GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/11/23/on-the-unthinking-nature-of-the-global-warming-zealots/trackback/

  1. Relevant Richard Feynman quote that says it best,

    “I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

    For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing– and if they don’t support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

    One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

    I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish at all. That’s not giving scientific advice. “

    Comment by JAH — November 23, 2009 @ 8:03 am - November 23, 2009

  2. [...] The Unthinking Nature Of Global Warming Zealots   Share and Enjoy: [...]

    Pingback by Headlines Exposed 11.23.2009 — ExposeTheMedia.com — November 23, 2009 @ 8:21 am - November 23, 2009

  3. I no longer understand the world I am living in. It never occurred to me that rational thought could be so obviously ignored by the media and public figures. In a rational world this news, like the Acorn tapes, would be significant game changers.

    Perhaps world leaders and the media were always like this, and since there was no Internet we didn’t see it.

    I suspect what we’re really learning is that it’s not enough to uncover the lie. They are daring people to do more than complain. Otherwise it’s all just like the games for the rabid crowds so to speak.

    Comment by Jim — November 23, 2009 @ 8:40 am - November 23, 2009

  4. I think of al-Gore as more of a “stupid man’s stupid man”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 9:11 am - November 23, 2009

  5. “Um, actually, no, the e-mails reveal that the evidence is not so incontrovertible,”

    Um. actually no. Reality is reality. Data is data. Snarky behavior by a few scientists doesn’t change reality.

    “…in the words of one lawyer who has read those e-mails,…”

    Thats funny, you mean the powerline guys? Why not identify them as the extremist rightwing hacks they are?

    “Al Gore’s allies in the scientific community, had “venomous feelings toward skeptics…“”

    Yeah, and one wonders what the skeptic’s feelings are toward the scientists…

    “instead of putting the work out the questioning academics out there so it can be reviewed and dismissed…”

    But the papers referenced were not being kept out of the public sphere, they were being kept out of the IPCC report. The IPCC report is not like the primary literature – a place where any plausible hypothesis might get an airing – the report, by definition, represents conclusions about the state of the field from the assembled experts.

    “Whether Eilperin wants to accept it or not, the status of the debate has changed these past 72 hours.’

    Not hardly. Those who are committed to denying reality think they have some new ammo. Nobody else does. Thats about the only change.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 9:17 am - November 23, 2009

  6. the former Vice President refuses to debate those who contest his theory of anthropogenic global warming. Not just that, he claims repeatedly that the debate is over

    One must admire the chutzpah. Gore is not only participant in the debate, but the judging panel and rule-making body.

    Well, it was thoughtful of WaPo to acknowledge the controversy over East Anglia’s efforts at suppressing all dissent and counter-evidence.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 9:19 am - November 23, 2009

  7. I tried to submit this earlier but it appears not to have gone through. If there is a double post I apologize.

    Relevant Richard Feynman quote,

    “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

    I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

    For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. “Well”, I said, “there aren’t any”. He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind”. I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing — and if they don’t support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.

    One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

    I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish at all. That’s not giving scientific advice. “

    Comment by JAH — November 23, 2009 @ 9:19 am - November 23, 2009

  8. Snarky behavior by a few scientists doesn’t change reality.

    … which reality is, that AGW theory is a fraud perpetrated by men and woman totally unworthy of the title “scientist”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 9:21 am - November 23, 2009

  9. you got your quote wrong, “The emails I’ve reviewed so far do not suggest that these scientists are perpetrating a knowing and deliberate hoax.”

    As a quantitative scientist, in emails to co-authors i use terms like “tricks” and whatnot to relate to methodologically legitimate means of manipulating data to better model it. In fact, the “trick” is one that was publicly published in a peer-reviewed journal, it seems (“Michael’s Nature trick” is likely one published in, well, Nature).

    there is no smoking gun here unless you desperately want there to be. Science is political is the closest you can get to one and that’s not a surprise to anyone with a clue. Ironically, it was left-leaning historians of science that made that fact (all science is at some level, political) a popular idea again.

    Comment by r — November 23, 2009 @ 9:24 am - November 23, 2009

  10. But the papers referenced were not being kept out of the public sphere, they were being kept out of the IPCC report. The IPCC report is not like the primary literature…

    Indeed. I should hope not. The IPCC report was, as we now know, a one-sided and intentionally misleading document for advancing the political and personal agendas of the AGW scienticians.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 9:25 am - November 23, 2009

  11. Thats right ILC. It was very one-sided. Thats what you end up with when your task is to review the literature in a field and assess what the consensus view is. You totally emphasize the side that has the better argument, and discount the others.

    And if you think it is done for some personal agenda of the scientists, then I would at least hope that you are an equal opportunity cynic, and recognize some personal agenda that the skeptics are pursuing.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 9:39 am - November 23, 2009

  12. Tano & R cannot accept reality that AGW is a crock.
    Goodness these AGW delusionist are talking out of their butts, trying to protect the overwhelming FRAUD exposed by the GRE faux scientist. What a bunch of pea sized brained activist hysterically trying to resurrect their wall of stupidity. It’s time to call for full disclosure and investigation of Al Goran, Goldman, elected Tools, GRE + NASA, NOAA, Universities, NonProfits and all other actors involved in perpuating this massive attempt to steal & enslave. It’s hanging time!

    Comment by westWright — November 23, 2009 @ 9:40 am - November 23, 2009

  13. Um. actually no. Reality is reality. Data is data. Snarky behavior by a few scientists doesn’t change reality.

    Reality=Reality. Tossing packing peanuts around the perimeter of your property in Sioux Falls keeps rogue elephants from infesting your water heater.

    Data = Data. Wanna see my daily observations compiled over twelve years that support the reality about packing peanuts, rogue elephants and water heaters?

    Snarky behavior by a few scientists doesn’t change reality. OK. It turns out that the packing peanuts were only spread occasionally. But that does not change the scientific FACT that rogue elephants do not infest water heaters.

    Man is causing global warming, the greenhouse effect, the extinction of species, the melting of ice caps, the rising of the oceans, the end of times, the outbreak of dandruff in the common shrew, male pattern baldness, and road rage. That is the reality and reality is reality and data is data and if the twain do not meet it is still reality regardless of naysayers and their phony data and unwillingness to accept reality.

