Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The Global Warming Hoax

The Global Warming Hoax

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Glenn, this one is for you!

The so-called consensus on manmade global warming is facing a very inconvenient challenge. New temperature data, released by Great Britain’s Meteorology Office, showed that the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years, and suggested that we could even be heading for another ice age. Climate scientists said that after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a “grand minimum” in its output. Solar output runs in 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen during its peak output. As they say on TV commercials, But wait! There’s more! E.N. Parker, University of Chicago astrophysicist, said that “there is no immediate answer to our questions” of how to share the blame for global warming. Parker made his comments in 1999. Data released Saturday, January 28, 2012, contradict him. Two questions: (1) Who should we believe, a 13 year old opinion based on his studies, or 30,000 data readings released Saturday? and (2) How did the MSM miss the new temperature release? Said as sarcastically as I can, I guess Saturday was a very busy news day.

But wait! There’s even more! H. L. Mencken once said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” With that quote in mind, let’s further examine anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and CO²‘s so-called contribution. AGW is based on the belief that CO² is a harmful atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures rise as it increases. But (and there is always a pesky ‘but’) CO² is a trace gas that exists in such small quantities in the earth’s atmosphere that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is, at best, silly. CO² comprises less than half of 0.1 percent of our atmosphere, and only 4 percent of that comes from human activity. CO² is a key component in all life on earth; plants need CO² to grow and produce oxygen, and, in turn, feed animals and people, who in turn, consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO². Without CO², nothing could be the color environmentalists worship – green! Warming is good for mankind! Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth’s warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones.

But wait! There’s even more! Dr. David Evans, on January 24, 2012, published this report. I call your attention to pages 2 and 3 of this report. AGW predicted by computer models is absent from real world, observed trends in atmospheric temperature change, as shown by the graphs in this report. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that the US funded almost half the annual budget of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world authority on alleged manmade global warming, with $31.1 million since 2001. And what did we get for all that money? The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, released in 2007, included several errors. It claimed that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035, which the IPCC later admitted was based on inconclusive data. And, according to the GAO, the US has made the world’s largest scientific investment in climate change research, with nearly $20 billion over the past 13 years. That’s $20 billion of wasted taxpayer dollars that could have been spent training workers, providing make-work jobs, paying off underwater mortgages, given to green energy companies that go bankrupt, and all sorts of other utopian ideas.

The world has both cooled and warmed in cycles, but it has not warmed in the past 15 years. This warming and climate change is well within natural variability and explained very easily by changes in the sun, but there is nothing unusual going on this planet. However, the UN and AlGore (not a typographical error) say we should spend billions of dollars on further research and protocols. And even President Barack Hussein Obama has gotten into the act. Preventing non-existent AGW forms the basis for his “green energy” policies and EPA mandates.

But that’s just my opinion..

 

Powered by

About

  • Jordan Richardson

    I’m going to take you far more seriously than I should.

    Two articles you might want to read.

    1. NASA: Global warming caused mostly by humans, an article published January 31, 2012.

    In part:

    “NASA researchers updated calculations of the Earth’s energy imbalance, which is the difference between the amount of solar energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface and the amount returned to space as heat. They found that despite unusually low solar activity from 2005 to 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy (half a watt more per square meter) than it returned to space during that time period.”

    2. Dr. David Evans: born-gain alarmist?

    Do follow the links in that one, as it debunks Evans’ “science” quite consistently. He’s not exactly the most credible source I’d go with, unless you think he’s a good “rocket scientist.” Even then, Evans doesn’t have one shred of peer-reviewed work on climate change to peruse – just lame PDFs like the one linked to in your “article.”

    So Mr. Beatty, you can go with NASA and all the other peer-reviewed material out there. Or you can believe that it’s a big scam intended to fool the entire planet just so that some liberal scientists can get their grubby hands on more money.

    Being that you’re little more than a far-right cartoon character, I can guess which option you find more believable already. Thanks for the chuckle, Bulworth.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    For all, especially the editors –

    I’ve written three, maybe four articles on global warming, and every one of them had (in my opinion) more to do with politics than with the science…but the editors REFUSED to put them in the politics section even after I argued strongly otherwise – especially since articles in the Politics section get much more traffic than those in the Science section. However, when “Sidney and Riley” and Warren Beatty put in articles – which (in their eyes) have more about (what they think is) science than about politics, they went straight to the Politics section.

    Not cool, editors. It smacks of bias. I’m not accusing you of bias, but simply saying that it looked that way.

    Now I know that you try hard to be as fair as you can, and it’s very difficult to do so when there are strong people on both sides – I get it, having done the moderator thing before on a religious blog. You normally do a very good job – but in this instance, you dropped the ball. From now on, please look to see whether the article has more to do with scientific arguments, or more to do with political arguments, and let that difference decide where the article itself will reside.

    Thank you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    The earth hasn’t warmed in 15 years?

    Then why is it that on at least two days this January, the national weather map showed NO PLACE IN CONUS, from WA to MI to MN, that had a high temp below 40 degrees F.? I’ve never, ever seen that before.

    CO2 is a ‘trace gas’?

    The more that should alarm you. A gallon of gas weighs, what, about eight pounds? But when a gallon of gas is burned, twenty pounds of CO2 is exhausted, the extra weight coming from the combustion and chemical reaction in the air used in the process.

    Hm. Half a billion cars operating every day. Every car using probably a tank of gas a week. And this isn’t counting all the ships at sea, all the construction equipment, all the coal being burnt, all the biomass that we have LESS than we did a hundred years ago…Warren, the house of humanity doesn’t come with automatic plumbing to carry our crap away…and sooner or later our crap is gonna make life uncomfortable here.

    But I forget – it doesn’t matter that 98% of climatologists are telling you that there’s a problem, and that the remaining 2% are crackpots or paid by Big Oil or have strong ties to the conservatives. All you know is that if the liberals think something, it must be wrong, no matter how strong the empirical evidence is that they are absolutely right.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, it is pointless to make the point you made in #2 here in the comments space, not least because I doubt many of the relevant editors will ever see it.

    As a BC writer, you know how to contact the editors directly. Please use the proper channel in future.

    Thanks.

    Christopher Rose
    Blogcritics Comments Editor

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Warren –

    I’ll get back to you later today or tomorrow – life is happening right now. In the meantime, why don’t you address the points Jordan made?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    Please note that #2 wasn’t simply to the editors, but to the rest of the BC community as well. The editors might not…but they might. After all, you did.

  • B.Beverley

    I do not belive Global Warming is solely to blame on humans. The industrial age only started in the late 1880’s or 1890’s.It got a big push during world war one and again for WW2. There have been many steps we took today with better filters now then when we first started. This earth we are on has been going on from when life as we know it first began. I think this warming comes and goes in cycles these cycles can last some 150 years or more. Any time someone tells me to listen to me and me only cause I am right and everybody else is wrong. I stay away from, what maybe true today could be all wrong 5 or ten years from know.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Ah, where to begin…

    I suppose it was just a matter of time before Warren started parroting Standard Conservative Position E.

    We can start with this graphic, which rather deftly shows where the cherry-picked graph in the Daily Wail fits in context, and that the reality is the exact opposite of what that respected scientific journal [sarcasm marker] would like its readers to believe.

    Secondly, yes, CO2 is a trace gas, and quite harmless at its nominal atmospheric level. Which, for information, is about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Which, coincidentally, is about the same concentration of alcohol in the bloodstream at which its effects become noticeable in the average human.

    We can go on if you like, Warren…

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Glenn, please note that I am the Comments Editor – I see all comments, but posting your request here is basically just public whining at it won’t achieve the change you are apparently looking for.

    As I said before, use the proper channels.

  • Igor

    CO2 is not an essential component for mammalian life. In fact, excess CO2 is a suffocant, not a poison, but a suffocant. The atmosphere already has about twice as much CO2 as required to sustain current plant life.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    In years past, we had a much larger CO2-loving green biomass – but it’s much smaller now. In years past, all the CO2 came from animal flatulence, wood and charcoal fires (by a much smaller human population), and the occasional volcanic eruption – but now our CO2 output is much more than all that combined.

    We have less green biomass to absorb a much greater CO2 output…which is sorta like putting way more fish food in a goldfish bowl where there used to be two goldfish, but now there’s one. Does all that extra food do the goldfish much good?

    Ah, but I forget – people who agree with 98% of the climatologists and 96% of ALL scientists worldwide (many of whom have careers that are directly affected by climate change, including oceanographers, geologists, botanists, and so forth)…well, any people who would agree with all those scientists are automatically wrong!

    Why? Because the Gospel of Fox News says they are! That’s how we know all the liberals and scientists are wrong!

  • Igor

    Pushing more CO2 into the atmosphere will not increase plant life and thereby enrich human life. The threat to plant life is not lack of CO2 but human desecration, usually for land clearance and increased settlement.

  • Clavos

    The threat to plant life is not lack of CO2 but human desecration, usually for land clearance and increased settlement.

    You forgot wood harvesting, Igor.

    cf: the Amazon basin.

