"Much more moral authority comes from the imprimatur of government" - David "funny sunny" Archibald at WUWT

He's back!

I was wondering what had happened to David "funny sunny" Archibald.  He hasn't been seen for a good while at WUWT.  David is one of the wackier deniers who thinks we are heading for an ice age "any day now".

Setting the scene by twisting the facts

His article is about Nebraska, or partly (archived here).  David says he is writing his third book, which I think is about the impending ice age that cometh.  He is a strange one for a WUWT conspiracy theorist.  He writes:

At the urging of State Senator Beau McCoy in late 2013, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture was tasked with commissioning a report on cyclical climate change. The budget for the exercise was $44,000. That right, for a mere $44,000 Nebraskans would be told what was going to happen to their climate. If the Sun was going to sleep with the consequence that cold air from the Canadians would come south faster and longer, Nebraskans would be forewarned and fore-armed. Alas, the effort was abandoned when promoters of global warming in the state offered to do it for free. 

People who keep up with the climate blog wars will recall that the situation wasn't quite like that.  What happened was this. A lawmaker in Nebraska who is a climate science denier was happy enough to support a bill for someone to prepare a report on climate in Nebraska.  However he didn't want them to take account of any human factors influencing the climate, so he proposed an amendment to the bill.

Given that human factors now dominate global warming (ie climate change not day to day weather), that seemed not just pointless but a waste of money.  And you'd have to offer a lot more than $44,000 to climate scientists to persuade any of them to forsake their science for money.  They might have gotten Marc Morano or Anthony Watts or one of the other denier bloggers to prepare the report.  They come cheap I hear.  I don't know why they didn't do that.  Alternatively they could have approached some of the Not the IPCC Report writers.

Perhaps  they were hoping for a credible name to attach to their shonky report.  Or maybe they just wanted to test the waters and see if there were any corruptible climate scientists around.  (Judith Curry put up her hand, but I don't think her blog offer was accepted.)

I wrote about this at the time, because Judith Curry was arguing that politicians should be able to put constraints on climate studies to suit their political agenda.  Her stance was reminiscent of the various attempts to prevent high school teachers from teaching students about biology, wanting to bring their weird religious beliefs into the classroom and ban science.

If only deniers could drum up a fake report that was credible

Back to David "funny sunny" Archibald. His next paragraph was this:

The danger to the promoters of global warming was that the stillborn Nebraskan climate report would have been the first government-sanctioned report on the planet to say that carbon dioxide and the burning of coal are nothing to worry about. A report on cyclical climate change would say that there is something far more serious coming that is going to smack our civilisation like a freight train. That serious thing is one of the cycles that the Nebraskans were going to be told about. One day the science of climate cycles might get out to Nebraska but in the meantime they will be wondering why their winters are getting colder and Spring seems to be delayed and how can they begin planting while their fields are still covered in snow. 

There you see it.  Climate science is a hoax and information is being kept from the poor little Nebraskans.  What's odd about this is that David is arguing that the government could be trusted.  This is despite the fact that in this case the politician who put up the amendment to the bill wanted scientists to exclude some of the main factors that will affect Nebraska's climate in coming years.

More moral authority from the imprimatur of government!

David even writes (my bold italics):

It is one thing for books to be published which warn of the severe, solar-driven cooling coming (I’m on my third) and for retired academics to voice concerns over the low standards of US Government-funded climate science, but much more moral authority comes from the imprimatur of government. 

I know you'll be scratching your head wondering how this article of David "funny sunny" Archibald got past the censor-in-chief at WUWT.  Anthony Watts spends a lot of time complaining about "political interference".  I saw a couple of tweets that he put out only a day ago where, in his conspiracy-addled brain, he is clearly of the view that IPCC reports can't be trusted because the IPCC is a "political body".  I guess he's never read an IPCC report or any of the scientific papers underpinning it.