    Now, please, go be miserable and wait for the heat wave to melt your shingles. You all are so childish. These are the end times and Algore just wants to make you comfortable as irreversible global warming fries your brain. Of course, you should be buying carbon credits to drag out the brain frying period as long as possible.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 9:45 am - November 23, 2009

  14. Thats what you end up with when your task is to review the literature in a field and assess what the consensus view is.

    Science doesn’t operate by consensus, Tano. And the IPCC report misused some scientists’ research, to the point where thousands of (real) scientists have repudiated it. Some “consensus”.

    But hey, at least you agreed with me. You agreed that the IPCC reports was a one-sided and intentionally misleading document for advancing the political and personal agendas of the AGW scienticians.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 9:46 am - November 23, 2009

  15. Actually, the emails do reveal a deliberate hoax. It all revolves around the historical temperature record, which is based on tree ring data. Problem is, there is no science behind the theory that tree rings reflect atmospheric temperature.

    Without the historic record, we have instrument data going back 150 years, which is not enough time to establish the generally variability of the climate, to which man-made global warming would add.

    Not that this is the only problem with global warming theory, but it does kill the arguement before it starts.

    Comment by Brian — November 23, 2009 @ 9:56 am - November 23, 2009

  16. And if you think it is done for some personal agenda of the scientists, then I would at least hope that you are an equal opportunity cynic, and recognize some personal agenda that the skeptics are pursuing.

    Follow the money. The skeptics are selling carbon footprints, right? The skeptics worship air and water pollution and they are trying to extend their religion, right? The skeptics are trying to keep gays out of the boy scouts, right? The skeptics tend to be big government liberals and the man made global warming consensus scientists tend to be hair shirt wearing nerds with no political agenda, right?

    Thanks, Tano, your Gilbert Chemistry Set has taken you far.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 9:56 am - November 23, 2009

  17. As for the agenda of AGW skeptics: Sure… we have agendas like truth, reality, human freedom, and the average person being able to realize their dreams in a growing economy.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 10:02 am - November 23, 2009

  18. Don’t be too mad at Tano,

    Apparently he watched too much Captain Planet as a child.

    It is amusing that he’s now embodying “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.”

    Then again it’s a perfect match. They don’t want to release the conflicting data, Tano doesn’t want to hear it.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2009 @ 10:06 am - November 23, 2009

  19. I’d like to join the class action lawsuit against Algore for committing fraud. He is worse than Bernie Madoff. He probably knew that the climate data was fake all along and he profited from it.

    He should go to jail.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 23, 2009 @ 10:13 am - November 23, 2009

  20. The primary issue is that the original data has not been released. Scientists typically release raw data so other scientists can verify their methods. Computer models are not data.

    Although a Greek family doc successfully treated gastric ulcers with antibiotics in the 1950′s, it was widely accepted as “settled science” that that stress and spicy foods caused stomach ulcers until fairly recently. Even the discovery of H. Pylori in 1982 did little to pursuade doctors to presribe a short course of antibiotics that quickly resolves ulcers, and for almost 20 years patients were allowed to suffer and forgo certain foods and change lifestyle instead of giving them the antibiotics that would cure the disease.

    Comment by Gretchen — November 23, 2009 @ 10:20 am - November 23, 2009

  21. Slightly off topic, but it has been a growing concern of mine for the last 3 to 4 years. Liberal people I know and love, refuse to look at anything that might upset their applecart. They don’t care to argue, they know they’re right. Don’t confuse them with the facts. It just totally baffles me that intelligent adults put themselves in such a silly position.

    Comment by Tibby — November 23, 2009 @ 11:09 am - November 23, 2009

  22. Tibby,

    You are so right about the partisan hack liberals. Years ago there were spirited, civil debates in which conservatives and liberals learned from one another and found ways to some middle ground. That is what is needed in this whole health care fiasco and desperately needed in confronting the deficit crisis. But when sides are drown up and suggested solutions are declared “off the table” there is no debate possible. Obama says he will not listen to the old ideas of the past that have “put us in this mess.” That is both childish and foolish. We are in a mess. We all operate on the knowledge and wisdom that has preceded us. To say that all established knowledge and wisdom is off the table because of the mess we are in is beyond comprehension. But it is precisely the way that amorphous “hope and change” gets sold as a formula for a successful tomorrow. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

    Read Tano and gillie. They show up with poison darts and never an ounce of common sense. It is the Barney Frank school of blather and spittle and it seems to fulfill their needs. But it never moves the debate forward, if they ever intended to debate in the first place.

    If you could sit down with Nancy Pelosi for an hour, what would you tell her? What would she hear?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 11:47 am - November 23, 2009

  23. Even if the many many MANY Global Climate Change Scientists who are WRONG (which I am not conceeding):

    Why would it be Al Gore’s fault? He is not finding data but relating data as told to him by many respected members of the field?

    Why in god’s name should HE debate anyone? Why not set up a debate with the scientists who come to their conclusion?

    I think its much easier for you to make this “real” by setting up an demon to hate at and scream at. You folks talk as if Al Gore invented the theory of global climate change when in reality it was many scientists looking at many points of data and coming to a conclusion.

    It very pathetic how you all to hate…

    Comment by gillie — November 23, 2009 @ 11:49 am - November 23, 2009

  24. I’m glad to see some posts on this, Dan. In the last 2 months there have been 2 massive data leaks by persons in the CRU, the one from last week being the most devastating.

    Keeping up with people like McIntyre and McKitrik over the past few years, I’ve seen all the horrible “science” being done and never revealed. What surprises me the most is the lack of outcry considering AGW alarmists are now outspending skeptics 100 to 1, most of it our tax money. None of it has been transparent, and those on the left actively seek to shut down and censor any viewpoints that don’t match up to their own. McIntyre and others have tirelessly filed FOIA requests so the data could be independently verified, and are always shut down. Now that even the NYT is writing articles about Gore’s billionairehood thanks to his many marches up to the Hill, you’d think someone would pay attention.