  • Zingzing

    why, clavos… Seems as if you might come around one of these days. Or you’re sting. do you have 7 hours of tantric and do you bleach your hair? I seriously don’t know how you can have both of those things at once, but such is celebrity.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    I once met Sting’s son. He was a friend of my wife’s roommate when she lived in London. At the time, he fronted a band called Santa’s Boyfriend. I think they changed their name after that. Can’t imagine why.

  • Zingzing

    can you imagine what it must be like to be sting’s son? There are probably bits that rock, but only in some sort of way that your mom could get behind.

  • Clavos

    I’m not Sting, zing (that sounds cool!), but I do have a lot of his music…

  • Clavos

    If you zing Sting, he won’t sing…

  • Cannonshop

    #11 So, geological sources don’t create CO2 now, Glenn? (I WAS going to try pointing out to Warren that blindly accepting ANY assertions on scientific matters is a bad idea-whether pro or con, but…gohds, Glenn…here’s a nit and a hint for you: Geosources of CO2 are enormous generators, and they’re frequent generators.)

    FACT: Earth is over 4×10^8 years old (Over four billion years near as we can tell), it has been both warmer, and colder, than it is now, and we’ve only had instrumentalities able to measure LOCAL climate accurately for the last 300 years or so, and accurate to the fine degree necessary to make (short term) predictions only in the last 100 or so years. We’ve had the ability to measure upper atmospheric only for about sixty years, with “Global” coverage only for around forty (at most optimistic projection) years.

    FACT: there’s still shitload we don’t know about how ANY of it works. Plate Tectonics, something accepted as fact today, was Crank theorizing less than a century ago, and still considered “Unproven but likely” less than fifty years ago.

    Fact: Weather bureaus still get projections at distances as short as a week WRONG more often than they are right-the trend is changing, but it’s still only a ‘best guess’ what the weather’s doing tomorrow-and that’s with a lot more accurate data going in, than projections for five to ten years from now.

    FACT: The Climate WILL change, IS Changing, HAS changed, both locally and globally. It’s not a fixed or static system, IT changes with or without people in the mix. It changed before (Long before) there WERE any people in the mix.

    You can’t STOP it from changing. (Hell, for that matter, you can’t be sure the ground you’re walking on is going to stay stable, regardless of where you are. That is ALSO changing, chew on that a bit.)

    Is the climate “warming”? well, the evidence says ‘yes’. We’re still not up to the level it was at in AD 1000 (when Greenland was wheat country and they were growing french wine-grapes in scotland), but that’s not the question, is it?

    The question is whether or not it’s changing because we’re all sinners, who need to repent, or at least, buy Indulgences (Carbon Credits) to pay for our sins.

    And that’s where the question stops being science, and becomes politics.

  • Jordan Richardson

    The question is whether or not it’s changing because we’re all sinners, who need to repent, or at least, buy Indulgences (Carbon Credits) to pay for our sins.

    Who exactly is asking this “question,” Cannonshop?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Yes, the earth’s climate WILL change – but it is STUPID to pretend that the human race can crap in its house (that has zero plumbing) for generations on end and still assume that the house isn’t starting to stink really bad! And I hate to break this to you, Cannonshop, but the climate doesn’t change by magic! It doesn’t “just happen” without any particular effect driving the change! The effect driving the change HAS been identified – and NASA just pointed out yet more evidence of what’s driving the change. The conservative fantasy that humanity can’t be affecting the climate…is STUPID. It’s DUMB.

    How many times have you heard me say ‘stupid’ on BC? Very, very seldom. But it applies here.

    One of the most egregious problems with the conservative viewpoint is the ‘phlogiston effect’, where they say, “well, the scientists were wrong about phlogiston (or plate tectonics or DNA or whatever) before, so that means we can’t trust their word when it comes to global warming!”

    The PROBLEM with your ‘phlogiston effect’ is that you’re forgetting that we have VERY DIFFERENT TOOLS than we once had, the spread of information is incredibly faster than before, today a teenager can access information in a simple Google search that would have taken a skilled research weeks or months to find thirty years ago…and the continual use of the ‘phlogiston effect’ is really no different from continuing to claim the earth is flat. Scientists CAN be wrong, but the greater the consensus among modern scientists, the greater the likelihood that they’re right.

    Why is it that conservatives are SO eager to buy into military science, on any science that can make them money, but when science is telling them Bad News, that what they’re doing is going to cost them Lots and Lots of money, well, THAT’s just not fit for public distribution, is it? Speaking of which, Cannonshop – are you a member of the Flat Earth Society? They’d welcome you with open arms, since they’re eagerly searching for those who can’t understand modern science!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Cannonshop –

    Do you not yet understand that we liberals WANT the conservatives to be right about global warming? Do you not yet understand that the SCIENTISTS wish the conservatives were right about global warming?

    I wish you were right – I really, truly do! Because if you were right, and all this liberal worry over global warming were no big deal, the world would still be Just Fine!

    BUT if YOU are wrong, and we do nothing about it…what happens, Cannonshop?

    That’s the gamble you’re taking. You’re betting the planet – the planet! – that 98% of climatologists and 96% of all scientists are wrong. Is that a wise bet, Cannonshop?

    IS THAT A WISE BET, CANNONSHOP?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    FACT: Earth is over 4×10^8 years old (Over four billion years near as we can tell), it has been both warmer, and colder, than it is now

    I’m sure I’ve pointed this out before here, Cannon, and I’m sure you’ve read it: Every single one of those changes was CAUSED by something. And there is a massive amount of evidence that indicates the current warming was CAUSED by us.

    FACT: there’s still shitload we don’t know about how ANY of it works.

    So if my brakes start acting all cranky, and there’s a shitload I don’t know about how my car works, my best course of action is to do nothing and just wait and see what happens?

    Fact: Weather bureaus still get projections at distances as short as a week WRONG more often than they are right-the trend is changing, but it’s still only a ‘best guess’ what the weather’s doing tomorrow-and that’s with a lot more accurate data going in, than projections for five to ten years from now.

    Elegantly, precisely, and completely wrong. Weather is a far more chaotic system than climate. While I would be wise to prepare at least somewhat for the possibility that it may rain today, and not be a balmy, sunny 66 degrees as the ditz delivering the local forecast predicts, I CAN say with a high degree of confidence that July 2nd 2012 is likely to be quite a bit warmer than February 2nd is. This is because past July 2nds have a deeply ingrained habit of doing that.

    If, in addition, I look at the recorded temperatures for a sequence of historical February 2nds and July 2nds, and notice that, while some 2nds were a bit cooler than the corresponding day on the previous year, the OVERALL TREND is for them to keep getting warmer, I would want to start paying a bit of attention to why that might be.

    The Climate WILL change, IS Changing, HAS changed, both locally and globally. It’s not a fixed or static system, IT changes with or without people in the mix. It changed before (Long before) there WERE any people in the mix.

    And currently it is changing because there ARE people in the mix.

    Your argument is like saying that because people have dropped dead of natural causes before, it’s not worth investigating whether the bullet-ridden body in the alley might have been murdered.

    You can’t STOP it from changing.

    No, it’s too late for that, even though we started it. But we CAN mitigate the changes.

    The question is whether or not it’s changing because we’re all sinners, who need to repent, or at least, buy Indulgences (Carbon Credits) to pay for our sins.

    That’s not a question, that’s a strawman.

  • Igor

    It seems to me that any moderately sensible person could look at our circumstances on earth (which, as far as we know are very unique) which are so amenable to our lives, and how delicate it is and how that requires us to tend our treasure well, lest we lose it through carelessness and prodigality.

    We may think that the very air in the atmosphere is immense and can withstand some abuse, but not by billions of people.

    We may think that the oceans are deep and extensive and can withstand some abuse, and that out of it’s immensity it will easily replenish fish stocks. But we now know that is not true.

    We may think that the earths marvelous hydrological cycle will always provide fresh healthy water, and if not from rains then from rivers and acquifers. But we now know that the rains can be modified, that the rivers can be polluted into poison, and the acquifers polluted by mans actions.

    Even a child should be able to recognize these truths. Only a foolish person could argue that we can continue our present course in a headlong rush to self-destruction.

    Everything that makes life livable on earth is under attack by humans and the senseless Frankenstein monsters they create.

    We must stop poisoning our own home.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Cannonshop –

    Fact: Weather bureaus still get projections at distances as short as a week WRONG more often than they are right-the trend is changing, but it’s still only a ‘best guess’ what the weather’s doing tomorrow-and that’s with a lot more accurate data going in, than projections for five to ten years from now.

    That’s like saying, “Well, since Joe the Arborist can’t state without possibility of error what’s wrong with any one particular tree, then Weyerhauser can’t know what’s going on with the forest as a whole!”

    Apples and oranges. Weathermen deal mostly on the local level. Climatologists deal on the MACRO level. And it’s just like dealing with people – you can’t predict with any real accuracy what ONE person will do, but you CAN predict with accuracy what MANY people will do. So it goes on the difference between the weather on a local level, and the weather on a planetary level.

    Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees….

  • Cannonshop

    #25 Glenn, “Climatologists” have yet to build a model that is accurate going both directions without adjusting the inputs DURING the experiment-i.e. they have yet to build an accurate model without cooking their data, which poisons ANY attempt to predict long-term trends. With AGW, you can get the same results on most of their models using a random number generator in place of observed temperature data. Do you know what that means? In any other field, it would mean the work being done is dishonest at best, and outright fraud most of the time.