Only some governments have moral authority

There's a catch to this moral authority and imprimatur business.  You knew there would be, didn't you.  Apparently "moral authority" only comes from governments that reject climate science.  For example, the government agency the EPA doesn't have any moral authority.  Neither does the President of the United States.  David writes:

As the climate reports come in, the vague, almost-impossible-to-believe notion that the Obama Administration’s war on coal through the EPA is a peculiar form of malicious self-loathing will be seen with crystal clarity. That there is no scientific basis for what the EPA is attempting to do whatsoever. That the degradation and disruption that the EPA is intent upon is a loathing for America as it is, pure and simple. Instead of the loftiest ideals of “thinking of the children” and so on, President Obama and the EPA are driven by the basest of motives – that their fellow Americans be poorer with reduced opportunities.

Now why didn't more than half the people in the USA realise that President Obama is driven by the basest of motives, to reduce all his "fellow Americans" to poverty.  And he's got a funny way of going about it, too. Look at how he impoverished American investors - not!

As for people's jobs and other economic measures, well the charts here at CNN show he's not doing a very good job at reducing everyone to a poverty below what George Bush managed.  Arguably his biggest coup was helping Americans get health care when they need it.  Oh, wait. That can hardly have been prompted by the "basest of motives" can it?

Another twist: David sez that one government's climate report is as good as another's

There's yet another twist.  According to David Archibald:

One government’s report on something like climate is as good as another’s. 

Oh, I do wish he'd make up his mind.  He's just been telling us that the US government is not to be trusted, now it is.  I have a sneaking suspicion that David doesn't really believe what he says.  I've yet to see him tout the IPCC report, which is accepted by 193 nation's governments, as being  "as good as another's".

Nebraska braces for an ice age

While we're waiting to see if David can figure out what he wants to say, let's shoot back to Nebraska and see how his Nebraskan ice age is faring:

Data source: NOAA

Hmmm.  I guess David "funny sunny" Archibald is prepared to wait for all that hot weather of the past forty years to go away so that the temperatures can drop back to those more common in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  Nope. He won't be satisfied with that. Here is what David has predicted for the world:

Incidentally, it looks as if the Nebraskan government has successfully suppressed any information on climate change from its Department of Agriculture.  Despite it's claim of "Nebraska Agriculture at Work for You" there is not a peep about climate change.  Thankfully here in my home state the government is not so draconian.

Have David's coal shares plummeted?

By the way, David's article was mainly moaning about the fact that coal has no future.  Here's what the rest of the world thinks about coal:

Peabody, "the world’s largest private-sector coal company" share price drops sharply

Here's a short bio of David "funny sunny" Archibald.

From the WUWT comments

hunter says:

April 5, 2014 at 12:38 am
Interesting concept. Please explain further how the AGW promoters derailed the state effort. The story seems incomplete. We need to know more so that the push back against the hype can be more effective.

Jeff is one of those conspiracy nutters that the deniers say don't exist.  He talks about control of "every facet of life in America" and says (excerpt):

April 5, 2014 at 1:51 am
I think the poster above gives Obama way too much credit. I don’t believe Obama cares one bit for the environment, I think his motives are entirely an effort to support the efforts of an extreme faction of liberals. Not all supporters of AGW science are the same. He gives voice only to those scare mongers whose goal isn’t to clean the environment, but to control every facet of life in America.

Patrick "knows" that the CO2 is 3% of the atmosphere! He says:

April 5, 2014 at 3:51 am
I just spoke to a friend of mine who called me to talk about cars they want to buy, and then talked about electrically powered cars because the UK had “servos” littered about the country to re-powered electrically powered cars. Apparently it was cheaper than petrol. Well, maybe so in the UK, but CO2 is still emitted. I asked how the electricity that “re-powered” the batteries was generated. We eventually got to gas and coal fired power stations. Which in the bigger picture of the situation, is correct. Then I asked how much CO2 “pollution” was in the air, right now, in their opinion. The answer was 40% (I kid you not – And most people I know “believe” this is the sort of concentration in the air right now). We’d all be dead I said, if that were true. The actual figure, as we know here, is ~3%.