    The mini scandal before this one involved Briffa’s long held data set proving global warming beyond a doubt only involving a sample size of 12 trees. McIntyre found another sample of trees readily available at a nearby site had about 300 trees which yielded no warming when using the same techniques of dendrochronology. This data was used for almost a decade and never given to the public. Again, another leak was what brought it out in the open as the shoddy “science” it was, yet this guy was a lead author of at least one IPCC report.

    I would urge everyone to please write their representatives and express their outrage against cap and trade, among other things. The only reason the Dems are seeing the stumbling blocks they are right now passing their far left agenda is the outcry and fear of their constituents voting their asses out of office. That needs to remain constant until these chumps are out of office.

    Comment by Tim — November 23, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - November 23, 2009

  25. I’ve spent the last few days pouring over the hacked material, and I agree that “trick” is mostly likely just an unfortunate choice of wording. I’ve been a science editor/ghostwriter for more than 20 years now, mostly dealing with peer-review studies and publications. And I’ve seen enough unfortunate wording from brilliant people who should know better to last me a lifetime. “Hiding the decline” is a lot harder to explain away, though, and should throw up enough red flags to make even the hardest-core AGW proponent demand that a second, closer look be taken at the work in question.

    I agree a lot of these e-mails are cases of smart guys with big egos behaving like a-holes. That should surprise no one who has ever worked with noted scientists in their fields. But when they start talking about deleting e-mails, data, and code to keep them out of anyone else’s hands, that should also throw up enough red flags that make anyone, on either side of the AGW debate, who actually does care about legitimate science demand a second, closer look at all the work by these particular researchers.

    I agree the majority view is that AGW exists, especially in the peer-reviewed literature. So when you have noted researchers not just complaining about AGW-skeptical papers making it through peer-review, but also discussing having the journal editor in question removed, how to prevent other skeptical articles from seeing print in the primary literature, and how to de-legitimize a peer-review journal that has published such articles, well, one would think that might give someone who uses the consensus of the peer-reviewed literature as their argument for AGW at least a moment’s pause. And, again, want the work of those researchers to be thoroughly reviewed, if only to protect the integrity of the argument for AGW and show there really is no room for “bad” science on their side.

    I don’t know if these researchers have been deliberately committing fraud. I get the impression, though, that they’ve become so convinced they already know the answer, they’ve stopped looking for problems and holes in their own data and methods in the way that they should. And that’s usually when a lot of bad science starts to happen.

    There’s a lot to be concerned about in this hacked material. And denying that isn’t about defending good science.

    Comment by Wesley M. — November 23, 2009 @ 12:02 pm - November 23, 2009

  26. Wesley, well put!

    Now for what I came to say: Ed Morrissey interviews Senator Inhofe. Inhofe says many interesting things and pledges hearings on the IPCC and East Anglia messes:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/23/audio-inhofe-will-call-for-hearings-into-ipcc-un-east-anglia-cru-e-mails/

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 12:51 pm - November 23, 2009

  27. Thanks Wesley — it is nice to have your perspective.

    Comment by GayPatriot — November 23, 2009 @ 1:28 pm - November 23, 2009

  28. especially in the peer reviewed literature

    I read somewhere that lately many journals now allow you to pick your own peer reviewers. Science and Nature both do this, esp. when it comes to any environmental papers. Or the editors cherry pick peer reviewers.

    That’s not a peer review.

    As Kuhn pointed out, this has always been something a problem with scientists. But that is not an excuse to lay back and let people do that. Let public institutions refuse to grant tenure because they don’t hold the right views, or not call out editors when they refuse to publish what they don’t like.

    Eisenhower warned us of this when he warned against too much government intrusion into science. He wasn’t only talking about the military, he was talking about politicizing science, destroying the scientific method. The Russians did it and fell far behind us in almost everything. Now we are repeating the same mistakes.

    Gore, when in ’92 he made sure no public funds would be made available to skeptics, was the worst thing to happen to scientific advancement in this country. Science must be free, just like the rest of us.

    These people may know math and physics, but they are not scientists.

    Comment by plutosdad — November 23, 2009 @ 1:31 pm - November 23, 2009

  29. It was Patrick Michaels who accused Nature and Science of that

    Comment by plutosdad — November 23, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - November 23, 2009

  30. ““Hiding the decline” is a lot harder to explain away, ”

    Until you realize that the trick they used to “hide the decline” was to use ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA instead of problematical proxy data. The “decline” was a finding of the proxy data which was well known to be problematical – in fact papers were written about the problems with the proxy. So using actual real data is somehow an attempt to fudge the data. Hmmm

    Lets be honest here. You people DO NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS. This is, to you, totally a red team / blue team thing. We see this constantly when reading the “skeptic” literature – it is totally a compendium of isolated charges, usually totally false, or at best distorted or taken out of context. There is no willingness to work legitimate questions through to an agreed-upon outcome. The committment to opposition is absolute – NOTHING that can ever be found in the data will convince the “skeptics” because their total public identity is wrapped up in being a “skeptic”. IF they would agree that AGW was real, they would be out of a job, and an identity.

    And the political followers are even worse. They don’t even bother to get to know the data well enough to distort it. They don’t even understand the most basic issues, like the difference between climate or weather, or why carbon from cow farts is fundamentally different, for global warming purposes, than the carbon from coal or oil. And yet they are passionate defenders of a position they have no understanding of, because it is the official red team position.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 1:53 pm - November 23, 2009

  31. [...] read more [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » On the unthinking nature of global warming zealots- Topic: Global Warming Talk | Ways to Prevent Global Warming — November 23, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - November 23, 2009

  32. You people DO NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

    You’re talking about leftists, right Tano?

    This is, to you, totally a red team / blue team thing.

    No, it’s a “human freedom” thing. See #17. Also, it’s a “good science vs. junk science” thing. See #25.

    IF they -AGW scienticians- would agree that AGW was real -something they trumped-up for political reasons-, they would be out of a job, and an identity.

    Fixed it for ya, Tano.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - November 23, 2009

  33. One more and I have to go. Others have pointed the following out, but it’s worth repeating.

    If AGW is right – If it has so much good science and logic behind it – Then why would its advocates, at East Anglia and elsewhere, by their own admission need to “re-define the peer-review literature” in order to exclude the good work of dissenting scientists?

