March for Science: Warmists Out in the Cold

Career scientists who have built their careers by stacking up warmism peer-reviewed papers (emphasis on "peer") suddenly find themselves out in the cold.

Some of theses establishment scientists have decided to participate in an irrelevant public display to give the impression of pushing back against funding cuts aimed against the structural scientific bias of warming alarmism, instead of using their professional and institutional channels within the governance structure. Pathetic.

For decades they sleep walked into whatever funding programs were offered by government, without a peep, and now the thought that warmism will be exposed to have been a scam (when the species is not extinguished by their research being terminated) makes them uneasy enough to join the protest culture. Historic.





March for Science? This is embarrassing. Establishment scientists are mostly morons and many are not afraid to show it.

A slogan from the Toronto march: "What do we want? Science. When do we want it? After peer review."

Useful imbeciles. That would require, among other things, not wanting any of Albert Einstein's science. Just saying.

They might as well have chanted: "What do we want? Government-funding-directed junk-justifications produced by careerists. When do we want it? After we are certain that it follows the dogma and does not make anyone look bad."

Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2

Here is my latest article, published moments ago on Research Gate.

Anatomy of the false link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2

By D. G. Rancourt, PhD
Research Gate, May 2016
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.2059.6087

Summary: In this critical review of the scientific literature about fire, I describe how the false notion of a link between forest fires and anthropogenic CO2 was ignited in 2006 by a fatally flawed article promoted in the science-trend-setting magazine Science, and spread like wildfire through the scientific literature and beyond, driven in part by high winds of climate modelling extravagance, while fortunately leaving large unburnt patches. There is no evidentiary basis for such a link. On the contrary, established knowledge about forest fires leads to the conclusion that dedication to teasing out such a link is preposterous: In the present circumstances starting in approximately 1900, the dominant effect is direct human impacts on land use, which causes global fire occurrences to be dramatically less than from the known long-term natural cycles (modern fire deficit). No special circumstances or regions have been correctly identified where forest fire behaviour can be attributed to CO2. Canada’s recent Fort McMurray fire is no exception. The claimed 7 g mean birth weight loss arising from mothers’ general exposure to CO2-driven southern California wildfires, like all such claims, is a product of statistical and conceptual overenthusiasm. I use concepts from the animal-behaviour scientific literature to explain how some scientists and their followers can get so carried away.

Read the entire article HERE.

Backed up here: https://archive.ph/gAjLs  

Links to 250 Peer-Reviewed Skeptic Scientific Papers From 2015

Here is the list of links, with extracts from each of the papers: HERE.

And, as an example for 2016, there is this:

"An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a “hiatus” or a “pause” when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected1. Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real2." ----Nature

In the face of continued vibrant scientific debate in the top journals, it is ridiculous to talk of "consensus" based on statistical analyses of stated positions in abstracts (such as here).

Understanding climate bias in Wikipedia

This little report pretty much explains a lot of it:

William M. Connolley

William M. Connolley is a British Wikipedia editor known for his fanaticism in promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in censoring the views of critics and skeptics. He is the ringleader of the infamous global warming cabal at Wikipedia, a powerful pro-AGW group that has an iron grip on global warming-related articles. Any editors that attempt to introduce factual information that is against their point of view are ceaselessly harassed until they are forced to quit or are banned. Connolley--a Wikipedia editor since 2003--and the group enjoy tacit support from the Wikipedia hierarchy, who often turn a blind eye to the group's misdeeds. Lawrence Solomon said that "Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate".^[1] Born on 12 April 1964, Connolley previously worked as a climate modeller and lives in Coton, Cambridgeshire^[2] with his wife and children....

CONTINUE READING ON CONSERVAPEDIA

Opinion about peer review, of one of the greatest 20th century physicists

"After 1989 Schwinger took a keen interest in the non-mainstream research of cold fusion. He wrote eight theory papers about it. He resigned from the American Physical Society after their refusal to publish his papers. He felt that cold fusion research was being suppressed and academic freedom violated. He wrote:

"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors’ rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."

... "Schwinger was jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 for his work on quantum electrodynamics (QED), along with Richard Feynman and Shinichiro Tomonaga. Schwinger's awards and honors were numerous even before his Nobel win. They include the first Albert Einstein Award (1951), the U.S. National Medal of Science (1964), honorary D.Sc. degrees from Purdue University (1961) and Harvard University (1962), and the Nature of Light Award of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (1949)." --Wikipedia

IPCC authors on the myth of scientific consensus, 2011 summary

Carbon-panic zealots and popular authors vehemently claim that "there is a scientific consensus" and that "the science is settled"; typically, in advancing that the human species itself is at risk.

(These claims are routinely debunked. For example, here, here, here; and on species extinction here.)

Their enthusiasm is of great service to the US Empire that wants to coerce competing independent blocs (BRICS) into accepting carbon instruments that are barely-covert geopolitical instruments.

But here is what major IPCC insiders have said about "consensus" and on the harm of an IPCC structure and culture that imposes consensus in the face of "the range of views" [1]:

5 The issue of consensus

To many, notably including Risbey and Curry in this special issue, the emphasis on consensus is the most troublesome limitation of IPCC assessment processes (for a general critique of the consensus approach to science, see Moore and Beatty 2010). Achieving consensus is, to be clear, one of the major objectives of IPCC activities. Paragraph 10 of the amended Procedures Guiding IPCC Work, for example, states that “In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus” (http://​ipcc.​ch/​pdf/​ipcc-principles/​ipcc-principles.​pdf). The paragraph continues by noting that “for approval, adoption and acceptance of reports, differing views shall be explained and, upon request (by countries participating in the approval plenaries), recorded (in publically available documentation that is maintained by the IPCC Secretariat). Differing views on matters of a scientific, technical or socio-economic nature shall, as appropriate in the context, be represented in the scientific, technical or socio-economic document concerned,” but it is certainly the case that all participants in IPCC assessments would like this to be the exception rather than the rule. To our memory, such documentation has never been required at least so far as SPM’s are concerned.

