Disclaimer: I’m not implying that every scientist who believes that human created CO2 is the main reason for the temperature increases of the 20th century is a fetishist. My targets are the scientist and science journal editor jerks who suppress competing scientific efforts. Also, my targets are laymen who behave like crazy and/or nasty sports fans, not rational and reasonably humble amateurs.

Sorry, I don’t want to take the time to write a polished diary. Yesterday I got slimed in a recent diary called Climate Scientist investigated (again!), vindicated (again!), where the diarist claimed that

In other words, Mann got the fine-tooth-comb treatment. And he was cleared, not just partly, but completely. After a series of investigations this exhaustive, on a subject this important, one would expect some news about it.

even though his link to the NSF “report” telling us so, was all of 5 pages. (The last page had all of 1 sentence.) I came across some new information in the process of looking stuff up for my replies to the slimers.

There’s a beautiful film on youtube that explains Svensmark’s theory of cosmic ray mediation of Earth’s temperature, via modulating low cloud formation (which has implications for reflecting solar energy back into space). Please watch it. A scientist interviewed in this film is astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Turns out Shaviv has a blog, sciencebits.com.

Before I get to Nir’s writings on his blog, please note that Svensmark’s theory has recently gotten experimental support from experiments done at the Large Hadron Collider. (This is by Shaviv, but writing on Lubos Motl’s blog. The Large Hadron Collider is the relatively new, massive particle collider lab in Europe.)

Nir has 2 diaries of particular note. Regarding the “ugly” one, concerning ugly behavior by people in the scientific community, see Climategate and the “hockey stitch” – Not news to me..

So, why is the climategate scandal “not news to me?”

Well, the e-mails demonstrated that:

Elements within the global warming alarmists community do their best to inhibit “skeptics” like myself from getting their papers published. This includes for example coercing editors from accepting papers which do not follow the party line.

Elements within the global warming alarmists community follow non orthodox (and non kosher…) methodologies, which include creative “cut” and “paste” data manipulation techniques, as borne from the e-mails.

Since I have witnessed this kind of behavior before, I was totally unsurprised with the content of these e-mails, hence “it is not news to me”.

So, what did I witness before? Here are a few exemplars.

I witnessed how an editor rejected a paper I wrote without forwarding the reviewers my detailed response to their comments (he was perhaps afraid that the reviewers would actually be convinced with my detailed response which included detailed referrals to published results proving my points).

I saw another rejection (perhaps by the same editor…), this time of a paper written by a colleague that included the punch line: “any paper which doesn’t support the anthropogenic GHG theory is politically motivated, and therefore has to be rejected”

I saw how proposal reviewers bluntly reject funding requests, based on similar beliefs in the global warming apocalypse. I even know of someone who didn’t get tenure because he advocated non party line ideas.

I also saw how two Canadians tried to reconstruct the hockey stick only to find that some data mysteriously disappeared from a public ftp server.

Considering what I recently learned from an interview of Lindzen, about an editor of a journal that published him (Lindzen) getting canned shortly thereafter, this was not totally surprising. Also, such behavior is consistent with the career threats involved in other areas of physics, where an intolerant orthodoxy prevails. See The Trouble with Physics and Not Even Wrong for insights into scientific tribalism and irrationality amongst string theorists. One of these books talks about a “string theory mafia”.

I also noticed a very interesting diary by Shaviv that indicates that simply focussing on solar irradiance as the main factor in any possible effect of the sun on earth’s climate, is really stupid. In Shaviv’s current guest blog at Lubos Motl’s website, he says, “First, it is well known that solar variability has a large effect on climate. In fact, the effect can be quantified and shown to be 6 to 7 times larger than one could naively expect from just changes in the total solar irradiance.”. See The oceans as a calorimeter This is of particular interest because, at least if IIRC, Catastrophic AGW websites like to say “it can’t be the sun”, and then focus on solar irradiance vs. temperature. A truth seeker, however, will not attempt to debunk a first order effect by talking about a 2nd order effect…

One of the raging debates in the climate community relates to the question of whether there is any mechanism amplifying solar activity. That is, are the solar synchronized climatic variations that we see (e.g., take a look at fig. 1 here) due to changes of just the solar irradiance, or, are they due to some effect which amplifies the solar-climate link. In particular, is there an amplification of some non-thermal component of the sun? (e.g., UV, solar magnetic field, solar wind or others which have much larger variations than the 0.1% variations of the solar irradiance). This question has interesting repercussions to the question of global warming, which is why the debate is so fierce.

.
.

So what does it mean?

First, it means that the IPCC cannot ignore anymore the fact that the sun has a large climatic effect on climate. Of course, there was plenty of evidence before, so I don’t expect this result to make any difference!

Second, given the consistency between the energy going into the oceans and the estimated forcing by the solar cycle synchronized cloud cover variations, it is unlikely that the solar forcing is not associated with the cloud cover variation.

Note that the most reasonable explanation to the cloud variations is that of the cosmic ray cloud link. By now there are many independent lines of evidence showing its existence (e.g., for a not so recent summary take a look here). That is, the cloud cover variations are controlled by an external lever, which itself is affected by solar activity.

(emphasis mine; note the author’s confidence that IPCC will continue to ignore evidence!)

===================================================

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

I’m 2/3 way through a lecture by Shaviv on cosmic particle modulation of earth’s climate, here. Highly recommended.

===================================================

UPDATE 2 UPDATE 2 UPDATE 2 UPDATE 2 UPDATE 2 UPDATE 2

Though I haven’t read the book, The Deniers looks to be very useful for opening the eyes of laymen who have been essentially brainwashed into believing the CO2 fetishist framing. From The Deniers

“I have been asked many times why I titled my series and now this book The Deniers, in effect adopting their enemies’ terminology. Many of the scientists in this book hate the term and deny it applies to them.
I could give several reasons, but here is the most important. The scientists are not alone in having their credibility on trial in the global warming debate. They are not the only “authorities” in the argument, and not even the most important “authorities.” Most laymen, most citizens, owe most of what we think we know about global warming not to science directly, but to science as mediated by the media and by political bodies, especially the UN and our governments. We citizens, trying to discern what to do about global warming, must judge not only the credibility of the scientists but of those who claim to tell us what the scientists say. To that end, as you read through this book, judge for yourself the credibility of those who dismiss these scientists as cranks or crooks, and call them The Deniers.[17]
As these rather dramatic reversals for the doomsday view mounted, however, I also noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers.”[18]

(emphasis mine)