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    Emphasis added. Why so defensive? Why so lacking in confidence in their own case?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 23, 2009 @ 2:04 pm - November 23, 2009

  34. Tano in #5, any evidence of venomous feelings the skeptics held toward the “skeptic’s” (sic), but you reveeal your own bile by the insults leveled in your e-mail.

    And if data is data, why, Tano, as per the post above, do the climatlogists in questions refuse to reveal their raw data (something Gretchen brings up in #20)? Gosh, you are narrow. New information is revealed and you don’t change your tune.

    oh, and gillie in #23, a per Al Gore’s “need” to debate. Please review my posts. I never said he needs to debate. I just said it’s wrong to call a man who refuses to debate a thinking man. You twist our words in order to attack us. It’s very pathetic how you have to insult andd attack us.

    And Tano, in #30, le’ts be honest here. You really don’t care what the truth is. For you, it must be true because all the smart set say it’s true and you need it to be true to impose a massive new set of regulations on the private sector. You reveal your entire thought process with this one line, “There is no willingness to work legitimate questions through to an agreed-upon outcome.” So, the outcome is agreed upon before the data have been analyzed?

    Well, many have been analyzed the data, especially the new information released last week, and well, they don’t arrive at that previously agreed-upon outcome. And heck, those proferring the preferred agreed-upon outcome of the smart set won’t release their raw data anyway. Your response indicates that you’re just a passionate defender of a position that you have no understanding of, because it is the official “blue team” position.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 23, 2009 @ 2:16 pm - November 23, 2009

  35. “a thinking man’s thinking man.”

    Thinking men could figure out a butterfly ballot.

    Why would it be Al Gore’s fault? He is not finding data but relating data as told to him by many respected members of the field?

    So he’s a patsy? Perhaps he’s “just doing his job” like Josef Mengele did?

    You people DO NOT CARE WHAT THE TRUTH IS.

    Of course I do. That’s why I don’t buy into the latest liberal death du jour. Nor am I phased by the propagandized children liberals love to exploit for political gain.

    This is, to you, totally a red team / blue team thing.

    What a cockbite.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 23, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - November 23, 2009

  36. Gay Patriot writes:

    “Post writer Juliet Eilperin even ends her article by quoting such advocates who continue to maintain evidence of such warming is “incontrovertible,” therefore, maintaining the only question is what to do.”

    Yesterday, November 22, in a blog post on American Thinker, Clarice Feldman revealed that Ms. Eilperin, not to mention the NYT, has a conflict of interest as a journalist. Her husband is employed by a think tank that fans the flames of global warming.

    Comment by Theo Goodwin — November 23, 2009 @ 3:23 pm - November 23, 2009

  37. D, again, this goes back to my earlier point that you are assuming an expertise here that you don’t actually possess. If you think that global warming rests on a few temperature data sets and models, you don’t understand enough of the science to have an informed opinion on the subject. I mean that respectfully, but pointedly.

    Speaking of points, let’s go by point:

    I held it was wrong to consider him a thinking man because the former Vice President refuses to debate those who contest his theory of anthropogenic global warming.

    It’s not Al Gore’s theory of AGW. It’s the consensus of nearly every climatologist and planetary scientist from across the planet, based on hundreds of years of work. (I’ve pointed you to those statements before.) Gore was the first popularizer of AGW, but he’s not a scientist. Indeed, climatologists and planetary scientists have noted things he got wrong, but are appreciative of the educational effort of his film.

    the debate is over, that scientists have reached a consensus in favor of his favorite theory when, in fact, they haven’t.

    Dan, again, factually in error. You have the heads of the national science academies of countries from Brazil to South Africa noting the consensus in the literature on the subject. You even have the Pentagon studying the security aspects of AGW. AGW is real.

    Friday showing that some of the leading advocates of his theory had been doctoring the data,

    Nope, it doesn’t.

    perpetrating, in the words of one lawyer who has read those e-mails

    The Powerline guys aren’t scientists.

    if this guys were really such dispassionate fellows, thinking guys, you know, what did they harbor so much animus against scientists who reached different conclusions in studying the same phenomena?

    They didn’t. Their animus was directed at cranks arguing not just in bad faith, not just with slanderous comments about an entire fields’ professionalism, but accusing hundreds of people around the world of deliberate deception.

    As Spencer Weart, an historian of science and the history of AGW explains

    … As time passed they have had to spend more and more of their time answering criticism of the scientific results already established, criticism mostly based on ignorance, fallacious reasoning, and even deliberately deceptive claims. Still more recently they have had to spend far too much of their time defending their personal reputations against ignorant or slanderous attacks…. we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance….In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers. Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.

    Dan, on this blog, you’ve lost your cool with many posters as well. I’ve never thought it said more about you than the fact that people weren’t getting what you were explaining.

    So, instead of putting the work out the questioning academics out there so it can be reviewed and dismissed (which they should easily be able to do if their science doesn’t hold up), they want to suppress it.

    Again, simply not the case. Data, models, interpretations have constantly been released. What’s more, they been published, argued over, tweaked and reworked — in science journals, among climate and planetary scientists. (see below)

    There is more information available now to buttress the case of global warming skeptics, much of it in the very hand of those who seek to ignore their arguments.

    A few snarky emails pulled from over a decade of correspondence doesn’t upended hundreds of years of work and thousands of papers reporting the findings of researchers around the globe. Isaac Newton was an ass in real life. Doesn’t upend his discoveries.

    One might better believe those critical of the skeptics if they expressed their criticism through scientific arguments rather than emotional outburst

    All of the correspondence you’ve read was private, behind the scenes talk between colleagues and friends, not the final, public and reasoned replies to critics and other scientists. When you were working on cases and preparing briefs, there was lots of correspondence back and forth, some civil and some otherwise, stuff that simply wasn’t for public consumption. Same thing here.

    Those advocates of the anthropogenic theory of global warming really do want to keep us in the dark.

    Dan, that’s an utterly ridiculous statement, facile and hebetudinous. I expect better of you.

    but they also wish to hide their own data, consistently refusing outsiders access to their data.

    Again, simply not true. You can find the public release of data, models and code here and here and here This information has been freely available for years. Dig in.