James Strom comes up with a bit of trivia and says:

April 5, 2014 at 6:32 am
In light of your political leanings, which I am sympathetic with, it is amusing that your choice of title, “What is to be done?”, is the same that Lenin used for a pamphlet he published in 1902. The phrase is somewhat famous, at least to someone with an interest in early communist arcana.

G. Karst says:

April 5, 2014 at 7:45 am
I would like to see coal miners and the mine owners perform a pre-emptive strike. A shut down of coal production for thirty days will have an alarming effect on those trying to shut down the industry. A shutdown until prices improve would be justifiable and a real sharp eye opener. GK

I suppose it would be noticed in some states, anyway.  Coal still makes up 37% of electricity production in the USA. It was 57% in 1985 but only 46% in 1950.

Is Judith Curry arguing for political constraints on climate science?

Anthony Watts blog at WUWT is tending to the really boring nutty right now so I popped over to see what was happening at Judith Curry's blog.  She's decided to go all out in favour of politicians putting limitations on scientific research.  Apparently , Nebraskan lawmakers are wanting scientists to prepare a report on "cyclical climate change" but telling them they are not allowed to consider any human influences on climate.  Judith finds it "strange" that any scientist would object to such limitations. (Archived here.)

Here is the advert for the study:

The advertisement looks innocuous, but apparently some lawmakers in Nebraska won't permit the scientists to take into account any human factors.  In other words they are putting political limitations on science.

Here is a report about the farce in a local news service:

The request says researchers “should consider 'cyclical climate change' to mean a change in the state of climate due to natural internal processes and only natural external forcings such as volcanic eruptions and solar variations.”

The use of the term “natural” would rule out the primary cause of the climate changes that have occurred in the last half-century: humans.

The issue of “cyclical” climate change was successfully amended into Haar's bill by Sen. Beau McCoy of Omaha, a Republican candidate for governor.

McCoy on Tuesday elaborated on his opposition to using state tax dollars to study man-made climate change: Humans aren't capable of influencing climate patterns.

CFACT bought into the issue, writing (archived here)

A few weeks ago, Nebraska lawmakers called for a wide-ranging study of “cyclical” climate change. Funded by the state, the $44,000 effort was to be limited to natural causes – not additional speculation about manmade effects. Amazingly, University of Nebraska scientists are not just refusing to participate in the study, unless it includes human influences. One climatologist at the university’s National Drought Mitigation Center actually said he would not be comfortable circulating a study proposal or asking other scientists to participate in it; in fact, he “would not send it out” to anyone. The director of the High Plains Climate Center sniffed, “If it’s only natural causes, we would not be interested.”

Their dismissive stance seems mystifying – until one examines climate change politics and financing.

CFACT went further, writing this nonsense:

None of these Nebraska scientists seems reluctant to accept far larger sums for “research” that focuses solely on human causes; nor do professors at Penn bearprotestsState, Virginia, George Mason, or other academic or research institutions. They’re likewise not shy about connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions – if the claims bring in research grants.

As if scientists determine the results of their research before they do it. CFACT isn't interested in facts.  They prefer to make stuff up as long as it's congruent with their aim of trashing the natural environment as fast as their little legs can carry them.

The Texas State Climatologist and Professor of Meteorology at Texas A&M University, John Nielsen-Gammon has written about it in the Houston Chronicle. What John is saying is that one of the scientists who refused to bid for the funds studies drought.  He is an expert in drought. Just drought.  Not drought from only natural causes or drought from only human causes, just drought. Period.  He wrote:

Knowing who these Nebraska scientists actually are, this [CFACT] article is simply sickening.  It goes on like this for a while, bringing up Galileo, Einstein, Stalin, and Lysenko, and concludes:

“Nebraskan (and other) researchers must end their hide-bound focus on human causes – and start working to understand all the complex, interrelated factors behind global climate changes and cycles. Government financiers and policy makers must do likewise. Our future well-being depends on it.”

