Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Satire: The New Treasonous Saboteurs on the Block: Harvard and Princeton!

Satire: The New Treasonous Saboteurs on the Block: Harvard and Princeton!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Most of us learned a long time ago that one's support of someone else's crime makes one an accessory to that crime. Well, now the the TSIC, Treasonous Saboteur in Chief, is in Copenhagen on his campaign to destroy the American Dream, and since we know (thanks to one of the BC Politics editors) that he is indeed a treasonous saboteur, that means that all of us who supported (and continue to support) him are guilty of aiding and abetting treason and sabotage most foul.

Now we can add two of the most prestigious universities on the planet, Harvard and Princeton, to our treasonous ranks. Why? Because they had the bad manners to publish a study supporting the idea of Global Warming (GW) which every right-thinking American knows is a vast left-wing conspiracy, the centerpiece of our grand campaign to turn America into a socialist/fascist/communist/Maoist labor camp. And we're closer to our goal than one might think, because we even stole the sign from the entrance to the Auschwitz Concentration Camp memorial, the one that says "Arbeit Macht Frei", which is German for "Work Makes You Free". Yep! We're a-gonna hang that sign up above the portico of the Lincoln Memorial, yes, that's just what we're a-gonna do!

But I digress. Let's look at the treasonous disinformation campaign being waged by Harvard and Princeton. They claim that their researchers compiled an extensive database of geological sea level indicators for a period known as the last interglacial stage about 125,000 years ago. Polar temperatures during this stage, they said, were likely 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today, as is expected to occur in the future if temperatures reach about about 4 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels. They go on to claim that this will cause the sea level to rise between 20 to 30 feet, and cause the permanent inundation of much of the East Coast (no big loss), NOLA, much of southern Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and of course this would include a whole slew of island nations that don't matter much anyhow.

Yes, Harvard and Princeton have joined the blasphemous ranks of OxfordBeijing University, and the University of Cambridge.  Frankly, I think the governments of the world should treat these universities the way the Bush administration treated federal climate scientists: by censoring their research, warning them against using phrases like global warming or climate change in their articles, or by simply editing their articles to completely change their meanings!

I gotta tell you, the Bush administration really knew what they were doing when they were shutting these traitorous saboteurs up!  In a survey of 1600 government scientists, 43% of respondents said their published work had been revised in ways that altered the meaning of scientific findings. Some 38% said they had direct knowledge of cases where scientific information on climate was stripped from websites and printed reports.

If all right-thinking conservative Americans had their way, the climate scientists and geoscientists who promulgated this climate change claptrap would be hung by the neck until dead, which, of course, is the proper punishment for any traitor. Besides, who needs them anyway? We've got Michelle Bachmann, who in just one article disproved Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, exposed the socialist agenda of CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which built the Large Hadron Collider, and also showed that we are 'just one quantum away from tyranny' under Obama! That's one smart lady, yes she is!

We can't let down our guard, those liberals are insinuating themselves even into the cherished conservative homeland of Texas!  They've even gotten scientists at Texas Tech and the University of Texas to agree with them, even though all conservatives know that only real men and real women go to universities in Texas!  Who knew that there would come a day that traitorous saboteurs would even walk freely down the street in Texas!

But we have no need to fear, the teabaggers are here!  Yes, the teabaggers are standing up against Al Gore and his false gospel of climate change, because they know that slightly increased taxes are a far, far greater threat to humanity than global warming ever could be!  Yes, our teabaggers are real American heroes, exposing the climate change fraud, Obama's real citizenship, and the newest fraudulent poll showing that most Americans don't want the Senate health reform package unless it has a public option.  The poll must be false because it's paid for, at least in part, by those communist/fascist/socialist traitorous saboteurs at the Daily Kos.

Stay vigilant, my friends, and stay true to conservative values, because if Joe McCarthy were alive today to see how Obama's leading America to utter doom, I know he'd be standing in front of the Senate loudly proclaiming, "I have here in my hand a list of two hundred and five [people] who are known to the Republican Party and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Fox News, to be members of the Communist/Fascist/Socialist Party, sometimes called the Democrat Party, and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the United States of America!"

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    How are you doing, Glenn?

    Good to know you’re still active.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Meanwhile Russia’s IEA reveals that the climate data from Siberian stations which the CRU used for their reports on which the IPCC report was based were “cherrypicked” and 75% of the data which didn’t fit the global warming scenario was ignored.

