GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/11/24/scientists-rejecting-data-because-of-faith-in-creed-of-global-warming/trackback/

  1. While I have long counted myself as one of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I don’t believe advocates of the theory invented it out of whole cloth.

    I have a question about that. First, permit me to review the scene.

    The Earth has warmed in the last 200 years; the question is whether it was caused by natural cycles or by CO2. The evidence for natural cycles is strong; and includes the fact that there appears to be, well, a strong natural cycle in play. Roman Warm Period followed by Dark Ages Cold Period followed by Medieval Warm Period followed by Mini Ice Age followed by Modern Warm Period. Hey, it’s in wiki. (joke – Wiki’s info on these cycles is usually carefully scripted by liberal activists toward AGW and often wrong) And our warm period, far from being a “hockey stick”, is not yet as warm as the Medieval Warm Period.

    Meanwhile, the evidence for CO2 as the causal agent is weak. Algore got it wrong: historically, CO2 increase has *lagged* Earth temperature increases by several hundred years. (In other words, temperature increased have historically caused CO2 increases via oceanic outgassing – and not the other way.) Atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million and is only up from 280ppm to 380ppm. Whatever greenhouse influence it has on temperatures is tiny and trivial, as it is vastly outclassed by other greenhouse gases such as water vapor.

    Equally, AGW theory has a long history of wrong predictions. I recently noted how the Arctic Ice is still with us and if anything, getting thicker. The failure of AGW’s predictions in that area isn’t even “the tip of the iceberg” (haha), more like a drop in an ocean of predictive failures.

    Finally, AGW has a long history of being politically motivated. I am sorry to say that Conservatives started it – in the UK, I mean. (And hence the capital ‘C’) I am talking of Margaret Thatcher, who needed a stick with which to beat the British coal unions. By some reports, she lived to recognize and regret that she had created a Trojan Horse for socialist forces. In the latest controversy, we have powerful evidence that the pro-AGW so-called “consensus” was never a consensus, but a political campaign manufactured by biased, hateful zealots who would have no grants and no self-esteem or personal identity, if AGW were exposed as the fraud it is.

    So if AGW is Theory A (let’s say), then we have:
    - Weak evidence for Theory A
    - Strong evidence for an alternative theory B
    - Essentially no ability of Theory A to predict anything that is actually happening in the world
    - A long and sorry history of Theory A being politically manufactured

    My question is this. How is that *not* a “theory invented out of whole cloth”? What would it take for AGW to not be that? What distinction do you have in mind here?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 5:12 am - November 24, 2009

  2. Sorry, meant to say “What would it take for AGW to be that?”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 5:39 am - November 24, 2009

  3. I keep wondering why liberals aren’t so worried about Dihydrogen Monoxide, which kills more people per year than global warmism.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 24, 2009 @ 5:40 am - November 24, 2009

  4. TGC, I know precisely what you have in mind. DHMO is a major component of acid rain, contributes to soil erosion and El Nino weather, and causes severe tissue damage in humans. In its gaseous state, it can burn people’s flesh right off.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 5:47 am - November 24, 2009

  5. With the release of those e-mails, we find Dr. Kenneth Treberth befuddled that “we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment“

    That’s actually not what he said. Your point, your post, comes from a mistaken reading of a section of an email quoted out of context.

    Wired spoke to Treberth on Friday, where he said:

    But Trenberth, who acknowledged the e-mail is genuine, says bloggers are missing the point he’s making in the e-mail by not reading the article cited in it. That article – An Imperative for Climate Change Planning (.pdf) — actually says that global warming is continuing, despite random temperature variations that would seem to suggest otherwise.

    “It says we don’t have an observing system adequate to track it, but there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing,” he says.

    Treberth wants a better tool to analyze the impact clouds and aerosols, atmospheric circulation, melting Arctic sea ice, or La Nina re-arranged ocean currents? That’s the context of the quote, not Morrissey’s spin of “religious belief.”

    Comment by Jody — November 24, 2009 @ 6:12 am - November 24, 2009

  6. Several things about the Cult of Manbearpig have always struck me as curious.

    1. How is it that the Earth’s ideal temperature just happened to correspond with temperatures that prevailed during the youth of the baby boom generation?

    2. Why do all of the solutions put forth by the Global Warming Community involve massive expansion of government and strict regulation on individual behavior, rather then the pursuit of technological or engineering remedies?