Drawing the boundaries between consensus and disagreement is an activity which is so subjective that it ipso facto violates restriction #3 (Moore and Beatty 2010). As IPCC, in a search for objectivity in uncertainty assessment, has turned more to describing uncertainty in terms of the characteristics of ensembles of model outcomes, the deficiency in such an approach (its exclusion or limited treatment of systemic, structural uncertainty in models) has become increasingly apparent to the community (Winsberg 2010; Knutti et al. 2008; Goldstein and Rougier 2009). The exercise of subjective judgment in the comparison of ensemble outcomes to observational and paleoclimatic data provides a critically important means to augment the criteria internal to the model world. Indeed, there are examples in IPCC reports of willingness to acknowledge the importance of expert (subjective) judgment, if on a limited basis (e.g., see discussions of climate sensitivity, detection and attribution and climate and weather extremes in WGI report, assessment of response strategies in the WGII report of AR4; see also Knutti and Hegerl (2008) for futher details on the role of expert judgement in estimating climate sensitivity). But more salient is IPCC’s reluctance to fully couple the inevitable process of subjective judgment in a coherent way into its assessments of uncertainty and, absent this coupling, IPCC’s tendency, particularly in SPMs, to resort to emphasizing ensemble means rather than fully describing the range of views. In some cases, neither ranges of views nor are consensus judgments reported, leaving decision makers at a loss. Outstanding examples of the latter include, in addition to the examples of SRES and ice sheets above, authors’ avoidance of any estimates of carbon cycle feedbacks involving tundra or methane hydrate reservoirs; and avoidance of estimations of the degree of implementation of adaptation capacity under particular circumstances. [Emphasis added]

The latter "range of views" is the range admitted via the institutional-self-censorship mechanism of peer-review and citation indices [2][3][4]. It often does not even include these scientific views.


Endnotes

[1] Gary Yohe, Michael Oppenheimer, "Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay", Article, Climatic Change, October 2011, Volume 108, Issue 4, pp 629-639.

[2] David F. Noble, "Regression on the Left", Climate Guy, May 30, 2007.

[3] Susan Mazur, "Peer Review as Censorship", CounterPunch, February 26, 2010.

[4] Denis G. Rancourt, "Peer-Review Failure in Climate Prof Denis Rancourt", YouTube -- 1000frolly channel, August 23, 2015.

Denis Rancourt on the institutional mechanisms and politics of "peer review" -- video

Source and background links:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/05/climate-stupidity-and-human-survival/

There you go. That's how peer review works.

This is a typical story about the scam that is peer review:

Royal Society In Trouble Over False Extinction Claim Paper (LINK)

Date: 20/09/2014
Ben Webster, The Times

There is virtually always a significant barrier to publishing a paper that conclusively shows that an earlier published paper was wrong. This is especially true in the high-profile "leading" journals.

Scientific journals have low tolerance for embarrassment.

In addition, the peer review exercise itself is a straight-up conformity filter. It's no wonder Albert Einstein categorically rejected "peer review".

The eminent historian of science and technology David F. Noble referred to the Left's rapprochement with establishment peer-review on the issue of global warming as "Regression on the Left" (LINK).

Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault explains his idea about global climate forcing and his experience with climate politics

Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault

Comment and review by Denis G. Rancourt, PhD

Dr. Jean-Louis Pinault is a proven expert environmental physicist and statistical analyst of global spatio-temporal data. His publication record leaves no doubt in this regard: Pinault-Google-scholar-profile. A specific example of his work in climate science is HERE.

Dr. Pinault has developed a model, which he supports with extensive statistical analyses of global spatio-temporal data, whereby relatively small solar variations (relative to the large variations occurring on the lifetime of the Sun) acquire leverage on global climate via an oceanic resonance tuning that operates on the global ocean oscillations on Earth.

Dr. Pinault was met with sufficiently significant resistance from the dominant scientific cabal, know as "peer review", to decide to concentrate on writing a book, rather than fighting reviewers and spineless and lazy editors (my words). In his book he both explains his science ideas and exposes the scientific censorship which has frustrated him. His book is "From the melody of the oceans to climate change: a fight against ostracism", and was just released on May 10, 2014.

Dr. Pinault's ideas are important for two reasons: (1) they suggest a new and plausible mechanism whereby small solar constant variations have an amplified effect on Earth, which may dominate climate change within the current multimillion-year period, with the present ocean masses, and (2) they illustrate how difficult it is for a recognized scientist to propose a model that is not sufficiently aligned with dominant scientific dogma.

Dr. Pinault's model is consistent with my own calculations that show that average climate sensitivity, without ocean resonances, is greater for solar constant changes and for planetary surface modifications than for changes in CO2 concentration: HERE, and HERE.

In a recent email exchange, Dr. Pinault explained his new book to me in this way:

The theory of anthropogenic climate warming, i.e. resulting from the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide in particular, has produced the economic and political media frenzy we know, unprecedented in the history of science. On the other hand, there are those who oppose who are skeptical about this hypothesis. Arguing natural climate variability observed in the past, including the recent past regarding the Little Ice Age, they refute alarmist predictions that are becoming harder to sustain as the temperature of the planet has no longer increased over the last fifteen years, while the concentration of carbon dioxide is soaring.

This confrontation between the proponents of global warming due to human activity, supported by the IPCC, and skeptics reflects a misunderstanding of the mechanisms involved in climate variability. Computers of the former allow a "bad model to be accurately wrong", I quote William Gray, whereas the latter challenge the working methods and the scientific integrity of the IPCC members who cling tenaciously to the theory of greenhouse gases liable for global warming, which is the raison d'être of the IPCC.

But this very uneven debate, skeptics cannot enforce their arguments in scientific journals that are subject to censorship since the Copenhagen Climate Conference, should now be enriched with a phenomenon totally unknown to climatologists and oceanographers, which is the planetary wave resonance in the oceans. This discovery, which I did by chance at a time when I knew almost nothing about the oceans and climate, not only allows explaining and reproducing the warming of our planet, more precisely the middle and long-term climate variability, but also the El Niño phenomenon, the succession of wet or dry years observed in Western Europe since the 70°S, the surface currents in oceans...

