Flopping Aces threads on global warming invariably strike the debate chord. They are a study in one-upmanship, chock full of quotes from supporting links, studies and articles. But our debate always suffers from one fatal flaw… that is the starting point of our respective opinions.
Our commonality is we all believe the climate is, and always has, changed. The disagreement begins when we discuss whether that change is significantly connected, or caused by man releasing gaseous emissions into the atmosphere.
In this respect, I felt it a worthy post to dedicate a thread to the so-called “consensus” on AWG (or Anthropogenic Global Warming)… or also oft put as “settled science”. And for this, I give a big H/T to Mike’s FA thread, Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust”, which has endured days of lively and, for the most part, civil debate.
Also, H/T’s to both commenters Dave Noble and Aye Chi, inspiring me while trading good-humored barbs about “consensus”. Or perhaps best summarized by Dave on that thread as:
Your closing statement is a dogmatic assertion because it is unsupported by facts. Similarly, it is now up to you to provide supporting facts, or to knowingly fail to do so. Otherwise our conversation degenerates into a meaningless (and boring) do-loop of:
“There is a scientific consensus”
“No, there isn’t”
“Yes, there is”
“No, there isn’t”
That was post #17, and by the time post #88 (as of this composition) had been completed, the challenges were met, more made, and arguments arose based on which source was deemed more expert, and thereby more credible.
Voila… da lightbulb appears – and not the compact fluorescent version. Just why is it none of us can agree on this simple starting point for debate? I’m going to use many of Dave’s cogent points because they bring up some of the base points of contention. Not pickin’ on ya, guy.
i.e. Dave Noble exudes great confidence in this “consensus” belief by saying:
The Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.
Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.
I’m not sure what standards Dave has for these institutions over another. But if it’s supposed to be based on unbiased conjecture, or where they derive their funding, then that’s where I’m going to battle. I’ve learned enough over time on what institutions do to placate those who deliver grants. Bias, when it comes to financial survival of institutions, runs both ways.
And as you can see by my post’s title, I not only believe there is NO “consensus” or “settling” of the science, but I’m extremely un’settled that a premature decision has been made… signed, sealed, delivered – case closed. Darken the theatres and run the trailers. No late comers are allowed entry…
Indeed, there is a very disturbing pattern that shows any debate on previous data is being deliberately thwarted and/or quashed, and nothing new is allowed to be added.
My brief mention of this censorship was, perhaps, misunderstood… construed by Dave as “conspiracy”. First off, I’m not speaking of our own lay debates, but public disclosure of the ongoing battles between the experts even now. And conspiracy isn’t the word I would use. The lack of credibility given to opposing views is boldy overt and deliberate – far from conspiratorial. They can afford to be bold, because they have orchestrated a very successful propaganda and intimidation campaign which allows them, obviously, to be above question.
Dave does say he will “trust the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process. Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.” It is from this old school belief in the separation of science, ideology and politics that I begin an ugly tale of intimidation and censorship. Or perhaps better put, the morphing of the science community into political and policy activists.
Robert M. Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote the best one-stop-shopping article on this intimidation campaign in March 2007. So I’ll use this as the focal point, and add supporting data from there.
And our first jumping off point will be the obvious… Yes, I am anticipating the cry of “foul” by using a man who’s expertise as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist also happens to be invaluable in research for oil exploration and extraction.
So first up is the intimidation/McCarthyism campaign: vilifying the naysayers as biased sources.
For the treatment of global warming “skeptics” has long been characterized by attempts to discredit their views and challenge their integrity using ad hominem attacks. In particular, there is an absolute obsession with allegations that industries or interest groups may be paying or offering non-monetary inducements to climate skeptics.~~~
Mr. Mooney, the AGU, and bedfellows like George Monbiot and Ross Gelbspan, completely miss the point that truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.
George Monbiot, author of the novel, Heat, runs an activist campaign using both website and internet media against what he calls “climate criminals”. One such example of his accusations includes his 8 minutes YouTube video, assailing advertisements or studies who benefited from Exxon funding.
Again, Mr. Carter’s statement bears repeating:
…. truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.
Note that Monbiot doesn’t dispute the actual information, but merely casts sinister shadow over the source of funding.
Instead of addressing the science itself, believers merely cause a diversion, playing on the int’l sport of “hate big oil” – passing the suspicion buck to deflect from the science presented…
Mr. Carter rightly points out:
They remain oblivious to the obvious fact that their own motives are suspect in proportion to the estimated US $50 billion of public research money that has been allocated to “global warming” investigations since about 1990, not to mention the additional hundreds of millions that have been spent on climate lobbying by NGOs. Why should it be supposed that the directors of supercomputer laboratories and environmental NGOs do not have motives every bit as venal as the senior managers of big business?
Approx 2:30 minutes into the video, Monbiot speaks with a member of the Royal Society of London, who mentions a letter they sent to Exxon requesting them to cease and desist funding of organizations that:
“…misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of
the evidence …., or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change”.