    Which doesn’t mean the climate isn’t warming, it means that predictive methodology’s not being developed with an emphasis on ACCURACY, instead, it’s being developed with an emphasis on POLITICS.

    You, like most AGW believers, begin with your desired outcome, then warp the science to fit your assumptions, that’s science on the level of “Intelligent Design” CREATIONISM, Which, I suppose, as you’re a Christian, just makes sense.

  • Cannonshop

    To add to your further discomfort…

    You’re indulging in Cargo Cult Science.

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

    @26

    “With AGW, you can get the same results on most of their models using a random number generator in place of observed temperature data.”

    If that indeed is the case, it would mean the models are defective.

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

    A quote from Feynman, that’s impressive.

  • Clavos

    IS THAT A WISE BET, CANNONSHOP?

    Goddammit, Glenn. I asked you once before: quit yelling; it’s your most annoying (and arrogant) trait, and you’re the only participant on these threads who does it to the extent you do.

    Sheesh…

  • Cannonshop

    Roger, Skepticism is a VIRTUE in science-When a Scientist refuses to share their experimental data because someone might try to “Disprove” his hypothesis, it’s about as bad a violation of the scientific method as you can get-the reason the scientific method works, is that a skeptic, using the same tools, on the same observed phenomena, will, without altering their experimental data, get the same result. This is the principle of repeatability.

    If results, or the method, is not open to challenge (“mustn’t be challenged”) that’s not science-at best, it’s theology, but at worst, it’s fraud.

    Feynman’s address had to do with “Taking shortcuts” and accepting “Revealed Wisdom” in place of doing honest work and observing the value of being skeptical.

    For Non-Scientists, it’s a warning that these aren’t “High Priests” with a charter from some omniscient, omnipotent and unaccountable power on high, whose words must be accepted without examination or question. Particularly as it relates to fields that are rather less well understood than our human vanity might want us to believe.

    The fact is, we really DON’T know enough about how the Climate (or the planet) works to be able to say whether or not it gives a good goddam what we’re doing, and further, the system’s so large, and complex, and our capability is so minimal, primitive, and recent, that we don’t even know WHAT “Baseline” is supposed to look like-what we DO know, is that it’s not a static system-the Climate IS changing, WILL change, and HAS changed in the past-sometimes in the very, very, recent past (geologically-it’s changed radically since the time of the Babylonians, as we can see from archaeological digs in the fertile-crescent area of the Middle East.)

    I suppose I might be less skeptical of AGW, if their predictions had turned up some kind of confirmation in data-so far, Kansas is not a desert, the Pacific Northwest has not gone tropical (both predicted in early models dating to the 1980’s), or if the rhetoric surrounding it didn’t sound so much like the Apocalypticist ranting of preachers leading up to the Millenium, the scare surrounding Y2K that gave the computer industry a boost, or any of the other “end of the century/Millenium/Decade” crap we ALL Probably grew up with.

    It’s EASY to sell Apocalypse predictions, people LOVE to think the Universe cares about them and what they do, that their virtues and sins matter to the universe, and that they’re really actually very significant.

    But observation says Nature doesn’t love you, or hate you, or care about you. It’s going to do what it’s going to do, and your ability to change that is sharply limited to very local areas and very short time-spans.

    I’m also very, very skeptical when the “Fix” looks a bit too much like previous frauds in history-the Selling of Indulgences, for instance. (Paying money to have your sins remitted in life to reach heaven in death).

    It was, in part, rebellion against the selling of indulgences that kick-started the Renaissance and the recovery of scientific thought and scientific method-before Martin Luther nailed up his 99 theses, the word of the Church was both LAW, and KNOWLEDGE-that is, the Church had the last word on how the universe worked, and why. Notably, this period coincided with something called “The Dark Ages”, while the post-theses world led to the Renaissance, and the AGE of REASON.

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

    Don’t preach to me, brother. But if that’s indeed how the science of climatology is proceeding thus far, how come the hoax is not exposed for all to see? Can you explain the prevalence of the prevailing methodology by “political correctness”?

    This in itself is quite a statement. It would put us back in the Middle Ages, though we’d like to think of ourselves as being garbed in the cloak of modernity.

  • Igor

    Cannon, you really seem to know a lot about this! You must have spent a lot of time in grad school doing basic science research.

    What was your major and specialty?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    “Climatologists” have yet to build a model that is accurate going both directions without adjusting the inputs DURING the experiment-i.e. they have yet to build an accurate model without cooking their data

    Reference, please. And make it a good one.

    And while you’re at it, could you please point out to me any organization that knows more about planets and atmospheric chemistry than NASA? Oh, silly me, I forgot! They’re all in on this vast left-wing conspiracy, too!

    And you still didn’t answer as to the wisdom of betting the planet that you’re right and that 98% of the world’s climatologists and 96% of the world’s scientists are wrong.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    For all, a perfect illustration of what’s wrong with Republicans and modern conservatives:

    Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour: Scientists are the only people qualified to comment on scientific theories. This is what raises doubt with not only Republicans but Americans.
    Aasif Mandvi: It’s like, why are surgeons the only ones allowed to perform surgeries, and other surgeons are the only ones who get to say whether or not this surgery is necessary or not. Right?
    Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour: Absolutely!
    Aasif Mandvi: It doesn’t make any sense!
    Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour: It never makes any sense! […]
    Asif Manvi: It should be up to the American people to decide what is true.
    Republican strategist Noelle Nikpour: Absolutely!

    Yes, that’s all satire…but it’s a great illustration of the Republicans’ utter rejection of those who DO know what the heck they’re talking about, in favor of those who disagree but who either have qualifications that are seriously lacking or are otherwise in a classic conflict of interest.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    With AGW, you can get the same results on most of their models using a random number generator in place of observed temperature data.

    Well, of course you can, if you run thousands of random data simulations and then pick out only the few that happen to come out most resembling hockey sticks.

    Do you know what that means? In any other field, it would mean the work being done is dishonest at best, and outright fraud most of the time.

    Which, um, does lead one to wonder why McIntyre and McKitrick have managed to avoid being fired or arrested for fraud…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    The fact is, we really DON’T know enough about how the Climate (or the planet) works to be able to say whether or not it gives a good goddam what we’re doing, and further, the system’s so large, and complex, and our capability is so minimal, primitive, and recent, that we don’t even know WHAT “Baseline” is supposed to look like-what we DO know, is that it’s not a static system-the Climate IS changing, WILL change, and HAS changed in the past-sometimes in the very, very, recent past (geologically-it’s changed radically since the time of the Babylonians, as we can see from archaeological digs in the fertile-crescent area of the Middle East.)

    Cannonshop provides a variation on Standard Denier Excuse 2 by claiming that we know bugger all about how the climate works, then without pausing to take a breath lists quite a bit of the awful lot that we DO in fact know.

    Trying to have it both ways, Cannon?

  • Jordan Richardson

    I wonder why Warren hasn’t made his presence known…

  • Zingzing

    It’s probably not because he’s had a change of heart and believes that centuries of pumping tons of gasses into the atmosphere could possibly have caused any changes in said atmosphere. That would be stupid.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    The circus might be traveling. Can’t wait to see his piece about the disingenuous ads from Republican candidates. It seemed to be an important issue, unless his previous article was disingenuous.

  • Igor

    It seems to me that if we are insufficiently knowledgeable, that is all the more reason to proceed with extreme caution before damaging our little green planet more.

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

    A Pascal’s wager?

  • Cannonshop

    #33 So…you have nothing to fight with, but slurs? How many TECHNICAL arguments have you won with Engineers, Igor-because I’ve had to win several-you don’t win without being able to back your shit up with the math. (in my business you’re either right, or his ‘fix’ kills people, which is a bit of a cry from some bad code that has to be debugged or the pac-man doesn’t run, isn’t it?)

    #32- Roger, The East Anglia E-mails are the “somethin’s wrong” example most everyone has heard of-but before that, was the mess surrounding Prof. Mann’s “Hockeystick” graph. The problem is, AGW provides christmas to lots of people who really aren’t all that worried about the CLIMATE, they’re busy working other agendas, and it works pretty well as a scare tactic to use in furthering those agendas…

    For instance, everyone (even Conservatives, Glenn) knows you don’t shit where you eat, and that cleaner industries are more efficient and generally more productive industries, with higher general wages, better benefits, and lower operating costs. The problem is getting some industries to adopt earlier-because most of them use cost/benefit analysis, and are unfortunately saddled with a three-month horizon in terms of how they think (Quarterly planning.)

    Governments WANT Power. That’s what they want, power. A good scare gives them that power-one that they don’t have to fear actually delivering, but is murky enough and frightening enough, is double-plus good for ‘em. Who controls funding for Academic Science, Roger?

    Academics want to eat, have a roof over their heads, and maybe some prestige and recognition. At minimum, they want something called ‘tenure’…upsetting applecarts that the funding guys are relying on isn’t how you get this ‘Tenure’ thing. Nor do you get invited to schmooze with the Regents, nor sunday talk programmes, and don’t forget the book sales, ability to influence directly or indirectly what goes into the text books, etc. etc.

