by Judith Curry
The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. – John Tierney
John Tierney has written a stunningly insightful piece in the City Journal Magazine: The Real War on Science. Read the whole thing. Here are some excerpts of particular relevance to climate science:
Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy).
The danger from the Left does not arise from stupidity or dishonesty; those failings are bipartisan. Some surveys show that Republicans, particularly libertarians, are more scientifically literate than Democrats, but there’s plenty of ignorance all around. Both sides cherry-pick research and misrepresent evidence to support their agendas. Whoever’s in power, the White House plays politics in appointing advisory commissions and editing the executive summaries of their reports. Scientists of all ideologies exaggerate the importance of their own research and seek results that will bring them more attention and funding.
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.
Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.
The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century.
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. To conservatives, the fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state.
For his part, Holdren has served for the past eight years as the science advisor to President Obama, a position from which he laments that Americans don’t take his warnings on climate change seriously. He doesn’t seem to realize that public skepticism has a lot to do with the dismal track record of himself and his fellow environmentalists. There’s always an apocalypse requiring the expansion of state power.
President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous.
The long-term risks are certainly worth studying, but no matter whose predictions you trust, climate science provides no justification for Obama’s green agenda—or anyone else’s agenda. Even if it were somehow proved that high-end estimates for future global warming are accurate, that wouldn’t imply that Greens have the right practical solution for reducing carbon emissions—or that we even need to reduce those emissions. Policies for dealing with global warming vary according to political beliefs, economic assumptions, social priorities, and moral principles. Would regulating carbon dioxide stifle economic growth and give too much power to the state? Is it moral to impose sacrifices on poor people to keep temperatures a little cooler for their descendants, who will presumably be many times richer? Are there more important problems to address first? These aren’t questions with scientifically correct answers.
Yet many climate researchers are passing off their political opinions as science, just as Obama does, and they’re even using that absurdly unscientific term “denier” as if they were priests guarding some eternal truth. Science advances by continually challenging and testing hypotheses, but the modern Left has become obsessed with silencing heretics. In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have “deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” Similar assaults on free speech are endorsed in the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform, which calls for prosecution of companies that make “misleading” statements about “the scientific reality of climate change.”
The most vocal critics of climate dogma are a half-dozen think tanks that together spend less than $15 million annually on environmental issues. The half-dozen major green groups spend more than $500 million, and the federal government spends $10 billion on climate research and technology to reduce emissions. Add it up, and it’s clear that scientists face tremendous pressure to support the “consensus” on reducing carbon emissions, as Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech, testified last year at a Senate hearing.
“This pressure comes not only from politicians but also from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists,” Curry said. “This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity—without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.”
To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires. They need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos. Making these changes won’t be easy, but the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror.
Science in the Age of Trump
So, what can we expect for science in the Age of Trump? There is much angst in the scientific community, as per these articles that I linked to in the most recent Week in Review.
Lets take a look at Trump’s response to the ScienceDebate questions on the topic of ‘Research‘.
The premise of this question is exactly correct—scientific advances do require long term investment. This is why we must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and engineering in a number of fields. We should also bring together stakeholders and examine what the priorities ought to be for the nation. Conservation of resources and finding ways to feed the world beg our strong commitment as do dedicated investment in making the world a healthier place. The nation is best served by a President and administration that have a vision for a greater, better America.
On ‘Scientific Integrity‘:
Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration.
Its difficult to argue against these statements.
I find Tierney’s article to be very insightful. I read Chris Mooney’s book Republican War on Science just after Xmas 2005 (it was an Xmas gift). It really resonated with me at this time, when I was in the midst of the ‘hurricanes and global warming war’. Although the book has ‘Republican’ in the title, much of the content was really about a bipartisan war on science. I met Chris Mooney in January 2006 at the American Meteorological Society Meeting, where we had extensive discussions. Mooney then wrote another excellent book Storm World, about the hurricane and global warming debate. Mooney and I were pretty close for a few years, but parted ways over The Republican Brain; Mooney didn’t take well to my criticism.
The ‘war on science’ has definitely evolved under the Obama administration, as President Obama (who seems to genuinely pay attention to science) has scientized many political debates, notably global climate change. Also in the past decade, the internet has become more prominent, giving voice to a much wider range of perspectives than can be found in academia with its federal funding and ever growing liberal bias.
