cliff mass

see attribution

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/08/17/does_climate_change_cause_extreme_weather_now_heres_a_scorcher_of_a_reality_check_789878.html

no lnx

Wash.: Does Climate Change Cause Extreme Weather Now? Here's a Scorcher of a Reality Check

By Eric Felten, RealClearInvestigations

August 17, 2021

The Pacific Northwest was hit with a record-shattering heat wave in June, with temperatures over 35 degrees higher than normal in some places. On June 28, Portland, Ore., reached 116 degrees. Late last week the region suffered another blast of hot weather, with a high in Portland of 103 degrees. The New York Times didn’t hesitate to pronounce the region’s bouts of extreme weather proof that the climate wasn’t just changing, but catastrophically so.

To make that claim, the Times relied on a “consortium of climate experts” that calls itself World Weather Attribution, a group organized not just to attribute extreme weather events to climate change, but to do so quickly. Within days of the June heat wave, the researchers released an analysis, declaring that the torrid spell “was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.”

[pixWikimedia

Cliff Mass, Pacific Northwest atmospheric scientist: An inconvenient dissenter from blaming climate change for extreme weather.

Wikimedia]

World Weather Attribution and its alarming report were trumpeted by Time magazine, touted by the NOAA website Climate.gov , and featured by CBS News, CNBC, Scientific American, CNN, the Washington Post, USAToday, and the New York Times, among others.

The group’s claim that global warming was to blame was perhaps less significant than the speed with which that conclusion was provided to the media. Previous efforts to tie extreme weather events to climate change hadn’t had the impact scientists had hoped for, according to Time, because it “wasn’t producing results fast enough to get attention from people outside the climate science world.”

“Being able to confidently say that a given weather disaster was caused by climate change while said event still has the world’s attention,” Time explained, approvingly, “can be an enormously useful tool to convince leaders, lawmakers and others that climate change is a threat that must be addressed.” In other words, the value of rapid attribution is primarily political, not scientific.

Inconveniently for World Weather Attribution, an atmospheric scientist with extensive knowledge of the Pacific Northwest climate was actively running weather models that accurately predicted the heatwave.Cliff Mass rejected the notion that global warming was to blame for the scorching temperatures.He calculated that global warming might have been responsible for two degrees of the near 40-degree anomaly. With or without climate change, Mass wrote, the region “still would have experienced the most severe heat wave of the past century.”

Mass has no shortage of credentials relevant to the issue: A professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, he is author of the book “The Weather of the Pacific Northwest.”

Mass took on the World Weather Attribution group directly: “Unfortunately, there are serious flaws in their approach.” According to Mass, the heatwave was the result of “natural variability.” The models being used by the international group lacked the “resolution to correctly simulate critical intense, local precipitation features,” and “they generally use unrealistic greenhouse gas emissions.”

World Weather Attribution

World Weather Attribution was organized to quickly attribute extreme weather events to climate change.

World Weather Attribution

WWA issued a “rebuttal” calling Mass’ criticisms “misleading and incorrect.” But the gauntlet thrown down by Mass did seem to affect WWA’s confidence in its claims. The group, which had originally declared the heatwave would have been “virtually impossible without human-caused climate change,” altered its tone. In subsequent public statements, it emphasized that it had merely been making “best estimates” and had presented them “with the appropriate caveats and uncertainties.” Scientists with the attribution group did not respond to questions about Mass’s criticisms posed by RealClearInvestigations.

But what of the group’s basic mission, the attribution of individual weather events to climate change? Hasn’t it been a fundamental rule of discussing extreme temperatures in a given place not to conflate weather with climate? Weather, it is regularly pointed out, refers to conditions during a short time in a limited area; climate is said to describe longer-term atmospheric patterns over large areas.

(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Donald Trump once joked, on a cold day in 2017, that he could go for some global warming ...

(AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Yale School of the Environment]

... and his comment was denounced as "scientifically ridiculous" by Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University, above. But today it's hardly unusual for climate advocates to conflate weather with climate.

Yale School of the Environment

When Donald Trump joked, on a cold day, that he could go for some global warming, he was chastised for confusing weather with climate. The director of Yale University's project on climate change communication, Anthony Leiserowitz, denounced Trump’s comment as "scientifically ridiculous and demonstrably false."

"There is a fundamental difference in scale between what weather is and what climate is," Leiserowitz added. "What's going on in one small corner of the world at a given moment does not reflect what's going on with the planet."

Until recently, at least, climate scientists long warned against using individual weather events to ponder the existence or otherwise of global warming. Typically, that argument is used to respond to those who might argue a spate of extreme cold is reason to doubt the planet is warming. Using individual weather events to say anything about the climate is “dangerous nonsense,” the New Scientist warned a decade ago.