    NGOs’ have been pushing to transfer wealth from the “Rich” countries to the “Poor” countries far longer than AGW has been around, isn’t it the least bit interesting that the first, and primary “Mitigation” scheme for it is effectively what they’ve been rooting for for DECADES? Aren’t you at least a little curious as to how “Carbon Credit Trading” is going to actually mitigate outputs?? Bueller???

    It’s been fashionable since the publication of “Silent Spring” to be in favour of protecting the environment- sometimes this is good-after all, the Ohio river hasn’t burst into flame lately, and there’s fish in Lake michigan again. Sometimes it’s…not that good-when the mitigation scheme doesn’t touch the actual pollution, for instance, or when the “protection” is of a fabricated “Species” no different, biologically/genetically, from the same fish or bird fifty miles north or south, or hunting bans that cause a brief spike in deer populations, only to see a horrific crash in those populations because of overgrazing/overcrowding issues.

    The CLAIM is extraordinary, but it’s also fashionable to care for the earth, and it’s fashionable to ‘Punish the rich”, and it’s fashionable to care for the “Developing world” (where, apparently, slash-burn ‘agriculture’, strip mines, unmuffled furnaces and the like aren’t, according to Kyoto, pushing toxins into the skies and rivers or depleting carbon sinks…)

    Prestige and Ideology are often more effective forms of payment than money-and you don’t get Prestige in some circles by questioning the Apocalypse Du Jour.

    Also, go back and re-read Feynman’s address, specifically his reference to the oil-drop experiments and the long standing practice of other scientists in re-using the baselines, then eliminating anything outside the original results as incorrect…when the original results were incorrect.

    Minimize all you like, argue from authority instead of source all you like, but in fifty years, the “Settled science” will still NOT be settled enough to reliably use-but that’s not the purpose of it anyway…

  • Cannonshop

    Also, Glenn?

    I don’t think it is wrong to expect the same standard of ethics from the scientific experts whose work is being used to influence policy, that I would expect from another A&P mechanic on the flight-line where some common fuck-ups WILL kill people if they’re buried, concealed, ignored, or lied about.

    I’m sorry you don’t hold the same standards.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So…instead of science you have conspiracy theories about the scientific community cooking things up for more funding and policy control?

    Yeah, I bet you’ve won a number of “TECHNICAL” arguments with that tactic.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, Cannonshop –

    You STILL didn’t even attempt to answer my questions from #34:

    You said:

    “Climatologists” have yet to build a model that is accurate going both directions without adjusting the inputs DURING the experiment-i.e. they have yet to build an accurate model without cooking their data

    Reference, please. And make it a good one.

    And while you’re at it, could you please point out to me any organization that knows more about planets and atmospheric chemistry than NASA? Oh, silly me, I forgot! They’re all in on this vast left-wing conspiracy, too!

    And you still didn’t answer as to the wisdom of betting the planet that you’re right and that 98% of the world’s climatologists and 96% of the world’s scientists are wrong.

  • Igor

    #42-roger: I hesitate to cite Pascal’s wager because of the Dostoevsky counter: might as well eat, drink and be merry, for there is no tomorrow. The Existentialist wager.

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

    Good move, Igor, for I was baiting you. Additionally, I’ve always found Pascal’s wager rather inappropriate in matters of faith.

  • Igor

    Then there’s the Camus wager: don’t despair, throw yourself wholeheartedly into an infinitely engaging pursuit as the Engaged Man, l’homme engage. As in “The Plague”.

    It’s interesting that L’homme engage appeared again in the 60’s in that French revolution and in the US in the Vietnam protests and the Civil Rights Movement. And now, again, in the Occupy movement, which looks like it has legs.

    Nevertheless, Blaise Pascal was a great thinker who will always be remembered for bringing rigor and math to probability theory, and for the Pascal Transform.

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

    I’m glad you that’s your view of OWS. I thinks so too.

    Apropos of Pascal, there’s an excellent production by Rossellini, available for viewing through Hulu Plus, the Criterion collection. The confrontation with Descartes is especially fascinating.

    You can get a free trial membership for a week, and then renege if you must. But it’s worth keeping for $7.95 a month.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Aren’t you at least a little curious as to how “Carbon Credit Trading” is going to actually mitigate outputs?? Bueller???

    Are you, Cannon?

    In case you are, here you go.

    (Found through a web search that took me about 1 second.)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    There are two principal objections to the “climate scientists are cooking all of this up for money” canard, which are blindingly obvious to everyone except its proponents.

    1. There isn’t very much money or glamour in ANY kind of science, let alone climate science. I estimate that the number of climatologists who live in 12-bedroom mansions, ride around in stretch limos, make regular appearances on late-night talk shows, get invited to Hollywood red carpet parties a few times a week, and own private jets can be counted on the fingers of one foot. (Preemptive corollary: Al Gore is not a climatologist. And he was rich and famous already.)

    2. There would still be a climate even if there didn’t turn out to be any human-caused catastrophic changes, it would be with us every day, and it would still need studying. So that whole job security/funding conspiracy theory goes out the window right there.

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

    Was Cannon a proponent of conspiracy? It’d seem his remarks could well be understood without there being any conspiracy to speak of, but in terms of the behavior of an “average” scientist who’s dependent on funding by the government or any other institutions. To wit, those who are involved in cancer research, do in a sense must subscribe to and go along with the stipulated “program” and objectives. The same with AIDS research. Much criticism has been launched against any science or research project whose express purposes and objectives are stipulated before hand by their sponsors. You can’t, for example, completely ignore the impact of, say, big Pharma on the direction and the course of medical research in any number of fields, from depression to cancer.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Roger, by that kind of logic no good science is ever going to get done anywhere.

    Every scientific research effort is funded by someone and has some sort of goal, including the pharmaceutical company that tells its lab, “OK, we need you to research this new cancer drug and make sure it’s safe”.

    That does NOT mean that the science team is under pressure to ignore any data that indicates the drug is UNsafe. It doesn’t mean that the scientists will get fired or laid off if they report that it isn’t suitable for human use. Quite the contrary, probably, because it means there will be more work still to do.

    Cannon would have us believe that of all the potentially corruptible research efforts going on around the world, it’s THIS one (the one where it just so happens the dominant global politico-economic system is to blame if it’s true) that has somehow managed to suck not some, not a simple majority, but 98% of all people working in the field, into the fraud.

    And he has the nerve to say AGW is the extraordinary claim.

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

    You got a point, but some scientific projects are less “political,” in a sense, than others. The Oppenheimer project, for instance. Of course it had political ramifications, but the express purpose (whether one agreed with it or not) was atomic fusion — a clearly stated scientific/technological objective. I’d place the human genome project in the same category, regardless to what uses it can be put eventually, or space exploration.

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

    In short, the projects I alluded to do not call for immediate political action in terms of altering our behavior, later perhaps, depending on outcome.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So, in other words, we need to start worrying a lot about dentists…

  • Clavos

    Props for #43, Cannon. Good points, well expressed.

    Funny how the very first response you got attacked the messenger, not the message.

    Well done.

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

    It’s axiomatic by now, only to be expected.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Funny how the very first response you got attacked the messenger, not the message.

    Funny how Clav focuses on the allegedly personal and has nothing to say about the substantial counterarguments.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Not sure where Clavos is seeing an attack on “the messenger.” My concern was for the methods of “the messenger” and the inherent disdain for science.

  • Clavos

    Doc,

    Seems to me that your link in 51 says that while carbon trading should work in principle, it isn’t in practice — which, come to think of it, isn’t at all surprising. Humans have a tendency to screw up everything they touch.

    But, of course, you can always re-jigger when the model doesn’t give you the results you want…

  • Igor

    #43-Cannon: I asked an honest question, I didn’t slur you Cannon. If you’d have asked me the same question: I did grad school research in Wave Propagation, especially acoustic waves (published). I also did Defense related research for a well-known Defense company, mostly in electronics, communications, demodulators, etc., even in lasers.

    When you ask:

    “How many TECHNICAL arguments have you won with Engineers, Igor-because I’ve had to win several-you don’t win without being able to back your shit up with the math.”

    Most technical arguments are won on merit, usually by reference to basic shared experience, sometimes by demonstration.

    But it sounds to me as though you are accustomed to winning by bullying people, which is pretty much what you do here on BC.

    I’m not unfamiliar with bullies in the conference rooms. They bristle with hostility and challenges. Overbearing and loud. Too often their aggressiveness succeeds merely because of their force, not the merit of their position. But I developed a surefire way of dealing with that kind of nuisance.

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

    Not fair, Igor. I’ve been around here for three years and so, and not once would I characterize Cannon’s comments as coming close to bullying — not in this instance nor any other.

    As to Jordan’s typically snide remark about Cannon’s presumed “disdain for science,” it’s so far off the mark it shouldn’t deserve a mention. The only reason I’m bringing it up is for your benefit, Igor. Focus on real impediments to communication, even if it comes from the mouth of the liberals. That would be fair.

  • Cannonshop

    #63 Igor, I’m sorry, I misunderstood your intent, and reacted to your question rather badly.

