In 2005 – and the date is quite interesting – Hans von Storch conducted a long interview with one of the titans of climate science during its formative years after World War II. You might almost say that this was a time before climate science got silly, or even when it was still a respectable discipline.
The man in the spotlight is a Dane called Harry van Loon, a name that will probably mean little to readers of this blog as he suffers from the appalling handicap of not being very impressed by claims that Earth’s climate is now under the control of humanity and in no hurry to speak to the media.
You can find the whole thing here:
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/Media/interviews/vanloon.pdf
Parts of the interview are rather technical, but don’t miss the following:
1) Van Loon’s account of how studying the Vikings first got him interested in climate.
2) An interesting qualification that he needed before he could start on a science degree in 1940s Denmark.
3) Some very obliging South African meteorologists.
4) Evidence that this was a time when climate researchers didn’t just sit in front of VDUs and torture data sets until they produce the right answer. As Harry says, in his heyday you had to do everything for yourself.
5) In the last couple of pages he gives his views on anthropogenic climate change in a matter of fact way that should make a few people’s cheeks burn.
6) Some familiar names crop up along the way
This interview was conducted two years before AR4 was published in 2007, and when Harry van Loon was approaching his eightieth birthday and retirement. By then I am sure he would have been seen by the new generation of IPCC orientated trend setters on the climate research scene as the kind of embarrassment that should be swept under the carpet along with Hubert Lamb.
Harry van Loon’s research record, and his obvious commitment to his calling, suggests otherwise.
Closing Comments Priceless!!
A Lifetime of Wisdom for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see –
[TonyN: precisely!]
HvL: “The public deserves reliable, proper
information on politics, science, health,
etc., but it is not so that everybody, who
has a strong faith in an issue is necessarily
the one to give the public information. He
or she may be very biased because of their
conviction or faith in this issue.
But how do you sort them out?
“They have to be able to say “I don’t know.””
Q: How would you do that?
How would we do that?
You have the opinion some people do better than others.
How do you judge that?
HvL: “I refer to Plato who said, don’t ever
give power to those who wish power. Give
it to those who don’t want power. Because
they will do their duty and then they will
relinquish the power.
“Also, don’t let those who are keen to be in the limelight be the ones who tell the public what they believe is going on.”
Thanks for posting this, TonyN, a very interesting interview, and an insight into a time of open-minded scientific enquiry that seems a world away from today’s establishment.
TonyN
A very refreshing interview.
Yes, it was a more innocent time. I liked the sentence in which vL talks about taking a consultant job at $1,000 per month.
Before the politicians got into the act and corrupted the process with billions of dollars of taxpayer money to give them the backup they needed in order to realize their agenda, climatology (still in its infancy) was an honest science.
I doubt it will ever become that again, until the IPCC and its corrupt process are abandoned.
Max
Interesting stuff
Generally speaking, when I do research for any of my climate articles that reflrect historic climate change I like to reference material prior to 1980. The material from 1920-1960 in particular are generally gems, as there is no bias-just facts.
tonyb
TonyN,
“He or she may be very biased because of their conviction or faith in this issue”. Yes, that’s always the reason behind any form of bad news.
If you ever have the misfortune to hear from your doctor that an urgent procedure is required, there’ll really be nothing to worry about at all. He’ll just have got carried away with his own sense of self importance or he’ll be after those $1000 fees that Max mentioned. But if I know doctors, you’ll get a lot less than a month’s work for your money! Charlatans the lot of them!
Much cheaper to take TonyB’s advice and insist that he deletes from your medical record everything later than about 1980!
Ref – tempterrain says: April 9th, 2011 at 10:53 am
Why so thick with the scarcasm? If you’ve ever had one of those “urgent procedures” you know all about the things that go through your mind. If you haven’t yet, no doubt, in this great day and age, you will.
Peter #5
Why do you deliberately distort peoples posts? I said that when dealing with historical elements there is no bias before around 1980.
The books of the 1920’30’ are also very revealing and are stuffed full of information, including how sea surface temperatures are actually measured and the numerous shortcomings of land measurements.
Without bias it is possible to form a much better picture of past events.
tonyb
PeterM
Welcome back (I thought you had fallen into one of the many holes you have dug on this site).
Now you’ve just dug another one here.
The comparison between “IPCC climatologists” and “medical doctors” doesn’t wash.
I think Dr. Judith Curry’s comparison with “snake oil salesmen” is more accurate.
Max
PeterM
You love the old doctor analogy don’t you? Let me give a bit of advice and steer clear of Doctors. My families experience is that they score 4 out of 10 these days. My own daughter is one and is seeing after just 2 years working what my wife and I have been complaining about these last 20 years.
Further to the holes that Max is referring to, you need to climb all the way out before digging the next one or you become entirely irrelevant. You are in danger here Peter. How about we get back to discussing the merits of the science.