    3. Why do Al Gore, Prince Charles, Robert Kennedy, Arianna Huffington, Barack Obama and all the others who claim carbon dioxide will destroy the Earth fly around on private jets and enjoy large homes with huge carbon footprints?

    Comment by V the K — November 24, 2009 @ 6:15 am - November 24, 2009

  7. Jody,

    “It’s occuring, we just can’t track it.”

    I believe in the hand of the Divine, but I can’t prove it. That’s called faith, not science.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 6:38 am - November 24, 2009

  8. Live, I’m guessing that “…there are all other kinds of signs aside from global mean temperatures — including melting of Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels and a lot of other indicators — that global warming is continuing…” is beyond your level of reading comprehension. It’s also quite obvious you didn’t click through to the cited article, which Treberth was referring to in the email exchange.

    Comment by Jody — November 24, 2009 @ 7:05 am - November 24, 2009

  9. Dan, great post.
    It’s more than just temperatures falling. It’s the basis for the Left’s great push for global control freezing in it’s tracks.

    The “environmentally sensitive” pseudo-Conservative class of pundits who signed-on, too, have nowhere to hide.

    Fall of the AGW CO2 theory also places doubt on the Left’s next hiding place – Anthropogenic “Climate Change” and all of it’s global-reach agaendae. The entire left is going down with this.

    Comment by Ran / Si Vis Pacem — November 24, 2009 @ 7:41 am - November 24, 2009

  10. And I can site signs of the Divine in the world, from the glory of the female form, to the fact that I should be dead a dozen times over.

    Doesn’t mean that I can prove anything.

    What that says is, there are other things that might be explained, if not for the fact that the temps not increasing

    Wow, look, they’re saying ‘Global mean temperatures aren’t increasing’ Isn’t that like the core of the AGW context?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 8:05 am - November 24, 2009

  11. V the K, your point #2 is very pertinent, and one I keep pushing w.r.t. mine (Australia) – a government which, BTW, is implacable in its opposition to adopting nuclear power but which is happy to sell uranium abroad to others for this purpose. Denier/skeptic though I may be, I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ll win this battle on the basis of seaching criticism of our governments’ plans to deal with anthro climate change before we win it on the basis of debunking the theory. That can come later.

    Comment by perturbed — November 24, 2009 @ 8:09 am - November 24, 2009

  12. Damn, I meant SEARCHING criticism. Should review spelling better before posting!

    Comment by perturbed — November 24, 2009 @ 8:11 am - November 24, 2009

  13. “How is it that the Earth’s ideal temperature…”

    There is no such thing as an ideal temperature. No one in the GW community has ever proposed such a thing. This is a totally phony argument.
    The problem is not that the global temperature is deviating from some ideal, the problem is that it is changing faster than we and our infrastructure (and other species) can adapt to. If the temperature were to change an equal amount as is now forecast, but over a much longer period (either up or down), it would be far less of a problem.

    “Why do all of the solutions put forth by the Global Warming Community involve massive expansion of government…”

    They dont all demand an expansion of government, but many do require some government action. If the global temperature change is problematical, then its hard to avoid a solution that isn’t addressed on the global level.

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 9:29 am - November 24, 2009

  14. No one in the GW community has ever proposed such a thing.

    Add the “GW community” to the black community, the gay community, the Hispanic community, etc. and expect to meet up with a band of brothers all purporting to thoroughly understand and speak for the given community.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 24, 2009 @ 9:42 am - November 24, 2009

  15. Your argument is basically: Thousands of scientists over decades have been involved in a vast scheme to achieve nebulous aims. However, a few folks on the right are smarter than the thousands of scientists because of your data outliers and your “average Joe” explanations of these outliers. Then you have no use to go and read about why these 1,000s of scientists discount those outliers.

    You folks sound just like birthers. Your arguments exactly parallel their arguments.
    A few data outliers = a Grand Liberal Conspiracy.

    Now if you could just come up some alternative explanations based on miracles, you could fall into the Creationists’ camp!

    Comment by gillie — November 24, 2009 @ 9:46 am - November 24, 2009

  16. SO Tano’s new global warming theory is ‘it is changing faster than we can adapt’

    Wow, so shouldn’t the athiests be happy? Mother Nature’s got a feevah, and needs more cowbell!

    BTW, Tano, Jody, gillie, any of you eat meat?