    Events sometimes do lead to re-thinking, and a reevaluation of priorities. Last night, a kid was almost killed because the guy who was supposed to be training him wasn’t paying attention. Kid’s in “Stable” condition at Harborview today-at least, at the last report I heard he was, he had an airliner wind up parked on his lower body because somebody fucked up. It kind of makes arguments about shit we can’t control individually a little bit petty, when something that COULD be controlled individually gets that messed up.

    I dont’ even know the guy, and I wasn’t involved, but it still weighs, because it’s a pretty small community, y’know? Word has it, the kid was trying to grab a chock someone missed when they were hooking up the tug, tripped, wasn’t seen, and the driver pulled forward before anyone noticed.

    a few inches higher, and the hat would be going around for the Family to help cover a funeral. as it is, THAT still might happen, or the kid could lose his legs.

    all because someone took shortcuts.

    kinda makes a mockery out of what I said, doesn’t it? Someone had a lapse, and someone almost died-and might still die…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Clav,

    Of course Cannon’s was a rhetorical question, the intent of which was to put his opponent of the defensive. I wasn’t biting. I took the question at face value: how is carbon trading supposed to mitigate outputs. The link explains precisely that.

    We can argue all day as to whether or not it’s working, or will in future.

    But, of course, you can always re-jigger when the model doesn’t give you the results you want…

    “Models”… You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • Cannonshop

    #63 and Igor, they don’t let animals like me into boardrooms-in person I’m tactless, often crude, and some people say I don’t smile enough (or that the display of teeth is creepy-not what you want in a place full of polished and polite types who can write off a golf game as a business expense.)

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

    I’d say it’s good for you. Screw them corporate types.

  • Cannonshop

    #66 Doc, your response was more what I was looking for, than you think. It reflected that you WERE thinking. Question: Have you followed up on the results? Like a lot of economic theory, the Carbon-Trading thing looks GREAT on paper, but does it work?

    (Yeah, I’m back to arguing about petty shit-it’s better than wondering who’s going to die, who outghta be fired, and whether my union dues are going to be used to keep a negligent SOB on the rolls when his fuckup almost killed someone. On the flight line, there are no “accidents”, there are “mistakes” and “Negligence”, but no accidents. That’s the Ethic.)

  • Igor

    Carbon-trading will be a huge success if it works as well as sulphur cap-and-trade has worked the last few years: Acid rain is almost gone.

  • Clavos

    OK, Doc. What do you think I think it means?

  • Jordan Richardson

    Roger,

    it’s so far off the mark it shouldn’t deserve a mention.

    How is it off the mark?

    For starters, he condescendingly puts climatologists in quotation marks. He assumes there’s a conspiracy to fudge or at least inflate the data because it’s “fashionable.” And he assumes, without evidence, that AGW is a case of scientific fraud that has somehow suckered in the scientific community the world over.

    How is that not disdain for science?

    And it’s not surprise you don’t consider Cannon’s comments as bullying. You don’t think you’re a bully either and you STILL think I’m a fucking “liberal.” How far off the mark can you get?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    You STILL didn’t even attempt to answer my questions from #34:

    You said:

    “Climatologists” have yet to build a model that is accurate going both directions without adjusting the inputs DURING the experiment-i.e. they have yet to build an accurate model without cooking their data

    Reference, please. And make it a good one. And while you’re at it, why don’t you put “geologists” in quotes? Or how about “oceanographers”? Or “physicists”? Hm?

    And while you’re at it, could you please point out to me any organization that knows more about planets and atmospheric chemistry than NASA? Oh, silly me, I forgot! They’re all in on this vast left-wing conspiracy, too!

    And you still didn’t answer as to the wisdom of betting the planet that you’re right and that 98% of the world’s climatologists and 96% of the world’s scientists are wrong.

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

    @72

    No conspiracy has been assumed, let alone proven it’s been assumed. No fraud has been implied either. Disdain for science, definitely not. Cannon has the mind of an engineer, and engineers don’t disdain science.

    As to the bullying charge, I consider Cannon one of the most reasonable of BC commenters, disagree with him or not. I’m more of a bullying type, by comparison, than he is.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    @ 71:

    Clav, I think you are pretending, as many “skeptics” do, that modeling, which is a perfectly valid research tool used in every scientific field, is for some magical reason useless in climatology and in climatology only.

    I also think you are pretending that models are the ONLY method of inquiry ever used by climatologists, and that they do no other kind of research, data collection, experimentation or analysis whatsoever.

  • Zingzing

    clavos has also said that the science means nothing to him, as it’s a political issue and nothing else.

  • Jordan Richardson

    No conspiracy has been assumed, let alone proven it’s been assumed. No fraud has been implied either.

    So in your opinion, what is Cannonshop implying when he says puts climatologists in quotation marks? Or when he says that scientists are doing this for “Prestige?” Or when he says “it’s easy to sell Apocalypse predictions?” Or when he talks about “the fix” as “selling indulgences?”

    If “no conspiracy has been assumed,” what other explanation is there?

    Cannon has the mind of an engineer, and engineers don’t disdain science.

    Anyone can disdain science, so I have no idea where you go this from. A high school biology teacher with a penchant for sneaking in creationism can disdain science, for instance. Cannonshop may not disdain ALL science, I’ll grant, but he sure is being curiously selective in this instance.

  • Cannonshop

    #77 Jordan, I’ll tell you what I’m implying with the quotes, so you don’t have to speculate.

    Guys like the East Anglia people whose E-mail got hacked and published, Prof. Mann whose “Hockeystick” graph served as the starting point for my skeptical reactions, and the legions of supporters whose argument is based on polling data and what they’ve been told to believe because it fits the agenda of their political leadership.

    In pure science, secrecy is a problem, so is faith-you can’t have either one and produce good results. Prominent researchers who refuse to release their data and methodology openly for fear of it being challenged, Supporters and Believers who grasp uncritically to whatever they’re told, belong in sneering quotation marks. People who reject experimental data because it doesn’t fit the hypothesis (see: the oceanic probe experiment a few years ago) and make excuses belong it that group. Anyone that refuses to re-examine or even to first-examine the data and methodology-not because it’s unavailable, but because they’ve been told and they merely believe.

    I didn’t say the climate wasn’t changing-that’s Warren’s game, not mine. I said I don’t fully and faithfully accept without question that it is Anthropogencially generated, Nor do I buy into the idea that, barring killing a LOT of people, an AGW scenario can be stopped if it is, indeed, occurring.

    Population density is rising-we’re at over six billion when we were at a mere four billion only a few years ago. It’s rising fastest in the Third World, where strip-mining, slash-and-burn agriculture, and high-pollution industry and power generation are the Paradigm, not the exception.

    IOW countries that HVE NO ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS are both growing in population, and pollution output-this is VERY different from the sulfur-dioxide situation of the seventies and eighties when it was mainly a first-world situation and governmental,and public, influence could be brought to bear with some hope of it actually working.

    Which is one of the reasons several early-adopters in Europe have outright ABANDONED cap-and-trade schemes, and others are discussing doing so.

    Further, the problem is, in my opinion, NOT PROPERLY DEFINED. As a species, we have very little experience in measurement of atmospheric and environmental conditions on a global scale, and as sophisticated as our instrumentalities are, I doubt we know nearly as much as we’d collectively like to think we know about how the whole mechanism works, much less where our place IN that mechanism really is.

    bEfore you start making policy, you need to know WHAT you’re doing, WHY you’re doing it, and HOW it works. IPCC can’t answer that yet, but as an NGO affiliated with the United Nations, they’re certainly game to help the UN soak the rich countries to provide benefit to the leaders of the poor ones, while doing nothing about the lack of environmental controls, human rights, or worker’s rights, in those countries. I find this suspect, both from a method, and motive, perspective.

    Further, I question the polling data about “98% of all scientists” and “100% of all Climatologists” Glenn Contrarian always trots out in these conversations-Anyone who’s taken a basic high-school class on propoganda or advertising knows you can slant results by selecting your polling sample, or by writing your questions to generate specific responses-it’s a common advertiser’s tactic, and it’s deceptive. WHO was polled, who did the polling, what were the questions? How were the signatures obtained, how many responses were by assistants/grad-students/other staff?

    We don’t know the answers to these. which makes the Bandwagon appeal less appealing, and still leaves the doubt in place.

    Finally, there’s the “Learning to deal with Millenialists” experience. When someone starts ranting the coming Apocalypse, I grab my wallet with one hand and look for a safe exit with one eye. It’s a habit I learned dealing with religious fundamentalist nutters in the Bible Belt, and when it’s someone NOT overtly religious, I’m JUST as skeptical, exp. when their answer is to move money around under their direction. MORESO when it’s a former Politician, and given the Nobel Committee’s recent (last thirty years) behaviours, that Nobel Prize is an incentive to be even MORE suspicious.

    Especially if said Nobel winner isn’t living the dream he has for me and mine.

  • Igor

    Despite Warrens and Cannons repeated demands that AGW people absolutely and convincingly prove their case, it seems to me that it is up to potential polluters to prove THEIR case.

    Doesn’t the “Precautionary Rule” apply here? Before we proceed with hydraulic fractionating, fracking, shouldn’t we be sure that it does no harm? Isn’t it the responsibility of the proponents to prove their project harmless?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Further, I question the polling data about “98% of all scientists” and “100% of all Climatologists” Glenn Contrarian always trots out in these conversations

    I suggest you refrain from ADDING 2% to what I’ve repeatedly said, that it’s 98% of all climatologists and 96% of all scientists.

