The Problem with Lukewarm Climate Group Think

The question we put to lukewarmers is not so far removed from the question all skeptics pose to alarmists: ‘Are you intellectually lazy or intellectually ignorant?’

Reflect on the following quote by US President John F. Kennedy from his Commencement Address at Yale University on June 11, 1962:

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie–deliberate, contrived and dishonest–but the myth–persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations.

We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

Kennedy had it right.  We need to let the context guide us and question rote interpretations.  Semantics and sophistry are greatly in play in debates about interpreting climate science and data, interpretations always being contextual and prone to be biased by intent and desires.

It is not intended to be an insult to characterize lukewarmers as ‘lazy’ because what we are all up against is convenience: the ‘go to’ easy option of appeal to authority –  where some ‘expert’ has already done all your thinking for you.

On this let’s examine the sage advice of American philosopher Mortimer J. Adler and how he addresses the problem in his book Intellect: Mind over Matter.

Adler spoke of the vice of intellectual sloth (or laziness). By this he means the avoidance of any use of one’s intellect, which means one’s power to understand and manipulate concepts, beyond what is necessary in order to get through one’s day-to-day life.

Adler warned us that intellectual laziness can easily prove harmful because it is a cop out from due diligence. In this instance,we are all prone to laziness in questioning perceived ‘experts’ who tell us how climate works – no question is more problematic that climate because of its enormous complexity and the vast array of scientific specialisms involved (inc. astrophysics, chemistry, oceanography, thermodynamics, spectroscopy, marine biology, etc).

For if we are diligent we arrive at our opinions and beliefs through an intellectual process, and all of our actions are based on our opinions and belief.

PSI/Slayers believe that since we have the power to discern what is true – thanks to our intellect – then we have a responsibility to apply it thoughtfully.  After publishing ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ in January 2011 we were met with instant hostility.

What astonished us was the knee-jerk antipathy towards our book by ‘experts’ who couldn’t even be bothered to read it. We could name many names but for brevity let us take the example of one very prominent lukewarmer, Dr Judith Curry (pictured).

Dr Curry, is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

As January 2011 was ending Dr Curry started a debate on her blog, judithcurry.com called ‘Slaying a greenhouse dragon’ which was touted as an open examination of our book. Curry’s piece went viral and elicited 2,518 reader comments.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-35871

At the top of the post Curry declared:

I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rubuttal,[sic] but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.”

Thereafter Curry (intentionally or ignorantly) mischaracterized the very concept of who and what was intended to be ‘Slayed.’ Curry wrote: “I’m hoping we can slay the greenhouse dragon that is trying to refute the Tyndall gas effect once and for all.” (id above)

Curry immediately and completely reverses our ‘Slayer’ analogy, so the whole concept is presented back to front to her readers. Why did Curry mischaracterize the ‘Slayers’ into being the very ‘greenhouse dragon‘ we say we have slayed?

Is Curry intentionally trying to cloud the debate by misrepresentation of the main metaphors or does this reveal Curry more likely hadn’t even read and understood the book at all?

Curry trips and falls right into the ‘lazy trap’ that Kennedy and Adler warned us about. Some commenters on her log post note her bias and speak out. As a result, it appears comments may have been systematically deleted. This fear is illustrated by an early post from ‘Slayer’ author, John O’Sullivan:

“I have to agree with omnologos on this. By inferring that all those skeptical of the man-made global warming meme (some, like us, skeptical of the greenhouse gas theory, itself) are supposed to be seeking a unified front as if we are a political or military force is, frankly, absurd.
We prefer to leave ambitions to claim a consensus to the post-normal science green brigade; they appear to have abandoned the traditional tenets of the scientific method. Consensus is utterly meaningless- being proven right is the goal even when the so-called ‘consensus’ is adamant we are wrong.
The statement, “I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters” is so funny coming from someone who is “too busy” to do what she infers is such a basic task, herself.”

It wasn’t just O’Sullivan. Fellow ‘Slayer’ author, Professor Claes Johnson, took issue with Curry’s apparent misrepresentations of our work commenting:

 “Judy: I do not say that radiative transfer plays no role in climate. It would be helpful for the debate if you would read what I write and not freely invent crackpot themes.”Claes Johnson | January 31, 2011 at 8:20 am

While Curry’s background is in the ‘soft’ science of geography, Professor Johnson (pictured) is Sweden’s most cited mathematical expert in peer-reviewed journals . [1] Johnson was particularly targeted by ‘soft’ science academics who jumped on the charge he was a ‘crackpot.’ Curry appeared determined to denigrate Johnson and at the same time avoid openly debating him.