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 10:05 am - November 24, 2009

  17. The problem is not that the global temperature is deviating from some ideal, the problem is that it is changing faster than we and our infrastructure (and other species) can adapt to.

    Mhm.

    Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was 1°C cooler than today 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation.

    Amazing; humanity has been through at least one of these cycles and didn’t die out, nor did the planet collapse, etc. etc.

    The interesting thing is that the biggest disciples of teh “global warming” are always rich liberal leftists who lecture other people on their consumption as they fly around in their private jets. It’s pretty obvious that they have no intention of sacrificing to save Mother Gaia, so why should we believe them?

    Answer: we shouldn’t. They’re merely like Tano, straight-up liars who make up stories to back up their bigotry and hatred.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 24, 2009 @ 10:20 am - November 24, 2009

  18. What a pity – No takers on TGC’s DHMO thing, yet.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 10:44 am - November 24, 2009

  19. The position of the true believers is almost humorous: “Gaia demands that you sacrifice your lifestyle on her altar, or else the vengeful goddess will become angry and smite the polar bears.”

    Comment by V the K — November 24, 2009 @ 11:02 am - November 24, 2009

  20. NDT,

    You have to understand that the man made global warming consensus science has taken every climatological factor over the millennia into account and there is no guesswork, theory or wild stab involved.

    Your little link to sea surface temps shows nothing and you would know it if you had the education to be among the elite who know how to read the man made global warming tea leaves.

    Meanwhile, the consensus science group wishes you a good day and you may rest assured that everything is being taken care of by your leaders.

    Would you like to join the man made global warming consensus science community? If so, I am sure you can buy a few carbon credits and get an invite.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 24, 2009 @ 11:02 am - November 24, 2009

  21. ILC,

    I shave with DHMO just as a macho challenge to all the wimps who run from DDT, PCB’s and assorted nuts and cookies across the fruited plain. Take my word for it, it is over-hyped and under appreciated. The DHMO community of activists in my area seem to all be PETA members as well. Go figure.

    Comment by heliotrope — November 24, 2009 @ 11:16 am - November 24, 2009

  22. “They’re merely like Tano, straight-up liars who make up stories to back up their bigotry and hatred.”

    Are you saying that 97% of climatologists are bigots and liars?

    My goodness.
    Or maybe you own stock in Reynolds Wrap…

    And Helio-
    97% of climatologists who study this every day think its fact.
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

    At some point you have to trust experts to understand and explain data…otherwise you will live in your simplistic world of “makes sense to me”
    This “makes sense to me” mindset is where ideas like The Earth is Flat came from.

    Comment by gillie — November 24, 2009 @ 11:17 am - November 24, 2009

  23. And what happened to the F****ng polar bears the Vikings were farming in Greenland…the same thing that happened before that at the time of the Romans, and will happen again…the population will stabilize at some new “norm” of habitat, diet and territorial-range and the survivors will adapt. Biologically they’re just brown bears similar to the Kodiak and the grizzly adapted to a “whiter” habitat.

    The Gaia collective-organism is much more complex and adaptable than any of their models and their increasingly-apparent faultly data-in and data-out assumptions. The climate varies; the Sun varies; the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, oceans and biomass varies; even the very relationship between the tilt of the Earth and the distance to the Sun at which season varies. Geological features change and ocean currents shift changing temperatures and climatic norms…

    Putting genuine toxins and ozne-depleting fluorocarbons in the air and water is a legitimate concern…but CO2, ozone and methane nature adapts around. Carbon-footprints are just another measurable-commodity to levy taxes against for political-ends and back-door social-engineering. Earth and Gaia…even Man…has survived asteroids, inundations and vulcanism that have done much worse.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — November 24, 2009 @ 11:55 am - November 24, 2009

  24. Well, I generally agree with everything you’re saying, but I thought you might enjoy this story. A man in the UK was allegedly fired for his belief in global warming, and sued his employer, citing his beliefs as qualifying under “religious/philosophical”. The judge found in his favor, which effectively establishes belief in global warming as a recognized religion in the country.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

    Also to the believers, if you aren’t swayed by the shakiness of the science, why don’t you start looking into the money trails. The Goreacle is already a billionaire according to the NYT and the IMF and World Bank LOVE cap and trade as a way to sell carbon credits to repay shitty loans from 3rd world countries. It’s all wealth redistribution in the end.