    And you STILL haven’t addressed my questions. YOU claimed:

    “Climatologists” have yet to build a model that is accurate going both directions without adjusting the inputs DURING the experiment-i.e. they have yet to build an accurate model without cooking their data

    Reference, please. And make it a good one.

    And while you’re at it, could you please point out to me any organization that knows more about planets and atmospheric chemistry than NASA? Oh, silly me, I forgot! They’re all in on this vast left-wing conspiracy, too!

    And you still didn’t answer as to the wisdom of betting the planet that you’re right and that 98% of the world’s climatologists and 96% of the world’s scientists are wrong.

    ========

    AND you didn’t address Jordan’s observation that:

    For starters, [Cannonshop] condescendingly puts climatologists in quotation marks. He assumes there’s a conspiracy to fudge or at least inflate the data because it’s “fashionable.” And he assumes, without evidence, that AGW is a case of scientific fraud that has somehow suckered in the scientific community the world over.

    How is that not disdain for science?

  • Cannonshop

    Okay, Glenn…Here’s a little something about your “betting” comment:

    You’re betting you can do something about a phenomena you don’t even UNDERSTAND. Action-plans implemented off bad, incomplete, or misunderstood data aren’t generally successful-they usually end up doing more damage than good.

    Flatly, if you don’t know, you need to find out, and that task is not assisted by disingenuousness, faith, blind obedience, or panicked “Do Something” mentalities.

    If you’re RIGHT, then you need to know WHY you’re right before you know WHAT to do…and if you’re wrong, it’s better not to act until you uncover what IS going on, and what options you actually HAVE.

    Wasting resources and time just “doing something” might look REAL good, but it’s not the same thing as using time and resources to do THE RIGHT THING (or, at very base minimum, the thing that WILL work.)

    That all assumes you’re on the right side this time. If the AGW hypothesis is WRONG, then those resources you’re keen to redirect “Doing Something” won’t be available to handle ACTUAL problems-such as how to adapt to a climate change you can’t influence before the environment kills you.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Your first error is that you’re assuming that I don’t understand the phenomenon. I do understand it. I may not know all the scientific minutiae, but I do understand the overall phenomenon…just like one doesn’t have to understand every single tree to comprehend the forest as a whole.

    =========

    Your second error is that AGW is a hypothesis. In the eyes of the vast majority of scientists – and almost all the climatologists – ALL of whom have significantly more education than you or I when it comes to science, AGW is not at all a hypothesis, but a fact.

    ========

    Your third error is your continuing assumption that because there is not a 100% consensus among climatologists about AGW (since it’s ‘only’ 98%), that there’s still doubt. Cannonshop, any scientist of note will tell you that in any scientific profession – or any other profession, for that matter – there’s ALWAYS a few crackpots. ALWAYS. Just because there’s a few who disagree with the 98% does NOT mean that there’s actual reason for doubt. It simply menas that YOU are giving equal weight to the remaining 2% (which is largely comprised of crackpots and those who are falling seriously afoul of conflict-of-interest violations).

    After all, do you REALLY think it’s merely a coincidence that most of those climatologists who disagree with AGW work for or are funded wholly or in part by Big Oil? Do you really think that’s just a coincidence?

    ========

    Your fourth error is in assuming that the 98% of climatologists who know that AGW is real, somehow WANT it to be real. Here’s a clue, Cannonshop – they DON’T. They – like most sensible people (and just like YOU) – really, truly WANT AGW to be wrong. They would much rather be wrong about the whole global warming schmiel. But that’s not what their observations and studies show. I would much rather they be wrong, too!

    And that brings us back to the wager, Cannonshop. Climatologists WANT to be wrong on this, because they know where this leads – famine, greatly-increased weather-related disasters, water wars, and so forth. They WANT you to be right…but that’s simply not where their observations lead.

    You, on the other hand, want to be RIGHT, just like all other AGW-deniers. You are willing to bet the planet that 98% of climatologists are wrong, just so you can score a few political points and maybe save some oh-so-precious taxpayer dollars.

    They want to save lives all over the planet, even if it costs a few oh-so-precious taxpayer dollars. You want to save oh-so-precious taxpayer dollars, and you’re willing to ignore the warnings of 98% of the world’s climatologists in order to do so. That’s what it all boils down to.

  • Cannonshop

    The issue, Glenn, is that you want to re-tool your civilization based on a phenomena you yourself don’t fully understand, using tools you don’t understand, methods you don’t understand, based on what amounts to blind faith and advertising using SOME science.

    Shut down the emotions, and address the situation like an engineer. How much do you REALLY know about the climate, how it works, how the pieces fit together, and what the dominant conditions are when there were NO people about.

    Best hypothesis on that last bit, incidentally, was that the earth was a pretty cold place for most of the history of life on it, cycling from frozen ice-age to warmer-than-today interglacials.

    Hell, in the AD1000 era (okay, 1000 C.E.) Greenland was Wheat country-it’s why the Vikings settled there. a little bit later, still in human history, we had both the “little ice age” and the “Year without a summer”.

    going back to about where we start seeing Cro Magnon man, most of Canada and a good bit of the U.S. were buried under ice-sheets.

    There are significant arguments going on about whether or not those ice-age conditions appeared gradually, or suddenly (in geological terms, a difference between centuries and mere decades).

    Without knowing for certain what the real climate cycle actually IS, we can’t ascertain what’s changing it, without that, we don’t know if we CAN do anything to influence it enough to matter.

    we COULD end up, after taking your actions, with the same outcomes your AGW folks are pushing-but with additional burdens imposed on us in emergency fashion based on half-baked policies that are, in the end, more destructive than adopting NO policies…or we could end up looking at an advancing wall of ice coming from Canada, and no resources to keep the remains of our civilization operating.

    best guesses so far are that temperature ‘Peaks” right before the onset of ice-age conditions-that’s common between both gradualist and catastrophic onset backers.

    ALL of which just means we don’t know enough about the phenomena, to base policy and adopt measures to deal with it-and there’s enough evidence that adopting the wrong measures CAN be worse than doing nothing-and on a system as complex and poorly understood as “This little planet”, the odds are better than even that doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    And there’s another one of your errors – “Without knowing for certain what the real climate cycle actually IS, we can’t ascertain what’s changing it, without that, we don’t know if we CAN do anything to influence it enough to matter.

    “We just don’t know what’s causing it!” That’s the new excuse among conservatives, now that GW is so obvious. As if with all the scientific observation on a global basis we have on hand is of no use at all.

    And THEN you say that ‘half-baked policies’ (like what, cutting pollution is a ‘half-baked policy’?) is worse than NO policy at all????

    Have you ZERO clue about where AGW leads? Have you not done any REAL research showing the degree of sea-level rise, the increase of moisture in the atmosphere, the changes in climate worldwide?

    Ah, but I forget – it’s better to let the climate go straight to hell than it is to do anything about it, just like it would have been better to let GM crash and burn and all its employees be fired than it was to give them a freaking loan so they could get back on their feet and retake their place as the world’s largest automaker.

    “Throw the baby out with the bathwater” – that’s the Republican way!

  • Igor

    83-Cannon displays some wisdom:

    …we don’t know enough about the phenomena, to base policy and adopt measures to deal with it-and there’s enough evidence that adopting the wrong measures CAN be worse than doing nothing-and on a system as complex and poorly understood as “This little planet”, the odds are better than even that doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

    Exactly my point.

    Before we bet the entire planet environment (a big valuable irreplaceable resource) on propping up oil use for A Few Dollars More in the pockets of oil magnates, we must use the Precautionary Principle and FIRST determine safety, cost and ROI. And we can’t used politicians and whored-out consultants for advice.

    Even the most intemperate gambler doesn’t bet the farm for just a couple bucks in the pot.

  • Clavos

    In the eyes of the vast majority of scientists – and almost all the climatologists – ALL of whom have significantly more education than you or I when it comes to science, AGW is not at all a hypothesis, but a fact.

    True it is not a hypothesis, it is a theory, like Einstein’s “theory” of relativity, or the “theory” of evolution; it is not, however a “fact,” and I doubt even the most ardent scientist supporting the “theory” would argue it’s a “fact.”

  • http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/author/danmiller/ Dan(Miller)

    Clav, that’s mere anti-semantic drivel. Words must have whatever meaning the user desires. I think it’s called freedom of choice. Or something. I’m at a loss for words, doubtless a good thing because otherwise I’d spout some stuff from Humpty Dumpty.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Here, gents, this may help.

    It refers to the distinction between fact and theory in evolution, but, especially since the tactics used to attack AGW theory are often identical to those used by creationists, it is apt.

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

    @87

    Humpty Dumpty is precisely what’s going on in here. You’re showing your legal education.

    @88

    Dreadful, convincing as the article you linked to may be, it’s still blurring a crucial conceptual distinction. And the distinction can’t be bridged by approaching the level of certainly as though a limit. Facts and theories do not form a spectrum.

  • Jordan Richardson

    So Cannonshop, the basic thrust of your argument is that we don’t know enough to know that pumping noxious chemicals into our environment is probably not the best thing to do. Is that “thinking like an engineer?”