    You’d think thinking men would want that information out there. I mean, if they had a strong case, why would they fear opposing arguments–which should be, if they’re so right, easy to dismiss?

    Nothing’s been dismissed.

    If you are arguing that a few emails, taken out of context, is evidence of a centuries long conspiracy involving thousands of scientists from across the planet forging data and deliberately misleading people for vague and nefarious purposes, be they mercenary or mastery, then you need to look again at the thinking involved in that conclusion.

    Comment by Jody — November 23, 2009 @ 3:50 pm - November 23, 2009

  38. Here’s my take on who is a thinking man: John Maynard Keynes, the economist who helped shape our economic thinking. Now he was a thinking man – he assessed his position. He had a theory and he wrote about it, and he provided proof that was from his own time. He was correct about what would happen after the Versailles Treaty with its reparation demands on Germany.

    When Keynes was challenged over his theory, he accepted that challenge with real grace.

    Now compare the attitude of the late Lord Keynes with that of Al Gore…..

    Comment by straightAussie — November 23, 2009 @ 3:58 pm - November 23, 2009

  39. ““There is no willingness to work legitimate questions through to an agreed-upon outcome.” So, the outcome is agreed upon before the data have been analyzed?”

    Ah, no. Sorry for speaking English. The agreed-upon outcome is what happens after people of good faith sit down and work their way through questions and arrive at an agreement.
    Something that it is absoutely impossible for modern conservatives to do, given that they are totally invested in absolute opposition to anything a liberal might propose (and since scientists are liberals, we have an insight perhaps into the virulent anti-science attitudes of the American right).

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 4:00 pm - November 23, 2009

  40. 38
    Keynes was an economist.
    Gore is NOT a climate scientist.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 4:02 pm - November 23, 2009

  41. um, Tano, seems it’s your side that has the anti-science attitude, suppressing or otherwise ignoring the work of serious scientists.

    As to your first comment, it seems you’re speaking in circles. What if there is no consensus about the meaning of the data? Serious scientists, Tano, can disagree on the interpretation of data. An anyway, scientists pushing the theory of anthropogenic global warming refuse to release their data.

    Please, Tano, address that point, brought up by yours truly in the post to which you attach your comment as well as in subsequent comments.

    How can any consensus be reached if data are suppressed?

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 23, 2009 @ 4:05 pm - November 23, 2009

  42. Data is not suppressed Dan.,
    Once again with your loony talking points.
    The data is publicly available and has been argued over endlessly for years. Even the somewhat more serious skeptic sites try to make their case around issues regarding the data. They have the data in hand.

    Have you ever tried to find the data?
    Why not look in your own comment section – Jody provides several links in #37.
    And so then, please stop spreading these falsehoods.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 4:22 pm - November 23, 2009

  43. ooops. That should start ‘Data are…”
    snagged by my own pet peeve…

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 4:23 pm - November 23, 2009

  44. How can any consensus be reached if data are suppressed?

    Again, data hasn’t been suppressed.

    Comment by Jody — November 23, 2009 @ 4:24 pm - November 23, 2009

  45. Jody,

    Just how do you explain this away?

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=&w=MQ==

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - November 23, 2009

  46. No data was destroyed, Heliotrope.

    Michaels is being disingenuous in his article. The original raw data is available from NOAA. Hughes was requesting the original raw data from CRU, who didn’t have it. They only retained the modified data that removed the discontinuities and urbanization trends. In the 1980s, they didn’t have the space to store two sets of virtually the same data. But NOAA did.

    Besides, the results of the Wrigley paper’s results were assessed against data separate measurements recorded by NOAA, NASA and the UK Met Office and scientists in Russia. Science is about overlapping data sets. You do understand that, right?

    Comment by Jody — November 23, 2009 @ 5:10 pm - November 23, 2009

  47. *pats Jody and Tano on the head and sends them back to watch their Captain Planet DVD collection* Hush kids. Adults are talking here.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - November 23, 2009

  48. Tano says: (and since scientists are liberals, we have an insight perhaps into the virulent anti-science attitudes of the American right).

    Oh, I’ll be sure to let my PHD Chemist brother know he’s not supposed to be conservative. What a laugh.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — November 23, 2009 @ 6:28 pm - November 23, 2009

  49. Hush kids. Adults are talking here.

    Actually, you guys are just watching a “Jackass” marathon.

    Comment by Jody — November 23, 2009 @ 6:34 pm - November 23, 2009

  50. …starring yourself and tano, apparently, jody.

    Comment by Otter — November 23, 2009 @ 7:12 pm - November 23, 2009

  51. You do understand that, right?

    Yes.

    Michaels and I share a common institutional fellowship. I will chat with him about your statements.

    I might add that a lot of loose threads are being pulled resulting in noticeable unraveling. I don’t have a dog in this fight other than an interest in integrity, a concern about the misuse of consensus to overshadow the scientific method and uncomfortable misgivings with the enthusiasm by so many for technological applications based on understandings shrouded in questionable theory and defended with the threats of political force.

    When the politics overshadow the science and when the theory verges on religious zealotry, it would seem that it is time to throw the whole process wide open to peer review with no holds barred.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 7:30 pm - November 23, 2009

  52. it would seem that it is time to throw the whole process wide open to peer review with no holds barred.

    Helio, AGW’s been peer reviewed for 100-some odd years, starting with Tyndall in 1859. Spencer Weart’s “The Discovery of Global Warming” chronicles that history. He has a hypertext of that history here.

    Comment by Jody Wheeler — November 23, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - November 23, 2009

  53. Jody (37) writes:

    “Dan, again, factually in error. You have the heads of the national science academies of countries from Brazil to South Africa noting the consensus in the literature on the subject. You even have the Pentagon studying the security aspects of AGW. AGW is real.”

