Quote of the day

With a tiny handful of exceptions (Judy, Richard Betts, Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, surely there must be a few more?) the whole of “mainstream” climate science seems to be going into collective meltdown. To ordinary scientists their behaviour just gets more bizarre with every day.

I have worked in all sorts of areas of science, some really quite controversial, and I have never seen this sort of childish throwing of toys out of prams in any other context. I can’t see any solution beyond some proper grown ups getting involved and telling Trenberth and Gleick and friends to sit on the naughty step until they learn how to play nicely.

Jonathan Jones at Climate etc.

Comments

[Orson]

THIS goes to illustrate my revival of Dr. Tim Ball's "5 Stages of Climate Grief" insight.

http://militantlibertarian.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/climate-grief_scr.jpg

This set in with climate gate, the failure of Copenhagen, and what we've witnessed since then.

[Orson]

Perhaps I ought to credit the above linked cartoon to Josh: www.cartoonsbyjosh.com, possibly best known from wattsupwiththat in March 2010.

[Green Sand]

"I can’t see any solution beyond some proper grown ups getting involved and telling Trenberth and Gleick and friends to sit on the naughty step until they learn how to play nicely."

What a state of affairs, would be hilarious if the people involved were not responsible for "the greatest ever threat to mankind". Whether or not the threat is from CAGW or from the political ramifications that are taking place.

There are a lot of people that need to grow up, we are way past the ego and saving face stage, now is the time for "Climate Science" to adopt the “no blame” culture encouraged in aerospace to reduce safety related errors.

[Richard Betts]

the whole of “mainstream” climate science seems to be going into collective meltdown

Thank you for the vote of confidence for myself Jonathan (and for repeating it, BH). Very kind.

However, I should point out that mainstream climate science consists of thousands of scientists, most of whom just get on with their job. No offence intended to our host or other bloggers, who mostly do a great job at encouraging dialogue and opening up discussion to a wider audience, but the blogosphere is not really representative of most working scientists! You only hear from the noisy ones.

So I don't think the whole field is going into collective meltdown!

[Orson]

Jonathan Jones is an Oxford University physicist, whose plaint at juidith curry's blog:

“most scientists are reluctant to speak out on topics which are not their field. We tend to trust our colleagues, perhaps unreasonably so....However, ‘hide the decline’ [from the Climategate emails] is an entirely different matter.’ This...is a straightforward and blatant breach of the fundamental principles of honesty and self-criticism that lie at the heart of all true science.

....The recent public statements by supposed leaders of UK science [eg, Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society - the UKs National Academy of Science], declaring that hiding the decline is standard scientific practice are on a par with declarations that black is white and up is down."
--Jonathan Jones, Physics Department at Oxford University, Feb 23, 2011. (judithcurry.com)

But from the link at the top, and through curry's blog, we learn that Jones is member of "NMR Quantum Computing group within the Oxford Centre for Quantum Computation."

I believe he therefore works with another better known (ie, popular) physicist there, David Deutsch. I found reviews of Deutsch's new book -- "The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform The World" -- so exciting, I had to get a copy ahead of the release in the USA.

Deutsch explains the Enlightenment values and virtues, and elaborates using science history to show how less successful explanations get eliminated in favor of the more successful ones. This process is essential if there is to be scientific progress.

Although highly optimistic, one can imagine how depressing an exponent of Popperian wisdom might find 'climate science' today, like Jones.

There are three of so chapters that tackle environmental problems. I think all readers of the Bishophill blog can benefit from reading "The Beginning of Infinity."

[KnR]

At least someone inside science but outside climate science as started to ask questions, so far the wall of silence seems to have been the only real response to the 'Team' in action . I can partly understand as there is a real fear that if climate science is seen to fall , given its very high public profile it will take others with it . But that is a problem very much of the scientific establishments own making . Organization like the RS which should have acted like gatekeepers have instead gone MIA, or worse such as rubber stamping CRU 'evidenced' to the review so allowing them to hind behind the RS skirts.

Its a real house of cards if climate science goes down it going to take lot else with it , included a lot of otherwise fine environmental work and pretty much undermine public confidence ,and so political will and funding , in science for years to come. After all the public have be told for years how this science is settled, how they have to act now or else and how all doubters are lairs in the pay of big oil . Do you think they will really forget and forgiven all of that ?

