Climate Scientists Have A Moral Obligation To Take Action Or Something

I agree: any who believe in man-induced climate change and think we’re doomed should practice what they preach, rather than saying that Other People should be forced to live the life

Scientists have a moral obligation to take action on climate change

Calling on all scientists to refrain from public advocacy and leadership is wrong. We are in a global crisis, and the scientific fraternity has an ethical obligation to act

Al Gore’s influential film about climate science was not called A Scientifically-Modelled Truth, or The Statistically Fairly Likely Truth, even though these would have been accurate titles. It was An Inconvenient Truth, because the key factor in the climate debate is not the truthfulness of the science, but the futile political war waged against that scientific truth. That war is still being waged by sections of the media, as well as think tanks and campaigns funded by the polluters.

First, we note that writer Dan Cass exposes that Gore’s film was all about politics, not science. Second, we should note that there are 35 problems with Gore’s film.

Third, let’s note that when “climate change” is put in moral terms, we’ve gone from science to pseudo-religion. This is all about far left politics

However we are in a global crisis, and I believe that the scientific fraternity has an ethical obligation to take action. We need some scientists to show social leadership, not just scientific leadership. Edwards is being too strident, calling on all scientists to refrain from public advocacy and leadership. I think that is unreasonable to expect and never likely to happen.

OK, then they should all give up fossil fueled travel, no hairspray, turn the air conditioning off, stop using smartphones, and, heck, even computers are bad for “climate change”. Live a “carbon neutral” lifestyle.

However, I’m not sure which world Cass lives in, because the True Believer climate scientists have been pushing advocacy for decades. Hey, maybe it’s all the particulate matter put out by fossil fueled vehicles and planes from all the travel by Warmists that has caused this 17 year pause.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Climate Scientists Have A Moral Obligation To Take Action Or Something”

  1. Gail Combs says:

    As a scientist my only MORAL obligation is to provide the FACTS, ALL DATA and how I analysed it.

    I am absolutely sickened at how the scientific method has been replaced by Lysenkoism.

  2. david7134 says:

    In the medical world, we have an equivalent situation. That involves blood fats. Blood fats were not considered a problem until the 60’s. Then the moral scientist got to work and made them a problem. They got the politicians involved and they started to push the concept that cholesterol in diet and the blood were bad and caused disease. In fact, more than 90% of scientist felt that this was the issue and much policy was enacted to deal with this and many drugs were made to lower cholesterol. We still live with this and the concept is very strong. The only problem is that it is not true. It turns out that cholesterol is a major building block in your system and you actually need it. In fact, we will likely find that high cholesterol diets are healthy. The whole thing can be summed up if you google “cholesterol myth”. As a cardiologist, I have researched this and even won Federal court cases were doctors were accused of causing heart attacks by not reducing cholesterol. All of the “experts” in cholesterol control are on the pay of companies that sell drugs specific to this problem. They will not back down, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. So there is a parallel to this climate change crap.

    By the way, I am in Louisiana and it is cold here, in the middle of August and the leaves are beginning to change on the trees. This is something that does not happen until October. Looks to me like something other than global warming is going on, like another ice age.

  3. john says:

    The heads of the EPA under the last 4 GOP presidents going back as far vas Reagan have all come out as saying that there is no reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that man is the cause.

  4. Gail Combs says:

    A geologist (actually more than one) has pointed out that we are at the END OF THE HOLOCENE.

    Warming spikes during glacial inception are not uncommon.

    Richard B. Alley of the U.Penn. chaired the National Research Council on Abrupt Climate Change. From the opening paragraph in the executive summary:
    “…Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age…. “

    In the last interglacial, the Eemian, the warming spike was called LEAP.
    …The onset of the LEAP [ late Eemian aridity pulse] occurred within less than two decades, demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416 Wm2, which is the 65oN July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428 Wm2. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the glacial inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again…..

    As we approach the “sharp threshold, , which must be near 416 Wm2” the climate is not as stable as during the middle of the interglacial. Climate is bistable with a warm mode and a cold mode and instability in between per Dr Brown Duke Univ Physicist. Unfortunately there is quite a bit of controversy over whether we are looking at glacial inception or an extended interglacial. That 416 Wm2″ is hand waving and not cast in stone.

    “Comparison [of the Holocene] with MIS 19c, a close astronomical analogue characterized by an equally weak summer insolation minimum (474Wm−2) and a smaller overall decrease from maximum summer solstice insolation values, suggests that glacial inception is possible despite the subdued insolation forcing, if CO2 concentrations were 240±5 ppmv (Tzedakis et al., 2012) “

    And from another paper:
    “….Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

    So the REAL Controversy that the politicians are not about to mention is whether or not we are headed into glaciation. But one thing is for sure with a “subdued insolation forcing”

  5. Gail Combs says:

    To Continue:

    There has been a very narrow focus on just the last few decades to a century. What happens if you look at the Holocene?