What can we expect from the Trump administration? Well the (sort of) good news is that science doesn’t seem to be a priority in his administration (so far, anyways). This could imply two things:
- science can proceed unfettered, without politicization of science and scintillation of polices
- science funding will not be a priority, or funding priorities will change.
The golden age for U.S. science over the span of my career was under the administration of Bush 41, with abundant funding and an emphasis on studying the problems rather than on acting on them.
Lets see how this plays out. But I will have to conclude that Obama’s administration didn’t do U.S. science any favors. A more laissez-faire approach to science in the Trump administration would be very welcome.
But will The Scientists™ accept the result if the Science Wars go the wrong way, and science wins?
What we need, when this is all over, is a bit of victor’s justice. What we need is a sort of climate Nuremberg.
Prof Curry, the only ‘war on science’ is the one being waged to undermine the scientific method itself and the public understanding thereof, and it’s being run out of the office of an N. Oreskes in the bowels of Harvard.
Science is a method, not a conclusion. (I don’t need to tell you this.)
Denying what we conclude, disputing what we know or questioning what we think might or might not be acts of disinformation (formerly known as “lying”), but they can’t—by definition—constitute assaults on *science*, which is not a body of knowledge but the machinery by which we continually improve our body of knowledge.
Oreskes is the closest thing anyone will come to a literal “science denier,” because her entire schtick is based on denying the way the machinery of science works. Science cares about evidence alone, not consensus. But Oreskes pretends otherwise. Oreskes teaches cohort after cohort of Harvard [!] students otherwise.
It doesn’t matter what “side” of the climate issue you’re on—if you’re a human being, you value science. And that makes Naomi Oreskes your enemy.
Correction: there’s also another, even deadlier, war on science going on today—I refer of course to the use of italics for long slabs of body text.
Professor Curry, your blog is UNREADABLE* when you do that. Please stop it. Please. My eyes are begging you.
*Not illegible, mind you. Just unreadable—a subtly different concept in typography.
> Denying what we conclude, disputing what we know or questioning what we think might or might not be acts of disinformation (formerly known as “lying”), but they can’t—by definition—constitute assaults on *science*, which is not a body of knowledge but the machinery by which we continually improve our body of knowledge.
You’re suggesting that any act of disinformation can’t constitute assault on science, Brad.
By definition, no less.
Not quite Willard—I should have been more explicit. My bad. Please read:
“Denying what scientists conclude about nature, disputing what scientists know about nature or questioning what scientists think about nature […] can’t—by definition—constitute assaults on *science*”
> I should have been more explicit.
I think you’re being more implicit, Brad, for the might or might not be acts of disinformation (formerly known as “lying”) has disappeared.
If denying what we conclude, disputing what we know or questioning what we think might be acts of disinformation and can’t constitute by definition something, then that something can’t be implied by acts of disinformation. At least insofar as your argument can be expressed in a non-exotic informal logic. In your case, that something is being science.
Which means that, according to your argument, acts of disinformation can’t constitute assaults on *science* by definition.
I omitted the bit in […] because it was subordinate, irrelevant, and didn’t need to be re-worded.
So it didn’t need to be present in the rewording, surely.
I think the structure of my sentence is throwing you.
*Those* acts I listed (which, parenthetically, might or might not be disinformative) cannot be assaults on science. This is a matter of definition—the definition of “assaults on science,” not the definition of “disinformative acts.”
*Other* disinformative acts may very well be assaults on science. In fact I can name some disinformative acts that ARE assaults on science. In fact, I believe I’ve done that somewhere in this very thread :-)
> *Those* acts I listed (which, parenthetically, might or might not be disinformative) cannot be assaults on science.
I see. Perhaps I should clarify that when I was speaking of “any act of disinformation,” I meant any act such as those you enumerated.
It’s quite obvious that there exists act of disinformation that can constitute assault on science even by your argument. Teh Donald throws in one or two daily on his tweeterer feed.
You’re arguing that criticism can’t be unscientific, even if that criticism is disinformative. I doubt that disinformation is a scientific thing.
Willard, I’m not arguing for a second that disinformation [deliberate misinformation] about nature (“carbon monoxide is plant food,” or whatever) is scientific, or even compatible with science. It’s profoundly descientific. And immoral. It’s just not an attack ON SCIENCE.