Perhaps, but it happens all the time now that climate advocates have found it to be an effective tool. In 2019, The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago found that three-fourths of those polled said their views about climate change had been shaped by extreme weather events. Leah Sprain, in the book “Ethics and Practice in Science Communication,” says that even though it may be legitimate to make the broad claim that climate change “may result in future extreme weather,” when one tries “arguing weather patterns were caused by climate change, things get dicey.” Which creates a tension: “For some communicators, the ultimate goal – mobilizing political action – warrants rhetorical use of extreme weather events.” But that makes scientists nervous, Sprain writes, because “misrepresenting science will undermine the credibility of arguments for climate change.”

Which is exactly what happened with the World Weather Attribution group, according to Mass: “Many of the climate attribution studies are resulting in headlines that are deceptive and result in people coming to incorrect conclusions about the relative roles of global warming and natural variability in current extreme weather,” he wrote at his blog. “Scary headlines and apocalyptic attribution studies needlessly provoke fear."

(AP Photo/Nathan Howard)

Sweltering in Portland.

Covering the back-and-forth between the World Weather Attribution and Mass, the Seattle Times labeled the local atmosphere academic “a controversial figure.” The newspaper noted that “Mass has sometimes gotten into very public disputes with other scientists.” He has also been critical of the news media — “including the Seattle Times,” wrote the Seattle Times — for what he says is alarmist coverage of the climate. The Seattle Times did not respond to questions from RCI.

The newspaper was not wrong that Mass has disagreed with his fellow climate scientists. He didn’t hesitate to take on any and all comers at the Real Climate blog. But he doesn’t think that should make him controversial. “Science is all about conflict,” Mass has said. “Somebody has an idea; and then someone else criticizes it.”

Mass also counts as “controversial” because he spoke out last summer against the rioting and looting taking place nightly in Seattle. A recurring segment he had on Tacoma public radio was canceled after Mass – on his own blog, not on the radio — likened the shattering of glass in Seattle to the shattered glass of Kristallnacht, the Nazi anti-Semitic pogrom.

The blogging professor laments that atmospheric sciences have been “poisoned” by politics. “It’s damaged climate science,” he told RCI.

And not just politics – Mass also says that the accepted tenets of global warming have become a sort of religion.Consider the language used, he says, such as the question of whether one “believes” in anthropogenic climate change. “You don’t believe in gravity,” he says. The religious metaphor also explains why colleagues get so bent out of shape with him, Mass says: “There’s nothing worse than an apostate priest.”

That goes even for those who are merely mild apostates. Mass doesn’t dispute warming, he merely questions how big a problem it is. “We need to worry about climate change,” he has said. “But hype and exaggeration of its impacts only undermine the potential for effective action.”

compared seattle protest to kristalnacht

on Thursday, June 24, as the Northwest’s record-shattering heat wave approached, Cliff Mass posted a forecast he found hard to believe. By Monday, temperatures near the western Cascades foothills would exceed 108 degrees and they would reach 104 degrees and higher around Puget Sound.

“The event being predicted is so extreme and so beyond expectations that my natural inclination is to dismiss it,” Mass wrote. “But I can’t.”

His blog succinctly captured the historic event about to unfold in the kind of post that has helped make Mass, a professor at the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, one of the region’s most influential meteorologists.

After the heat wave, he quickly assumed a far more controversial role as an outspoken critic of scientists who say climate change plays a big role in extreme weather events.

In a July 6 post, Mass declared that without global warming, we “still would have experienced the most severe heat wave of the past century.” In a follow-up post on July 13, he blasted as “profoundly flawed” a World Weather Attribution report by a team of 27 international scientists that concluded the heat wave would have been virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.

His blog posts serve as an online megaphone for Mass, who says it garners some 20,000 views on a typical day, and has received more than a half million views during some weather events.

no lnx

Seattle meteorologist Cliff Mass sparks controversy by diving into heat wave climate science

Aug. 3, 2021

Meteorologist Cliff Mass, a professor in the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences, sparked controversy when he wrote on his popular blog that he disagreed with climate scientists attributing the Northwest’s big heat wave to climate change. (Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times)

Hal Bernton By Hal Bernton

Seattle Times staff reporter

On Thursday, June 24, as the Northwest’s record-shattering heat wave approached, Cliff Mass posted a forecast he found hard to believe. By Monday, temperatures near the western Cascades foothills would exceed 108 degrees and they would reach 104 degrees and higher around Puget Sound.

“The event being predicted is so extreme and so beyond expectations that my natural inclination is to dismiss it,” Mass wrote. “But I can’t.”

After the heat wave, he quickly assumed a far more controversial role as an outspoken critic of scientists who say climate change plays a big role in extreme weather events.

His blog posts serve as an online megaphone for Mass, who says it garners some 20,000 views on a typical day, and has received more than a half million views during some weather events.