    “..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…”
    That was a 2010 paper:

    Here is a more recent paper from January 2012
    ….A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) reveals a strong common signal in the 15 investigated sedimentary parameters… Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700-5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~3400, 3000-2700, 2100-2000, 1700-1500, and ~900 cal yr BP.”

    BP = Before Present

    The last authors simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years and the first authors state the 9% decrease in the strength of solar energy caused glaciers to grow or reestablished. Both of these studies are based on FIELD WORK and actual measurements not Garbage in Garbage out Climate models.

    (I am not including URLs because this site then boots the comment into the ether)

  6. Gail Combs says:

    So what are we seeing now?
    A 16 to 17 year ‘Pause’ in global warming, a quiet sun and an increase in Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover.

    Feb 2011:
    The Times of India: Record snowfall in Himachal this year has revived more than 2,000 glaciers.

    Daily Mail UK: Map shows most of Northern Hemisphere is covered in snow and ice

    China Daily: Worst snow in 50 years damages 400 greenhouses

    Washington Post: Coldest January on record for parts of Alaska

    August 6 2012 ACCU Weather: Endless Winter for Alaska’s Mountains This Year (Now that is scary because snow not melting in summer is how glaciers start.)

    Daily Mail UK: Jerusalem hit by worst snowstorm for TWENTY YEARS as eight inches fall across Holy City

    So much for the news. What does the actual data say?

    FALL: This shows the shorting of the summer season: NOAA Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover


    And Today? Seems “Daily mean temperatures for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel” have been below average all summer. The Arctic melt started later than usual and the Arctic freeze-up maybe starting in mid Augsut instead of in September.

    Notice the mid-winter snow cover is higher than it was in the 1970s when the news was screaming ICE AGE!?! When Professor Stephen Schneider, made his name by predicting a “new ice age”???

    The same Stephen Schneider who then jumped on the global warming bandwagon saying:

    “To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.” ~ Dr Stephen Schneider in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989

    That is NOT science that is Political Advocacy.

    In the mean time it is Frecking 68F at noon where I live in mid North Carolina. This is the COLDEST summer I have seen since I moved here twenty years ago.

  7. Gail Combs says:

    I never completed this paragraph from my second comment:

    So the REAL Controversy that the politicians are not about to mention is whether or not we are headed into glaciation. But one thing is for sure with a “subdued insolation forcing” of 9% LESS than during the Holocene Optimum, a solar forcing close to or at glacial inception. ‘Global Warming’ is not the issue and we all better pray that CO2 is the Magic Gas it is reported to be.

    In the mean time there is the little matter of Henry’s Law. As the oceans over the next centuries or if we are unlucky, decades, cool because of “subdued insolation forcing” they will suck-up lots of CO2 as they did during previous glaciations.

    A paper shows: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California

    This is not surprising since C4 plants evolved because C3 plants were in starvation mode.

    Only one tiny problem. In another paper they mention:
    “…Some of the world’s most productive crops and pasture,… are C4 plants…

    ….This is the reason why at temperatures below ca. 25–28 oC, C4 photosynthesis is less efficient than C3 photosynthesis under light-limiting conditions. It is interesting to note, that while global distribution of C4 grasses is positively correlated with growing season temperature, the geographic distribution of the different C4 subtypes is strongly correlated with rainfall (Ghannoum et al., 2011). On the contrary, C4 plants are rare to absent in cold environments….

    elevated CO2 can also increase water use efficiency, in part by decreasing stomatal conductance and transpiration (Ainsworth et al., 2002). The irradiance is also a paramount factor; enhanced photosynthesis under elevated CO2 conditions was observed in C4 plants grown under high irradiance… “

    That is a real OH SHIT!

    1. We are looking at > 9% ‘irradiance’ compared to the Holocene Optimium and it isn’t going to increase again for several thousand years. (Milankovitch cycle link)

    2. Cooler temperatures mean less CO2.

    3. Cooler temperatures mean less rain. Less sunlight/cooler temperatures means there is less energy available to promote evaporation aka more drought and C3 plants don’t do well in low CO2/drought conditions.

    3. Cooler temperatures mean less growth and limited range for C4 plants.

    It is a lose -lose situation for both C3 plants or for C4 plants as we slide towards cooler temperatures especially under low CO2 conditions.


Pirate's Cove