Professor Claes Johnson, in the spirit of honest debate, challenged Curry’s dismissive bias:

“Judy: You say that “I suspect that many undergrad physics or atmospheric science majors at Georgia Tech could effectively refute these chapters I suggest that you actually try this as a take home exam for your students. From your teaching they will understand that Kiehl-Trenberth is wrong but maybe they will find something they think is right. Go ahead! ”  January 31, 2011 at 8:49 am

To the best of our knowledge, Dr Curry ignored Professor Johnson’s challenge. Moreover, the comment O’Sullivan referred to by ‘omnologos’ is not shown. It appears to have been censored. We know this because ‘omnologos’ responds:

omnologos | January 31, 2011 at 8:54 pm |

“Thank you for mentioning me John as my comment has been snipped out.”

Not only is there evidence of Curry’s bias or, shall we say, ‘intellectual laziness’ but Curry, herself, conceded NASA, too was a guilty party. Commenters on her blog talked of the obvious junk science representations of a NASA earth energy budget diagram our book had exposed. Her readers were now questioning Curry on something she and her fellow ‘experts’ had never noticed, as ‘Sam NC’ shows:

“Why did NASA not correct it and mislead the general public for over 10 years with that incorrect diagram?” February 6, 2011 at 9:49 pm

Dr Curry responded:

“This diagram apparently first appeared in a doc designed for K-12 education. The names Eric Barron (currently president of Florida State University) and John Theon were on the doc (back when theon was still employed at NASA and Barron was at Penn State, which places it in the mid 90’s). But I assume this diagram was drawn by a staff person, and Barron didn’t pay close attention. That is the only way I can explain this. Somehow John O’Sullivan spotted this (or at least publicized this). And it sits on a web site to the present day.” curryja  February 7, 2011 at 5:45 am

To which ‘Sam NC’ replied:

“Over the 10 years, this diagram has misled the K-12 students, the teachers, the politicians and the world who visited the NASA site. This is a serious American educational flaw that NASA, Eric Barron and John Theon should be informed to correct the diagram or delete from the NASA website and owe the American Education and the world an apology.” February 7, 2011 at 8:04 am

Of course, we can’t prove Curry is in anyway a conspirator in this wholesale deception we do urge readers to be vigilant and skeptical of not only the alarmist ‘experts’ but these supposed lukewarm skeptics, too. Much to Dr Curry’s credit she ran a follow up blog post in August 2011 in which she publicly distanced herself from her fellow lukewarmers on the nonsense they peddle about ‘back radiation’ heating. Curry admitted:

“Back radiation is a phrase, one that I don’t use myself, and it is not a word that is used in technical radiative transfer studies.” [2]

therein replied:

“Congratulations Judy: You are making progress, after 2500 Dragon comments: So now you agree with me that back radiation is not physics, just a phrase. But it is a phrase that matters, because CO2 alarmism comes from inflating one-way net transfer by a factor of 10 by replacing it with the difference of massive two-way transfer = the difference between upward and downward longwave radiation.”

The manuscript for the new ‘Slayers’ book is currently being edited by our publishers. The above is a sample.

[1] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=40UhzoMAAAAJ&hl=en

[2] https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/13/slaying-the-greenhouse-dragon-part-iv/#comment-98093


John O’Sullivan is CEO of PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

Please DONATE TODAY to help our non-profit mission to defend the scientific method

Trackback from your site.

Comments (29)

  • Avatar

    Alan Thorpe

    |

    Perhaps it is a case of too much science. What about rational thinking? Given that we ignore the thermal energy from the earth and our own activities, the only source of thermal energy heating the earth is the sun. Is it possible that some people do not accept this? Can they really believe that the gases in the atmosphere somehow generate extra heat, or that heat can somehow be used twice? If this is possible then why are we not able to do this in our homes and save of fuel.

    Then there is the concept of trapping heat. No reputable scientist would ever use this language. But rational thinking should expose this as incorrect. We cannot trap heat in our homes. Everybody knows this without any scientific knowledge. We cannot heat our homes to a given temperature and then turn off the boiler and expect the temperature not to decrease.

    Everybody should be able to work out that radiative heat transfer is insignificant at temperatures we normally experience. We have “radiators” to heat our home but they are not radiating much heat – they are heating homes by convection. As anybody knows they have to put their hands very close to a radiator before they feel radiant heat. There isn’t much of it at the temperature of hot water and yet it is expected at very low temperature in the atmosphere.