    Comment by Tim — November 24, 2009 @ 12:28 pm - November 24, 2009

  25. Imagine you are a liberal Democrat today.
    Man made global warming climate change is a hoax.
    Obama is a fraud.
    Independent pollster Rasmussen today has Obamas approval index at a historic low of minus 15.
    Only 27% of people strongly approve of him while 42% of Americans strongly disapprove. The Republicans now are preferred to the Democrats on the TEN MOST IMPORTANT issues for the country.
    It’s all coming apart for the liberal Dems only 11months after their promise of heaven on earth. It all started with the porkulus, then Copenhagen, accelerated by the global warming hoax and NJ and VA.
    Obama/TOAST.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 24, 2009 @ 12:54 pm - November 24, 2009

  26. Gene, it’s amazing to watch the Left self-destruct before our eyes… just by trying to implement their own ideas. Unfortunately, we also get the collateral damage.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 12:59 pm - November 24, 2009

  27. It’s painfully obvious why liberals want to control the health care system and our environmental policies. Because it’ll pretty much give them total control of everything going on inside our bodies as well as everything outside of it. Is it any coincidence that all of these Warmons are all of a hard left-leaning ilk? Does Al Gore (Mr. The Earth’s Core is Millions of Degrees Warmer than the Earth’s Surface) or Van Jones or Leonardo DiCaprio have any scientific credibility?

    Comment by Sharp Right Turn — November 24, 2009 @ 1:12 pm - November 24, 2009

  28. “SO Tano’s new global warming theory is ‘it is changing faster than we can adapt’ ”

    Its really stunning Livewire, that you and so many others here can have such strong opinions about a subject that you clearly know nothing about. For instance, this “new’ theory, is what this whole GW thing has been about all along. So obviously you don’t even understand the very first points about the subject. And yet you believe so strongly….

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 1:20 pm - November 24, 2009

  29. Tano, your history of refusing to answer questions asked of you is what’s truely amazing.

    Suddenly you’ve gone from AGW to just plain GW. And suddenly it’s that the climate is changing faster than we can adapt. Funny, it’s been warming for the past 200 years (according to Jody) and we’ve been adapting just fine. Then again, you must believe that Mars’ warming is the result of humans for AGW to be true, Or maybe it’s the sun? Got sunspots?

    “Global warming on Neptune’s moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets … Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”

    So in Tano land (and some crazy scientists):

    different events are causing Mars (wobbly orbit) Jupiter (storm activity) Pluto (sudden volcanos popping from nowhere) Titan (another wobly orbit) and Terra (those pesky humans) simultaniously.

    Or it’s that big glowing ball of plasma.

    Since we now know scientists bury data, try to hide it, and delete it, I’m going with the glowing ball of plasma.

    I’ll say it again. Hush Tano, adults are speaking (and eating meat)

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 1:27 pm - November 24, 2009

  30. So the libs lied about global warming they lied about jobs created from the stimulus, they lied about not raising taxes.
    Can we encourage other whistle blowers to come forward about the behind the scenes fraud about other Obama initiatives?
    What is really the plan to bug out of Afghanistan.
    What is the real plan to tax Americans energy usage.
    Why isn’t Obama taking care of his half brothers living in huts.
    Why does he call Pakistan POCK EE STAN like an elitist.
    Did he know all along he would put GM and Chrysler through bankrupcey.
    Is unemployment really 10.2% or are they manipulatiing those numbers too.
    Is our GDP in third quarter really +3% or are they lying about those numbers too.
    Can we finally see Obamas disertation.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 24, 2009 @ 1:29 pm - November 24, 2009

  31. gillie and Tano, men, when the evidence is right in front of you and you still don’t get it……
    you must admit you are tried and true believers that can’t be swayed by facts.
    You are being taken advantage of. Being treated like dupes.
    Have either of you contributed to the carbon exchanges, swapping money for carbon use or credits?
    If so, I know you must feel foolish, but at some point just stop it. We make mistakes too, we just know when to fess up and admit we were taken.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 24, 2009 @ 1:34 pm - November 24, 2009

  32. I for one bet all the polar bears are jumping for joy right now. Realizing that they really aren’t going to become extinct, they must be thrilled.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — November 24, 2009 @ 1:35 pm - November 24, 2009

  33. And our warm period, far from being a “hockey stick”, is not yet as warm as the Medieval Warm Period.”

    That is not true. We are currently at or above the high of the MWP. The claims to the contrary are based on making averages of the global temperature for the 20th century and claiming that that is where we are now. The early part of the 20th century was cool, and the rise was rapid – so the average is below the MWP, but the actual current temp is above.