    Jody, why do you think that appealing to popularity and authority, as you do in the quotation, will advance this argument? To begin with, your reasoning is fallacious: you appeal to heads of scientific adacemies and, of all things, the government of South Africa when the topic is AGW theory. Heads of scientific academies and the government of South Africa are notoriously wrong about most things. Why don’t you offer an actual theorist who has an actual theory that is relevant to the discussion? Why can’t you, or some AGW theorist, state some theory in simple and concise terms, a theory that will enable us to deduce predictions from it. No such thing exists. And that is so strange, because there is a simple and concise statement of Einstein’s theories that enable ordinary PhDs to understand what is being claimed and to make predictions. But, when discussing theory, you write as if only the people who can solve Einstein’s equations are worthy of being addressed by you. Then why do you address us? Just to hurl abuse? I do not believe that AGW is as complicated as Einstein’s equations or Newton’s equations or even Galileo’s equations. I believe you do not have a theory. You have a patchwork of guesses, and like those burned-out old men at CRU-Hadley, all you can do is massage data that is ten years old. The passion for research and explanation, which requires theories that yield confirmed predictions, has burned out in your heart long ago.

    Comment by Theo Goodwin — November 23, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - November 23, 2009

  54. “I do not believe that AGW is as complicated as Einstein’s equations”

    Huh? Einstein’s equation is extraordinarily simple. E=mc2. How can something be less complicated than that?

    The fact is that the relationship between energy and mass is incredibly simple relative to the number of factors that go into the heat budget of our planet. There is a notion common amongst lay people that theoretical physics is somehow the epitome of scientific complexity, but it really isn’t. The way that physical and chemical processes are at play in the real world, in things like climate, are far more complex. And don’t even start considering the complexity of biology….

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - November 23, 2009

  55. Jody, why do you think that appealing to popularity and authority, as you do in the quotation, will advance this argument,

    Theo, generally speaking, an argument from authority is only fallacious if the what’s being argued by the authority is outside the expertise of the authority. Absent evidence that the authority is wrong about an issue germane to their expertise, their statements are appropriate and citing them is perfectly valid.

    To begin with, your reasoning is fallacious: you appeal to heads of scientific adacemies and, of all things, the government of South Africa when the topic is AGW theory.

    I appealed to them as advisors on what their memberships know. I could just as easily have appealed to statements by our own academy, those of the American Meterological Society or the experts who wrote IPCC (2007), whose fields are climatology and planetary science Every scientific group consisting of members actively conducting planetary and climate research across the globe states that the evidence of the research is clear: AGW is real.

    Heads of scientific academies and the government of South Africa are notoriously wrong about most things.

    Yes, but logically it doesn’t follow that they are wrong about this. You now have to demonstrate that they, along with not only the heads of the other national acadamies, but the scientists of the IPCC, the AMS, the AAAS, the NRC, the CMOS, the FCCSP, NOAA, NASA/GISS, AGU, GSA, ACS, The Stratigraphy Comission of the Geological Society of London, the AASC, the USGS, the NCAR, Woods Hole, WMO, CFCAS, ICS, and the Australian Meteorological And Oceanographic Society among many, many others, are wrong.

    Please start.

    Why can’t you, or some AGW theorist, state some theory in simple and concise terms, a theory that will enable us to deduce predictions from it.

    You don’t really have to look much further than Wikipedia to find the theory and models in current use. James Hansen’s, at the GISS, models have been incredibly accurate at modeling and predicting the observed climate change. Mears models account for satellite observations of the Troposphere, Crane models and accurate predicts the observed sea surface trends and the IPCC’s model for anthropogenic causes of global mean temperatures best account for the observed trends.

    I believe you do not have a theory.

    Which is the real heart of this, isn’t it? Your own disbelief in the theory and data. Well, you introduced logical fallacies in your original comment. You must be aware, then, that an argument from personal incredulity doesn’t mean jack. That you don’t understand, don’t believe, can’t understand or can’t believe in the reality of AGW doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. The science is abundantly clear. The problem rests with you, not with the data.

    Comment by Jody Wheeler — November 23, 2009 @ 9:44 pm - November 23, 2009

  56. So Jody, your ‘hundred years of research on Global Warming’ does include the Global cooling theories of the 70′s, yes?

    And now you’re appealing to use the IPCC studies to bolster your arguements?

    Let me see if I follow this.

    “The IPCC studies show global warming.”

    The IPCC studies buried contradicting data and use computer models that can’t emulate current weather patterns, they’re in question.”

    “No they’re not! I will show you! Check out these IPCC studies that prove my point.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 23, 2009 @ 9:49 pm - November 23, 2009

  57. Jody,

    You may have misunderstood my point. Shall we peel the politics away from the science and throw the data and methods open to scrutiny, or not?

    Obviously, those who have hitched their carts to the political ramifications of the science are having a hard time selling their consensus opinion.

    Why are the man caused global warming skeptics treated like “birthers” who want to see the concrete evidence and documents?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - November 23, 2009

  58. The science is abundantly clear. The problem rests with you, not with the data.

    On this you will stake your reputation, your honor and your fortune?

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 9:57 pm - November 23, 2009

  59. “Shall we peel the politics away from the science…”

    If we did that, there would be no controversy. The scientists say what their science reveals. Almost all of the skeptical position is politics driven – by people who oppose, ideologically, some of the remedies for the problem that have been proposed.

    Undermine the policy by trying to undermine the validity of the science – irrespective of what the truth may be. That is the strategy of the right wing – a position that is entirely concerned with economics and political posturing, not about the reality of how the climate is or isn’t changing.

    Comment by Tano — November 23, 2009 @ 10:35 pm - November 23, 2009

  60. Wall Street Journal editorial today:

    Yet all of these nonresponses manage to underscore what may be the most revealing truth: That these scientists feel the public doesn’t have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them.

    Tano, I guess you need to contact the fools at the WSJ with your soothing claims: ” The scientists say what their science reveals.”

    Comment by heliotrope — November 23, 2009 @ 10:58 pm - November 23, 2009

  61. There was no consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. The majority of the peer-reviewed literature of the era was all about AGW. Here’s a hint, Live. Newsweek, which touted the story in 1975, isn’t a scientific source. And, according to Dan, it isn’t a credible source for information on Sarah Palin. But then I digress.

    The IPCC studies buried contradicting data and use computer models that can’t emulate current weather patterns, they’re in question.”

    Live, all you need to do is provide your citations that the 10 years of IPCC reports andthe 30 years of data it’s based on is wrong. Should be pretty easy.

    You may have misunderstood my point. Shall we peel the politics away from the science and throw the data and methods open to scrutiny, or not?