Highlighting the resonantly forced ocean long-waves allows lifting the veil on many previously unexplained phenomena of both oceanic and climatic origin. Is that the tropical belt of the oceans produces long-waves, whose wavelength is several thousand kilometers. Trapped by the equator they are deflected at the approach of the continents to form off-equatorial waves that act as tuning slides, like a trombonist who uses his slide for resonating the air column in the pipe with the vibration of his lips to produce a note. This musical analogy explains the title of this book, my instrumental practice helped me a lot in understanding the oceanic and atmospheric phenomena, at least as much as my training as a physicist mathematician that provided me with a beautiful diploma from the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, a long time ago.

These long tropical waves resonate with the main source of forcing that are the trade winds, whose period is annual, to produce sub-harmonic whose period is multi-annual. These long baroclinic waves result of the oscillation of the thermocline.

The tropical oceanic resonance is one of the drivers of ocean surface circulation and contributes to the formation of strong western boundary currents. Around latitude 40°N or S, those western boundary currents leave the boundary of the continents to join each of the five oceanic subtropical gyres. These resonantly forced baroclinic waves then become gyral, turning clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. Having the same periods as the baroclinic waves of the tropical oceans, they form where the western boundary currents leave the coast: again, like the trombone, the wavelength of these gyral waves tunes with the period  frequency of forcing.

For periods between half a year and eight years, the forcing of these gyral waves is induced from the sequence of warm and cold waters conveyed by western boundary currents, and now cause the oscillation of the thermocline of the gyre. But these gigantic gyral waves also have the ability to tune with the long-period solar cycles of one to up to several centuries, as well as Milankovitch cycles that affect the occurrence of glacial and interglacial periods, which reflect the changes in terrestrial astronomical parameters throughout tens of thousands of years, while filtering out the effects of the better known, the 11-year solar cycle.

These resonant baroclinic waves have the ability to 'hide' the thermal energy that drives them by lowering the thermocline; those warm deepwater little participate in evaporation so that the resonant gyral ocean waves act as heat sink by absorbing more thermal energy than they re-emit. On the contrary, during the uprising of the thermocline, thermal surface anomalies induce atmospheric instabilities say again baroclinic, depressions or cyclones, which, carried by the jet-streams at high altitude, travel throughout the continents. Changes in surface temperature of continents tend to balance with the thermal anomalies of subtropical gyres. Positive or negative, these thermal anomalies of sea surface tend to produce the same anomalies at the surface of continents due to the large heat capacity of seawater on the one hand, and the cyclonic or anticyclonic activity stimulated at mid-latitudes secondly.

This thermal balancing internal to our planet, which occurs over the years, smooth the climate variations we observe daily at mid-latitudes. This simple model, if not simplistic, is based on the imbalance between the energy received and re-emitted by the earth. This imbalance mainly depends on the depth of the thermocline of resonantly forced gyral waves, firstly allowing to account for long-term climate variability, and secondly to reproduce with high accuracy global warming observed during the second half of the 20th century, then the stagnation of the average temperature of the planet, precursor of the beginning of a slow cooling that will continue for several centuries. This warming effect results in the accumulation of warm seawaters by coupling with solar activity which showed a burst in the 20th century, what climatologists call the modern maximum which indicates the end of the Little ice age that occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries and also that of the Ice Age that happened more than 10,000 years ago.

This discovery gives reason to the skeptics when they observe a correlation between long-term variations in solar activity and climate. Up to now these arguments were refuted by the official theory since climate models were not able to interpret how a variation in solar activity well below the percent can impact the climate without involving the phenomenon of oceanic resonance. Then the influence of greenhouse gas emissions played the role of troubleshooter to remedy model failures.

Clearly the controversy over global warming emphasized our ignorance concerning fundamental oceanic and climatic phenomena. Gyral wave resonance should reconcile the community of oceanographers and climatologists, skeptical or not. But subjected to the ubiquitous ostracism in 'official' scientific circles, I resigned myself to suspend submitting my work in peer-reviewed scientific journals, giving priority to dissemination of results.

Dr. Pinault's book should be of interest to climate scientists worthy of the title, and to historians of science.

His model will be tested in the coming decades, since it predicts: "...firstly allowing to account for long-term climate variability, and secondly to reproduce with high accuracy global warming observed during the second half of the 20th century, then the stagnation of the average temperature of the planet, precursor of the beginning of a slow cooling that will continue for several centuries."

If he is correct, then it will be even more reason to conclude that modern CO2 increases don't matter and never mattered, regarding modern climate change. For the climate activists, read THIS. For historians of science and true scientists who are not solely careerists, read this:

Scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics

Scientific consensus fetishism in climate politic (link)

 

Recent article by Denis Rancourt

Ray Pierrehumbert's peer review of Rancourt's planetary warming physics article "CO2 has little effect"

Dr. Denis Rancourt's "Most downloaded free-access scientific article about planetary warming physics" has been extensively commented upon and critiqued by Prof. Dr. Raymond Pierrehumbert (Louis Block Professor, Department of the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago), arguably the leading establishment expert on such physics models.

See the complete email exchange HERE.

The complete email exchange was initiated by an email from Rancourt to the scientists at Real Climate and is posted HERE. Further replies will be posted as comments to the present blogpost (below).

Rancourt's January 8, 2012 email concludes:

"You are a recognized establishment-science expert in these simple models. You have not identified any errors in my model. I think you will agree that when a simple model contains no physics errors and no calculation errors and obtains correct results without over stretching (without seeking results that the model is not structurally able to legitimately obtain), then if you wish to argue that the model needs more complexity the onus is on you to demonstrate that the added complexity is required rather than being superfluous."

Peer criticism -- REVISED version of Rancourt radiation physics paper

[Prof. Ray Pierrehumbert]

1. Rancourt writes original version of article, HERE.
2. Asks for and receives peer criticism, HERE.
3. Rancourt writes significantly revised version of article, HERE.
4. Asks for and receives further peer criticism about revised version, PRESENT POST.
5. It appears that Rancourt's revised paper is correct: The predicted effect of CO2 is two orders of magnitude smaller than the effects of other parameters.
6. Final June 2011 (Third) version is significantly augmented, LINK-HERE.
   