[Jonathan Jones]

Richard, it may well be that the majority of mainstream climate scientists are actually sane people, quietly getting on with their work. But I'm afraid that quietly getting on with your work is no longer really an option. The public face of climate science is in meltdown, and until the poor bloody infantry start repudiating the idiocies of these (largely self selected) leaders you are all going to be tarred with their stupidities.

You're a nice guy and your presence here is much appreciated. But eventually your silence will be taken as consent. That may well be wrong, it may well be unfair, but that's just how life works.

[Jonathan Jones]

Orson, I know David a little and had the pleasure of working with him about 15 years ago. But David mostly works on his own - not many people can keep up either with his ideas or with his idiosyncratic lifestyle.

The Beginning of Infinity is on my "to read" list, but that's a bit full at the moment.

[Barry Woods]

Richard. I spotted this at Climate Etc and sent it to a few blogs
(sorry to Jonathon - again,! for a bit more publicity !)

I put it into the comments at Watts Up, with the question, why aren't more scientists(exceptions above) protesting like Prof Jones, or Professor Muller, (hide the decline, we don't do science like this at Berkley University), about behaviour of some apparently highly politicised scientists.
(who is right/wrong AGW is not the issue)
http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/02/hide-the-decline-2-pictures-for-2000-comments/

The apparent public silence of all the 1000's of mainstream climate scientists on the well publicised behaviour, reflects badly on ALL scientists, as it appears to condone it..

My very first blog comment was:
http://www.realclimategate.org/about/

"Climate Science is important to us all"

and my thoughts were all scientist should take a look, as the politicians and media will blame ALL scientists when the chickens come home to roost.

plus, it seemslike the editor had a vested profesional interest with Trenberth
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/journal-deliverance-the-true-story-of-the-climate-hillbillies/

[Greg Cavanagh]

KnR,
I would love to see Climate Science "go down". But that is only going to happen if someone somehow makes a rockumentary to the calibre of Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, wins a Nobel Prise for it, and it becomes mandatory viewing in UK schools, i.e.; it aint gonna happen.

The science will take a hit among scientists and interested parties, such as blog spheres, but it the general public are already sceptical of it all, so they won't care terribly much.

It is an offence to the greens, socialists, entrepreneurs making money off the scare, and proponents of government control who wanted to use CO2 control to further their agenda. But they can shut up and the argument goes no further.

I see the whole thing going into a long slow melt down until the thing fades from memory. Nothing will ever publicly be admitted.

[Phillip Bratby]

I agree, it is the public face that is the problem. The BBC and MSM only mention the leaders and defenders of the AGW faith. Ordinary scientists are totally ignored. Working "climate scientists" have to out themselves and condemn the leaders. Where were they when Climategate showed us a glimpse behind the curtains?

[Barry Woods]

looks like Professor Jones beat me to my main point (I hadn't seen it, until after hitting post comment)
Public perception, of a self selected group of leaders is in meltdown

Something all scientist should remember Public perceptiion of climate science includes the politicians and media, who have largely been onside. they will just say to the other scientists 'keeping their heads down', why didn't you say something!?

and ALL science will recieve an unfair backlash, because of the actions of a relative few (chief scientist types, societyies, ie Royal Society, etc have to answer to this as well. I feel they are highly politicised.

I totally understand why scientists keep their heads down in the past, but recently, look how Paul Dennis (UEA) was treated by The Guardian, and the treatment and vilification of 'heretic' Judith Curry by the 'extended team' and pro CAGW blogland

As Jonathon says above, keeping 'heads down' is no longer really an option. very sad it came to this

[shub]

Dear Bish
Maurizio (and Les Johnson and David Hoffer) have excellent posts and comments on the fiasco now. The case is cracked wide open, so to speak.

[golf charley]

Richard Betts, I can only echo what others have said above, and I do acknowledge your practical and common sense posts here

Govt funding for a lot of climate scientists is going to dry up. I do not see the private sector mopping up this spillage

Big Green will become politically incorrect

The USA EPA, despite some of its positive contributions will be shackled.