    But carry on with your attempts to distract, Glenn.

    Dave

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yeah, Dave – Harvard and Princeton are both ‘cherry-picking’ data and making up stuff, too.

    All the scientists in the world are fully engaged in the worldwide left-wing conspiracy to promote the climate change myth…and the ONLY scientists you can trust are the ones who are being funded and supported by Big Oil!

    Uh huh, yeah, sure Dave.

  • Clavos

    That academics and universities (especially “prestigious” ones) would offer biased results for their academic endeavors should come as no surprise to anyone. They’ve been doing it for decades, even centuries, and not just in this country.

    Socrates, Galileo?

    Unskeptical/critical acceptance of pronouncements emanating from the academic world is truly baffling.

    As baffling as unskeptical/critical acceptance of pronouncements from Washington (or any other seat of government).

    Or any authority anywhere, for that matter.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos – you are essentially saying that since the VAST majority of academia across the planet and in almost all nations is agreeing on something, they MUST be biased and therefore wrong.

    How very logical, Clavos. Not.

    How long did it take for the scientists of the world to convince people that plate tectonics are real, that general and special relativity are real, that evolution is real? In each case, they faced great resistance – initially from within their own ranks – that these were real. But you and I both know these are real and measurable.

    Clavos, I know you won’t do this (having the intestinal fortitude to question one’s own beliefs is not normally a conservative trait), but I wish that you would ask yourself (and honestly answer yourself) what is the source of your cynicism of what the vast majority of academia is saying. Is your cynicism truly of the science? Or are you cynical of ‘global warming’ because it’s the Democrats who more readily accepted its premise?

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but the IEA (which is a right-wing think tank, BTW, not a climate research organization) did not tell the whole story.

    When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.

  • Clavos

    Clavos – you are essentially saying that since the VAST majority of academia across the planet and in almost all nations is agreeing on something, they MUST be biased and therefore wrong.

    No, I didn’t say anything even remotely like that.

    But unanimity is not, to me, proof of infallibility, which is why I mentioned Socrates and Galileo.

    How long did it take for the scientists of the world to convince people that plate tectonics are real, that general and special relativity are real, that evolution is real? In each case, they faced great resistance – initially from within their own ranks – that these were real. But you and I both know these are real and measurable.

    But irrelevant to the questioning of the putative anthropogenesis of GW and therefore the possibility of mitigating its hypothesized effects, which also should be subject to question.

    And I’m not cynical so much as skeptical, as I almost always am of any authority, religious, political or secular.

  • Clavos

    When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.

    Not according to Ria Novosti, which reports, in part:

    Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    and…

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

    Just sayin’…

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Clav, Ria Novosti is simply reporting the allegations of the IEA, whose ‘analysts’ are the ones whose claims are refuted in the link I provided.

    You’re arguing in circles.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    But irrelevant to the questioning of the putative anthropogenesis of GW and therefore the possibility of mitigating its hypothesized effects, which also should be subject to question.

    – There are close to 7B humans on this planet, the majority of whom use fossil fuels every single day.

    – There are an estimated 600 million vehicles on the road, almost all of which are being used every day, spewing CO into the air.

    – There are over 50 thousand coal plants operating in the world 24/7, and these environmentally-worst-of-all plants add untold tons of CO2 into the air every day. Coal plants account for one-third of America’s total CO2 emissions.

    – Look up in the sky – see the contrails? There’s about 14,000 flights in American airspace every day. In the aftermath of 9/11, when pretty much ALL air traffic was grounded nationwide for three days, the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degree centigrade. And you have to realize that from a layman’s perspective that doesn’t sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

    Clavos, if there’s one thing humanity HAS learned in the past two hundred years, it’s that this world ain’t so big. How anyone can look at the numbers above and think that these might not be having an effect on the world climate as a whole, how anyone can somehow demand further proof, I cannot fathom.

    But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one’s own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.

  • Franco

    10 – Glenn Contrarian – But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one’s own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.

    Pure progressive bullshit!!!

  • Clavos

    But as I stated earlier, having the intestinal fortitude to question one’s own beliefs is not normally part of the conservative mindset.

    Let me see, over the course of my lifetime, I have questioned and rejected the following beliefs with which I was inculcated by my parents and others:

    1. Belief in the existence of a supreme being.

    2. Belief in the existence of souls.

    3. Belief in the hereafter.

    4. Belief in the concept of religion.

    5. Belief in the greatness of this country.

    6. Belief in the inherent goodness of human beings.

    7. Uncritical belief in political dogma, or systems, whether left or right, liberal or conservative.

    …To name just a few beliefs I have questioned over the years.

    Presently, in the absence of convincing (to me) evidence, I question the theory of manmade GW being promulgated by fallible, venal human beings who have already shown their propensity for prevarication, pomposity and exaggeration in promoting their theories.

    “Trust, but verify.”

    - Look up in the sky – see the contrails? Sure, they are condensed moisture (ice crystals) from the aircraft’s exhaust, as well as moisture (water) present in the atmosphere through which the aircraft is flying. Though some have speculated that they could affect temperature of the atmosphere (by generating cloud formation), that has never been proved. Conversely, scientists have tried for centuries to deliberately create clouds and rain, with little success. A one degree change in temperature over three days is hardly remarkable; temperatures rise and fall tens of degrees in a matter of hours as air masses in the atmosphere shift and move about, that’s what weather (as opposed to climate) is all about. Do you have a citation for the attribution of the supposed temperature change to the lack of air traffic?

    - There are over 50 thousand coal plants operating in the world 24/7, and these environmentally-worst-of-all plants add untold tons of CO2 into the air every day. Coal plants account for one-third of America’s total CO2 emissions.

    And yet, historical data indicates that past warmings have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2. CO2 is beneficial to plants, and some scientists are postulating that present day vegetation is healthier and heartier precisely because of increased CO2.

    - There are an estimated 600 million vehicles on the road, almost all of which are being used every day, spewing CO into the air.

    The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Plus CO emissions from the current 600 million relatively clean cars is considerably lower than the emissions from the dirtier but smaller number of cars of a decade or even two ago.

    Dave

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    If the deniers prevail, and they are wrong?
    Well, me and Clav, and Dave, and probably most of us clacking away here at BC, will likely be dead before the consequences are fully realized. So, who gives a crap.

    B

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I do, because I have kids. And one of the things I give a crap about is not leaving them with a crushing burden of debt and fewer liberties than we currently enjoy.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And yet, historical data indicates that past warmings have preceded increases in atmospheric CO2.

    True, but irrelevant in this case. The fact that past CO2 increases have lagged behind climate warmings does not explain why this CO2 increase is accompanied by warming.

    The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.

    You have got to be kidding. It’s the single most important cause, the most observed and the easiest to demonstrate.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave, I hope your kids enjoy their liberties without a liveable biosphere to enjoy them in.

  • Clavos

    The role of CO in contributing to GW has not been determined, and not quantified.

    You have got to be kidding. It’s the single most important cause, the most observed and the easiest to demonstrate.

    Not according to Science Daily:

    It has been difficult for scientists to quantify the greenhouse effect of short-lived pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide, which do not themselves have a significant impact on climate. (emphasis added)

  • Clavos

    The fact that past CO2 increases have lagged behind climate warmings does not explain why this CO2 increase is accompanied by warming.

    Nor does the fact that the present warming is “accompanied” by an increase in CO2 establish a correlation other than a temporal coincidence.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Sorry to disappoint you, Dave, but the IEA (which is a right-wing think tank, BTW, not a climate research organization) did not tell the whole story.

    Actually, the IEA is more of a libertarian group than a right-wing or conservative one. But regardless, why does that disqualify them any more than the various left-leaning environmentalist groups are discredited when they advocate for AGW theory?

    When you actually plug in the numbers from a larger group of Russian stations, the graph correlates pretty closely with the ones the CRU used.

    Source? All the sources I’ve seen have talked about the suspicious omissions, but not so much about the actual data.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    carbon monoxide

    Ah, I misread that one. My apologies.

    Nor does the fact that the present warming is “accompanied” by an increase in CO2 establish a correlation other than a temporal coincidence.

    Natural emissions of CO2 are roughly balanced by the natural mechanisms that absorb them (principally vegetation and the oceans). CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at a much higher level than at any time in the last 800,000 years. Given that it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are churning out billions of tons of CO2 each year, it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions are the cause of warming.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Dave (#20): I provided a source in my #6.

  • zingzing

    “Pure progressive bullshit!!!”

    ahh, shit that moves forward.

    “Actually, the IEA is more of a libertarian group than a right-wing or conservative one.”

    are libertarians now part of the left wing?