    Then there is the very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Rational thought is enough. We all know that a very small quantity of some hot liquid added to a large amount of cold liquid does not change its temperature by any detectable amount.

    Any rational thinker without any detailed understanding of physics can work this out. It is as though common sense has left the human race.

    We all know from our travels that there are different climatic conditions around the earth. These used to be taught in geography. Now we all worship the meaningless average temperature. Does anybody think that the average height of men could be used to make a suit to fit everybody. No, but they believe and average temperature can describe the earth’s climate.

    In following a reference I did find this comment https://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/#comment-35865 about Tyndall’s experiment. In a few word the entire experiment is discredited and yet is it continually quoted to support back radiation and human caused climate change.

    What is happening to our understanding and teaching of science?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Joseph A Olson

      |

      When Disney screed, Discover posted their fake debate between Alarmist Mikey Mann, and recent Alarmist converted to skeptic, Judy Curry, I posted my rebuttal to both,

      “Non Science Nonsense” at CanadaFreePress, April 9, 2010 and per professional protocol, sent email copy to Mann and Curry. Thinking Curry might be objective, and persuaded by proper Radiation Physics and Thermodynamics, I called her office. After fruitless thirty minutes, I suggested she audit a Geo Tech, engineering Thermodynamics class that summer.

      In Sept 2010 I called Judy, asked about Thermodynamics and she said, “I attended one class, did not understand what they were saying, never went back”

      In Sept 2014, I attended the Heritage Summit in Houston, and was lectured by Clueless Curry for 30 minutes. Following her Lukewarmist monotribe, I walked up, introduced myself and she fled like a vampire from a cross.

      Clueless Curry, I again challenge you to a Carbon climate forcing debate.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Squidly

      |

      Can they really believe that the gases in the atmosphere somehow generate extra heat, or that heat can somehow be used twice? If this is possible then why are we not able to do this in our homes and save of fuel.

      Alan, if this were possible, our universe could not exist. Think about it for a few moments. Think about the ramifications of this notion in nature, other planets, stars, galaxies, etc…

      The GHE and our universe are incompatible. They cannot coexist!

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    What a good expose on how “accepted ideas” dominate original thought. This is typical in all fields, not just climate science and I cannot help drawing parallels with General Relativity’s curvature of space time. Time, I get it, time does “curve”. It changes its rate of progress at different elevations in the field, but how do you curve space? How do you curve “nothing”? It is more than a century now since the publication of Einstein’s theory, yet even today, no one has addressed this problem satisfactorily. All scientists (perhaps), have preferred to believe what they have been told to believe and wilfully dismiss any objectors. As Mechanical Engineer, I have taken it upon myself to address this issue and I believe I have successfully resolved it. Relativity theory remains intact, you just have to take a subtly different view of the basic physics. Read “The Binary Universe”, 2nd edition, due for release in August.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Ken,
      You wrote: “As Mechanical Engineer, I have taken it upon myself to address this issue and I believe I have successfully resolved it.” Einstein wrote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

      This is the difference between an engineer and a scientist.

      Have a good day, Jerry

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Claudius Denk

        |

        Jerry,
        Einstein wrote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        JMcG:
        Could Ken not make the same claim? Tell us Jerry, do you have any experimental evidence that Ken is wrong. And if not, doesn’t that put Ken’s claim on par with that of Einstein’s.

        There is more to science than just cliché.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Ken Hughes

          |

          Oh thank you Claudius, but don’t mind on my behalf. I have received and will continue t0 receive, this sort of put down from the jealous who don’t even bother to read the ideas.

          If he had read the book, he would have found I have proposed an experiment which will either prove or disprove the theory. I am just as excited to be disproved as proven.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        Hi Jerry,

        With all due respect sir, as an engineer myself (software engineer of more than 35 years), I take some offense to this. This is suggesting that (A) somehow an “engineer” is not a “scientist”, which is patently false .. and (B) that somehow “engineers” cannot discover the scientific truths that a “scientist” can, which is utter rubbish and quite frankly offensive.

        An individual that makes such a proclamation appears to me to be encapsulated within a very small box. That doesn’t sound very “scientific” to me. But hey, what do I know? .. I’m just a stupid software engineer .. oh, and a computer “scientist” too, by the way.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Ken Hughes

          |

          Here here!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            jerry krause

            |

            Hi Squidly and Ken,

            It seems appropriate to quote a portion of Richard Feynman’s 1955 address at a meeting of the National Academy of Science, Which was titled: The Value of Science.