    And how exactly is cutting down on pollution and being more responsible with our resources a “wrong measure?”

  • Jordan Richardson

    Cannonshop,

    You’re betting you can do something about a phenomena you don’t even UNDERSTAND.

    Speaking for myself, I’m betting it’s better to try to do something (by doing less of the destructive things we know are doing harm) than it is to sit around and do nothing.

    This isn’t about “re-tooling” a civilization (although we may be in need of a little tinkering); it’s about living smartly and frugally without needing to cave to the modern standards of excess, greed and destruction we’ve decided are “normal.” It’s about not dumping chemicals in our water, not cranking toxic smoke into our air, not poisoning our soil, not settling for shit that is so genetically altered that it doesn’t even resemble food anymore (see Monsanto’s menu of genetically engineered organisms, for instance).

    If I look at the simple risk vs. reward equation, it seems stupid to refuse to act when so much is potentially at stake. The downside of doing the “wrong thing” is much less significant/frightening than the upside of doing the “right thing.”

    The power elites have always wanted us to sit on our asses and do nothing because we don’t “UNDERSTAND” anything. They’ve always wanted our hands off the wheel, so they tell us that we can’t really change anything, we can’t reverse the “natural” tide of civilization and we damn sure can’t change the world. We’re just here to be good slaves and good consumers, floating by without noticing the destruction, greed and deceit.

    You may be fine with that, Cannonshop, but I’m not.

  • Igor

    #87-Dan: Wittgenstein disagrees. He says that a word means exactly what context suggests that it means. For example, the word ‘bad’ means something failed or inadequate to many people, but to a jiving inner city kid it means ‘good’, or even ‘cool’, which, in this context means something desirable and attractive, not frozen or inert.

    Thus the problem of the biblical literalists: we don’t have enough context to know what the original words in Aramic (or even Greek) meant.

    Words must have whatever meaning the user desires.

  • Clavos

    Aramaic

  • Igor

    #86-clavos demonstrates, conveniently enough, a common problem with the laymans understanding of science and the world.

    ‘Theories’ and ‘facts’ are not commensurate: they cannot be measured on the same scale. A ‘theory’ does not graduate to a ‘fact’ in some fashion. They exist orthogonally, in different dimensions, as it were.

    If one tries to do that one is driven to the conclusion that theory is more powerful than mere ‘fact’. Theory explains known results and predicts the future outcome of experiments. Facts are just datapoints that suggest a theory to an adept observer, and then confirm or deny a theory.

  • Clavos

    I know (and think I demonstrated that), Igor.

    But then, as everyone knows, no one on the right has a brain, so I probably didn’t.

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

    @92

    While meaning is use, it doesn’t mean either that anything goes. The Humpty Dumpty charge still applies.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Igor –

    Well said on #94.

  • Cannonshop

    Glenn, your “Theory” has too many holes-it’s accepted mainly because not accepting it means no funding.

    Also, the methods used to DEFEND Anthropogenic Global Warming are identical in tactics to those used to PROMOTE Creationism-the only real difference, is how much official sanction exists between the two.

  • Cannonshop

    Which may have something to do with the way Creationism doesn’t empower the State, but AGW most certainly DOES.

  • Cannonshop

    Let me explain the difference for you-

    Evolution and Plate Tectonics have both withstood serious academic challenge-repeatedly, this makes them “THEORIES”, because at each point where they have faced serious academic challenge, openly, without hiding methodology or faking data, they’ve passed and the challenges have failed.

    AGW has not faced serious academic challenge-far from it, it’s gotten the softball right from the start in the eighties when it became clear we weren’t going into another ice-age any time soon.

    Further, as learned in the leaked E-mail situation, the people whose work formed the core of your “Theory” were quite concerned that their methods would be revealed to the public-secrecy is, put bluntly, counter to good science, esp. when your science is capable of driving policies.

    The killer is that they could not get the climate models they were (and are) presenting to the international community to work, without altering the data they were using. This makes the methods highly suspect, and with those methods, the conclusions become highly suspect.

    Widespread acceptance of shady methodology almost DEMAND an external, non-scientific, influence to drive it. This does not have to be some kind of ‘conspiracy’ (as Warren alleges in his article), Laziness and ideology or a desire to ‘change the world for the better’, or just good old fashioned personal belief that the ends justify the means is enough-the Ends being reducing pollution (a laudable goal) the means being apocalyptic scare tactics (a method borrowed from the Religious Right.)

  • Cannonshop

    Why’re we still using fossil fuels?

    They’re definitely a finite resource, after all, and even if AGW is horseshit, they’re still going to run out.

    We’re using them, because we don’t have an alternative that carries the same combination of energy density, ease of energy release for work, ease of storage and processing, and expense of extraction and deployment.

    The technological problem, which, frankly, is what AGW is, will not be solved by low-efficiency (’cause they are) wind turbines. Forget the politics, the machinery’s complex, you need a lot of it, and that’s going to burn all kinds of fossil fuels to make it, maintain it, and establish it.

    Fossil fuels provide us dirty peasants out here with the means to do something our serf ancestors couldn’t dream of-we can travel where we will, when we will, live away from urban hubs, and grow lots of food with very little hand labour across tracts of land that our ancestors couldn’t dream of-resulting in better nutrition and fewer famines than at any time in history.

    THIS is what your solutions have to replace-prior to the adoption of the Internal Combustion Engine and its application to agriculture, famine wasn’t something isolated to the third world.

    THIS is the technology you have to either do without, or replace, to get your ‘green’ utopia. More than likely, you’re expecting to be among the ‘elect’ whom won’t have to give anything up in a regime capable of enforcing AGW policies-after all, you’re supporters, right? No revolution’s EVER ganked its supporters after taking power, just ask the Russians, or the French about it…

  • Cannonshop

    Here’s what amazes me:

    How can people who were intelligent enough to recognize SOPA and PIPA as what they are, who’re smart enough to recognize the danger of NDAA and the Patriot Act, be so easily convinced to believe, without any questioning or skepticism, or even thought, in an apocalypse scenario based on studies that predict a temperature variation less than those studies’ OWN error ratio-and push a regime of change that REQUIRES a level of control so far beyond SOPA, PIPA and the Patriot Act, without bothering to question it.

  • Zingzing

    what control, cannonshop? stopping you from pumping so many noxious chemicals into the air? I’m sure you whip out the constitution every time your girlfriend tells you to stop farting so much. you’re getting a bit ridiuclous. I’ve never seen someone so busy bitching about their liberty they forgot to just be free.

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

    A good zinger …

  • Igor

    IMO Cannon wastes his liberty belting out the fantasies and dreams and nightmares he has about things like science. IMO he’s loud but not informative. Much sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  • Cannonshop

    #103 Zing, what’s your limit on what you’d support to save the world? Frightened people will do the damnedest things if they believe, without question.

    #105 Igor, I don’t have a problem with science, I have a problem with PSEUDO Science, I have a problem (as in, I take issue) with masking up political activism as research. YOU never bothered to ASK before you bought in, because the results fit YOUR preconcieved notions-I didn’t approach the Climate Change debates with pre-concieved ideas of what “Should Be” in terms of the results.

    I looked at the claims, I examined counter-claims, I grabbed every piece of open-to-the-public research I could find, I read through the slogging mess of those E-mails that were leaked, and came to the conclusion that the research isn’t complete, it’s not a “Theory” just because it’s been sold and packaged, it’s a HYPOTHESIS with political backing.

    AGW is “Science” the way “Intelligent Design Creationism” is “Science”. All trappings, no substance.

  • Zingzing

    cannonshop, how long would you stand in a room while I pumped a shitload of chemicals inside? the whole time I’ll yell “don’t worry, it’s totally natural! You’ll be fine!” I’ll be lying, of course, but whatever makes you feel better.

  • Cannonshop

    #107 Zing, you seem to be under the false impression that being skeptical of your pet apocalyptic scenario means being in favour of pollution.

    which is idiotic.

  • Zingzing

    never said that, now did I?

  • Cannonshop

    #109 You’ve implied it several times in this very thread, Zing-the comment I was responding to practically screamed (with spittle and bile) it. I’d suspect that deep down inside, that’s exactly what you believe, even if you’re not comfortable with admitting it.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Cannon, it’s not compulsory for a scientific hypothesis to overcome vigorous academic opposition in order for it to be true.

    Just because the heliocentric theory, evolution and plate tectonics were originally scorned doesn’t automatically validate them.

    There are plenty of groundbreaking scientific theories that were, by and large, non-controversial: atomic theory, cell theory and gravity, to name a few. Should we stop believing in them?

    Besides which, your charge against AGW theory only works if somebody suddenly invented it out of whole cloth in the 1980s and other scientists (who were of course all long-haired, bearded, Subaru-driving, tofu-munching peaceniks) promptly jumped on the bandwagon.

    In actual fact, the idea that human activities could have a warming effect on the atmosphere was first proposed over 100 years ago by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius. His ideas weren’t accepted for many decades, because the prevailing scientific view was that the atmosphere was too large and complex a system for human actions to have any measurable effect on it. It wasn’t until the 1950s that the idea of a human-induced greenhouse effect started to gain traction.