His recent posts came at a time when Puget Sound governments and others in our region are scrambling to better prepare for such events. The heat wave contributed to the deaths of at least 125 people, according to preliminary state Department of Health data. And Mass has gotten strong pushback from scientists involved in the report as well as some other climatologists who say his ridicule increasingly makes him an outlier among scientists assessing the impacts of global warming.

The World Weather Attribution researchers, using statistical analysis, estimated the odds of this summer’s heat wave were one in 1,000 in today’s world but would have been at least 150 times more unlikely in preindustrial times. As early as the 2040s, their report said such events could occur, somewhere in the world, every five to 10 years.

In their models, the overall global impact of climate change resembles a kind of loading of the dice that can increase intensity of extreme-temperature events like the Northwest heat wave.In this case, they found climate change intensified the heat by about 4 degrees in the Seattle area to reach 108 degrees, significantly increasing the chances of death, according to a rebuttal document six of the researchers prepared in response to Mass.

Mass’s perspective differs.

He concluded climate change didn’t play a central role in an event largely caused by the natural variability of our regional weather. He notes the temperature soared by more than 40 degrees above the normal high, and climate change added only a few degrees, thus “a record-breaking unique heat wave” would have occurred even without global warming. In his blog, he lays out a golden rule that — based on this analysis — the bigger the temperature surge in an extreme event, the smaller the role of climate change, and accuses the World Weather Attribution report of “misinforming millions.”

Mass says his criticism is grounded in a deep knowledge of the intricate mix of ocean, mountains and atmospheric flows that help to produce Northwest weather, as well as climate models he runs.

Faron Anslow, a climatologist at the University of Victoria and co-author of the report, says he respects Mass’s forecasting abilities but not his climate analysis. He says Mass’s rejection of the report “clearly demonstrates how far out of his element Cliff is here.”

Nick Bond, state climatologist and a UW professor who co-teaches a course with Mass, said the report team used accepted statistical methods for looking at these types of events. “What they show makes sense to me — that the frequency and intensity of these events is increasing — even if I wouldn’t take as gospel the exact numbers,” Bond said.

Gavin Schmidt, senior climate adviser for NASA, in a series of tweets wrote “some folks keep getting the climate change connection wrong” and referred to Mass.

Schmidt dismissed Mass’s golden rule as “nonsense.”

“And it matters, because if you are someone who is going to make decisions about the future, you need to know this could happen again,” Schmidt, who was not part of the World Weather Attribution team, said in an interview.

A controversial figure

Mass says he does think climate change — caused by greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuel and other humans sources — is a problem. He is convinced this will result in more frequent heat waves and extremes later this century, and says “mankind should work to reduce emissions.” But he says his research leads him to conclude that in western Washington — due to a weakening of east winds that bring interior heat — these will be less intense than others forecast. And he doubts there will be a repeat of temperatures experienced in this summer’s heat wave in the next few decades.

“I don’t believe we are facing any kind of existential threat,” Mass said. “But it is not a good idea to muck around with the climate of the planet.”

Mass has sometimes gotten into very public disputes with other scientists, such as questioning the findings of a study about mountain snowpack decline in the West. He also has frequently derided the news media — including The Seattle Times — for headlines and reporting he believes overstate the threat of climate change.

Mass began his blog in 2008, with a large focus on problems in state math education, and since then often has ventured beyond meteorology.

In a March 13, 2020, blog post, he concluded the coronavirus situation “is far less apocalyptic than some are suggesting.” He noted U.S. COVID-19 deaths, at that time, tallied 36. He compared that to 61,000 flu deaths in 2017-18. “Coronavirus is not even in the same league as flu … we did not close down universities, businesses, and more for flu.”

Mass, in a recent interview, said “of course it (COVID-19) is worse than the flu,” but stands by his analysis as correct at the time.

Mass also has commented on the impacts of vandalism during protests. In August 2020, Mass, who is Jewish, wrote “Seattle has it(s) Kristallnacht and the photos of what occurred during the past weeks are eerily similar to those of 80 years ago.” Kristallnacht was a pogrom against German Jews and an attack on their property carried out by the Nazis in 1938.

That blog post got a strong backlash, including from his UW colleague, Daniel Bessner, an associate professor of American foreign policy, who told the university’s The Daily: “To compare the destruction of a Starbucks in 2020 to an act that foreshadowed a genocide, reflects not fully thought-out analogical reasoning.” Tacoma-based KNKX dropped a Mass radio segment due to what the station termed a “sensationalized and misleading” comparison.

Mass, who deleted the reference from his blog, later said he was referring not to protesters broadly but to those who destroyed property.

Mass said his views on the pandemic and the protests were not relevant to his views on climate science.