How about disinformation about the nature of the scientific institutions, e.g. “there are 12 more liberal scientists than conservative ones, and yet libtards are doing more harm than right wing nuts”?
Willard, that sounds like American political opinionizing to me. Nothing more or less. I can’t even determine its truth-value. I hesitate to acquiesce to the premise that it’s information, let alone misinformation, let alone disinformation.
Sorry I can’t be of as much assistance as you were hoping.
There’s a good opening for a neologism here.
I suggest aninformation (which sounds quite meaningless – phanopoetic even) using an- as in anoxic or anencephaly – signifying a lack of the thing following.
Many unsupported assertions vehemently proclaimed by self anointed climatologists could rightly be considered aninformative, or even contrainformative (another neologism?).
If you like it, it’s yours. If you don’t, I guess I’m hoist with my own petard!
I sometimes use “noise.”
Thanks. I’m indebted for that reminder about phano-, melo- and logopoetry.
Will a Pound cover it?
> that sounds like American political opinionizing to me. Nothing more or less
It sounds a bit more than that to my ear. The Manhattan Institute isn’t really is more into the Freedom Fighting than the opinionizing business.
If you scroll to the end of the About page of the City Journal, you can read that it is a quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute.
I’m not sure how they can call their propaganda tool a “magazine” or a “journal,” but there you go.
Also note that when Judy rubberstamps and epilogues on an editorial transmogrified into an “article” in a “magazine” that calls itself a “journal,” there’s a bit more than opinionizing going on.
Mileave varies, I suppose.
Willard, that’s all very nice but as you know I never bother reading “skeptical” discourse, since I’m already a “skeptic.” Even if JUDY REMOVED THE ITALICS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD SO THAT IT WAS HUMANLY READABLE, what would I get out of reading it?
All I had to go on was the passage you quoted (and asked me to react to).
The italics come with the WP theme. I don’t think she can override that CSS behavior unless she pays a bit more than she pays now. She could change theme, but I would advise against it.
My only advice would be to use an RSS reader or to use a readability bookmarklet. I rather like this one:
Thanks for the tips Willard. Trying the bookmarklet in a sec.
But there’s no excuse for this, in this day and age. We’ve known about the use and abuse of italics for 400 years. Italics are NOT designed (lovingly, by typographers) for entire paragraphs of text. The font designers themselves are more embarrassed than anyone by this ongoing crap.
It’s 2016. Judy shouldn’t be blogging an unreadable blog; WP shouldn’t offer unreadable themes to customers who don’t even know what readability means; and it shouldn’t be unfeasible for customers with unreadable themes to make them readable in CSS.
Everyone who’s making excuses for italic block text is free to install an unreadability bookmarklet and enjoy a consistently revolting ocular experience wherever they go.
Meanwhile, I shouldn’t have to be the one person here who enjoys proper typography.
If this is what passes for Western civilization, I say let the terrorists win.
> Judy shouldn’t be blogging an unreadable blog
Just wait until the president-elect takes office.
Teh Donald will make italics readable again!
False analogy. America was once great at some point, but italics were never readable, and it’s easier to make the rise of the oceans pause and rewind with the pure power of thought than to alter one letter of the laws of typography.
Italics were once readable:
Italics were once written on vellum too. I guess I should have scoped my claim more narrowly to the digital age.
Brad, you get this blog for free, so no gripes allowed.
I’m not the type to hold a gripe, but freedom of griping includes the right to have a type gripe shared by 97% of active, publishing typographers.
Science is more than a method. Before there was a method there was a world view. Back in among ancient Greeks on the Ionian coast around 2600 years ago the naturalistic world view began. https://www.amazon.com/Anaximander-Carlo-Rovelli/dp/159416262X
I wonder if the Greeks, in their oracular foresight, ever imagined the day would come when climatology groupies mocked the “magical thinking” of climatology deniers whose crime is to try to “find a natural explanation” for changes in the natural world everybody knows “can’t be accounted for by natural change.”
The Anthropocene is a myth; we’ve entered the Supernatural Age.
It is flipping obvious to anyone who looks at grant RFPs what is going on.
If the only funded studies implicitly or even worse explicitly assume CO2 is bad and ask the grant applicant to prove it the outcome is inevitable.
Filtering out only the worst (most harm) studies for publication is icing on the cake.
We have had 8 full years of this. And the eco-warmunist moles at NSF and EPA, and in the leadership of the major climate centers started the process even earlier. Hansen’s predecessor at GISS was. Dr. Robert Jastrow.
Dr. Jastrow also became a prominent skeptic on climate change issues, arguing that scientists who warned of a global warming crisis were misattributing nature’s effects on climate to the effects of mankind.
A marked contrast to Mr. Hansen.
Hopefully Trump will appoint an anti-warmer.
After 8 years of role reversal (only CO2 is good studies) we could have a balanced view of the science.
Funding choices, funding pressures, and discrimination have almost exterminated non-Warmunist climate scientists and that needs to be reversed.
From above: “Science is science and facts are facts. My administration will ensure that there will be total transparency and accountability without political bias. The American people deserve this and I will make sure this is the culture of my administration.”
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as much as you please.” – Mark Twain.
The 4-year path forward will certainly be interesting with Mother Nature watching closely.
Science is science, and facts are facts, and the fact is, science isn’t about facts. But then “hypothesis” is probably too many syllables when you’re trying to Heal A Divided Nation.
Surely, a hypothesis is a function of science, facts are the mechanism, and the theory is the conclusion?
The conclusion is infinitely variable dependent on the hypothesis, and the facts available to hand, of the moment.
Forgive me, though, ‘hypothesis’ is difficult for me to spell so the rest is just the ramblings of an illiterate.
That’s a long way round to say you are condescending. But I’ll bet you got that right away.
BTW, if science isn’t reliant on fact, what is science reliant on?
> Surely, a hypothesis is a function of science, facts are the mechanism, and the theory is the conclusion?
You’re suggesting (I think) that data could be called “facts,” and that—since data are the raw fuel fed into the engine of science—I was wrong to dismiss the role of facts in science.
Which is fair enough, except that nobody tends to gets het up about raw data—they’re rarely the locus of controversy—so it would seem odd, to me, for a President to talk about something so banal.
I therefore assumed he was using “facts,” as many people use the word, to mean “the things we know about how nature works, thanks to science.”
> That’s a long way round to say you are condescending.
You could have just said so. I wouldn’t mind. I’d just assume you misinterpreted my one-sentence comment, or were reading too much into it. (I’m not even patronising, let alone condescending, by nature.)
> But I’ll bet you got that right away.
No, it hit me out of the blue.
Anyway, my point (if I had one) was that political speakers tend to dumb down scientific terminology for prosodic reasons. Which I’m sure you knew.
One last point: theories are glorified hypotheses. Formally they resemble other hypotheses, they’ve just been confirmed so many times that we now consider them to almost certainly be The Truth.
I hasten to admit that my reply to you, downthread, about Einstein comes across as oozing condescension. Dripping contempt and radiating superciliousness. But I was kidding with you. The link will convince you of the facetiousness of my intent.
HotScot, scratch that—it was Curious George, not you.
“Surely, a hypothesis is a function of science, facts are the mechanism, and the theory is the conclusion?”
Facts are statements that can be proven to be true or false. (Some would argue that facts are true statements and there are no false facts) Science does not prove. The primary criterion of science is evidence which is usually derived through observation or other senses and experience and from that we make inferences that sometimes are communicated as “fact”, but that would be using the term loosely.
Please feel free to correct my epistemology if I messed something up in my attempt to correct HotScot’s epistemology, Jean Paul.
Jean. Brad pretends to understand science. Does a poor job of it. Correcting him is futile as he never learns.
There are no facts in science. Only more or less accepted theories.
Thus falsifying Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s statement:
If I’d gotten something wrong, and if you knew what it was, you would have pointed it out—thus providing a scrap (at least) of evidence to back up your angry trash-talk.
But you didn’t.
Readers, on your marks….
draw your conclusions!
> Facts are statements that can be proven to be true or false.
So “snow is white” can be proven true?
To remove any ambiguity, Jean:
I was asking you to audit my reasoning *as a favor,* not a rhetorical paso, for the same reason I started following you on Twitter as soon as I read a brilliant comment you made here: you’re damn sharp.
Why do you classify “snow is white” as a fact?
