Heartland Institute...a change of heart?

Thanks hyo, I am happy to read Suzuki's perspective on this, but nothing new - would you agree?

Still, nobody is going with my #1 'private is private' thesis. What a shame; I thought it the only positive that might emerge from all this mucking up.

If Heartland gets closer IRS scrutiny about 501(c)3 status, I don't see that Gleick will have added to that. John Mashey earlier prepared the long version, from non-sneaky sources.

Suzuki is behind the times on HI's 'Anonymous Donor', it being a clearinghouse (money launderer?). But again, why would we care, absent some IRS action?

Further, he quite misses the point that HI is treating this as a fund-raising bonanza. Well, good for them, and caveat emptor, and ... what was that PT Barnum quote again?

Hearland has never concealed their intentions from the public eye. If their accountancy is good enough for the IRS, on with the show.

 

Mojo, is there one Taylor/Forbes article presenting all his best thoughts on the matter? Maybe another debater would step up, Gleick having a bullet hole in his foot and what not.

Frankly, I hope that an expectation for a quiet solar cycle is among the talking points. Within the last week there have been 5 coronal mass ejections. Somewhat overwhelmed in the news sphere by all our Gleicking, but there ya go.

You know the drill. More solar activity -> less cosmic rays -> warmer atmosphere. A lot or a little? One would have to brush up on beryllium stable isotopes for that debate eh?

Glad I'm not Easterbrook (the one in Washington state). Or Svensmark. Not quite ready to say I'm glad not to be Taylor. He may have a juicy compensation package.

So far.

 

FL, my original idea that non-public matters ought not be part of our decision making caught no traction. HI might have joined in, but they seem to be frying other fish at the moment.

Rather, we shall continue to leaven our deliberations with gotcha, innuendo and conspiracies. Perhaps we'll draw more sensible conclusions in that way. Could happen, I guess.

 

Manuscript review should pertain to the manuscript contents and not any (real or supposed) personal shortcomings (or santly characteristics) of the authors. This seems obviously true and perhaps not even worth stating. Implications were seen in some CRU emails that this goal is not being rigorously adhered to in some journals.. If that is the case, I'd rather have the process repaired. Rather than to be tossed out entirely, because what does that leave us with?

Grant proposal funding is slightly different, as it add a dimension. What evidence is there that the proposers can successfully complete the project? That question is apart from the content of the proposal. It requires examination of 'track record' or the proposers.

So I'd be satisfied by completely anonymous manuscript review, but not grant review. Note that no journals do it though (to my knowledge).

It would seem optimistic in the extreme to imagine that government policies could be decided in such a way. Politics.

It is in discussions of scientific matters, outside of journals, where I feel that the personality, or politics, or track records of the authors play an overly large (and generally unhelpful) role. Like in the media or at web sites. Like here.

It is quite a different thing to say "I think the idea presented is false because it conflicts with these other ideas..."

or " "I think the idea presented is false because of these characteristics of the authors."

But the style of public discussions of scientific matters seems more drawn from "Entertainment Tonight" than "Geophysical Research Letters". Perhaps I should just learn to deal with it eh?

 

Perhaps you all would be interested in Camille Parmesan's 2011 editorial in Nature Climate Change. Parmesan has published a lot about identifying changes in species' activities or distributions that may be related to directional climate changes. One Dr. Rosenzweig has as well, so after reading those two authors you have a reasonable introduction to the field.

But the message of the 2011 editorial seems (to me) to be "Let's stop trying to attribute everything to climate change, because the causality is not very strong". Rather, we have enough evidence that ecological changes are consistent with climatic changes, that they contribute as much as they can to discussions about policy changes. She does not advise us to stop studying ecology, but rather to not be absolutist about attribution.

In a world of rational policy making, the ecological studies and ice/glacial studies and hydrological studies and instrumental temperature records would be seen as what they are - generally consistent evidence that ought not be ignored. These are all, tangible things observed in real time, and my list may be incomplete.

Then you have the paleo proxies. Our only way to look at earlier events that we cannot directly observe. Each with its own strengths and weaknesses. But as group, in my opinion, their message is quite consistent.

Then you have climate models; radiative transfer and heat flow.. In my opinion, modelers are trying to squeeze every last bit out of them. But even will a little less squeezing, the message is quite consistent.

Due to the complexity of the earth system, I think those three areas have told us just about all they can (in the near term). If this information is not enough to cause global policy to move more rapidly away from fossil-C burning (current path being as fast as we can burn), well, then, it ain't.

If all the evidence is seen as insufficient, I quite fail to see how any consideration of any personal or institutional private matters could possibly drive us towards rational policies. Without regard to whether the private matters relate to people/institutions on one side or the other.

The matter is simply not being adjudicated promptly. Whether that turns out to be a great choice or a poor one, remains to be revealed.

 

Gleick resigned from (chairing and member of) AGU Ethics, citing personal reasons, and they accepted the resignation. All before the stuff hit the fan.

AGU found a new chair pretty darn quickly too, if you ask me

You won't see me defending Gleicks actions or (revealed) character, even though it has been accurately noted above that he has some defenders speaking out.

I wish Mojo and 'that team' would be more cheerful. We live in a world where carbon is not globally monetized, and where the fossil fuel industry is doing great. Profits are good, governmental subsidies and tax breaks are good. This is the world you want, yes?

Do you want more, a concensus that increasing CO2 is nothing to worry about? It would seem an odd thing to wish for, if for example a scientific concensus is without meaning.

 

Virginia high court rules in favor of climate scientist

Culcinelli v Mann vacated by VA supreme court.

I thought there was another along these lines? Was it this?

American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia (Dr. Michael Mann)

If so the court's thesis here may bear: that the University of Virginia is neither a person nor a corporation.