  • Clavos

    CO2 levels in the atmosphere are purported to be at a much higher level than at any time in the last 800,000 years, but of course, scientists can only extrapolate (using very subjective computer “models” what the levels were 800,000, or even 200 years ago.

    There. Fixed it for ya, Doc.

    Given that it is known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that humans are churning out billions of tons of CO2 each year, it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions, and what happens to them after their release into the atmosphere require further, completely open, peer and publicly disseminated and reviewed study before concluding that they are the cause of warming.

    Ditto.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    scientists can only extrapolate (using very subjective computer “models” what the levels were 800,000, or even 200 years ago.

    You’re mischaracterising the use of models, Clav. Models are used to predict what should be happening if a certain set of conditions is true. There are models for natural CO2 forcing, for anthropogenic forcing and for a mix of both. (So they are not subjective.) The predictions from these models are then tested against real-world measurements – which for time periods before direct air measurements began are obtained from, among other things, ice core samples.

    The snag for your argument is that no model which does not include human CO2 emissions can account for the pattern of warming we see.

    it is reasonable to conclude that human emissions, and what happens to them after their release into the atmosphere require further, completely open, peer and publicly disseminated and reviewed study before concluding that they are the cause of warming.

    You act as if climate scientists simply make their predictions and then don’t bother to gather any actual data. There are vastly more peer-reviewed studies which support the theory of AGW than there are which doubt it.

    There could, of course, be a global scientific conspiracy to suppress anti-AGW data, but there actually being anthropogenic global warming going on seems to me to be a much more reasonable conclusion – especially since none of the ‘anti’ crowd’s claims stand up to close scrutiny.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    This is what’s so frustrating about dealing with conservatives – you can show them solid proof all day long, and they’ll deny it no matter what.

    I’ve posted before that part of the problem lies in the conservative mindset, in that ‘conservative’ means they are resistant to change, that they prefer to keep things the way they are. This resistance to change in them seems to be sometimes so strong that it becomes their primary goal, and all proof to the need for change becomes suspect…and those who proclaim the need for change are even more suspect in their eyes.

    Now very few will fit this description exactly, but this will apply to most at least to some extent.

    Perhaps I’m wrong…but I don’t think so.

  • Doug Hunter

    “This is what’s so frustrating about dealing with conservatives – you can show them solid proof all day long, and they’ll deny it no matter what.”

    Get over yourself. Your ‘solid proof’ consists of a study that compares NATURAL WARMING of the last interglacial where sea levels “rose for centuries at least two to three times faster than the recent rate” and temperatures “were likely 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than today” (without those horrid SUV’s might I add). If anything, that should put truth to the lie that the climate is in “unprecedented” range.

    The science itself is not some massive conspiracy, but it does have a funding bias and confirmation bias. The problem is that pundits, leftist, and the media take the cautious statements put out by scientists and covert it into doomsday propaganda and bogus political ploys.

    I was reading a UK article on warming and was about to vomit at what the propaganda had wreaked. There were dozens of comments by people literally scared that humanity would become exctinct or civilization destroyed within the lives of their own children or grandchildren if an accord wasn’t reached at Copenhagen. Really? Nine inches of sea level rise (it’s risen 300 feet in the last 10,000 years naturally) and 1 or 2 degrees warming will destroy civilization?

    The left must lie and distort and exaggerate constantly in order to scare people into more big government, global warming gives them an opportunity to do that. I’ll post some quotes from your more enlightened leaders to that effect below.

  • Doug Hunter

    Here are some quotes compiled by another skeptic. Some of these came from the recent leaked emails.

    The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
    Phil Jones email, Feb 2 2005

    “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report, Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
    Phil Jones Director, The CRU
    [cutting skeptical scientists out of an official UN report]

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t …there should be even more warming… the data are surely wrong”.
    Kevin Trenberth, Climatologist, US Centre for Atmospheric Research
    [Confirmation bias in action]

    “…If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish. “
    Phil Jones Director, The CRU

    “We have to get rid of the Mediæval Warm Period” Confided to geophysicist David Deming by the IPCC, 1995
    [Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck, which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response, who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author.]

    “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” Phil Jones Director, The CRU

    ”We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” Professor Stephen Schneider

    “Humans need a common motivation … either a real one or else one invented for the purpose. … In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention so the real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Club of Rome declaration

    “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true…. You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and fund generating machine.” Paul Watson, Co-Founder Greenpeace, Forbes, Nov. 1991

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Get over yourself. Your ‘solid proof’ consists of a study that compares NATURAL WARMING of the last interglacial…

    Doug, that’s exactly Glenn’s point. Instead of addressing the evidence you set up a strawman. If it were just a question of a single study, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. AGW theory is the culmination of over 100 years of observations and research, not something some climate scientist pulled out of his bum.

    The problem is that pundits, leftist, and the media take the cautious statements put out by scientists and covert it into doomsday propaganda and bogus political ploys.

    Bingo. We should be talking about the science. Unfortunately, a large portion of the anti-AGW crowd does not want us to to that, because the science does not support their arguments.

    Really? Nine inches of sea level rise (it’s risen 300 feet in the last 10,000 years naturally) and 1 or 2 degrees warming will destroy civilization?

    Of course the world won’t end. But remember that it was the warming after the last glacial period which allowed civilization to develop. All human modes of living depend on the current mild climate. So yes, even small climatic shifts do put us in grave danger.

    And Doug, the quotes you list are either taken out of context, irrelevant or entirely understandable.

  • Doug Hunter

    Doc, I know more of the science than 99% of the population who do not work in the field. This has been of interest to me since the late 90’s. I spend alot more time reading scientific studies on the subject than commenting on it.

    I can reasonably discuss the mechanism of the greenhouse effects, it major feedbacks, the major temperature proxy data, etc. There’s not enough room in a blog comment or even an article to begin to scratch the surface and I won’t try.

    What I will say is this, that my years of personal research has led me to believe that the danger of the manmade portion of climate change is being completely overblown by the media to sell stories which works hand in hand with those in government who seek to use it to scare the population into granting them more authority and power. In the grand scheme of things, fighting climate change isn’t near the best use of our resources.

    If you’ll open your eyes and look at what is happening, GW is primarily being used as a tool to open the door for global governance by giving the UN the authority to tax. It has tried several methods to get this authority, but GW is the closest yet. The important thing that came from Copenhagen was not any CO2 emissions targets or any reasonable or practical plans to stop GW, but the start of $100Billion/year of transfer payments through the UN and it’s bureacrats.

    You don’t find it feasible at all that the potential lure of $100Billion (and much more in the future) per year might cause an organization to be biased, or fudge some numbers, or maybe draw some conclusions that aren’t fully supported in it’s own report?

  • Doug Hunter

    In case you were wondering why I think this non-‘conspiracy’ exists. Why are those skeptical of the politics drowned out?

    Worldwide there’s $trillions of profits to be stripped from the population for promoting GW as a catastrophe and absolutely nothing to be made by disproving it. (if you think the international energy megacorps won’t share in the trillion dollar pie you know little of how government works. the only losers will be individuals who suffer a lower standard of living)

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doc, I know more of the science than 99% of the population who do not work in the field. This has been of interest to me since the late 90’s. I spend alot more time reading scientific studies on the subject than commenting on it.

    Sorry, Doug, that’s an appeal to authority (yours)! :-)

    You don’t find it feasible at all that the potential lure of $100Billion (and much more in the future) per year might cause an organization to be biased, or fudge some numbers, or maybe draw some conclusions that aren’t fully supported in it’s own report?

    An organisation, yes, possibly. But the theory is based on the observations and conclusions of thousands of scientists worldwide. They do not all belong to the same organisation. Not to mention that the ‘anti’ lobby has failed to show that what you allege has been happening.

    Worldwide there’s $trillions of profits to be stripped from the population for promoting GW as a catastrophe and absolutely nothing to be made by disproving it.

    Really? Nothing? How about being able to continue with business as usual and not having to retool your entire operation so as to comply with new laws aimed at reducing CO2 (etc.) emissions?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I was gonna say that, Dreadful, but it wasn’t my place. So what we’re being asked, in effect, is to accept the original assertion as statement of fact without being provided with an iota of evidence or counter-argument.

    Great going, Doug Hunter. And you thought you weren’t going to be called for that?

  • Cannonshop

    Has anyone supporting AGW actually READ the IPCC report? not the summary, the report itself.

    It’s a LOT closer to what Doug is saying when you get into the actual report, than what you’re supporting from the summary written for politicians.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    So the summary is inaccurate if not downright misleading, is the obvious conclusion.

    Still, there’s nothing else to go by than Doug’s, thus-far, an empty, assertion.

    And you’re not doing any better that piling authority on top of authority.