This letter, written by Bob Ward, Communications Director for the Royal Society, was not well reported to the lay persons via the MSM. But it certainly sparked worldwide protests amongst the professional community for their attempts at censorship, as noted in a comment by another demonized entity, the Marshall Institute.
That such a call comes from such a venerable scientific society is disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion of our most challenging environmental issue – climate change”.
From Mr. Carter’s paper:
Bob Ward explained it was never the Society’s intention to shut down legitimate debate, but rather to ensure that public discussion be conducted solely on the basis of published and peer-reviewed scientific papers. Coming from a primary gatekeeper to that literature, this is lese majeste of the first order, peer-reviewing being more of an editorial quality control procedure than it is a guarantee of scientific correctness. Witness the repeated failures by journals as prestigious as Science24 and Nature25 to conduct rudimentary data checking for papers that they publish, or to detect conflict of interest26 or outright fraud. They also maintain a rigid politically correct bias in their editorials28, and in the choice of comments and criticisms that they publish on climate change. Therefore, an insistence on the use of peer-reviewed literature only does indeed shut down necessary debate.
Not getting the message that intimidation by authority is an abhorrent form of censorship, US Senators Rockefeller and Snowe composed a similar letter to Exxon in Oct of that year, aping the Royal Society’s mockery of liberty. And Australia’s Labor Shadow Minister for Public Accounting embarked on his own witch hunt, writing a letter to leading Australian companies stating:
“global warming is happening, it is man-made, and it is not good for us”. He continued “I am writing to ask whether your company has donated any money to the Institute for Public Affairs, the International Policy Network, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the European Science and Environment Forums or any other body which spreads misinformation or undermines the scientific consensus concerning global warming. If your company has donated such money in the past, is it continuing to do so? If so, I request that your company cease such financial support”.
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.
When powerful political authority figures start applying such intimidation to private enterprise and the opposing scientific community – and the media isn’t atop it screaming about censorship at the top of their collective voices – even businesses and experts not in their cross hairs have to think twice if they are able to withstand such pressure and financially survive. After all, by school yard rules, if you can beat up the bully in the ‘hood, the most vulnerable are apt to fall in line for you without so much as a whimper.
Up to the 1950s, the Royal Society of London used to advertise in its Philosophical
Transactions that “it is an established rule of the Royal Society … never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art, that comes before them”. Leaving such old-fashioned integrity behind them, the modern involvement of national science academies in the policy-setting process has led, quite inevitably, to their political corruption.
Times truly have changed when science academics gain such political involvement and power.
And those that oppose? Fall in line they will, for they know the butter for their bread in the form of grants or government funding can – and will – be withheld. [UPDATE: Otherwise where will they get their grant money to study cow farts and their effect on global warming?] It becomes the height of irony to know one of the lone hold outs demanding further debate is the Russian Academy of Science.
One also cannot discount the power and influence of advocates with personal financial interests in AGW… never better exemplified than by Al Gore’s mega bucks enterprise, along side of a plethora of other green businesses cropping up to take advance of the “settled science”.
For every accusation of “biased sources” leveled by believers, none can be a more powerful counter than the IPCC and the UN as the consummate benefactors – for it is they who have the most to gain. With the implementation of their stated goal of integrating “the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources” comes centralized, one world governing power over the world’s economy and energy demands.
Now that the “settled science” is blessed by the one world power, an overhaul of global mandates is required as the cure. The believers pursue that agenda with a vengence, mowing down any who get in the way of the path by using legal intimidation, harassment, censorship, bias in the media, and some ol’ fashioned McCarthyism. Thus the debate, for all intents and purposes, must now be halted at all costs.
Mr. Carter’s report is filled with instances where media has refused to run articles by skeptics, only to surplant those still using older, debunked data – even the flawed Hockey Stick curve. Even smaller towns have the censorship and bias. The editor of the Middlebury VT community network, James A. Peden, experienced the same rejection by his local paper, the Addison Independent in Dec 2007…. Two weeks later the paper opted to publish a believer version from another novice who’s report was considerably less complete. (Mr. Peden has quite the article and graphics at the link above.) You will find letters and emails from scientists all over the world, complementing him on packaging the data:
Even for scientists your article is more convincing than many of the truly peer-reviewed science papers, and I have sent it to a number of my meteorologist and climatologist friends….”
( Whose past affiliations include the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, the Univ of CO, Department of Astrogeophysics, Tycho Technology, and the UCLA Physics Department. He was also NOAA’s public face for Technology Transfer, giving testimony to the U.S. Senate Science and Technology Committee. )
Documentaries prepared for cable are better labeled “crock-umentaries”, or “disaster porn” by Chuck Doswell – a weather scientists who has aided production companies on severe weather subjects, saying they:
“have the story written before their research even begins. They’ve decided the “angle” the story is going to follow, and nothing I say or do seems capable of swaying their determination to produce the story that way. The goal of the production crew’s “research” ….. is to film soundbites … they can use to back up the story as it has been written. They are definitely and consistently not seeking to understand the story first on the basis of what they learn by interviewing me. I’m simply there to give credibility to their story”.
