a reduction in emissions. Ian Duncan MEP, who is the Conservatives’ European spokesman on energy and climate change and also the lead lawmaker on reforming the ETS, said there was a “serious risk” Brexit could stop the functioning of the scheme, leading to “disastrous” consequences. “In order for ETS to work a number of funds were created to help Eastern European nations to address the challenges of modernising their Soviet-era energy generators and manufacturing companies. “The UK is one of the major contributors to this fund and after it leaves the finance for this fund will not be there,” Mr Duncan told The Independent. “Without it, there is a serious risk not only that the ETS stops functioning post-Brexit, but that the EU loses support for its climate change targets altogether. With Donald Trump in the White House, the consequences of this could be disastrous for global efforts to tackle climate change.” Full post
— gReader Pro…