An isolated view

The World Weather Attribution report that drew fire from Mass resulted from an initiative launched in 2014 to try to provide real-time analysis of extreme heat and other events to assess the role of climate change.

The report said the Northwest heat wave could have been the equivalent of statistical bad luck aggravated by climate change, or there could have been something — beyond overall warming — that made such an event more likely. Their report states that possibility, while not indicated in the models, merits more investigation.

These quick turnaround documents are aimed at capturing media attention while the events are still fresh in peoples’ minds. Anslow notes most of these reports have later passed peer review and been published in scientific journals.

Mass has long been a critic of how climatologists portray the results of probability-based models that analyze climate change.

In 2017, for example, he used his blog to denounce efforts to link the powerful Hurricane Harvey, which unleashed record rainfall in Texas and caused $125 billion in damage, to climate change. His analysis found human-induced global warming played an “inconsequential role in this disaster.”

In the aftermath of the hurricane, a peer-reviewed study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found warming since the late 20th century resulted in a six-fold increase in the likelihood of such an event.

Mass said he stands by his analysis. “You would have had a devastating effect no matter what,” he said.

As he responds to the heat wave report, Mass has amped up these attacks. In emails to Anslow, he accuses the team of developing an “attribution science that makes virtually any extreme weather far more likely to occur under global warming.”

Mass says he’s working on a paper to document what he says are “the fundamental deficiencies” of this approach. He said it will be submitted for peer review and publication.

Anslow said he would welcome such scrutiny — so long as it’s peer reviewed.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @hbernton.

lomborgian nitpick --> delay 4th phase fallback?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/cliff-mass/

Reposted from Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

There is a disturbing story coming out of the University of Washington surrounding Cliff Mass.

In preparing this article, I have received material from a member of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. I also ran into another member of the Department while at the AGU meeting this week, who corroborated these events. I conducted a 30 minute phone interview with Cliff Mass.

Who is Cliff Mass?

Cliff Mass has been a faculty member in the University of WashingtonAtmospheric SciencesDepartment since 1982. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling and prediction, the role of topography in the evolution of weather systems, and on theweatherof the Pacific Northwest. In addition to his research publications, Cliff Mass has published a popular book entitled ‘Weather of the Pacific Northwest.’

Since 2008, Cliff Mass has maintained a popular blog Cliff Mass Weather and Climate. Mass posts regular articles on meteorology, Pacific Northwest weather history, and the impacts of climate change written for the general public.

He has 13,000 twitter followers. Mass also has a weekly radio show with 400,000 weekly listeners (!)

Cliff Mass – climate ‘denier’?

Cliff Mass has been characterized as a ‘sort of’ climate denier. The first reference to this is a 2015 article Cliff Mass: Scientific lies and the new climate deniers.

“He is also a dangerous new breed of climate skeptic. He has made a theme of downplaying the role of global warming in extreme weather events, and in exposing what he calls “overzealousness” in the scientific, media, and activist community.”

A 2017 article in Stranger entitled Why does Cliff Mass believe scientists and leftist journalists are exaggerating the dangers of climate change?

“Cliff Mass is not a climate denier, but he is their ally, which is as good as being a climate denier.”

The accusation of ‘denier’ got more explicit when Sarah Myre testified before the State of Washington House of Representatives: Can you be a climate scientist and an advocate?

“In February 2017, Sarah Myhre traveled to Washington’s capital, Olympia, to give testimony to the state House of Representatives Environment Committee. There, Representative Shelly Short, a Republican from northeastern Washington, asked her to comment on her colleague Mass’ unwillingness to link recent wildfires, droughts, and hurricanes to climate change. Myhre responded that she and many of her colleagues saw Mass’ recent views “as coming from a denialist or contrarian place.”

The Cascadia Daily states:

“Seattle weather guy and climate change denier Cliff Mass”

So, what does Cliff Mass have to say about climate change, in his own words? From an interview with the UW Alumni magazine and summary from the Wikipedia (based on my knowledge of Cliff’s opinions and writings, this is correct):

“According to Mass, “Global warming is an extraordinarily serious issue, and scientists have a key role to play in communicating what is known and what is not about this critical issue.

Mass has stated publicly that he shares the scientific consensus that global warming is real and that human activity is the primary cause of warming trends in the 20th and 21st centuries.He has been critical of the Paris Climate accord for not going far enough to address the negative impacts of climate change. However, Mass is also frequently critical of what he has characterizes as exaggerations of the past and current impacts of climate change in the news media, including the attribution of individual extreme weather eventsto global warming.”

The most recent ‘denier’ claims are associated with Cliff’s statements about the causes of the recent California fires: Cliff Mass: Climate change is real but . . .

“But Mass takes issue every time someone points to local extreme weather and says “that’s caused by climate change.”

