Skeptical climate scientists coming in from the cold

Posted: December 30, 2016 by oldbrew in censorship, climate, research

Coming in from the cold?

Coming in from the cold?

As this report suggests, when Trump and co. take over: ‘the debate over global warming might shift. Until now, it’s normally portrayed as enlightened scholars vs. anti-science simpletons. A more open debate could shift the discussion to one about global warming’s extent and root causes.’
Not before time, and it’s not just the ‘discussion’ that needs shifting.


In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold. Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard.

This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.

“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, is similarly optimistic. “I think we’re making progress,” Happer said. “I see reassuring signs.”

Despite harsh criticism of their contrarian views, a few scientists like Happer and Curry have pointed to evidence that global warming is less pronounced than predicted. They have also argued that this slighter warming would bring positive developments along with problems.

For the first time in years, skeptics believe they can find a path out of the wilderness into which they’ve been cast by the “scientific consensus.” As much as they desire a more open-minded reception by their colleagues, they are hoping even more that the spigot of government research funding – which dwarfs all other sources – will trickle their way.

President-elect Donald Trump, who has called global warming a “hoax,” has chosen for key cabinet posts men whom the global warming establishment considers lapdogs of the oil and gas industry: former Texas Gov. Rick Perry to run the Energy Department; Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma to run the Environmental Protection Agency; and Exxon chief executive Rex Tillerson as secretary of state.

But while general policy may be set at the cabinet level, significant and concrete changes would likely be spelled out below those three – among the very bureaucrats the Trump transition team might have had in mind when, in a move some saw as intimidation, it sent a questionnaire to the Energy Department this month (later disavowed) trying to determine who worked on global warming.

It isn’t certain that federal employees working in various environmental or energy sector-related agencies would willingly implement rollbacks of regulations, let alone a redirection of scientific climate research, but the latter prospect heartens the skeptical scientists. They cite an adage: You only get answers to the questions you ask.

“In reality, it’s the government, not the scientists, that asks the questions,” said David Wojick, a longtime government consultant who has closely tracked climate research spending since 1992. If a federal agency wants models that focus on potential sea-level rise, for example, it can order them up. But it can also shift the focus to how warming might boost crop yields or improve drought resistance.

Source: Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

  1. rishrac says:

    Money talks, and the rest walks. Your call is very important to us. Please stay on the line and the next representative will answer your questions on climate change. Your wait time is approximately 83 years….. Cut the funding and watch this go away. All the research, time and effort I’ve put into being a skeptic has been on my dime. That’s how important I think it is to fight the global warming monsters. It may not be on the order of some that provide the Web sites or put themselves out their for direct ridicule, but it’s what I can do at this time. Will those that believe the world will end with 0.38 C of warming do the same ? We will see.
    The government isn’t giving a grant to go explore whether co2 follows temperature. Heck no ! They are doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

  2. oldbrew says:

    When they already have the answer they want, who needs questions 😦

  3. The problem we have in climate research is that the subject as a whole went into a vicious cycle of group think which took them way off course.

    Now, there’s one thing I can predict from that observation … that even those within the group who now consider their views to be “radical” will when/if the subject ever looks at the subject rationally without any group think … these present day “radicals” will look anything but radical.

    So, even those who now think their views are “radically sceptical” may soon find themselves to be far more alarmist in their own views than they imagined possible.

    For example, when talking about climate feedbacks, many consider themselves radical if they suggest a feedback giving a temperature rise less than 2C. In other words a positive feedback. However, it now seems very likely to me based on some physical arguments that the actual level of feedbacks is significantly negative. So, whilst many (including some claiming to be “sceptics” are patting themselves on the back for daring to suggest feedbacks giving around 1.5C, the future may well classify them as the “same loonies” as those suggesting feedbacks greater than 3C.

  4. Graeme No.3 says:

    Well, the world has been warmer in the past, regardless of the CO2 level.
    Perhaps those who in the 1980’s predicted 2.5℃ warming by now could be sued for failure to deliver?

  5. oldbrew says:

    Pointman: ‘The war against climate alarmism is over, and we won it.
    IMO there are still skirmishes ahead.

  6. Windchaser says:

    Is there any evidence of significant numbers of climate change skeptics coming in from the cold, though?

    This post speculates that they might, but… who? Out of the thousands of climate scientists, it doesn’t name any names. There’s one named that’s already out there (Curry), and that’s it.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Apart from a few bloggers and some retirees, most climate scientists have probably preferred to avoid expressing negative opinions (if they have/had any) about IPCC-type man-made warming theories, precisely so they don’t get left ‘out in the cold’.

  8. ren says:

    Please see what happens in the stratosphere.

    Now the solar wind accelerates and temperatures else might be lowered.

  9. ren says:

    UV radiation goes down.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Delingpole rallies the troops…

    With Brexit and Donald Trump, we’ve done the equivalent of capturing everywhere from Pointe Du Hoc to Pegasus Bridge. But just like with D-Day, the worst of the fighting is yet to come. Our enemy is fanatical, determined, well organised. Plus, they still hold most of the key positions: the big banks, the corporations, the top law firms, the civil service, local government, the universities, the schools, the mainstream media, Hollywood… Give those bastards half the chance and they’ll drive us back into the sea – which, in contemporary terms, means nixing Brexit (or giving us “soft Brexit”, which is basically the same thing) and frustrating all the things President Trump will try to do to Make America Great Again.

    I use the war analogy first because World War II analogies never fail, but second because this really is a war that we’re fighting. The bad news is that wars are hard, costly and ugly. The good news is that we’re on the right side and we’re going to win. Here’s how:

  11. oldbrew says:

    Climate Change Skeptics Welcome Open Debate Under Trump Presidency

    After years of imposed “scientific consensus” on global warming, a number of skeptical climate scientists are hopeful that their views may finally get a hearing under the new administration.

  12. oldbrew says:

    DELINGPOLE: Trump Versus the Green Blob—Here’s How We Know He Means Business

    “We’re going to go in fast and we’re going to go in hard. They won’t know what hit them.”

    Sounds like military action: “Trump is going to send his tanks into the swamp from Day One.”

    Delingpole: One thing we can confidently predict in the next few years is that the Greenies are in for a world of pain and disappointment. And it really couldn’t happen to a bunch of more deserving people.
    – – –
    Pass the popcorn 😎