    Notice that emphasis? Science has been taking this seriously since the conservative, baby-boom, McCarthy-era fifties, not the MAD-threatened, eco-conscious eighties.

    And for all your accusations of pseudoscience, Cannon, you’ve offered nothing whatsoever to support your charges except a shipload of innuendo and bad analogy.

  • Cannonshop

    #111 Doc, I’m not the one with something TO prove, my whole schtick is that yer not asking questions, just accepting recieved wisdom from “above”, and that acceptance is fundamentally counter-scientific.

    I’m also looking at the situation like a mechanic- first, determine IF something is wrong, second, determine WHAT is wrong, Third is determine what’s causing what’s wrong, then start looking into options to fix what is wrong. I don’t think that we’ve adequately determined THAT something is wrong, much less what, or what’s causing it, without those, any proposed fixes are just “part swapping”.

    I’m not the guy who cooked his data to sell a hypothesis, I’m not the researcher who’s worried his methodology would get out and be challenged, and I’m not the guy who’d have to give his Nobel back if it turns out his movie “Earth in the Balance” is a load of crap propoganda…and I’m not the guy trying to sell a load of legislative makework to promote a system that, like Communism, only works in theory, and fails in practice.

    I’m just the guy saying “Don’t buy it if you don’t know what’s in it.”

    I don’t have any investment in being right-or being percieved as right, I am not selling you something or demanding you change your ways, and I’m not the guy proclaiming the end of the world is coming through the sins of man, and everyone needs to repent and buy indulgences.

  • Cannonshop

    Doc, we’ve been roundabouts on this before, and on related issues-you know damn well I’m a proponent of alternative energy and favour ‘clean’ solutions-for reasons that MAKE SENSE.

    I have a big issue in compelling people to do things on shaky or false pretense. It’s dishonest and it’s destructive in the long run, I’d as soon NOT see baked science get traction, then be unmasked and in the process see science take a beating because people were bamboozled. Trust lost is almost NEVER regained.

  • Zingzing

    Cannonshop, I said nothing of the sort, so don’t be trying to put words in my mouth. That said, in effect, you might as well love pollution… but I don’t see how anyone really could. It’s ugly stuff, and I don’t think you dumb enough not to realize that. So why don’t you deal with things people actually say rather than things you imagine they’re thinking in their evil, evil soul. Reality is a much less frightening place. Thanks.

  • Cannonshop

    #114 Words and Grammar carry meaning, Zing. If you don’t care for the meaning I drew off your statement in #107, it’s either because you didn’t communicate clearly (which has never been a problem of yours in the past), or you only “didn’t mean it” in retrospect.

    I’m willing to accept the former option, but I’m also willing to accept the latter-the whole argument is emotionally charged and it’s easy to lose control and say things that, after thinking about it, you didn’t mean, or to imply things you didn’t mean to imply.

    But your comment #107 fits your other comments on this thread-so don’t pretend you weren’t implying it there.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Cannon, you make a big assumption that I’m not asking questions, and (my main point) a spectacularly massive one that questions HAVEN’T been asked.

    I’ve no interest in repenting, or “selling indulgences”: in fact, charges like that are seriously in the running for the biggest piles of bullcrap I’ve seen shoveled around during this whole furore.

    IMO you’re suffering from deep confirmation bias: for example, your conviction that the “Climategate” emails betray a conspiracy on the part of climatologists to hide data, rather than an unwillingness to share it with a bunch of pests who are just going to use it to defame them.

    I’m looking for weaknesses in the theory just like you. Unfortunately, while there are things that need to be clarified, I’m just not seeing anything that shows me it’s wrong. As Glenn keeps pointing out (but you never acknowledge), those of us who believe it’s happening are HOPING climatologists ARE barking up the wrong tree.

    If I, in my Dr Dreadful character, have tied the heroine to a railway track, she can hope that the loose rivet on the 3:30 express will cause the whole train to disintegrate before it runs her over, but realistically it will probably just result in a window falling out.

    The “anti” crowd just aren’t convincing with their science. They don’t understand that one isolated error, misapplication of data or poorly-understood phenomenon doesn’t invalidate the whole theory.

    Likewise from you: all I see are accusations of misconduct. I don’t see any science.

    I have an experiment for you. Take one of your lengthier comments, substitute the climate change references with buzz phrases from, say, the “vaccines cause autism” crowd, and see how it reads.

    (Now there’s a real crackpot theory, and one that’s supported by many on the left, moreover.)

  • Zingzing

    Cannonshop, ok… I firmly believe that you wrap yourself up in a blanket of smog every night, put your head under and Dutch oven yourself to noxious vapor heaven. I think you are deeply in love with pollution, because you see the bright side of pollution, whatever that may be. (this is called sarcasm, in case you really believe that…)

    You go on believing whatever you want, but it’s better to know your enemy. My #107 had nothing to do with you loving pollution or whatever. you wouldn’t stand in a room as I pumped untold amounts of chemicals into it, would you? I certainly hope not

  • Cannonshop

    #116: Unwillingness to face criticism is unwillingness to face criticism doc. Closing the doors (even to pests that want to defame you) is more or less DEMONSTRATING shaky work-if it’s good science, then the pests are the ones shown to be teh fool, not hte researcher. If the researcher is afraid of being shown as a fool, then maybe their research has fundamental issues and isn’t ready for the prime time, much less to be used as a tool of policy.
    If Evolutionary or Geological researchers had had the same mindset, Doc, we’d be living on a 4,000 year old world created by some kind of god, not a four billion year old world that evolved from spacial debris and star dust.

    Let me put it another way: a person with MY thinking, but without my ethics, would be pushing HARD for acceptance of AGW theory-because the remedies fit with much of what I’d like to see done for OTHER reasons-the development of clean, non-fossil-fuel energy, some remediation of problems in the Third World, and reduction in pollution here at home.

    But…I have this sticky ethics thing going-I value Science as an approach to problem solving, I value scientific ethics including the intellectual courage to face criticism, and I value Skeptical, as opposed to Faith Based, approaches to facing and solving problems.

    but it’s not just hte East Anglia memos. Professor Mann, of the Mann Hockeystick Graph paraded about at Kyoto as ‘proof’ of the danger, stopped publishing his formulae after a couple canadian math-scholars (amatuers, at that) proved you could get the “Hockeystick” using random numbers in place of the recorded temperature and climate data. THEIRS was repeatable. Secrecy in Science, an unwillingness to just let the pests do their thing because they’ll inevitably prove themselves wrong, is counter to scientific ethics AND the scientific method-makes it not science, see? all the trappings-all the degrees, the big budgets, the labs, that’s just stuff. If you can’t put your experiment in the hands of the public for fear that some amatuer will make you look like an idiot, then you’re not doing science.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Unwillingness to face criticism is unwillingness to face criticism doc. Closing the doors (even to pests that want to defame you) is more or less DEMONSTRATING shaky work-if it’s good science, then the pests are the ones shown to be teh fool, not hte researcher.

    Hate to break it to you, Cannon, but climatologists are human. There are also only 24 hours in the day. This was in many cases data that had been requested by and given to the same “skeptics” many times before. It was pretty clear that what was going on was not an honest request for information, but a calculated campaign of harassment, so persistent that if all of the requests had been responded to, there would have been little time left to do any actual science – which, I suspect, was the entire object.

    Again, there have been about a dozen separate inquiries into the matter, all of which have exonerated those concerned of anything much worse than poor customer service.

    but it’s not just hte East Anglia memos. Professor Mann, of the Mann Hockeystick Graph paraded about at Kyoto as ‘proof’ of the danger, stopped publishing his formulae after a couple canadian math-scholars (amatuers, at that) proved you could get the “Hockeystick” using random numbers in place of the recorded temperature and climate data.

    I addressed McIntyre and McKittrick’s work in comment 36 of this thread, with a citation. Your failure to respond, and your repeating of the same claim in 118 (did you hope everyone had forgotten?) is, I’m afraid, quite typical of the “skeptic” lobby.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop #112 –

    You’re saying that the climatologists haven’t provided real proof. Problem is, no one can prove anything to someone who refuses to accept proof for what it is, no matter how strong that proof may be. You’ve got the same problem as Clavos – you’re unwilling to apply the same cynicism to the AGW deniers (and yourself) as to AGW supporters…

    …and you’ve concreted yourself into the mindset that if liberals say something, then it must be wrong and it’s your duty to oppose it. And you know what? I can understand that to an extent, because that’s how I felt back in the 1980’s before I began seeing things a bit more clearly.

  • Igor

    77-Jordan: I don’t think so.

    “Cannon has the mind of an engineer…”

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Hussein Dreadful

    Problem is, no one can prove anything to someone who refuses to accept proof for what it is, no matter how strong that proof may be.

    QFT.

    Case in point: the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study, an independent “audit” of measurements led by skeptical scientist Dr Richard Muller (who is a physicist, not a climatologist).

    Prominent “anti” blogger Anthony Watts gave his blessing to the study, saying that he would stand by the results even if they proved him wrong.

    So did Watts, when the preliminary BEST results unsurprisingly confirmed previous findings, make good on his promise? Did he bollocks.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Signing off for the next couple days – on the way to the Far East once more –

%d bloggers like this: