This guy is such a jerk. By his own estimation he has no right to blather on the way he does, …talk about “hubris!”

Any intelligent (leaves Dave Noble out) person (verdict pending) can weigh in on the topic, as long as he does it thoughtfully. But Dave says you can’t UNLESS you are “involved in research into global climate,” which he clearly is NOT. So, if he thought enough of his own advice, he would keep it and shut up. But, noooo. He’s a Lefty through and through…. “do as I say, not as I do”

His hypocrysy, not to mention arrogance and stupidity, is off the charts.

Actually, since the public policies will effect us so profoundly, anyone who doesn’t think about this, and form an educated opinion on it (not servilely adopt a position based on emotion), is irresponsible.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The meaningless verbiage that wafts through their empty little heads is to thought, as free fall is to flight.

Our Oregon climatologist, George Taylor, was stripped of his title last year by Gov. Kulongoski… refusing him to be allowed to be called the “State Climatologist” because of his status as a skeptic. He quietly retired this year, but not without rumors of him being publicly scorned and mocked.

Evidently Ted “Who??” Kulongski was a tad embarrassed by his debate with the WA State climatologist, who presented the pro-AGW side, while Taylor dissented. Since OR State (read, Ted….) subscribes to AGW, this just didn’t fit with his plans. However I am an Oregonian, and Ted “Who?” doesn’t speak for me.

This is locals thwarting the AGW dissenters. There are also US Senators and Australian government officials who have also engaged in intimidation tactics on private business, telling them who they may and may not donate cash to.

As I said, all part of the “popular support” and “global solidarity” quest.

So, of course, he’s a “credible nobody” in the science world.

But frankly, he couldn’t be more right on with his comments.

You continue to suggest the limited focus on climatologists as the last word experts only. Why you do that makes no sense… that’s like concentrating on the flu, and not using the experts who do bloodwork and study the evolution of flus to determine that cause of that particular strain.

I will say this again. Climatology is a study of the results. The various events leading to that result involve many areas of expertise… from chemistry, physics to solar, astrophysics, to geology, stratigraphy, etc. And I’m sure there are many more of which I am unaware. It is the various nuances of converging events of all these in a moment of time that creates the result that climatologists see.

INRE the peer process that you don’t believe engages in censorship.

I never said the peer review process was exhibiting censorship. If the article in question didn’t pass the process, the likely explanation is that is was scientifically inadequate.

Really now, Dave… since science is not an absolute, how can one scientist – holding one view that is not provable as absolute – honestly evaluate a dissenting view and claim it was “scientifically inadequate”? But then again, that’s as good excuse as any. Obviously they can’tsay they are censoring opposing viewpoints in order the achieve “popular support” and a “global solidarity”. Remember those UN words, for I shall pound them into the threads at every opportunity to make everyone aware.

As Crichton says, “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” To make such an observation does not require an experise in climatology. It merely requires an astute observation of history. And IMHO, it’s spot on the money.

And thank you for the apology of accusing me of being a Libertarian. I’m actually a confirmed Indy, myself, but register as GOP to have some say (ha… not in OR) in a primary. But I am like most people… a potpourri of beliefs that do not make a true blue anything. Especially since neither of the two major parties resemble their “platforms” in practice.

But the AMA is not a government creation like the FDA. I don’t advocate abolishment of such oversight departments, but I do advocate for an overhaul to eliminate the waste and inefficiency. The AMA is like any other association… a special interest group with lobby power. Our medical system is an entirely different subject, and I’m not willing to go there on this thread. But if I were you, I wouldn’t be placing any bets on my choices of medical treatment with a cancer diagnosis… Don’t want to see you lose any hard earned cash. LOL

The bogus carbon trading system you refer to is based on a sulfur dioxide emissions trading system that has virtually eliminated acid rain.

Incorrect. The trading system I refer to is the EU cap and trade system which addresses *only* carbon dioxide emission for selected large industry and utility sectors. Other greenhouse gases are not included in the ETS system. You’re thinking of the US 1990’s Clear Air Act which established the SO2 system. This was the model the EU decided to base it’s ETS on…. doesn’t translate so well economically and globally for a variety of reasons.

The reduction in acid rain as a result of the CAA is realistically skewed by the number of corporations who’ve left the US for more pollution regulation friendly digs for economic survival. Eliminate the amount of polluting businesses and it certainly going to bring down the effect, right?

Enter the rallying cry of “outsourcing”… a popular way to say that our EPA, OSHA and union requirements tend to make US industry and manufacturing cost prohibitive at worst, and uncompetitive at best. Of course, outsourcing isn’t new – been a slow, steady migration since the 70s, starting with steel. Unfortunately, on a global scale cap and trade, there’s no where left to run. If you aren’t profitable, you’ll just disappear… along with your services and potential tech advances.

But I’m off topic here… sorry.

I few words on Michael Crichton. First he is not a scientist. He is a doctor, a writer, and a producer of television and movies. There is no doubt he is a very bright man with impressive academic credentials. But his view on scientific consensus is his personal opinion, no less, no more. His comments re: reproducible results are inapplicable to AGW and other points of scientific consensus like evolution, the Big Bang explanation of origin of the universe, and astrophysicists’ understanding about black holes. In none of these cases are reproducible results possible.

A note on his role at MIT: He was the Visiting Writer (you did say that). Please also note he is not even a science writer, he is a fiction writer. His book “State of Fear” is a novel in which his hero expresses views strongly skeptical of AGW. To assume they are in anyway authoritative is like assuming that Dan Brown’s hero in The DaVinci Code accurately believes that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and established a bloodline.

What Michael Crichton undoubtedly is not is a climatologist. He is obviously a man of great energy. But with his prolific novel writing and active participation in the entertainment industry, there is no way he could possibly keep up with the latest developments in climatology, when others devote their entire lives and energies to this discipline.

To paraphrase my earlier comment: I go with the pros. And BTW, I “revere” no individual or organization. I simply trust the credentials of some individuals and organizations over those of others. It seems to me that is a prudent policy.

First off, scientific credentials, please.

Any personal participation in that flawed peer review process that would give you first hand experience?

What scientist worth his salt would rely on the unvetted overtly politically-biased sources you cite? Would you cite them in a master’s thesis at an accredited institution of higher learning. (especially the one by “Anonymous”). I can assure that if you did you wouldn’t get your thesis approved.

Any scientists you know that participate in challenges for money?

Was I sarcastic about your sources? As sarcastic as I could be, because they were embarrassing and you put them out there like someone showing off their prized possessions or like they were missiles to hurl at me. It is a comment both on your judgment and scientific rigor that you would rely on those paltry references.

Unless you are a practicing climatologist currently involved in research into global climate, it is the height of foolhardy hubris to believe you can adequately evaluate the evidence for and against AGW. I humbly leave that to the experts. You should do the same.

All processes are flawed, but a flawed process is preferable to the anarchy of unvetted sources. Similarly our criminal justice system is flawed, but it beats the hell out of vigilante justice. I never said the peer review process was exhibiting censorship. If the article in question didn’t pass the process, the likely explanation is that is was scientifically inadequate. The list of organizations I find you don’t trust seems to be growing, Mata: the UN, the Congress, the Supreme Court (except when your side wins), major scientific organizations. Who do you trust?

I left out the AMA. I am sincerely sorry about your nephew. Does the AMA make mistakes? Yes. Does the criminal justice system convict innocent people? Yes. Has the Supreme Court ever made any bad decisions? Without a doubt. But again it beats the hell out of no system at all.

That’s the problem with libertarians, of which I suspect you may be one, at least in terms of philosophy. If I’m wrong, I apologize. A recent Libertarian party Presidential candidate advocated abolishing the FDA. Does the FDA make mistakes? You bet. Is their inspection system sometimes woefully lax? Roger, on that. But I for one don’t want to go in the grocery store with my own personal meat testing system that I bought online and test my ground beef before I buy it. In modern society we are inevitably at the mercy of those with the resources and expertise to do things beyond our capabilities. You gotta trust somebody. Again you need to vet those you trust, before you invest your trust in them.

God forbid you are diagnosed with cancer, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts you’d find out what the cutting edge treatment is and seek it out rather than go home and do yoga and eat more legumes.

The bogus carbon trading system you refer to is based on a sulfur dioxide emissions trading system that has virtually eliminated acid rain.

Finally,

“So it may be only my opinion, but I have greater faith in my “stuffin’s” being open to both sides of the issue than I have in yours.”

Yes, it is only your opinion and of course you have greater faith in your “stuffin’s” than mine because they’re yours and mine are mine. May you and your stuffins be well.

…which is designed to house the UN’s COVENANT WITH MOTHER EARTH. 10 “good principles” (socialist commandments) by “leading authorities” for the “betterment” of earth, by controlling what people are allowed to believe.

Oh, no, the UN doesn’t want to manipulate the ideology of mankind. Not at all. And if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell ya, cheap – on special this week for only $25,000.

See my “UPDATE” in post #54 for an EXCELLENT article on the problem of peer review. It will make abundantly clear just how foolish it is to believe it is reliable, even at it’s best. True, it’s better than nothing, but readers still must beware and do their own thinking.

LOL So goes the ad hominem “wisdom,” anyway.