            “I would now like to turn to a third value that science has. It is a little less direct, but not much. The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”

            Have a good day, Jerry

        • Avatar

          jerry krause

          |

          Hi Squidly and Ken,

          I repeat what I wrote: “Hi Ken,
          You wrote: “As Mechanical Engineer, I have taken it upon myself to address this issue and I believe I have successfully resolved it.” Einstein wrote: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

          This is the difference between an engineer and a scientist.”

          Squidly, you just wrote: that somehow “engineers” cannot discover the scientific truths that a “scientist” can, which is utter rubbish and quite frankly offensive.” Einstein, the scientist, did not consider there was such a thing as a scientific truth and you an engineer disagree with him and write that there is a ‘scientific truth.’

          Of course, you can Interpret my words anyway you want, but in doing so the words you write are not my words. And I am content with my words.

          Have a good day, Jerry

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    John,

    Members of all scientific paradigms accept certain facts and reject others, follow certain verbal conventions and reject others, employ certain scientific methods and refuse to employ or acknowledge the validity of others. This is true for all of scientific (and cultural) paradigms.

    If slayers wish to be accepted as cross-paradigm authorities then you have to be open and honest about your own biases. You will never do this because doing so requires intellectual skills that are far beyond the comfort zone of the conservative mindset that dominates the slayer mythology

    The obstacle you will never overcome is the obstacle that you have created yourself when you chose to surround yourself with others that carry the same biases that you carry.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      jerry krause

      |

      Hi Claudius,

      The publishers of Galileo’s classic effort wrote (as translated by Crew and de Salvio): “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” I would like you to provide your accurate definition of the word–fact–as you just used the word.

      Have a good day, Jerry:

      Reply

    • Avatar

      John O'Sullivan

      |

      Claudius, “You will never do this because doing so requires intellectual skills that are far beyond the comfort zone of the conservative mindset that dominates the slayer mythology.”
      Are you trying to claim Slayers are rejected by some because we are right wing? If so, that is utterly bogus because we are NOT right wing or left wing. Our founding members cover a wide political spectrum. There is no political bias in Slayer/PS science. PSI is prohibited under UK law via our articles of incorporation from having any political bias. Personally, I have never hidden my socialist past, having never voted for any right wing party – not that it matters anyway.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Squidly

        |

        John, as soon as someone pulls political ideology into this discussion, you know you have won. As should be painfully obvious to anyone caring of “science” and scientific truth, politics and political ideology have no placement within science. The interjection of political ideology into a scientific examination simply contaminates the subject matter, at which point the examination becomes irreparably destroyed. It’s akin to farting in an elevator.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        Claudius Denk

        |

        No John,
        I’m saying you guys are hacks that gloss over details. You expect the world to accept your paradigm and at one and the same time you are too naïve to realize that you are just one of many paradigms.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Squidly

          |

          Claudius, you have no clue what my political ideological bent is. Your comments are absurd and quite frankly, simply stupid.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Claudius Denk

            |

            Paradigms give people the collective delusion that they know “the” truth. And that makes you arrogant. And there’s nothing more pathetic in a scientific discussion than an arrogant engineer.

          • Avatar

            Squidly

            |

            Hahaha .. nicely done .. thanks for the laugh!

  • Avatar

    geran

    |

    They all should be investigated. Anyone that claims to be a scientist, yet denies science, and takes public funding should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    100s of billions wasted. Let me repeat that–100s of billions wasted.

    How many cures for diseases could have been found? How much infrastructure could have been built/improved? How many starving could have been fed?

    All wasted.

    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/legislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf

    Reply

    • Avatar

      John Harrison

      |

      Geran,
      “They all should be investigated. Anyone that claims to be a scientist, yet denies science, and takes public funding should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”
      Is this for real? It is comments like this that alarmists make about skeptics and is worthy of derision and despair for the state of science.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Grace

    |

    People get paid by entities who profit from what has been said…as long as statements support that profit

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Squidly

    |

    John, this is just awesome stuff! … I cannot wait to read your new book! … very excited!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jim Buchanan