    “Meanwhile, the evidence for CO2 as the causal agent is weak.”

    It is not weak at all. The greenhouse effect is one of the least controversial aspects of this issue.

    ‘CO2 increase has *lagged* Earth temperature increases by several hundred years. ”

    In one series of ice core data. Which demonstrates what? That CO2 is not the only factor that can ever cause warming? Well, duh…
    Here is an explanation” LINK

    “Whatever greenhouse influence it has on temperatures is tiny and trivial, as it is vastly outclassed by other greenhouse gases such as water vapor.”

    First of all, CO2 effects are NOT trivial relative to water vapor. And, to state the obvious, we are not digging up water from fossilized reserves, and then vaporizing it into the atmosphere. In other words, we are NOT adding to the levels of water vapor that already exist in the natural water cycle. We ARE adding carbon from fossilized deposits – carbon that has not been part of the surface-atmosphere carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. In other words, it is “new’ carbon being pumped into the cycle. If we were somehow manufacturing “new” water vapor and pumping it into the atmosphere, then it would be a problem too. But the water we use is water that is already in the surface-atmosphere system.

    “Arctic Ice is still with us and if anything, getting thicker”

    No it aint. LINK

    Finally, I must congratulate you on a new theory. The blame-Margaret Thatcher argument. Wow. Just wow.

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - November 24, 2009

  34. Except the highest compared to the MCA, was in the late 1940′s link

    Oh look, Tano’s wrong, again.

    “Looking at the graph of their data, the peak warmth of the Medieval Climate Anomaly appears to be about 0.7°C warmer than the last decade or so of the 20th century, but only about 0.25°C warmer than the peak warmth of the 20th century, which occurred in the late 1940s for both their reconstructed temperatures and their instrumental data, which are essentially identical over most of the 1900s”

    Oh here’s some other reference to book cooking link.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - November 24, 2009

  35. “So in Tano land (and SOME crazy scientists):”
    (emphasis mine)
    Since when does SOME = 97% of climatologists and 82% of all scientists?

    “So the libs lied about global warming”
    Since when is global warming a lib vs conservative issue?
    Its SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS who are talking about global warming.

    Its not a left wing issue. Its a SCIENCE issue.

    Good gravy…you guys have lost it….

    Comment by gillie — November 24, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - November 24, 2009

  36. ‘Suddenly you’ve gone from AGW to just plain GW.”

    No I havent. If ever I write GW in the course of these discussions, you can assume I mean AGW.

    If you ever want to get past the level of loony talking points and actually understand such “issues” as “global warming” on Mars, well here is a start…LINK

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 2:07 pm - November 24, 2009

  37. “Oh look, Tano’s wrong, again.”

    Livewire,
    Why do you play these stupid games. You give us a report on a study of the climate of Central Chile, and, of course, you don’t label it as such, and try to con people into thinking that this is data relevant to global temperature?

    You are such a typical rightwinger. I know, I have spent years arguing with creationists too. Same MO – constantly distorting, cherry picking, doing everything they can to avoid confronting reality.

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 2:13 pm - November 24, 2009

  38. And Tano, you’re an expert on central/south America, as your track record on Honduras shows.

    Try reading this, yell upstairs to ask your mom to help you with the big words.

    You said that we were warmer than the MCA. I posted data showing that we (meaning the earth) weren’t.

    Do you remember that little blue ball with all the splotches on it? It’s called a globe if you look, you can see that South America is on the globe. So again. You’re wrong.

    And you can’t refute the warming of the bodies cited. I even gave the therories given that require 5 different events to be happening at once.

    There’s this thing called Occam’s Razor. No it’s not what you’ve watched your dad shave with. It means the simplest answer is most often the correct one.

    So we have five different coincidental events, or the big glowing ball of plasma.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 2:23 pm - November 24, 2009

  39. from tano’s link “Almost certainly regional warming.”

    Heh

    “Almost certainly the earth is flat.”

    “Almost certainly polar bears are dying”

    “Almost certainly there’s man made global warming.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 2:25 pm - November 24, 2009

  40. Tano & gillie — You both need to read something more than the DNC Talking Points that you are paid to read.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — November 24, 2009 @ 2:29 pm - November 24, 2009

  41. ” both need to read something more than the DNC Talking Points that you are paid to read”

    FINIALLY the fundlemental flaw in the conservative mindset is revealed.