Genuine environmental research will struggle for funding (a major concern of my own)

And all to protect the salaries and egos of less than 100 (?) pseudoscientologists

Your call Richard

(No Pressure :-)

ps your particularly cunning plan for AR5 should include a comprehensive takedown of all grey literature and independent peer review of the rest, with an analysis of who funded the rubbish in the first place. This could enhance your future employability a lot!

Best wishes

gc

[Green Sand]

"But eventually your silence will be taken as consent"

I, we, are not looking for heroes, we are looking to the standard of scientific professions being upheld.

The masses have to believe the "professionals" that lead mankind forward are professional and ethical. Lose this trust and it will take generations to regain, resulting in the loss of development opportunities, which for an ever growing population will prove to be extremely regrettable.

The loss of confidence in our political elite and the establishment is probably beyond redemption, the last thing we need is for the scientific profession to go the same way.

Scientist heal thyself! Please

Please be assured, once out of academia the perception of “climate scientists” is only going one way and fast. The masses, will blame “scientist”, they have no perception between disciplines.

In their vernacular, FFS get a grip!

[simon abingdon]

Barry, how about taking the trouble to spell his name correctly? (Only good manners, you know).

[simpleseekeraftertruth]

'Collective meltdown' has recently been experienced by the banks. Apparently, they were taking bad banking and wrapping it up in such a way that it appeared to be good banking. Amazingly, very few people spotted this and when they did were deemed to be an elevator short of a few CEO's, however...

[bigcitylib]

You're digging into the comments to find suitable anti-AGW material? That is sooo pathetic. Who cares what Mr. Jones thinks, if that is even his real name.

[shub]

And I forget, Orson, had reached the same conclusion, by pure hunch !!!

You can take a look - it is in his long comment about three posts back.

[Arthur Dent]

Professor Jones is actually a proper scientist with a very credible research record http://nmr.physics.ox.ac.uk/cv.html . I wonder who you are BCL?

[Green Sand]

"I wonder who you are BCL?"

Arthur, sometimes be careful what you wish for, click on the name and follow the link, have fun!

[golf charley]

Greens Sand at 11:06

Thanks for that suggestion, followed it once, never again!

Maybe others would like to try, and report back, perhaps I just have a delicate constitution

[Green Sand]

"perhaps I just have a delicate constitution"

Doubt it GC, as they say "you just don't want to go there!"

[Shub]

I found this on his Spencer and Braswell thread:

Comment deleted
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:44 AM

[diogenes]

and again bcl sinks below the Hengist level of stupidity

[bigcitylib]

Oh, maybe he is a real scientist. But you know, if you lay down with dogs, and etc...

[Lord Beaverbrook]

"You only hear from the noisy ones"

I wouldn't of called you noisy Richard, you are certainly more polite and informative than many who blog. Don't take it to heart but there is definitely hope for you yet.

[Foxgoose]

What puzzles me in the whole climate science debacle is "the dogs that don't bark".

There must be tens of thousands of scientists working in the field - but public discourse seems to be conducted by a tiny cabal of less than a hundred names - many from quite minor scientific institutions.

Where are the voices of senior non-activist academics in the relevant departments of the heavyweight ivy league and oxbridge universities who could speak up for their own discipline and for the integrity of the scientific method in general?

Apart from a few political placemen like Nurse and Beddington, we never hear practising senior academics coming out for or against the "consensus" opinion - which makes it seem that they're not convinced by it, but not brave enough to criticise it either.

Bizarre.

[Rog Tallbloke]

Hans has his moments too...

[Green Sand]

"Oh, maybe he is a real scientist. But you know, if you lay down with dogs,"

Quite right, that is why as a "real scientist" he does not "lay down with dogs"

Time for a few more real scientist to prove that they do not have fleas!

[bigcitylib]

Green Sand,

My point is that to support Spencer in something like this (as Mr. Jones did) is to lessen yourself as a scientist. Spencer did what young earth creationists have done, what pro-tobacco scientists have done, etc. which is to probe for a weak spot in the peer review system and slip a paper through, basically to get a few days of coverage out of Fox/other right wing news sources before the weakness gets discovered and the hole plugged. In this case plugging that hole cost an honest man (Mr. Wegner) his position. I find it appalling that Mr. Jones would simply pooh pooh this kind of reckless behavior. And I think that if his own particular sub-field (which doesn't sound particularly controverisial to me) was subject to the same kind of thing, he would probably rethink his position.