    |

    I am the son of a coal-miner: I schooled in Collie, Western Australia (1948-1958); I did not matriculate, but joined the Royal Australian Navy and trained to be a helicopter pilot (specialities: ‘Search and Rescue’, Anti-submarine, and Helicopter Instructor’ in UK and Australia), I also saw action in Indonesian waters (1965-1969), and Vietnam; attached to US Army 135th AHC in South Vietnam, where I learned enough about ‘Staying Alive’ to be here now, writing this!
    So, I admit I am no scientist! I learned enough from my Dad though, to make pocket money by scavenging coal mine dumps to break the larger lumps into small pieces useful for neighbours’ open fires: I used to break up coal, that ‘awful fossil fuel’ with a sledge-hammer: I did this for some years. No matter how hard I hit the coal there was never a hint of explosion, not even a spark of fire!
    So here are my two questions for Climate Change ‘Scare-mongers:
    A. Isn’t Lithium an unstable fossil element (I remember learning something called the Table of Elements – went on about “Hydrogen, Helium, LITHIUM, Berylium, Boron, Carbon, etc.”)
    B. Are you game to prove your belief in the safety of Lithium to me: I offer a $3,000 wager, to your $97,000 wager (Now, this is a fair Evens wager, as you have your 97% of scientists ensuring your safety, while I only have the sage assurance of my father, that your belief in lithium ion batteries, as a safe ‘renewable energy storage’, is the equivalent of the belief of Icarus, that waxed-up wings, could safely carry him to the ‘Sun chariot!’ All you have to do, to win, is break up a tonne of used lithium-ion batteries from mobiles, Tessla batteries (from their cars) and/or the giant batteries systems being planned for South Australian cities and also the new Snowy Mountains storage system.
    I will break up a tonne of coal at the same time: my only plea is that I am able to perform the act, at least, one state away from you!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gary Ashe

    |

    This guy just another yapping troll.

    ”Paradigms give people the collective delusion that they know “the” truth.”’

    Group think tribal alarmism is the stand-out element of the ”settled science”.

    ” And that makes you arrogant. And there’s nothing more pathetic in a scientific discussion than an arrogant engineer.”

    Climate science is epitome of post modern science, modelled [engineered] science.
    Post normal science, ffs Micky Mann the bloody title of post normal.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Claudius Denk

    |

    Gary Ashe:
    Group think tribal alarmism is the stand-out element of the ”settled science”.

    CD:
    It would be childs play for me to point out notions that you consider settled but that are really just group-based belief that are untested, untestable, unmeasured, and immeasurable.

    So, your holier than thou attitude just makes you seem pathetic–to me.

    If you repeat something often enough it takes on the look and feel of scientific truth.  And it is really easy to get people to repeat things that are consistent with their everyday anecdotal experience.  So, as long as you go along with what everybody already generally believes it is really easy to pretend to have a scientifically credible assertion even when the assertion is blatant nonsense.

    Most scientists don’t have the internal fortitude to confront and correct the moronic collective beliefs of the public.  Consequently much of science is saddled with moronic notions like, CO2 heats the atmosphere, or cholesterol causes heart disease, or H2O magically turns to steam at temperatures below its known boiling temperature/pressure.  The momentum of public stupidity completely overwhelms any possibility of making progress

    Consider the shortcomings of your own settled science before you consider than of others.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gary Ashe

    |

    ”So, your holier than thou attitude just makes you seem pathetic–to me.”

    Who gives a flying phuck what you think ?, your mother perhaps ?.

    Exactly climate science Mathemagic’s sophistry and a total disregard of 1st & 2nd law Thermo-dynamics.
    Where all radiation is ”heat” regardless of its frequency as thermalising/work creating.
    You havent introduced one sentence of ”science” here you have just sophised about it, interweaved with your bitterness.

    Others are to proffesional to tell you to phuck yourself, however i’m not concieted smug b@stard.

    Have a nice day.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    John Harrison

    |

    John. You should not wonder why your work was met with instant hostility. It is probably because you come across as arrogant, close minded and condescending. Which judging from the passage “PSI/Slayers believe that since we have the power to discern what is true – thanks to our intellect – then we have a responsibility to apply it thoughtfully” may not be too far from the truth. You put your own Interpretation on the hypotheses of lukewarmers which bears no resemblance to their import. It would seem that you believe that anyone expressing an opinion contrary to your own is, apart from being totally wrong, must be ignorant, untutored and substantially lacking your unique intellect; worthy only of derision and wholly deserving of your insults and condescension. Now why should this attitude create hostility? Hmm

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Claudius Denk

      |

      John Harrison,
      The point you are trying to make is perfectly reasonable. Starting as far back as 2013, I have tried numerous times to make the same point with them. As you have seen, they don’t deal with subtlety. And anything that is outside the box of their self-righteous beliefs sends them into an emotional tirade.

      I look at it this way. Engineers need to be focused upon what they know to be true–for the sake of public safety. Scientists–real scientists–need to be focused upon what has not yet been proven false.

      Some of the slayers can wear the label of a scientists but ultimately they are all engineers.

      Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via