    Its not the DNC but the vast majority of scientists on planet earth.
    Get that through the thickness of your partisin brian.
    Not liberal v conservative.

    But Science.

    thanks for clearing that up for us Bruce.

    Comment by gillie — November 24, 2009 @ 3:03 pm - November 24, 2009

  42. “I posted data showing that we (meaning the earth) weren’t. ”

    No you posted data about Central Chile, which happens to be a very very tiny percentage of “the Earth”.

    “And you can’t refute the warming of the bodies cited.”

    I didn’t try to. I gave you an explanation for Mars, just to get you going.

    ‘There’s this thing called Occam’s Razor. … It means the simplest answer is most often the correct one.”

    Actually, no it doesn’t. Occam’s Razor is the principle that the simplest hypothesis should be preferred, all else being equal. Its because simpler explanations are more powerful. Being simpler means they are more general, and that they therefore explain more things. There is no expectation that they are necessarily more correct because they are simpler. One always will prefer the complex explanation, if it is correct, than a simpler explanation that is wrong.

    Comment by Tano — November 24, 2009 @ 3:06 pm - November 24, 2009

  43. Thousands of scientists over decades have been involved in a vast scheme to achieve nebulous aims.

    Follow the money.

    And just who are these “thousands of scientists” any way? Are we supposed to be impressed?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 24, 2009 @ 3:17 pm - November 24, 2009

  44. “the vast majority of scientists”

    no, maybe half, but not vast majority

    you cant say “only serious peer reviewed published scientists” when you get editors fired for printing the “wrong” thing, or cheery pick peer reviewers who already agree (which defeats the purpose of peer review)

    You see the same thing in physics with string theory. If you don’t believe in String theory, you don’t get tenure, you don’t get published, you can’t get government grants, and finally find yourself out of a job.

    Kuhn wrote about this a long time ago. I don’t know why some people contnue to subscribe to their ideology instead of admit scientsts are flawed, not just scientists who believe the “other” side.

    Anyone who thinks only corporate money corrupts does not understand how vast the amount of money government grants provide, and how they are assigned. In 92 Gore made sure ZERO dollars would be handed out to scientists exploring IF AGW is true, only to ones who were proving it IS true. When you have that amount of money, it is of course corrupting and influential. It is exactly what Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago: mixing government and scientific research.

    Who cares which of the many sides is right, what we should care about is science and the preservation of independence of scientists from outside influences, and the scientific method: which is peer review by SKEPTICS, sharing raw data so others can recreate your results. Without those two, your paper is not worth what it is printed on, no matter how reputable you are.

    Comment by plutosdad — November 24, 2009 @ 3:38 pm - November 24, 2009

  45. This explains Tano now. He’ll prefer the hopelessly complex to the simple truth.

    “All these things have to coincidentally be happening at the same time, or it’s the sun.”

    “Yeah, amazing all those coincidences happen at once, isn’t it?”

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 24, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - November 24, 2009

  46. A “vast number of scientists” and important World leaders have supported lots of ultimately-false theories;
    – The Earth is the center of the Universe.
    – The superiority of the White Race.
    – Nothing can exceed the speed of sound.
    – Nothing can exceed the speed of light.
    – That nothing is smaller than the atom.
    – The germs and bacteria don’t cause disease.
    – That there’s no-such-thing as the “gay plague” or AIDS.

    And did in the past, and still do support;
    – Creationism.
    – That AIDS doesn’t exist.

    Just because an idea or theory is popular or prevalent doesn’t make it correct.

    Comment by ted B. — November 24, 2009 @ 4:28 pm - November 24, 2009

  47. The whole thing is lefties mounting a vast “argument from authority”. You would think that, with their “Question Authority” bumper stickers, they’d know better. Or at least know that others will see right through them.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 24, 2009 @ 5:02 pm - November 24, 2009

  48. The question they ask Authority is “…what do you want me to believe?”

    When the first built the new Guangdong Intl. Airport, they had a little trouble with the English translations. The Information counter had a big sign reading “Question Authority’.

    Or, as the USMC Drill Instructor said,”…when I want to hear your opinion, I’ll issue you one.”

    Comment by ted B. — November 24, 2009 @ 9:00 pm - 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.

0.296 Powered by Wordpress