For another example, when denialists hijacked the IOP it cost that organization its Energy sub-group:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/07/iop-sees-errors-of-its-ways.html

[Green Sand]

bigcitylib Sep 6, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Cut out the crap, tobacco smoking young earth whatevers have got nothing whatsoever to do with this.

A paper has been published, sometimes it gets MSM publicity, sometimes the MSM publicity is OTT, sometimes there is a rebuttal of the paper, sometimes the rebuttal gets publicity, sometimes because of the rebuttal there is a comment, rarely there is a retraction. Once in a comet an editor resigns after the rebuttal has been reviewed. Last time an editor resigned under these circumstances was because they published a report of stars in the east announcing the virgin birth of a male child.

Get a grip, because sometimes, just sometimes, a paper has something to help improve the wellbeing of the whole of mankind and not just the wellbeing of the authors

[bigcitylib]

Green Sand,

You are blithering.

[John M]

bcl

I would have to agree with Professor Jones that Climate Scientists behave in ways that I have not seen with other scientists.

It could very well be that the spotlight is exposing this behavior, but if they can't control themselves, they shouldn't seek the spotlight.

[Green Sand]

bigcitylibS ep 6, 2011 at 12:21 AM

"Green Sand,

You are blithering."

Thanks bcl for your incisive proactive critique I will certainly take it onboard, as I am sure the “real scientists” will.

Goodbye

[pouncer]

How come it's always creationists and smokers? Why not pick on the vaccine phobics or that the US forces in Iraq (statistically) caused more deaths than the dictator and the bunch who argue that fire can't melt steel? How about the economists who argue that raising the minimum wage causes more hiring? How about the idea that plutonium is more deadly than arsenic or botulism toxin? There are a lot of very unscientific notions in current discussions. Why do we hear about tobacco over and over and over?

My conjecture is that political "blinders" prevent people from seeing bad science as practiced by their fellow travelers. And so I think it has to do with Al Gore. Who was, after all, a tobacco farmer and divinity student. But perhaps this conjecture can't be supported by the evidence. On the other hand, what else could it be? And shouldn't we, just as precaution, ignore what tobacco profiteers and wanna-be prophets say, just to be safe? And even if we don't advance the cause of science, shouldn't we shun Gore-like tobacco purveyors and preachers, just because it's the modern way to think? Whether or not the evidence supports such a conjecture, you should accept my claims, on this basis alone.

Right?

[RoyFOMR]

Thanks BCL for making your arguments with recourse to anatomical scatology. I withdraw my request to the Bishop to ban you.

[RoyFOMR]

Oops 'without recourse'

[Mike]

Spencer's work is brilliant settled science. How dare anyone criticize it!

[jorgekafkazar]

[Snip - I realise you were making a serious point, but this kind of thing just makes the thread go way off course. I hope you can make the point without the historical analogy]

[Paul Deacon]

Lucy Skywalker says:
September 5, 2011 at 3:24 pm

I smell something like Club of Rome being outed by Wall of China.
***********
Agreed. but I think the Germans would be quite happy with that.

[ZT]

@Richard "...I should point out that mainstream climate science consists of thousands of scientists, most of whom just get on with their job."

Climatologists, Richard, we call them climatologists.

These are the same climatologists who in their thousands sign the letter at the drop of a hat stating that hiding the proxy decline is entirely above board - right?

Apparently, climatologists behave like sheep when called upon by Julia, Phil and Gavin; and ostriches at all other times. No wonder society feels the need to employ so many. No telling when there will be a need to pretend that black is white, lie to the population about catastrophes, or ignore ones colleagues' lies.

[MarcH]

Dessler GRL 2011 now available.
here the abstract...

Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget

The question of whether clouds are the cause of surface temperature changes, rather than acting as a feedback in response to those temperature changes, is explored using data obtained between 2000 and 2010. An energy budget calculation shows that the energy trapped by clouds accounts for little of the observed climate variations. And observations of the lagged response of top-ofatmosphere (TOA) energy fluxes to surface temperature variations are not evidence that clouds are causing climate change.

[Phillip Bratby]

Have you seen the comment by David Hoffer at WUWT:

My understanding from some comments on other threads (I have not checked for myself) is that RealClimate (going to that site just ticks me off, there isn’t anything “real” about it) has shut down comments on the whole sordid affair. I think Lucy Skywalker (welcome back!) is right; there is more, much more, we do not yet know… and may never know. As for those commenting about FOIA requests, prosecutions, and Nick Stokes ridiculous suggestion that there is no direct funding involved which somehow changes something…anything… I’m reposting something I said that is buried in the 500+ comments on the original breaking news thread. In brief, what I am saying is focus on the main issues. The cat is out of the bag Sir Stokes. ClimateGate gave us a glimpse into the CAGW Pandora’s box, but this is an “own goal” that throws the lid off. Silence at RC is not the sound of this debate being squelched. It is the sound of an immense number of sphincter valves slamming shut. From the breaking news thread:
—————

Early on in this thread I suggested that Wolfgang Wagner had likely scored a massive “own goal”. As events have unfolded since then, Kevin Trenberth has weighed in (see “The science is scuttled” thread at WUWT). This is no longer a massive “own goal”.

Words may fail to describe what has happened. Wagner has, in fact, scored a massive “own goal”, establishing the legitimacy and importance of the SB paper, drawing world wide attention to it, and at the same time attempting to discredit it through what amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign. He has discredited and made a fool of himself, as well as the AGW “science” he purports to defend.

Along comes Trenberth, who has fittingly poured gasoline on himself, lit himself afire, and runs screaming in circles shouting “I made him do it! I made him do it!”

The Three Travesties of Trenberth

1. The missing heat (ClimateGate emails)
2. It escaped to space, the one place he refused to look for it (SB paper)
3. In trying to cover it up, Trenberth has given it the kind of publicity money cannot buy, and pointed the finger directly at himself as the chief architect of the cover up.

What shall we call these? WaterGate and ClimateGate were cover ups too. But neither Nixon nor “the Team” were insane enough to proudly proclaim themselves as the architects of the cover up. They attempted to spin the mess they created into something it wasn’t. Can you imagine Nixon going on national television and proudly proclaiming that he ordered the spying to try and protect democracy?

This is a whole new level of cover up and “gate” just seems an inadequate term.

[Richard Betts]

ZT

I can't find any petition on hiding proxy declines. Can you point me to it please?

I do remember signing this one which is about:

confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities

[Richard Betts]

[Response to jorge above. I've snipped the response too so as to keep the thread on track]

[Patagon]

MarcH: "Dessler GRL 2011 now available."

The paper starts in typical Teamspeak:

The usual way to think about clouds in the climate system.....
In recent papers, Lindzen and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Choi [2011, hereafter LC11] and Spencer and Braswell [2011, hereafter SB11] have argued that reality is reversed: clouds are the cause of, and not a feedback on

Who decides what the "usual way of thinking"? Some authors may d so, but it is far from clear that that is the "usual" way. Even so, what is the weight in the argument of something being "usual", "usuality" has no demonstrative weight.

"Reality reversed", so Dessler already knows whats reality, clear example of unbiassed scientific approach.
This text is more appropriate to RC blog thanto a scientific journal, I wonder who has reviewed the paper, if it was reviewed at all.

It continues:

LC11 (their Eq. 8) and SB11 (their Eq. 1) both write the Earth’s energy budget as:

C dTs/dt = ∆Rcloud + ∆Focean − λ∆Ts

What SB11 actually write is:

Cp d∆T/dt = S(t) + N(t) − λ∆T

And it is not the same.

The full paper is an attack to SB11, and as such the appropriate thing is to publish it in Remote Sensing and ask the authors of the original paper to answer Dessler critics. But, well, we are in the era of peer-review re-definition.

I have searched Dessler and found not a single mention of short wave or albedo, yet they claim to have debunked the effect of clouds as feedbacks. I behg your pardon..., you know "`Clouds", those white thingies up there...

[Orson]

What puzzles me in the whole climate science debacle is "the dogs that don't bark".

There must be tens of thousands of scientists working in the field....

Where are the voices of senior non-activist academics in the relevant departments of the heavyweight ivy league and oxbridge universities who could speak up for their own discipline and for the integrity of the scientific method in general?

....[W]e never hear practising senior academics coming out for or against the "consensus" opinion - which makes it seem that they're not convinced by it, but not brave enough to criticise it either.