    Interesting!

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Cannon, if by the IPCC report you mean their latest (4th) annual review, then it baffles me how you can infer from it the conclusions that Doug makes.

    If anything, it is much more cautious than the general consensus we are hearing from climate scientists.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I think you see what I mean – and it’s something that Roger pointed out to me last year, that hard facts and provable evidence simply don’t matter to them, and that a different lever is needed.

    And that’s a hard pill for me to swallow, but as time goes on, the more I see the truth of what Roger said. Instead of using the facts to determine their belief, they use their belief to determine the facts…and it seems that instead of appealing to their intellect, we have to appeal to their emotions instead.

    Perhaps some proof of this is something I noticed some time ago while comparing the websites of MSNBC and Fox News. MSNBC would have more general news, and their news would be more of a worldwide scope. Fox News, however, showed more inclination to give news stories (particularly crimes) of individual scope. What’s more, the stories that Fox posted seemed to be more shocking, more likely to grab someone’s attention on the emotional level.

    I guess it goes back to something they teach in business school – “Marketing is everything. It’s not what you sell, it’s how you sell it.” Which makes me wish there was a poll to see whether liberals or conservatives were more likely to buy pet rocks when they were all the rage.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    You’ve got to win persons, Glenn, not arguments. Once you win persons, you won’t need arguments because of common understanding. That, I think, it what all human communications should aim at.

    And I do thank you for remembering.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Glenn and Roger, you do have a point, sadly: it is far easier to win someone over through appeals to emotion rather than through the presentation of facts.

    Because what happens when you present facts that contradict someone’s beliefs? They question your facts.

    Nevertheless, I do not think you, or anyone rational, should abate the quest for factual truth. If nothing else, it’s far more intellectually satisfying to argue that way.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    That’s assuming, Dreadful, that a human is a rational animal. But that’s debatable.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    And on the subject of whether scientists are pressured to produce results supportive of AGW, the BBC’s environment correspondent looked at the evidence for that claim and found it wanting.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    @ #40:

    Well, a human is certainly capable of acting rationally. But just as clearly, the evolution of certain bits of the brain hasn’t caught up to other bits yet.

  • http://www.indyboomer46.blogspot.com Baritone

    Dave apparently fails to realize when someone is bullshitting. As it happens, I have kids as well. As someone above pointed out – all that freedom won’t mean squat if they can’t breathe the air or drink the water. Sometimes freedom – especially economic freedom – is overrated.

    At any rate there is no reason to believe that responding to the reality of global warming will inherently lead to curtailing freedom. It might cost us some bucks, but that hardly counts as hampering one’s liberty.

    B

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    I think it has more to do, Dreadful, with the different dimensions, reason, will, and values. It’s when they’re uncoordinated that irrationality sets in and reason serves as rationale.

  • Doug Hunter

    “Great going, Doug Hunter. And you thought you weren’t going to be called for that?”

    That’s why I clearly stated it was my belief and that there wasn’t room to go into science detail in a blog comment. There’s alot of steps between demonstrating the absorption spectra of CO2 in the lab and determining the best course of action is to is to redistribute $100 billion / year through the UN. Exactly what return on that investment are we getting? How much will the temperature go down and how long have we staved off catastrophe with those Billions? You guys seem to know everything.

    The reason I appealed my ‘authority’ is due to you and your lefter leaning colleagues constant implication that anyone on the right is non-intellectually curious, impervious to logic, ignorant, irrational, etc., etc. Clearly it didn’t stop you from more of the same, oh well.

  • Doug Hunter

    Doc #41

    Here’s another take on the issue, details regarding just one of the key architects of our response to GW.

    When it’s someone you disagree with, Dick Cheney and Halliburton for example, it’s so easy to see. When it’s your own team… not so much.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Doug, to the best of my recollection I never commented on the whole Cheney/Halliburton saga. There was a lot about it, I remember, in the shriller regions of the left-wing blogosphere, along with the breathless pronouncements from ‘Beltway insiders’ that there was about to be a military coup against Bush, so I left it well alone. I do recall such commentators as Dave explaining to us that bearing in mind Halliburton’s area of expertise there was really nothing sinister about their presence in Iraq, the Cheney connection notwithstanding.

    The same argument could be applied here. Pachauri insists he’s being smeared, but in any case I don’t see how his possible conflicts of interest prove a lack of integrity in the IPCC report.