The guy’s a genius. “Aliens Cause Global Warming?” is one of my favorites.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period…

Granted, Crichton is merely a film director/writer… and just a summa cum laude from Harvard with an MD, postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. Plus he taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT. So, of course, he’s a “credible nobody” in the science world.

But frankly, he couldn’t be more right on with his comments.

UPDATE: Here’s a wonderful example I just found on the problems with “peer review,” written by a Nobel laureate in Particle Physics …

If one reads memoirs or biographies of physicists who made their great breakthroughs after, say, 1950, one is struck by how often one reads that “the referees rejected for publication the paper that later won me the Nobel Prize.” One example is Rosalyn Yalow, who described how her Nobel-prize-winning paper was received by the journals. “In 1955 we submitted the paper to Science…. The paper was held there for eight months before it was reviewed. It was finally rejected. We submitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigations, which also rejected it.”

Yet ignorant donkeys like Dave Noble don’t bother to investigate what they believe, and as such they continue making stupid mistakes, just like many a reviewer they implicitly trust because they are too intellectually lazy to think for themselves. Yes, they may string words to gether, and call iit “thought.” But what they do is to thought, as free-fall is to flight.

Save it. It’s a gem!

I seek the best evidence. I rely on certain sources and evidence that has been vetted through the peer review process that has worked for so long and provided us with amazing scientific discoveries.

Yet you have been presented with evidence, and admit that the peer review process is flawed, and is exhibiting censorship. As you said yourself, the article that was being “considered” for peer review has not been published. And this post documents the intimidation thrust upon, and exercised by both institutions and publications for dissenting views.

You are being dishonest. You have stated previously that you do not trust the IPCC findings, because you see them as the camel’s nose under the tent in the UN’s power grab. I suggest that is a reflection of your own political, non-scientific biases. You have also suggested that scientific organizations are driven by money. So it isn’t in your mind all about “is the science sound.”

Incorrect. My lack of trust in the IPCC findings is because they rely only on one side of the AGW presentation and evidence, while concertedly thwarting any attempt to allow the other side equal consideration. Thus the “camel’s nose” for the UN power grab, and the science institutions willingness to cooperate in order to continue to receive funds are a result of the IPCC findings… which are based on only one side of evidence. They have come to a premature conclusion, and all actions after that are to push “popular support” and “global solidarity”. They went after a subject in order to prove an end they pre-decided.

Then I ask you, if this were an issue of my health or that of a loved one, would I trust sources of this quality? Or would I put more trust in the AMA or the American Heart Association?

Unfortunately, you are asking one who has little to no regard for the AMA and what American health care has become since it because an industry run by litigation protection instead of actual health care. That would be the same AMA instrumental in drugging our children in school. The same who’s the biggest drug pusher, dwarfing any drug dealer in the nation. Bad analogy for me, as I’ve had personal experience with the AMA and the state cooperation that culminated in the death of my nephew in his early 30s from an overdose of drugs administered by the AMA and the state.

So I, personally, INRE my health, or more importantly that of a loved one, would find no end to the opinions and research I’d do. And I’d give more weight to homeopathic natural remedies since I believe more in the body’s capability of self-healing more than some of the “cures” today which are either worse than the disease, or create other problems in it’s stead.

The interesting thing is that the vast majority of measures that would effect global warming would also improve the enviroment and reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels.

Those measures to improve environment and reduce dependence on fossil fuels would jump start a lot faster without many of the mandates that are prohibiting them from a faster start up. i.e. the hold up for solar and wind farms based on enviro activists starting lawsuits. (Added: also the cleaner coal burning plants that the UN will subsidize, but NM and Richardson thwart at any turn) Then add all the hub bub about nuke energy, and the impossibility of actually providing clean and affordable energy. Why? Environmentalists, lawsuits, intimidation etc etc. Also they are making many of these cost prohibitive for most all but the very wealthy. Were alternative energies cheaper than fossil fuels, they would have far wider support. But they aren’t. And that’s because they aren’t as efficient.

The bulk of the methods to reduce our dependence and conserve is based on raising the prices to astronomically highs that the common man can’t afford to do anything BUT conserve. Add to that, they want to increase our taxes to fund all this stuff, then charge us an arm and a leg to use it. Another repercussion of the “global solidarity’s” feel good mandates.

Then of course there’s the carbon trading scam… another bogus get rich scheme that does nothing. As I said, their cure is worse than the perceived malady – all of which they blame on man. As Carter said, we would be better off making arrangments to adapt to natural environmental changes… not try to halt them when we are not capable.

So it may be only my opinion, but I have greater faith in my “stuffin’s” being open to both sides of the issue than I have in yours.

Mr. Noble said “I trust scientific institutions because I am not a scientist.” which was pretty obvious from some of his statements. Well, I am a scientist, and that’s why I don’t trust them. I know better. If you think govt., politics is bad, you should see what some of the swelled scientific heads are capable of.

Before the “Big Bang” was accidentally discovered, any cosmologist who proposed it would have been laughed into oblivion. Einstein said his biggest mistake was to suppress that idea because he did not believe it when his own theory predicted it.

As you pointed out, when Mr. Noble can’t wrap his head around even the simplest scientific argument he runs and hides behind his credulous trust of people he doesn’t even know. That’s the definition of a fool.

here’s another link I found with a lot of great info…
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

He also says, “Obie Boom KaBoobie . . . Damn, I can’t stop laughing.” Which is particularly sad, because the joke is on him.

First, Obie Boom KaBoobie. Hey, I checked it out. C-o-ol-, man.

I’ve accused people of grade school humor, but you have managed to set a new low – kindergarten humor.

How long a post do you want, so that I have room to print the evidence on global warming?

Cite to the Report of the IPCC – Oh,no, doesn’t count. They’re trying to take over the world.

Cite to the papers published in Science. Nope, not them either, they’re elitist activists (translate-”scientists I don’t agree with”)

National Academy of Science – Uh-uh, bought off

American Meterological Society – Ditto

American Geophysical Union – Ditto

And while I’m at it, do you want me to provide the evidence for evolution, quantum physics, and the Big Bang theory. These are issues about which there is a scientific consensus and yet there are scientists who dispute these consensus theories or parts thereof.

Now here are your authoritative sources:

A scientific article by one Dr. Robinson on the New American site whose banner reads
“That freedom shall not perish” Now there’s a peer-reviewed scientific source.

An article by someone named “Anonymous” Makes me want to read on. It’s so authoritative the author is confidential (probably hiding from the AGW secret police)

An article by the renowned climatologist Richard Scotese whose objective scientific site has a (Check these out!) link. Is Rich working out of Mom’s basement maybe? His site looks like he does.

Geocraft – What is the basis for the authority of this site? There are absolutely no credentials. The article was written by someone named Monte Hieb. Who is he? Do you know? Maybe you could email him. That’s what you get when you click on his name

A Polish scientist who bills himself as a “conservative physicist” – I didn’t know physicists came in that flavor. I also didn’t know they rendered expert opinions on issues outside of their discipline. Hey, Yon, my proctologist says I need heart surgery, do you think I should get it?

Numerous cites, including one from the notoriously “fair and balanced” Fox News, that trace to the carefully named cited “Junk Science.” As in all those prestigious scientific organizations are engaging in junk science and we’re doing the real stuff.

And last but not least, “the global warming challenge.” What is this a game show or Iron Chef? What’s next the AGW Smackdown?

Yon, I tried to be kind with you, but honestly this is junk. Just like your petition which has a climatologist census of a little over .1% of the signatories.

You need to get out more, Yon. Get your butt out of the conservative blogosphere, take a breath of fresh air and go to a non-biased scientific site (hint, they won’t have “freedom” or “conservative” anywhere on the site)

The Internet is full of sites that will support any position. If you’re not careful, pretty soon you’ll believe in alien abductions.

The truth is out there, but you have to vet your sources.

Obie Boom KaBoobie . . . Damn, I can’t stop laughing.

I trust scientific institutions because I am not a scientist. I seek the best evidence. I rely on certain sources and evidence that has been vetted through the peer review process that has worked for so long and provided us with amazing scientific discoveries. That’s how you avoid “junk science,” not how you create it.

“Yet when faced with significant evidence contrary to your current position, you constantly revert to blind “trust” in scientific institutions as your base argument.. but only those you choose to revere. Again, in this issue it’s not about funding or reputations. It is *all* about “is the science sound”.”

You are being dishonest. You have stated previously that you do not trust the IPCC findings, because you see them as the camel’s nose under the tent in the UN’s power grab. I suggest that is a reflection of your own political, non-scientific biases. You have also suggested that scientific organizations are driven by money. So it isn’t in your mind all about “is the science sound.”

Please note my post to Yon. If this is the quality of the evidence you expect me to consider and the quality of the sources you want me to rely on, excuse me for passing on it. If you doubt my characterizations, which are admittedly written with an edge, please check out the cites yourself.
Then I ask you, if this were an issue of my health or that of a loved one, would I trust sources of this quality? Or would I put more trust in the AMA or the American Heart Association?

The interesting thing is that the vast majority of measures that would effect global warming would also improve the enviroment and reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels. But if you want to wait, you’re entitled to your opinion. Hopefully calmer heads with a long range perspective will prevail.

In my humble opinion, you are not looking at the evidence and the logic. I guess in your world that’s reflects on your stuffins.