Following the posting of THIS significantly revised version of Denis Rancourt's paper about Earth's radiation balance, Rancourt asked the climate scientists at RealClimate for follow-up criticism -- resulting in this email exchange:

----------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Revised version posted:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global_12.html

Please provide any feedback.

Denis Rancourt

----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eric Steig
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Denis,

I applaud your efforts to take Ray's criticisms into account, but your post is still full of errors. I really don't have the time to get into all of them, but case in point is where you write that

"The longwave atmospheric absorption in the CO2 absorption band is saturated in Earth conditions and this is important because it is the physical reality ..."

This is simply wrong. See here: for example an explanation of why.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

Eric Steig

-----------------------------------------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Yes, Denis, Eric is right about that. I did say that your failure to understand Kirchoff's law was only ONE of the problems with your post. I collaborated on writing the post Eric refers to, and I also wrote the accompanying post on "What Angstrom didn't know"

I appreciate your efforts to learn this material, but writing nonsense and having us correct it bit by bit is very inefficient of everybody's time. I suggest that before you make such sweeping pronouncements about the subject, you take the time to educate yourself on the basics. David Archer's book, "Understanding the Forecast" is a good place to start, and you can follow that with my book, Principles of Planetary Climate." For that matter, if you had read my Physics Today article, which I pointed out to you in connection with the G&T nonsense, you would have already known about the saturation fallacy.

--Ray

------------------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: 2011/5/12
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Hi Ray and Eric,

Actually, Ray, the first version did not use the saturation approach so this could not have been an error in the first version.

The physical model I now use is a single-layer atmosphere that is longwave opaque withing a certain width on the main CO2 band and that does not emit at other wavelengths. It either lets ground longwave through or it blocks it within this "saturation band". The width of the assumed saturation opaqueness band increases with CO2 content by assuming a binary cutoff of transmission/opaqueness at a characteristic value of cross section giving opaqueness and a Gaussian cross section profile.

While these are simplifying assumptions they do not violate any physical law or principle. One can argue that the longwave absorption of the real atmosphere can be approximately parametrized in this way.

The model clearly shows how a saturating atmosphere would work (in the limit of black/white saturation circumstances) regarding surface temperature, without using a full thick infrared radiative transfer theory calculation. The model treats only the atmosphere's role in blocking or letting through ground thermal emission. It says that role for the CO2 15 um band works this way.

It seems to me that the (one-layer) atmosphere's own thermal emission is not relevant because half goes up and out while half goes down and back to be fully absorbed (e ~ 1). In the limit of all-thermalization of absorbed longwave, this only means that ~half that is resonantly absorbed at saturation actually gets out. This is easily handled by reducing the cross section by a factor of ~two. This factor of two would appear in the "ln(σm/σe)" term of my equations 8 and 9 and therefore would have no significant effect.

Therefore it appears that your negation relies mostly on the differences that there would be between a one-layer radiating and absorbing atmosphere and a thick (multi-layer) atmosphere. It seems to me that this would only lead to yet another small re-normalization of my characteristic model parameters. But I will examine this.

Do you have a simple code that simulates the radiation transfer in a multi-layer model atmosphere?

Thank you for your help.

-denis

--------------------------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: 2011/5/12
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Also, is it possible that you did not read my revised article beyond the word "saturation"?

I actually apply what you describe here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/comment-page-13/#comments

The only difference is that I make the estimation quantitative by using a Gaussian shape cross section and a sharp cut-off.

The warming on increasing CO2 in my model directly comes from the extra absorption in the wings of the band...

-denis

-------------------------------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Denis, you are making a small amount of progress. The single layer version catches up with Arrhenius, and (when used with modern spectroscopy) has the exact same problems that Arrhenius had, as only became clear later when things got sorted out in the 60's by Manabe. There is a full discussion of this in The Warming Papers.

I still recommend you would do better to educate yourself on the basics, and show a bit of humility about those things of which you are ignorant, before you make sweeping pronouncements.

--Ray

---------------------------------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Dear Denis,

This conversation started out well, but now it's degenerating. I was pleased that you were able to learn something about Kirchoff's Law, and were willing to update your essay to correct that blunder. Every little bit that eliminates propagation of nonsense, and gets some truth out into the arena, is a step forward. But you still clearly have a lot to learn, and I'm suspicious because so far as I can tell, you seem to have made up your mind before you even have gotten pinkie deep into learning the subject matter you'd need to pass judgment.

So, what's especially on my mind (and I would love to be proved wrong) is that back in 2007 you declared that the entire man made global warming movement is nothing more than "a corrupt social phenomenon." That statement has been featured prominently by Marc Morano, which is indeed where I first came across your name. This quote has been picked up widely by inactivists everywhere, and is particularly choice to that community because it comes from a self-professed leftist.

So were you quoted fairly? If not, have you ever taken steps to rectify the way your name is being used? If you were indeed quoted correctly, to you still stand by this statement? Have you ever retracted it in the face of things you have learned since? I am much disturbed by the fact that you would make such a statement years before you had progressed to the point where you even understood Kirchoff's Law (that point being evidently the day before yesterday, or thereabouts). How can you justify having made such a pronouncement at a time when you had such a thoroughly inadequate understanding of the subject? And, the fact is, you still have a thoroughly inadequate understanding of the subject.

I would like to think that we have some common ground, but I need an explanation as to how in the world you came to the opinion you expressed without having an inkling of the physical basis of the subject.

--Ray

------------------------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Hi Ray,

It's good that you accepted to engage on the science despite my political statements.

I think it is possible to examine and evaluate the science separately from our evaluation of the political and social forces that drive the science establishment.

I also think that one can evaluate the latter without being a specialist in the former. Otherwise, we will need to eliminate the field of social history of science and technology.

In addition, my understanding of the science, having corrected my Kirchoff's Law error and having implemented a reasonable model of longwave absorption by CO2, suggests that my "sweeping statements" about the science are worthy of attention.

In particular, given the simplicity of my model, you would need to provide a quantitative estimate showing how my single-layer model with the correct absorption cross section and relevant characteristic parameters can be off in terms of estimated relative sensitivities compared to a multi-layer model.

Since my model uses the most straightforward and simplest assumptions and the actual known characteristic parameters, you need to show where it is wrong, beyond waving a broad "read my book - multi-layer or die" magic wand.

Is that not fair for a seasoned expert such as yourself?

I have already demonstrated how I respond to being correctly shown to be in error. And I assure you that I am open to changing my views.

Do you have a simple code that simulates the radiation transfer in a multi-layer model atmosphere? (If not, then how do you gauge the importance of using a multi-layer model?)

cheers,
-denis

-----------------------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, Rasmus Benestad , Ray Bradley , Stefan Rahmstorf , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig , Eric Steig , David Archer , garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, Jim Bouldin , William Connolley

Dear Ray,

I have posted our exchange here:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/peer-criticism-revised-version-of.html

(The picture links to your web site.)

I await any next installment in our communication about these simple models that allow an estimation of climate sensitivity to different key parameters.

best,
-denis

-----------------------------------------------

Peer criticism -- Original version of Rancourt radiation physics paper

Following THIS request for peer criticism of THIS original version of a paper about Earth's radiation balance, the following email exchange occurred.

---------------------------------------

From: Michael Mann [mem45]
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: denis rancourt

I will be away from my email through May 14, 2011.

Any email sent before then may remain unread and be discarded. If your message is important, you will need to resend after that date.

-------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:24 PM
Subject: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: allrc

Dear Mr. Rancourt,

Your discussion of energy balance starts off soundly, but then you get mired in a nest of mistakes, the most critical of which is your misunderstanding of Kirchoff's Law. Kirchoff's law only requires that emissivity and absorptivity be equal at the same wavelength. Since Earth's incoming radiation is shortwave, but outgoing is longwave (infrared), there is no contradiction between a surface emissivity near unity and an albedo of around 0.3 . Your calculation erroneously attributes the effect of atmospheric infrared opacity to surface emissivity.

By the way, climate models do not assume surface infrared emissivity to be unity. The deviations from unity are not a major effect in the surface budget, but the emissivity of common Earth materials can be easily measured, and in full GCM's the emissivity is taken into account in the lower boundary condition for radiation models.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

--Ray Pierrehumbert

--------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: allrc , gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Dear Mr. Pierrehumbert,

Thank you for your critique. I will post it. You are correct that Kirchoff's Law strictly applies for a given wavelength and that I took it to apply at all wavelengths for a given material. (I took albedo and emissivity to be wavelength-independent. This could indeed be rather off, depending on the material.)

Could you point me to a paper where shortwave albedo and longwave emissivity were measured in a common Earth material?

Do you believe that a correct longwave emissivity for Earth is 1 and that therefore the atmosphereless Earth would be at -19C? This is stated on the RealClimate web site.

Also, it would be useful if you could state what other errors you have found in the article, since you have already ascertained these errors.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

---------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt
Cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Emission-weighted emissivity is one of the easiest quantities to measure. It is even routinely used in engineering studies. Detaied spectrally resolved emissivity measurements are routinely reported in Icarus and JSQRT, since they are crucial to the use of infrared spectroscopy in estimating mineral composition of planetary surfaces. The literature is far too vast to summarize, but an example of some typical emissivities at various temperatures for common building and terrestrial materials is listed, for exampe, at:

http://www.coleparmer.com/techinfo/techinfo.asp?htmlfile=Emissivity.htm&ID=254#anchor4

Also emissivity can be computed in a straightforward way from measured absorption coefficients of condensed substances. Detailed data for water, water ice and CO2 ice is given in Chapter 4 and 5 of my book, Principles of Planetary Climate. Data sets and references are found on the book web site. (go to geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1 and follow links to ClimateBook).

The emissivity of ice and water, which makes up most of the surface of the Earth, is very accurately known. The emissivity of land varies more, especially in response to vegetation cover, but it is known well enough for the purposes of determining energy balance; there can be problems with microwave emissivity of land surfaces which complicate doing microwave retrievals over land in some circumstances.

I do not actually agree with the statement that the Earth's temperature would be -19C if you removed the atmosphere. This is a true statement of what you would get if you replaced the atmosphere with an IR-transparent atmosphere (e.g. N2), which could still transport heat, and if moreover you could prevent the ocean from freezing over. In reality, if you did that, the oceans would freeze, and the mean temperature would be much colder than -19C (see my AREPS Neoproterozoic review article for numbers). But if the Earth had no oceans and you took away the atmosphere, first of all, you would also take away the clouds (which changes the albedo) and second of all you would take away heat transport. In that case, the temperature distribution would be rather like the Moon -- 100C at the subsolar point, maybe -100C on the night side. (Slightly warmer than the Moon on the night side, because the Earth is more rapidly rotating, so there's less time for the surface to cool down).

But there is absolutely zero question that removing CO2 from the Earth's atmosphere would make it much colder than -19C, and probably cause the Earth to turn into a snowball. The radiation physics of this is unassailable, and based on more than a century of work by some of the best physicists around, backed up by thousands of laboratory and satellite measurements. You are really barking up the wrong tree.

--Ray Pierrehumbert

-----------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: climate
To: "Raymond P."
Cc: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Thank you for your detailed response.

From now on, whenever I describe the simple radiation balance equations I will stress that the albedo is for shortwave whereas the emissivity is for longwave (and that Kirchoff's Law therefore is not relevant). That arbitrary step of setting emissivity equal to 1 in textbook descriptions (without explaining that water and vegetation emissivities are close to 1) always bothered me, since I was 18 in first year.

I will make a revised article and I will also correct others who may make the same error about Kirchoff's Law.

Thanks.

Denis Rancourt

-------------------------------------

From: Raymond P.
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: climate
To: Denis Rancourt

No problem. Radiation balance and planetary temperature is a really fascinating subject, and I'm always happy when people take in interest in it. You might be interested in some of the classic papers Dave Archer and I compiled (with interpretive essays) in our book, "The Warming Papers" -- particularly the things Arrhenius did or didn't get right, the false steps along the way (e.g. Plass getting mired in a surface budget fallacy) and the way Manabe finally got everything right in the 60's. It's pubished by Wiley/Blackwell. The pricetag unfortunately got rather high, but that was out of our control, since most of the cost of the book was in copyright fees payed to copyright holders for permission to reprint.

--Ray

---------------------------------------
...
---------------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt
Date: Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: climate
To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wconnolley

Revised version posted:
http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2011/05/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global_12.html

Please provide any feedback.

Denis Rancourt

----------------------------------------

Note: The June 2011 (third and final) version of Rancourt's paper, corrected and largely augmented is LINK-HERE.

Request to RealClimate scientists

From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Tue, May 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM
Subject: climate
To: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, mann@psu.edu, ammann@ucar.edu, rasmus.benestad@met.no, rbradley@geo.umass.edu, rahmstorf@ozean-klima.de, rahmstorf@pik-potsdam.de, steig@u.washington.edu, d-archer@uchicago.edu, rtp1@geosci.uchicago.edu, garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, jrbouldin@ucdavis.edu, wmconnolley@gmail.com


Dear Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Eric Steig, David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert, Thibault de Garidel, Jim Bouldin, and William Michael Connolley,

Dear contributors to Real Climate,

Dear colleagues,

Re: A new article for your review

Please consider this new article:
"Radiation physics constraints on global warming"
http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2011/05/radiation-physics-constraints-on-global.html

I believe this article contains proof of incorrect/unjustified assumptions and corresponding results published on the Real Climate web site.

I would welcome your reviews of my article for posting.

I will feature all your comments and criticisms on the same blog.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics)
Former professor and environmental researcher, University of Ottawa, Canada
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/blogs-etc/scientific-work.html

Peer review of Harrit et al. on 911 - Can't see any nanothermite?

[See follow up articles about Harrit's response HERE.]

Climate Guy has peer reviewed the paper by Harrit et al. (Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2, 2009, 7-31) and finds no conclusive evidence for nanothermite.

Here is the peer review report.

There is much wrong with this article. It would not have passed my expert peer review in its published state.

Particles were separated from untreated dust using magnetic separation (a simple bar magnet). The separate contained small bi-layer (grey-layer + red-layer) flakes.

The red layers were concluded to be synthetic nanothermite.

Separated particles were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDXA). Samples were mounted for the SEM/EDXA measurements using carbon tape adhesive on bulk aluminum plugs, the standard simplest mounting for SEM/EDXA work.

The authors argued that since the red layers were seen by SEM (back scattered electron images) to be aggregates of dense nanoparticles and less dense nanoflake-like particles and since the EDXA spectra showed the presence of both Fe (iron) and Al (aluminum) that the flake-like particles must be elemental aluminum, whereas the smaller nanoparticles were presumed to be iron oxide.

They further argued that a nano-scale mixture of Fe-oxide and Al-metal is by definition a nanothermitic material.

The authors also provided differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) measurements of bi-layer grey-red flakes and observed exothermic peaks at approximately 420 C (degrees Celsius) for all four WTC dust samples.

There are more problems with all of this than I have the patience to outline but here are some main points.

• The Al slugs would give inhomogeneous background Al signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little Al in the red-layer.
  

• The carbon adhesive tape will give inhomogeneous background C signals in the EDXA spectra. This was not considered or discussed in the paper. There could be no or little C in the red-layer.
  

• There is as much or more Si (silicon) in the EDXA results than Al in all the red-layer results and Si and Al are closely correlated in their spatial distributions (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This is not consistent with the presence of metallic Al.
  

• Oxygen (O) is more closely spatially correlated with Al and Si than with Fe (e.g., their Figure 10). No probable explanation is given for this. This contradicts the conclusion of the presence of metallic Al.
  

• No effort was made to estimate the Fe:Al elemental ratio in the red-layer. Synthetic thermite or nanothermite would have a ratio of 1:1. The point is never discussed.

• The exothermic peak in the DSC traces occurs at a temperature (420 C) approximately 90 C below the temperature for the thermite reaction. No explanation is proposed for this. Chemical activation energies of known reactions cannot be so sample dependent, whether nano-sized or not. This is not the thermite reaction.

• In the reacted product (after heating in DSC), no Al-oxide is observed as a residue, as required by the thermite reaction. No explanation is given for this.

• The obvious needed measurement of X-ray diffraction was not used to confirm the solid mineral species (oxides or metals). This is unacceptable in a materials chemistry paper. This is not considered by the authors.

• Much is made of the fact that Fe-rich spheroids are present after reaction but there is no discussion of the grey-layer or of the origin of the Si-rich spheroids. Heating causes many things and there is an exothermic reaction so the conclusions about the presence of Fe-rich spheroids (which are reported to contain oxygen) as evidence for the thermite reaction is tenuous.

Here is an alternative explanation for the observations reported by Harrit et al.

Steel rusts. Rust crusts crack and blow off the steel when physically disrupted.

Rusting steel is one of the most studied materials science problems in engineering.

When steel rusts in a humid building environment it grows a crust composed of layers of different Fe-oxides and Fe-oxyhydroxides. These are stratified micro-layers with successive layers of different Fe-oxides species (wustite, maghemite, hematite, etc.). In a humid atmosphere the outer layers will be Fe-oxyhydroxides such as goethite, lepidocrocite and akaganeite. The latter three Fe-oxyhydroxides have the same chemical formula: FeOOH, and differ only in their crystal structures.

These Fe-oxyhydroxides typically form as nanoparticles and have the same needle and nanoflake-like morphologies as observed here.

When these Fe-oxyhydroxides are heated in a DSC they undergo a solid to solid exothermic reaction of dehydroxilation (loss of OH) and transform from FeOOH to Fe2O3 (hematite) at a temperature of approximately 400 C. The temperature of the transformation can vary depending on exact chemical composition, and on the crystal structure, but it is always at approximately 400 C.

Looks like our boys may have been discovering the properties of rusted steel. Steel contains C and Si which would end up in its oxidation products, especially in the oxyhydroxides.

I may be wrong but if I had been a reviewer I would have required that the authors prove the presence of metallic Al nano-flakes by X-ray diffraction (or electron diffraction) and that they be much more careful in their EDXA work. I think they would have seen FeOOH not metallic Al.

I would have also required that they make nanothermite by known recipes and measure its DSC trace and look for the Al-oxide residue after reaction.

In my opinion the Open Chemical Physics Journal did a very sloppy job on this paper, especially given the importance of 911 as a historic event and societal phenomenon.

Regression on the Left

David F. Noble

Sometimes the Left is its own worst enemy, particularly when it uses its enemy’s tactics to silence internal dissent. In response to recent challenges to the current crusade against global warming, this dogmatic tendency of the left, here rooted in a naive scientism, has resurfaced with a vengeance. In its resolute repudiation of corporate “deniers,” the left has allied itself wholeheartedly with the “advocates,” adopting a stridency intolerant of doubt or dissent. Those on the left who dare to disagree are instantly denounced as deluded or, worse, deniers themselves. Perhaps most importantly they are accused (by Justin Podur in his response to challenges by Denis Rancourt, David Noble, and Alexander Cockburn) of launching “an attack on science,” of adopting an “anti-science tone”, and taking “anti-science positions.” George Monbiot, admitting his own scientific incompetence, repeatedly derides Cockburn for not grounding his dissenting views upon the allegedly irrefutable foundation of "peer-reviewed scientific journals," for only then, he avers, could we be sure "that they are worth discussing." The source of this new orthodoxy is an exaggerated reverence for science, which has in fact marked socialism since its inception, when supposed scientific verities served as the antidote to religion and religion-based power. Among the earliest socialists, for example, the followers of atheist Robert Owen, turned their devotion from God to steampower: “science was heard and the savage hearts of men were melted; the scabs fell from their eyes, a new life thrilled through their veins, their apprehensions were enobled, and as science spoke, the multitude knelt in love and obedience.” The so-called “scientific socialism” of Marxism followed this furrow for over a century. But such primitive faith in science has long since been powerfully challenged on the left, by fifty years of sustained critical analysis of, and direct confrontation with, the social construction and political realities of presumedly objective scientific enterprise. It is thus indeed remarkable, and alarming, how readily the left regresses into reflexive reliance upon its formative substitute religion.

From the late nineteenth-century on, the professionalizing practice of science was increasingly monopolized by a privileged elite and harnessed to the pecuniary ends of corporate capitalism, both subverting whatever liberatory potential it might ever have had. But periodically there have emerged popular challenges to this class-bound institutionalization of science. Taking the United States as a prime example, following the First World War and throughout the 1930's there was continuing criticism of the nefarious military uses of science, the corporate command over the agenda of science, and the private monopolization of the patented fruits of science. World War Two constituted a pivotal moment for this popular challenge, with its unprecedented government-sponsored mobilization of the nation's scientific resources for the war effort. For the first time, and forever thereafter, the taxpayer became by far the major source of funds for scientific endeavor, through a new system of government contracts and grants. And, in a democracy, if the taxpayer was paying for science, the taxpayer would have to have a degree of control over the content and agenda of science. Indeed, corporate and scientific leaders had in the past eschewed public support of their activities precisely for that reason, out of fear that reliance upon the public purse would bring with it public interference and oversight. Now, however, the scale of the financial support available made it too good to refuse, or ever give up. The problem was what to do about democracy.

During the war the problem was solved through military security. Under wartime pressures, the direction of science was vested in a civilian agency but dominated by leaders of the elite academic and professional institutions with close ties with major corporations. The chairman of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), Vannevar Bush, an official of MIT and a director of Raytheon and AT&T, was the embodiment of this elite assemblage. Predictably, the lion's share of contracts and grants went to the elite private universities and the largest corporations, along with patent rights to the most lucrative inventions. But by the middle of the war, just when the privileged few had begun to plan for the postwar continuation of this largesse, those left out of the arrangement and opposed to the wholesale corporate subsidy it entailed, had begun strenuously to object, and to propose a more egalitarian and democratic peacetime scientific establishment. Led by New Deal senator Harley Kilgore they put forth a plan for a postwar National Science Foundation that emphasized lay control over science and political accountability. It was to be headed by a presidentially appointed director advised by a board whose members would include citizens representing consumers, labor, and small businesses as well as large corporations and scientists. The agency would let contracts to firms and universities on an equitable basis and would retain public ownership of all patents. Kilgore envisioned the new agency as a democratic means to socially responsive science.

This democratic proposal alarmed Bush and his elite academic and corporate colleagues who formulated a counter proposal, for National Research Foundation (later, also called the National Science Foundation). Central to this plan was an agency that guaranteed professional rather than lay control over science, was insulated from political accountability, and gave its director discretion over the awarding of patent ownership. In essence, the Bush agency was designed to guarantee public support for scientists – and, indirectly, for the corporations they served as well - without public control, a regime of science run by scientists and paid for by the taxpayer. The two proposals for a postwar agency were debated in Congress for several years after the war. Kilgore's bill was backed by President Truman. The Bush bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress in 1947 but was vetoed by Truman, who stated, "the proposed National Science Foundation would be divorced from control by the people to an extent that implies a distinct lack of faith in democratic processes." In 1950 a compromise version of the Bush bill was passed and signed by Truman, now once again under (cold)wartime exigencies. The new agency included a presidentially-appointed director but a board composed only of scientists committed to continuing the comfortable patterns established by the OSRD during the war. As a bulwark against democratic oversight and lay involvement in the awarding of scientific contracts and grants, the agency adopted a new mechanism of exclusion: "peer review." Only peers - fellow privileged professionals, whatever their unacknowledged ties to commercial enterprise - could be involved in deciding upon the merits and agenda of science.