The extremes we’ve seen in Seattle, around the region and even across the U.S. — most of them anyway — are caused by anomalous weather patterns, not climate change, Mass said.

There are, of course, those who would argue that by nitpicking such details, Mass only feeds ammunition to climate change deniers. Mass doesn’t want to downplay global warming; he just doesn’t want to stretch the truth to try and out-extreme those who would deny it. “So global warming’s very serious,” Mass said. “But it’s coming up in the future, not right now, for us.”

Sarah Myhre is not happy with Mass’ recent statements about the California wildfires. From an article by James Delingpole: Brown Fiddled While California Burned:

“One Dr Sarah Myhre – who, gloriously, bills herself as a “public scholar scientist advocate communicator” [actually, you know, just “activist” would have done] – tweeted at him “This. Is. Pure. Propaganda.” And then told a Washington radio station that had given him airtime that giving Cliff a “platform” was a “form of violence.”

So in summary, Cliff Mass accepts the consensus science. However he breaks with the ‘activists’ in terms of thinking it is a bad idea to falsely claim that extreme weather events are caused by AGW.

Initiative-1631

Most unforgivably, Mass broke with the progressive activists in terms of not supporting the latest carbon fee initiative in Washington, I-1631. Mass has long advocated for some sort of carbon tax: How to make a carbon tax work in Washington

Mass was a strong supporter of a previous carbon tax initiative (which was voted down). His concerns with I-1631 are described in three blog posts:

I don’t pretend to be an expert on I-1631 and I am not passing judgment here, but I will say that Mass’s position is well-supported and defensible.

For a perspective from the supporters of I-1631, I refer to Sarah Myhre’s article in the Stranger entitled New carbon tax initiative drafted with more color and less white supremacy. Reducing CO2 emissions seems to be a relatively minor factor; climate policy has become a crusade to change the balance of power:

“When climate policy is written by white men in a closed room, that is white supremacy.”

Things got really ‘interesting’ as a result Mass’ blog post ‘If you worry about climate change . . .’ , which had this statement:

“The initiative hardwires money to certain special interest groups–the left-leaning supporters of the measure. A minimum of ten percent of the money goes to Indian tribes, who are exempted from paying any carbon fee by the initiative. Labor advocates got a fifty million dollar fund, replenished annually, for worker support programs. And to provide funding to the social action groups pushing the initiative, 35% of the money goes to “pollution and health action areas” of minority and “vulnerable populations.” There is more, but you get the message (see the picture below).” [The picture was pigs at a trough.][ie had awareness of ej]

Mass’ point was that special interest groups were hardwired for a good portion of the funds. He wanted an image that illustrated ‘political pork’ and special interest groups feeding at the public trough and so he used the pigs at a trough image.

While there were no complaints about the image in the blog comments, a few of the activists at the UW claimed it was racist. Imagery of pigs at a public trough has been used for over a century, and has never been used to refer to minorities as far as Mass could identify. ‘Pigs at a trough’ is about the well-connected and privileged. Mass decided to be sensitive to the ‘feelings’ of thee activists and pulled the image. Then Mass received a number of messages after he pulled it, accusing him of giving in to mob rule. There was nothing racist or anything else inappropriate in the text, and no one has suggested there was. Apparently the mention of the phrase ‘Indian tribes’ in the same paragraph that references an image of pigs at the trough is sufficient to trigger an accusation of racism.

Note: I-1631 was voted down in the November election.

Department of Atmospheric Sciences

Any scientist that is active in the public debate on climate change (no matter what their actual position in the debate) will invariably be subject to attacks on twitter, the blogosphere and even by journalists. That is part of the noise associated with the public debate on climate change. This noise shouldn’t matter, in the overall scheme of things.

However, it is a different kettle of fish when people from your own university, and even your own Department, go after you publicly, with the objective of stifling your freedom of speech. And then when University administrators get involved, a threatening situation can emerge.

A number of University of Washington graduate students have taken a vocal stance against Cliff Mass, particularly on twitter. These same activist students that were so upset about the pig picture participated in online character assassination, calling Mass every name in the book over the past six months because they are unhappy with his rejection of 1631 and his research/blog posts on wildfires and attribution of extreme events. They have accused him of deception, being on the payroll of oil companies, purposely obfuscating with multiple twitter accounts, racism, misogyny, tokenism, Trumpism. They are hypersensitive about any indirect criticism of their ‘side’ but are fine with name-calling and personal attacks on those they disagree with.

The attacks ramped up when a group of students complained to the Assistant Dean for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Rather than meet with Cliff Mass to discuss, the Assistant Dean sent a mass email to the faculty of the Atmospheric Sciences Department, with the following lede:

“a recent blog posting by a member of our community on a personal website included imagery and text that was racially insensitive and caused offense to a significant number of members in the departmental community.”