Hollywood is, of course, an entity unto it’s own. As the adage goes, alarmism sells. And this simple economic factor makes skepticism highly unattractive as any media story line. Read more of the media bias, all of which starts on pg 6 of Carter’s paper.
California AG, Bill Lockyer’s – along with the Sierra Club and the Nat’l Resources Defense Council – lodges a lawsuit against the six largest US/Japanese auto makers for damages to the envirornment. California Bill wants cash for sundry AGW sins, such as reduced winter snows, coastal erosions, ozone pollution, etal… then files for pre trial discovery for *all* communications between the auto makers and 18 high profile skeptics.
The intent is clearly twofold. First, a fishing expedition for material that might be useful for the state in pursuing its case. And second, a warning shot across the bows of all climate skeptics that they speak on this issue, in private let alone in public, at their own peril.
The lawsuits are not stopping there. That shot over the bow is causing many a business and scientist to pay close attention to the repercussions of speaking out.
Intimidatory legal threats of the Lockyer type have started to mount against the oil, electric power, auto and other companies whose emissions can be alleged to be linked to “global warming”, with at least 16 cases pending in U.S. federal and state courts. In Mississippi, a class action has been mounted against literally dozens of companies for damages for destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, the power of which is alleged to have resulted from these companies pumping the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases.
As Dave Nobel said above, he trusts “the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process. Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.”
Perhaps that was so in the past. But today’s reality is the Royal Society keeps a tight grip on the publications and peer review process, and even steps boldly into the fray, not hesitating to attempt censorship. This quasi-scientific “consensus” is achieved not by ongoing, open and public vetting by experts, but instead is politically orchestrated thru the IPCC.
Instead of maintaining their professional distance from ideology and the politics of policy, the science academies have turned into activists – jumping headfirst into helping form political policy at national and international levels:
By giving false assurances that a “consensus” exists on human-caused global warming, or indeed on any other disputed science issue, and by attempting to inhibit public debate, these bodies betray the very foundations of their existence.
Besides the attempts at intimidation and censorship by the Royal Society, the US Senators, and Australia’s Public Accounting minister, two recent US studies by science academies (The Nat’l Academy of Sciences and the Climate Change Science Program) issued Executive Summaries that contained “egregious” disparities between what was issued to the press, and what was contained as scientific evidence in the study’s text. Mr. Carter deems this “Frisbee science” becoming “public reality”.
This 39 page published (and ignored) paper contains much much more than I can cover here. The “new religion” with churches jumping on the bandwagon. The blatant campaign to orchestrate “behavioral change”. How much of the effects are indistinguishable from human “noise”. And why is the largest contributor of greehouse gases, water vapor, not included in IPCC’s neatly packaged facts. So many other places the link to link research took me in my cyber travels. But I’m already long in presentation.
Instead I focused only on the bold campaign to silence opposing scientific viewpoints, labeling them as not credible. This very bold effort to slam the door shut on debate… despite new empirical data being introduced daily… is more than troubling. Indeed if the evidence is so strong as to be obvious and scientifically unchallenged, why are the ranks of the skeptics growing? And why are the efforts to silence from highly placed authorities so patently oppressive?
Considering our climate is again trending colder… a much more dire environment for human suffering than heat… just what is the rush to restructure the world’s economics under a global warming mandate? After all, if time shows we must actually plan for global cooling in our more immediate future instead, our efforts may well be sorely misplaced.
Mr. Carters final words ring in my ears:
Attempting to “stop climate change” is an extravagant and costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation to climate change as it occurs, irrespective of its causation.
Considering the economic impacts of traveling the path the global believers advocate, we would all be wise to eye their rush for mandated and expensive “change” warily.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
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.
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…
He also says, “Obie Boom KaBoobie . . . Damn, I can’t stop laughing.” Which is particularly sad, because the joke is on him.
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.
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.
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.
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.
COVER UP? WHAT COVER UP?
UPDATE: Here’s a wonderful example I just found on the problems with “peer review,” written by a Nobel laureate in Particle Physics …
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!
Gotta love the Michael Crichton comment on “scientific consensus” in his CalTech speech linked at the bottom:
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.
“So, of course, he’s a “credible nobody” in the science world.”
LOL So goes the ad hominem “wisdom,” anyway.
The guy’s a genius. “Aliens Cause Global Warming?” is one of my favorites.
BEHOLD THE “ARK OF HOPE”
…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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Dave, sorta a waste of time presenting ways to portray Crichton as a credible nobody since my last two sentences say it all..
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.
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
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.
So Dave says there is no intimidation and that only climatologists should be heard.
then explain this http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
Yes, Bill C. He was one of the examples I gave in my post above… or as I said:
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.
“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” — Dave Noble, IPCC sycophant
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.