Hey, CFACT, I have news for you: we climate scientists, at Nebraska and elsewhere, are already doing this.  We refuse to be told by politicians to restrict the scope of our scientific investigations.  Some of us feel so strongly about this that we are willing to pass up grant money that comes with politically-motivated restrictions.  And we’re willing to do this even at the possible cost of having our reputations dragged through the mud by the likes of you.

Because, despite our best efforts, some of us get used as political pawns anyway.

By the way, in a footnote, CFACT notes that the same authors will “discuss harassment of CAGW skeptics in a future article”.  Hypocrites.

 Judith says John's explanation doesn't "make sense" to her.  Apparently in Judith's world it is okay to put political constraints on the factors that academics can take into account when doing scientific research.  She lives in a strange little world.

What Judith is arguing for is that climate scientists should accept a requirement that they refuse to consider any factors that are associated with all the added greenhouse gases in the air.

Yep.  Judith Curry is advocating politically constrainted "science" if there is any such thing. How could scientists possibly study something if they are not allowed to consider all possible factors?  How could scientists study any weather change without acknowledging that the extra greenhouse gases are affecting climate and weather? Whatever results they came up with would have to be wrong from the start.  They wouldn't be able to use any climate models that included the current level of greenhouse gases, nor allowed for the growth of greenhouse gases.

Judith has put her hand up for the money.  Not only that, she's offered to do a study where she has already decided the results, writing (my bold italics):

JC message to Nebraska lawmakers:  I understand why you want to better understand and predict the natural variability of drought in Nebraska, such as seen in Figure 1 above.  I have been studying climate variability in the high plains, specifically temperature and winds, for a DOE funded study on predicting wind power variability.  For $44K, I would be happy to extend our study to include precipitation and drought, interpreting Nebraska climate variability in context of the stadium wave and including probabilistic projections of extremes for the next two decades. And I am sure that there are other researchers outside the state of Nebraska who would be willing to address this topic also.

Is Judith claiming that Nebraska droughts are caused by her stadium wave?  AFAIK she hasn't even said what causes her so-called stadium wave.   All she's done is say "here's a pattern we think we've found".

It gets worse, with a logic fail from Judith.  In the comments she writes:

curryja | November 29, 2013 at 11:38 am | Reply
Can you look at Figure 1 and deny that there is natural variability? 

I've added the following comment (Sou 5:14 pm 1 Dec 13):

curryja | November 29, 2013 at 3:30 pm | Reply
Hi Don I agree. I am tweeting with Gavin about this, the main objection seems to be their refusal to consider AGW. Well AGW seems to be getting a lot of consideration, whereas natural internal variability seems to be the main driver on the time scales of interest, and is getting insufficient consideration. So political posturing on both sides; you expect this from politicians but not from scientists.

Since when did it become "political posturing" to be able to do science free from political constraints? (It's science deniers who keep bringing up Lysenko conspiracy theories trying to claim that AGW is a Lysenko plot!  Judith is arguing that a research project that takes into account all possible factors, regardless of whether they are natural or anthropogenic is "political posturing".) (Edited re later comment from Judith. Sou 5:14 pm 1 Dec 13)

The point is not whether there is "natural variability".  The point is that no politician should be putting these sort of constraints on scientific research.  It would be like handing out grant money to study the common cold and telling researchers that they are not to consider any viral causation.  Natural variability is taking place in a world heated up by global warming.  There is no pure natural variability any more.  All weather is influenced by the added greenhouse gases.

You can't just remove greenhouse warming from the equation and say - oh look, this is what the weather would be like without greenhouse gases.  That would be of no value to Nebraskans.  The farmers there want to know what to expect in the future.  What is realistic.  Not what would have been expected if we hadn't been adding greenhouse gases to the air.

A responsible scientist would not be able to do the research in good faith.  But Judith Curry would.

If Judith doesn't win the tender, maybe Anthony Watts will find a use for their money.  He could do a review of weather stations in Nebraska and conclude that even if they get more droughts it will be okay, it won't get too hot.  Any extra heat associated with drought can be put down to "Nebraskan UHI disease".