    Helio, the data and methods have been open. I’ve provided links to the data, to the models and the source codes. The studies are in peer-reviewed literature, complete with the commentary and criticism and revisions. The conferences are full of scientists arguing over finer points of the modeling, forcings and feedback mechanisms. AGW skeptics are treated like birthers, 9/11 hoaxers, and Holocaust Denialists because they act just as those groups do, claiming conspiracies, selectively (mis-)quoting sources, citing fake experts, utilizing logical fallacies and moving goal posts.

    On this you will stake your reputation, your honor and your fortune?

    My reputation and my honor. I don’t have a fortune. Maybe one day.

    Comment by Jody — November 23, 2009 @ 11:28 pm - November 23, 2009

  62. Uh, sorry, Jody, the data have not been open. And to claim AGW skeptics are like birthers is to ignore the numerous scientists who are serious skeptics are focus on a few extreme bloggers and other commentators.

    And there are certain AGW proponents with a similar description.

    At least, the scientists, scholars, pundits and bloggers like yours truly who don’t believe there is a scientific consensus on global warming don’t paint all those holding a different view with a broad brush. Though with the disclosure of the e-mails from the University of East Anglia, we certainly have more grounds to do so than we did last week.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 24, 2009 @ 12:01 am - November 24, 2009

  63. Uh, sorry, Jody, the data have not been open.

    Dan, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. I keep pointing you to the data, to the models, to the code… be it at NASA or NOAA or others… and you flat out ignore it and return to “the data hasn’t been open.” Where hasn’t the data been open? In four or five postings, you haven’t provided that information.

    And to claim AGW skeptics are like birthers is to ignore the numerous scientists…

    Dan, again, I’ve pointed you to scientists from the science organizations across the planet, to associations of climate and planetary scientists, to research journals, to research on the research, quantifying what’s been studied. I’ve even noted where the one scientist you cited, Lindzen, what shown to be wrong on both statements that he made. You haven’t provided information in support of your statement.

    At least, the scientists, scholars, pundits and bloggers like yours truly who don’t believe there is a scientific consensus on global warming don’t paint all those holding a different view with a broad brush.

    The title of your three most recent posts on the subject have been”The Unthinking Al Gore”, “On the Unthinking Al Gore & Our Critics”, and “On the unthinking nature of global warming zealots.” You moved from just labeling Gore as unthinking to anyone who disagrees with you as being unthinking. As brushes go, that’s pretty broad.

    Though with the disclosure of the e-mails from the University of East Anglia, we certainly have more grounds to do so than we did last week.

    As I noted in my earlier posts, you don’t.

    Like the Democrats and the Liberals you criticize, like the commentators on here you disagree with, you continue to make the same statements over and over again with out elucidation, elaboration or explanation.

    You argue the data isn’t be published? Fine. Where? What data? You argue there isn’t consensus among planetary and climate scientists on AGW? Fine. Who and where? Which scientists and what studies? You argue that you aren’t using the same techniques, the same lack-of-thought, the same b.s., as birthers, Bush-election-stealers, 9/11 Hoaxers and Holocaust Denialists? Great. It should be incredibly easily to note the clear differences between your process and theirs. Let’s see it.

    Comment by Jody — November 24, 2009 @ 1:08 am - November 24, 2009

  64. Jody, this article (linked in the post above) is just one source among many for that claim.

    Jody, perhaps if I had time I would follow up and answer all your claims, but the simple fact remains that you’re comparing serious scientists to birthers.

    Um, I’ve called Al Gore “unthinking” but have not used the same adjective to describe any of the scientists on whose data he relies. Simply put, I see Al Gore as you see all the scientists opposing AGW. So, please show me where I called “anyone who disagrees with” me as unthinking as you claim.

    I don’t. Just Gore. And I made the point just to contest Newsweek’s silly hagiography. Had that left-wing magazine not called him the thinking man’s thinking man, I wouldn’t have penned those posts.

    So what you claim is broad is using the term “unthinking” to describe Gore. And if scientists want to suppress conclusions they don’t like, well, Jody that does give us more grounds (as a writer you should understand the rhetorical use of the comparative) to consider them so. Consider the plain meaning of that rhetorical flourish–there is more reason now to doubt the seriousness of their science because of how they fudge data and react to their critics. But, just because I have more grounds to do something doesn’t mean I do it.

    Amazing that you are trying to lump me in with the birthers when my viewpoint all along has been to say there’s no scientific consensus on global warming. I don’t question the science of advocates of AGW, though I do question their methods in addressing critics.

    I have no clue what to make of your final paragraph, surprised to see something akin to an insult coming from you.

    Neither birthers nor 9/11 hoaxers nor Holocaust deniers have science (or the historical record) on their side. I at least have serious scientists on my side. And a growing number of thinking people.

    That you would dismiss such folk as akin to birthers says much about your attitudes towards those with whom you disagree.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 24, 2009 @ 1:27 am - November 24, 2009

  65. Dan, Lawson isn’t a scientist. Besides, even he agrees with the consensus that AGW is happening — he just doesn’t think it’ll be that bad.

    perhaps if I had time I would follow up and answer all your claims, but the simple fact remains that you’re comparing serious scientists to birthers.

    I’m comparing people who are argue the same way with people who are argue the same way — who say one thing and, when presented with the evidence to the contrary, still hold fast to their original proposition, for needs other than the truth. You’ve cited Lawson, who isn’t a climate scientist but who, in his own published literature, recognizes AGW. You’ve cited Lindzen, whose statements were shown to be in error and whose own alternative theory has no research support.

    You continue to look past decades of published research that shows AGW is very real. Why?

    Um, I’ve called Al Gore “unthinking” but have not used the same adjective to describe any of the scientists on whose data he relies. Simply put, I see Al Gore as you see all the scientists opposing AGW. So, please show me where I called “anyone who disagrees with” me as unthinking as you claim.

    It was a little worse than “unthinking”

    One might better believe those critical of the skeptics if they expressed their criticism through scientific arguments rather than emotional outrbursts (or by attempts to suppress their findings).Those advocates of the anthropogenic theory of global warming really do want to keep us in the dark. Not only do they wish to suppress (or otherwise ignore) the work of scientists at odds with their theory, but they also wish to hide their own data, consistently refusing outsiders access to their data. What a strange aversion to the public disclosure of information.

    As I read it, you’ve accused them of “wanting to keep us in the dark” and of “surpressing (or otherwise ignore) the work of scientists at odds with their theory.” There’s no evidence they’ve done either of those things. You’ve read a few choice out-of-context quotes, whose context you don’t even understand, and decided they, and Gore, and, it would seem, Ms. Eilperin, of engaging in various forms of malfeasance. I posted a link that discusses the emails and the research involved. Have you read it or are you continuing to maintain that they, and others, are simply out to hoodwink and spread ignorance?

    And if scientists want to suppress conclusions they don’t like…

    What scientists suppressing what evidence? The email releases don’t show that any data was suppressed. I’ve pointed you again and gain to where data can be found.

    Consider the plain meaning of that rhetorical flourish–there is more reason now to doubt the seriousness of their science because of how they fudge data and react to their critics.

    No data was fudged, Dan. Nothing in the emails indicates it was. And their reaction to their critics was in private email between colleagues, not public statements. Whatever your reasons for your rhetorical flourish, the simple fact is that it isn’t justified.

    Amazing that you are trying to lump me in with the birthers when my viewpoint all along has been to say there’s no scientific consensus on global warming.

    I’ve lumped you in with the birthers as, like birthers, when provided with cite after cite that the published literature, the science and the scientists involved in studying AGW, runs exactly 180 degrees counter to your statements, you still make that same statement again. You continue to appeal to a scientific controversy that doesn’t exist, anymore so than a controversy exists about Gravity, Germ Theory or Common Descent. There isn’t a controversy in science over AGW. I want you to examine your reasoning with that in mind.

    I have no clue what to make of your final paragraph, surprised to see something akin to an insult coming from you.

    If I’ve insulted you, I apologize. You are my friend. I have a profound respect for you. It’s also why I’m arguing so forcefully about this. Sometimes friends are the best ones to point out where you are wrong and why you are wrong.

    Neither birthers nor 9/11 hoaxers nor Holocaust deniers have science (or the historical record) on their side.

    Nor do your statements regarding AGW. Again, to reiterate, you argue there is no consensus on AGW, and I point out the contrary. Your response isn’t “Let me go read a bit more about that,” “I might be wrong,” or even “Even if true, I’m still concerned over the costs of rectifying the problem or having anything but private industry address the need,” but rather “There is no consensus on AGW.” When planetary and climate scientists, their associations, their published research and their expert panels all disagree with you, the error isn’t on their part, but rather yours.

    That you would dismiss such folk as akin to birthers…

    Yes, I do. The statements by groups like birthers, Intelligent Design proponents, 9/11 Hoaxers and even Holocaust Deniers are perfect examples of the denigration of expertise. Of illogic. Of simple arrogance. I have little patience for that. The issues are just too important.

    Comment by Jody — November 24, 2009 @ 3:04 am - November 24, 2009

  66. Jody, I simply lack the time to address all your points.

    In the end, it boils down to the basic disagreement that you believe there is a consensus on global warming and I just don’t buy it. I’ve read too many articles by scientists either critical or skeptial of the theory to accept the notion of consensus.

    I will note that it is the advocates of AGW pushing for suppression of competiing arguments. And I, for one, don’t advocating such suppression — or even dismissing out of hand — the research made by AGW scientists.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 24, 2009 @ 4:09 am - November 24, 2009

  67. Jody keeps falling back on the ‘it’s not scientists who say it’s not happening.’ arguement, appealing to authority.

    (I’d note that Dan’s last link, the writer conceeds it’s getting warmer, not that man is making it warmer. As others have pointed out, curse those dinosaurs and their coal fired power plants!)

    But he ignores this little detail. “And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.”

    So we have scientists admitting they manipulated the raw data.

    Mr/ French called Jody, he said they’re running an ‘inconvient truth marathon’

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 6:49 am - November 24, 2009

  68. From reading Jody’s comments, I realize I do not understand a great deal.

    1) I do not understand what constitutes a “consensus of scientists” nor how the “consensus” is reached and proclaimed.

    2) If a scientist is not in the “consensus” group is he a legitimate scientist?

    3) Apparently Jody has read and deconstructed each and every email that was hacked. I have not. I believe I am informed that I am mislead by people not educated enough to deal with the “consensus science” or who are Luddites who oppose settled scientific fact. I think I am being told that I am trying to grasp concepts well beyond my uneducated reach. This man made global warming thing is the domain of educated elites and can not be shared with the masses except by Al Gore types who should not be held accountable or asked to debate the facts. After all, the facts are scientific truth so there is no debate, anyway.

    4) Jody stakes his honor and reputation on the fact that all the data and methods have been open to full scrutiny. That leaves those who say otherwise as liars. So, why do we keep hearing about the “consensus of scientists?” It would seem that the liar scientists would be exposed and driven from the academic world like the Bernie Madoffs and Ward Churchills they must be.

    5) We know for certain that paths must be taken to reduce the man made part of global warming and we know what must be done because the consensus of scientists have revealed it. I didn’t know that. How could leaving China and India out of the process be part of the “consensus science” when they have more people to do man made global warming than the rest of the planet? It makes my brain itch. Oh, I know, the Kyoto Protocols are not the work of the consensus of scientists. But, why didn’t the consensus of scientists descend on Kyoto like the harpies at a G-8 conference? But I digress.

    6) I am somehow transfixed on the question of why the keepers of settled science do not ferret out the heretic scientists in the field of the settled science. Nowhere do I find any commenter here who is on the man made global warming side allowing for any possible flaw in the data or method for reaching the consensus science. When I meet up with such determined righteousness, I grow wary. Is that because my mind is too weak or because my psyche craves conspiracy? Or both?

    7) I understand the science in producing steel and the technology that makes it happen. I look at weather casting as an imperfect science. I was under the impression that climatology was a growing and expanding science. I did not realize that it had reached the mature stage of being able to predict with accuracy and diagnose cures with confidence. That is wonderful news, if I choose to believe it. I don’t.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 24, 2009 @ 10:43 am - November 24, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.371 Powered by Wordpress