- Foxgoose

It is worth remembering that 15% of the US National Academy of Sciences came out in support of CAGW in May, last year.

The signers below are 255 out of 2,000 members of the NAS, ego about 15% of the total: "Open letter: Climate change and the integrity of science"

Now, many in the list are from fields like medicine or microbiology, but certainly some are heavy hitters in geosciences.

Let me excerpt:

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modelling....

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution)....Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers, are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected.

But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change: (etc)....

There are multiple conclusions to draw from this. First, that most of us here, including Jonathan Jones, are heretics.

Second, most scientists rely upon what they read in the newspapers to learn about climate science and its critics. Perhaps Jones is a good younger example of new trends, in following a little blog like Andrew's here. But most NAS scientists are not younger.

And third, most of the lessons and concerned scientific followup after climategate fell upon responsive ears in the UK due to the intense media coverage there (and the unipolar nature of London’s media dominance). It was much more muted in the US. As for other places like downunder, I will guess it was intense - but uniquely so for Australia because of its "hung" election last year.

In short, if you are critical and looking for optimism, there seems not much to find, looking out and after the ongoing Wagner resignation scandal. A book co-authored by a law prof concerned with science and technology covered ethics scandals, and they found little reason to hope for anything lasting to come from them:

Instead of paying attention to real transgressions, however, government agencies and private businesses and institutions have concentrated on appearances. Elaborate rules have been created to avoid conflicts of interest, high-sounding codes of conduct have been promulgated and a virtual industry of consultants has sprung up to help harried officials seem more ethical. What this flurry of activity has done, [the authors] say, is to deflect attention from misconduct instead of increasing efforts to prevent it.

Rather than looking for fraud and other forms of actual malfeasance, reporters and public investigators are checking on whether officials have filled out forms properly or observed the superficial rules of propriety. Genuine wrongdoers have been allowed to escape serious condemnation by confessing to the lesser offense of paying too little heed to appearances.

People in authority have even begun to think, with Machiavelli, that appearances matter more than reality. Cleverness in observing the rules has taken precedence over virtuous behavior.

(-Review from The New York Times by Harvard University's Derek Bok, October, 19, 1997.)

And thus, with the likes of Trenberth and others from the Hockey Stick Team-mafia in power in climate science circles, complaints over ethics have little effect. Following the rules matters more than scientific virtue. And media megaphones are rare, and where not, in the US as elsewhere, typically stacked against serious criticism.

Perhaps there is solace in the conclusions Ross McKitrick laid out in his detailed survey of the climategate inquires, out only one year ago this month.

He thought that the InterAcademy Council offered the most persuasive rationale for reforming the IPCC. Many if not most of the skeptics complaints are recognized, even if stated in tortured, diplomatic guise. So, beyond climategate and the successions of revealed scientific terpitude, carrying out the recommendations there ought to be on our agendas.

Certainly, someone ought to lay out and call for the all CAGW-skeptics to rally around the unfinished business of climategate. And maybe Andrew Montford's web-site is the place to launch such a manifesto.

[oxonmoron]

@Richard "...I should point out that mainstream climate science consists of thousands of scientists, most of whom just get on with their job."

Having been myself one of the lower orders laboring in another vineyard I feel I must point out that any research performed at my level and wrote up for possible publication had to be vetted by management. Any conclusions that conflicted with policy were swiftly changed. You quickly learn that if you want to keep your job and continue paying your mortgage and put bread on the family table you better do as you're told. Richard, I wonder if you would allow any work to be published from within your organisation that conflicted in any way with government policy? I mean gatekeepers exist at all levels not only at journals. No?

[Patagon]

Sorry for the "behg", but probably conveys better the mood.

Regarding the original topic. I agree with J. Jones, but I see a problem. In the current situation an "infantry" climate scientist that complains or even doubt is a very soon to be unemployed climate scientist. Mainly because the way funds for research projects are allocated and the way they are reviewed. Unless we change that, people will not think that is worth to loose their jobs. I can see that very clearly among many ex-colleagues, they don't even want to talk about the topic, it is too delicate when subsistence is at stake. And by the way, I am an unemployed scientist that once was working a a discipline closely related to climate science.

As golf charley points out "Genuine environmental research will struggle for funding " when the whole thing collapses and that is really a shame.