Peer review was a relatively novel concept. Editors of journals had in the past, at their own discretion on an ad hoc basis, referred manuscripts to anonymous reviewers before publication to aid them in their decisions, but this would now become required and routinized into standard practice. Peer review certainly had its benefits, such as credibility (peer review as PR), convenient credentialling (no need to read it if it has been peer reviewed), and consensus-building (through mutual back-scratching). But it also had its costs, such as prior censorship (by interested parties), and, especially, the coercive encouragement of conformity. If peer review served to immunize science from democratic scrutiny and intervention, it also imposed a measure of like-mindedness upon the scientific community itself, mistakenly celebrated as consensus. Invariably, this tended to narrow the scope of respectable discourse and, hence, of the scientific imagination, inbreeding often entailing a degree of enfeeblement. A safeguard against error, it might also eliminate eccentric approaches and illuminating mistakes, often the key to significant discovery. And if intended to insure that only correct papers were permitted to be published, why then the need for the community of science at all? Peer review before publication would suffice to guarantee that only the truth prevailed. Such perils of peer review were early detected and condemned by the physicist Albert Einstein, after his arrival in America. Having submitted a co-authored paper to the journal Physical Review, he was dismayed to learn that it had bean sent by the editor to an anonymous reviewer. "We had sent our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed," an irate Einstein wrote the editor. “On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.” Einstein never again contributed to that journal. In Germany he had published in a journal edited by Max Planck, whose editorial philosophy was “to shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than of having been too gentle in evaluating them.”

Despite its defects, peer review became the hallmark of the exclusive scientific establishment (and, eventually - and disastrously - of all of academia), and for a short while the hegemony of the elite remained relatively secure. But it did not long remain unchallenged. By the late 1950's growing concerns about the abuse and misuse of science and its deleterious effects, both intended and unintended, focused increasing attention on the responsibility of scientists, ultimately crystallizing into something new: criticism of science itself. Campaigns against the atomic and hydrogen bombs, nuclear power, radiation, pesticides and other petrochemicals, as well as pollution and environmental degradation, thus gave rise to unprecedented scrutiny of scientists themselves and, eventually, to critical studies of the historical, social, political, and cultural context, and epistemological framework, of western science.

In 1962 Rachel Carson, mother of the modern environmental movement, published Silent Spring, her landmark expose on the dangers of pesticides. Carson's enormously influential book, serialized in the New Yorker, directly and courageously challenged the then sacrosanct petrochemical industry and the complicit scientific establishment that supported it. Carson had no Ph.D. and her work was not peer-reviewed. That same year 1962 Thomas Kuhn published his equally influential critical study of the history of western science, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Introducing the concept of scientific "paradigm" and "paradigm shift," Kuhn argued that scientific theories were not the product of some detached, disinterested community of truth-seekers, but of more familiar social and cultural forces and contexts, which tended to encourage conformity and discourage dissent and bold departures. While Carson's work heightened ecological awareness and propelled the environmental movement into popular focus, Kuhn's work, wittingly or not, opened the pandora's box on the politics of science, giving rise to troublesome questions about supposed truths and paving the way for popular challenges to the authority of the expert. The convergence of these developments was epitomized by the audacious efforts of “ordinary housewife” Lois Gibbs and her neighbors in the Love Canal community of upstate New York, who came to their own independent, and correct, conclusions about the dangers of the toxic waste dump in their midst, rejected the dismissive reports of state and federal scientists and, ultimately, after gaining national media attention and taking federal authorities hostage, succeeded in their demands for subsidized relocation.

Throughout this period, the left newly informed by ecological and feminist sensibilities, belatedly came to understand that the verities of science and technology were in fact contingent, like everything else. Scholars and activists on the left played a major role in opening up and exploring this newly revealed realm of power and ideology. Their efforts implicated science in the depredations and deformations of corporate capitalism, and, at the same time, disclosed a more expansive and emancipatory understanding of the range of scientific possibilities, of alternatives, of different kinds of science, of a "science for the people." By the late 1970's, however, with the launching of a broad corporate counter-offensive against government regulation, in the name of competitiveness and marked by a strident reaffirmation of faith in science (renamed “innovation”) and the authority of experts, this new critical comprehension of the nature of science came under sustained attack for being “anti-science.” The corporate agenda and corporate propaganda dominated the terrain and the discourse for a decade and a half, marginalizing the left and drowning out its new critical voices. Ultimately, the corporate message congealed into a single word, which hinted at a unified corporate-controlled world: "globalization."

Alas, to the delight of the dialecticians, this unity invariably elicited its opposite, the “anti-globalization” or “global justice” movement. Erupting worldwide in the wake of the Zapatista rebellion against neoliberalism, this new movement took aim against all manifestations of the corporate agenda as well as its institutional and ideological foundations. Once more the critical voices re-emerged, amplified, against the ravages of capitalism, the market, and the corporation. And here again science and technology came under critical surveillance and challenge, with a particular focus on genetic engineering and genetically-modified organisms. As Rachel Carson had confronted the petrochemical industry and its scientific penumbra so now activists confronted agribusiness and the so-called “life science” industry and their academic attendants, exposing the error of their ways and, in the process, the politics of science.

In the midst of the corporate globalization movement, the giants of the oil and gas industry, fearing a threat to their soaring profits, launched their campaign of denial against the spectre of global warming. At the height of the anti-globalization movement, other corporate players, seeing new profit-making opportunities in the same spectre, launched their opposing campaign of advocacy and alarm. (For a fuller discussion, see my article "The Corporate Climate Coup.") Meanwhile, in the face of mounting repression, a war on terror, corporate cooptation, and the need to divert energies into an anti-war movement, the global justice movement eroded. With the dissipation of that movement, its critical revolutionary voices were once again marginalized, along with its radical critique of science. In remarkably short order, debate within the left on the issue of climate change became a mere reflection of the orchestrated duel between corporate rivals, deniers and advocates, shorn of any radical substance of its own. Regressing instead, in apparent disarray and desperation, to the false securities of its former innocence, the left has all but abandoned the field on its own terms, avoiding any confrontation with power. Relying now upon the weapons of the left's erstwhile enemies to defend their own witting or unwitting complicity, its mainstream mavens, ever protective of their respectability astride the corporate wave, condemn and dismiss the remnant of critics of science as “anti-science” and disregard dissenting arguments on the grounds that they have not been subjected to “peer review.” In light of such a dismal display, it is perhaps time for the left once again to put science in perspective, and aside, and return to the revolution.

Historian David F. Noble teaches at York University in Toronto. His latest book is Beyond the Promised Land (2005). Like all of his other publications, this article has not been peer-reviewed.


DGR's suggested related links:
The Corporate Climate Coup
Global Warming: Truth or Dare?
Taking CO2 Seriously
Are Physicists Smart?