No attempt was made by this Assistant Dean to meet with Cliff Mass, or to understand that there was no racism evident or intended, and that the image in question was quickly removed from the blog post.

I will not ‘name and shame’ any of the graduate students here, who in any event are probably proud of their behavior. (JC note to students applying for jobs: search committees will check your social media presence). However, one graduate student in particular gets a ‘dishonorable’ mention here: Alex Lenferna, a Ph.D. candidate in the UW Philosophy Department with a Certificate in Atmospheric Science. He wrote a blog post that is basically a ‘hit-job’ on Cliff Mass, owing to his failure to support I-1631, including playing the ‘racism’ card. The blog post includes an image: Cliff Mass ‘hearts’ oil.

I won’t dignify Lenferna’s slime by reproducing any of it. This blog post is significant, however, because the Atmospheric Sciences Department Chair (Dale Durran) sent a mass email to the Department faculty including the link to Lenferna’s post, and voicing concern about Mass’ behavior and ‘racism’, and including the image Mass ‘hearts’ oil.

The Chair then called a general Department-wide meeting about the blog post Mass wrote, with the event billed as ‘controversy.’ An ombudsperson was enlisted to run the meeting, but the Chair took over, serving as inquisitor and critic. The Chair prevented Mass from finishing his opening comments and hectored Mass throughout the meeting. The activist students were true to form, hurling all kinds of insulting, personal and inappropriate remarks.

So what is going on here? Is the Department of Atmospheric Sciences making a stand against political activism by its faculty members? Hardly. In fact, the Chair, Dale Durran, pressured each of the faculty members to sign a statement supporting I-1631. This statement was published by the Seattle Times :

“Some know they must stop smoking, but can’t, and it wrecks their health. As spelled out in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, humanity has been acting like a chain smoker. Initiative 1631 gives us the chance to change. The opposition to I-1631 is largely concerned with the politics of taxing and spending. These are important matters, but they should not be endlessly debated in lieu of taking action. I-1631 is the third major effort to discourage carbon emissions in Washington state.

Science shows carbon emissions remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years, warming and dramatically changing the climate. Because of the way carbon accumulates, the emission reductions required to hold future changes in climate below any given level become more drastic with each year we wait to begin serious cuts.

Unlike the carbon emitted while waiting for a perfect law, passing I-1631 does not represent an irrevocable hundreds-of-years commitment. After a short period, I-1631 could be amended to make it even better.

Now is the time to take a big step to kick our carbon habit.

Dale Durran, professor and chair, and 21 other professors in the Atmospheric Sciences Department at the University of Washington, Seattle (the views expressed here are those of the authors and not UW)”

While many of the faculty members appear to have signed this enthusiastically (based on their signatures on other lists related to I-1631), I’ve been told that several faculty members felt uncomfortable signing this. One of the faculty members I spoke with said they felt compelled to sign the letter since they didn’t want to stand up to Chair; this individual told me they voted against I-1631.

There are several people in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences that don’t like Cliff Mass (including, obviously, the Chair). They are concerned about his status as Washington’s ‘celebrity’ scientist – being either envious of this status or concerned that this status makes Mass relatively immune to ‘pressure’ from Departmental leadership. But most fundamentally, they seem to dislike that his blog is getting in the way of their own political advocacy.

JC reflections

The climate change advocacy disease seems to have affected many of the UW faculty and graduate students. Apart from the issue of activism potentially getting in the way of scientific objectivity, the big issue here is that the Chair attempted to ‘institutionalize’ this activism with the I-1631 support letter. I have to say I find this very inappropriate behavior for a Chair, and I’m surprised that the higher administration didn’t reprimand him for this (in the old days I would have been reprimanded for this at Georgia Tech, but under the current administration, who knows). Faculty members were pressured into signing that letter, since the Chair controls their reappointments and promotions, salary, teaching assignments, etc. The public ‘shaming’ meeting is beyond the pale, particularly the Chair’s behavior during this meeting. After this behavior, I cannot imagine how the UW faculty and administration can have any confidence in the leadership of their current Chair.

And finally, a closing comment about Cliff Mass. While this can’t be fun for him,I’m not too worried about Cliff Mass: Cliff has friends in high places and an enormous ‘bully pulpit’ in terms of his blog and radio show.Trying to take him down isn’t going to work.

I have much more to say on this situation and the broader implications, I will write more in a follow on post.

3 yrs ago

Opinion by Anthony Watts and Charles Rotter

If you haven’t read Dr. Curry’s post about**Cliff Mass**, please do so before proceeding.

It is our viewpoint that Cliff Mass is an honest scientist. Some here may disagree with him as he believes AGW is a serious issue.

But unlike advocate scientists, and their media enablers, he is an honest broker who pushes back against the hyperbole advanced by those advocates. For this he is being viciously attacked. Being connected with a radio station for his popular science program, Dr. Mass is aware of both the public perception and the peer reviewed science. Having that unique perspective he sees when arguments for intervention go too far, beyond what the science can support, and because he has integrity, he is one of the few scientists with the courage to speak out about it.

Our idea is this: with the mob attacking Dr. Mass, it would probably be helpful if the administrators being bombarded by irrational hate mail against him received another side of the story, one of rational support for his commitment to truth and inquiry.

There’s some caveats to consider if you want to join in support.

This is only about supporting a man with academic and scientific integrity
This isn’t about arguing about whether AGW is real or not, if you go down that path, it won’t help Dr. Mass
UW administrators aren’t going to be interested in letters that turn into diatribes
Calm and respectful emails only. You don’t do anyone any favors with rants
Intelligent and pertinent messaging please
Academic credentials are a plus
Independently created letters are a plus, which is why we provide no sample letter here

You can address the absurdity of points being made by critics, but please, only write a letter if you can be calm, on point, and polite.

For reference, here are some pertinent links surrounding the issue:

Dr. Mass’ original essay about climate change and Washington State Initiative 1631
Alex Lenferna, a Ph.D. candidate in the UW Philosophy Department with a Certificate in Atmospheric Science. He wrote a blog post that Dr. Curry characterized as a “hit piece” which has instigated the backlash Dr. Mass is experiencing.
An anonymously written hit piece by an activist group: Cliff Mass, Scientific Lies, and the New Climate Deniers
Dr. Judith Curry’s opinion piece, reposted on WUWT
The UW faculty web page for Cliff Mass

That said, here are the contacts:

UW President Ana Mari Cauce uwpres@uw.edu

Dean of College of the Environment Lisa J. Graumlich envdean@uw.edu

Mike Townsend, Secretary of the UW Faculty secfac@u.washington.edu

Remember, only write a letter if you can be calm, on point, and polite.

loris speaks for the greed:

September 8, 2017

Citing data from Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr., and claiming mainstream data also supports his viewpoint, Loris claimed that it is a “myth” that climate change created hurricane Harvey and Irma. [14]

Sources including Scientific American had concluded that Harvey was made more powerful due to global warming. Human-caused climate change caused the storm to drop significantly more rain than storms would have before atmospheric carbon dioxide levels spiked from the consumption of fossil fuels, according to research published yesterday,” :{Scientific American:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: reported. [15]

Loris claims “University of Washington climatologistCliff Mass” discredits this claim. According to his profile at the U of W,Mass is a meteorologist. His profile does not mention a specific background in climatology. [16]

Amici curiae are the following scientists:

Dr. Timothy F. Ball

Professor, University of Winnipeg (retired),

Ph.D., Queen Mary College, University of London

M.A., University of Manitoba

B.A., University of Winnipeg

Joseph S. D’Aleo,

Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

American Meteorological Society Fellow

M.S.,Meteorology,University of Wisconsin

B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of

Wisconsin

Dr. Don J. Easterbrook

Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western

Washington University

Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks

Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago

M.S., Physics, University of Chicago

B.S., Physics, University of Chicago

Dr. William M. Gray

Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science,

Colorado State University

Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago

M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago

B.S., Geography, George Washington University

Dr. William Happer

Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University

B.S., Physics, University of North Carolina

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo

IPCC Expert Reviewer

Professor, Atmospheric Science,

University of Missouri

Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen

Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.

B.S., Physics, M.I.T.

Dr. S. Fred Singer

Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU

Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences,

University of Virginia

Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University

BEE, Ohio State University

Dr. James P. Wallace III

Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC

Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering,

Brown University

M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University

B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University

Dr. George T. Wolff

Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory

Committee

Ph.D., Environmental Sciences,

Rutgers University

M.S., Meteorology, New York University

B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute

of Technology

evil lie:

Uncivil scientists thwart Cliff Mass’ climate-change debate

Originally published September 14, 2013 at 5:10 pm Updated September 14, 2013 at 7:16 pm

SECTION SPONSOR

Can we even talk anymore? Maybe not, discoveredCliff Mass.

Mass is an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington. He has been troubled for years by the way the subject of global warming can turn typically even-headed scientists into politicized, tribal warriors.

As he sees it, there are the vast majority of scientists, including himself, who think human-caused global warming is a reality. But some in this group, frustrated at political inaction, have begun hyping the effects of climate change beyond what the science supports.

“It has taken on some of the traits of orthodoxy, in that it can’t be questioned,” Mass says.

On the other, much smaller side are the skeptics. They feel denigrated by their field and have become increasingly shrill and bombastic.

It bugs Mass that a vital scientific and technical issue has morphed into such a political and social battle, with rigid, competing camps — even within science. So one day he thought: “Can’t we talk this out?”

He proposed a seminar, in which scientists would discuss the science of global warming only with other scientists. It was going to be at the UW this fall. Mass, who believes the science is on the side of global warming, figured the so-called “alarmists” would defeat the so-called “deniers” on most of the merits, but not all. The point, though, was to show that civilized, informed debate is what science is all about.

He invited some of the 12 skeptics who recently wrote an anti-global-warming brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, and suggested they hash it out with some experts at the UW’s atmospheric sciences department.

That’s when the name-calling started.

“It all went to hell,” Mass said.

Some scientists are wary of these debates because they say they foster a false perception that there is a real “pro or con” debate. But their reluctance prompted one skeptic, in caustic emails, to brand all the University of Washington scientists as “dishonest” or “blind fanatics” who are peddling “political nonsense” in the guise of science.

“Are there any true intellectuals left at UW?” taunted retired astrophysicist Gordon Fulks, in an email to much of the atmospheric sciences faculty. “Or have you ALL morphed into climate automatons?”

There was so much smack-talk, most of it from Fulks, that Mass canceled the seminar.

“It was inimical to everything a scientific discussion is supposed to be about,” Mass said, “and the scientific discussion hadn’t even started yet.”

So a meeting to clear the air of tribal antagonism was called off due to tribal antagonism.

“It’s ironic, but it’s where we are,” Mass said. “There’s a very interesting conversation to be had about global warming, about the limits of the science and what we know. But we aren’t going to have it.”

I have two thoughts about this. One, the politics surrounding global warming have truly become stultifying when scientists can’t even agree to hold a meeting to talk without a slap-fight breaking out.

But two, as reporter Craig Welch is documenting in this week’s Seattle Times: The global warming debate has become a sideshow anyway. Ocean acidification, global warming’s evil twin, is caused by the same culprit, is easily measurable and is already a crisis.

There’s not much to debate so far: We’re poisoning the oceans with acid. So will we do anything about this one?

Mass, who is jaded after watching up-close the pervasive politicization of global warming, said the ocean issue may fall down the same rabbit hole.

“My guess is no, we won’t end up doing anything about it,” he said. “Other than divide into polarized camps, just as we did on climate change.”

I doubt nature’s going to care much about that petty human drama, either.

Danny Westneat’s column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

1 Amici curiae are well-qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer reviewed journals and are respected in their fields of expertise by their peers. Amici wish to present to this Court scientific data that bear directly on the underlying rulemaking. Specifically, amici submit that EPA’s finding of human-caused global warming is not supported by the evidentiary record that was before EPA. 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, counsel for amici certifies that this brief was not authored in whole or in part by counsel for any party, and no person or entity other than amici or their counsel has made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. Pursuant to Rule 37.3(a), counsel of record for all parties received notice at least 10 days prior to the due date of the amici curiae’s intention to file this brief. All parties have consented to the filing of this brief. Those consents are being lodged herewith. Blanket consents are also already on file with the Clerk. 2 Amici curiae are the following scientists:

Dr. Timothy F. Ball Professor, University of Winnipeg (retired), Ph.D., Queen Mary College, University of London M.A., University of Manitoba B.A., University of Winnipeg Joseph S. D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,American Meteorological Society Fellow M.S., Meteorology, University of Wisconsin B.S., Meteorology (cum laude), University of Wisconsin Dr. Don J. Easterbrook Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University Ph.D., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle M.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle B.S., Geology, University of Washington, Seattle Dr. Gordon J. Fulks Ph.D., Physics, University of Chicago M.S., Physics, University of Chicago B.S., Physics, University of Chicago Dr. William M. Gray Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago M.S., Meteorology, University of Chicago 3 B.S., Geography, George Washington University Dr. William Happer Professor of Physics, Princeton University Ph.D., Physics, Princeton University B.S., Physics, University of North Carolina Dr. Anthony R.Lupo IPCC ExpertReviewer Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T. Dr. S. Fred Singer Fellow AAAS, APS, AGU Prof Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia Ph. D., Physics, Princeton University BEE, Ohio State University Dr. James P. Wallace III Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University 4 Dr. George T. Wolff Former Chair EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University M.S., Meteorology, New York University B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT In the midst of an unsettled and vigorous international debate regarding the existence of purported global warming and the role—if any—of human-emitted greenhouse gases (GHGs) in contributing to that alleged warming, EPA concluded with near absolute certainty that temperatures in the second half of the twentieth century were “unusually” high because of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. 74 Fed. Reg. 66518 (2009). That sweeping conclusion was a critical component of the EPA’s Endangerment Finding, and so was an impetus for the most significant and far-reaching regulatory program ever devised by a federal agency. Amici urge the Court to grant