I thought it was a theory, a bit like the [falsified] one about swans.
Logic Audit time!
> …Thus falsifying Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s statement: Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
The only way to falsify Moynihan is to show that someone is *not* entitled to his own opinion, or that someone *is* entitled to his own facts.
You don’t seem to have achieved that by pointing out that:
> There are no facts in science. Only more or less accepted theories.
Is there a step you forgot to mention?
PS Mosher, one last thing: if you get in the way of an adult conversation between me and Jean Paul again, I might decide to give the views you expressed to me about a certain ethnicity a wider airing.
An overly narrow view of “falsify Moynihan”. He’s saying a lot more than the literal words of his statement.
For instance, speaking semantically, I’d have to say that that statement actually attempts to define “facts”: A “fact” is something nobody is allowed to question.
Of course, it’s hidden behind an unstated assumption that there’s a parallel distinction between “opinions” and “facts”. Demonstrating that there’s no such thing as “facts”, only opinions (theories) falsifies the unstated assumption, therefore falsifies the statement that depends on it.
Moynihan’s statement (in context) would appear to be an effort to describe (and define, IMO) how “private sub-systems of authority” maintain and compete among themselves.
In which case, if I’m right, the statement was always tongue-in-cheek, intended to represent the world-view of people caught in their own “private sub-systems of authority”, rather than an actual description of the real world.
I dunno for sure, but certainly (IMO) there’s no such thing as a as “fact” that is not open to question. Only a whole bunch of opinions/theories that the consensus considers not worth the effort to question.
“I was asking you to audit my reasoning *as a favor,* not a rhetorical paso.”
Understood. Thanks for your patient defense of my high handed intellectual snobbery as well. It is certainly appreciated.
It can be proven false. Yellow snow, black snow.
> Why do you classify “snow is white” as a fact?
I don’t. I classify it as a factual statement. The story goes that this factual statement is true if and if snow is indeed white.
I use that statement as an example of a factual statement because philosophers always use the same examples.
I don’t wish to be picky but snow is not white. It merely appears to be white due to it’s crystalline structure.
You are wrong too. “The primary criterion of science” is to establish a naturalistic world view. That’s the mission Anaximander and Thales seemed to have given themselves 2600 years ago when scientific thinking first began among the Greek settlers of the Ionian coast. https://www.amazon.com/Anaximander-Carlo-Rovelli/dp/159416262X/ I think this world view was de-emphasized during the European scientific revolution because Religion still held so much power in society. Yet naturalism is still the goal of science :- not great/beautiful theories, accurate data, nor rigorous method. Those others are just essential way stations on the path.
Essentially this article appears to be written by someone who doesn’t like the current direction in which policy is going. Instead of presenting an actual argument for a different policy direction, the author is arguing that certain people who present information that might inform policy, should stop getting involved in anything related to policy and should leave it to others; presumably people with whom the author agrees.
Read the whole article. there are a whole host of examples, not just climate change.
I have read the whole article; my view was based on that (although it does appear to be mostly climate change/environmentalism). The author doesn’t even consider the possibility that maybe the information being presented is actually credible.
…and Then There’s Physics ==> Bush’s disapproval of embryonic research is mentioned with the first three real examples 1) GMO research, 2) animal experimentation in medical research, and 3) the genetic basis for differences in humans. Then follows “mental health of leftist activists”, an extensive section on bias in social psychology and nmore general problems being addressed by the Heterodox Academy effort, the sociology of single-parenting, studies involving race/gender with IQ, personality, intellectual abilities and differences in interest, genetics and human evolution, enforced gender equality, scientific socialism, eugenics and the zero-population-growth movement, misguided environmentalism, and finally, a bit about climate change, rapidly followed by the “food police” and “diet wars”, and then returning to a treatment of the Climate Wars.
Are you sure you are reading this Tierney article?
Kenny is simply throwing mud. He creates his own interpretation of Tierney’s article just so he can denigrate it. Apparently Kenny hasn’t figured out that this method is not working like it once did and people now tend to recognize it for what it is – whiney rebellion to being ignored and rejected.
Maybe you should consider taking up gardening Ken. Saving the world and all that.
This is just typical of this guy. A claim is made without the slightest shred of evidence. As anyone can see, the article is about politics, bias, confirmation bias, groupthink, dogma, prejudice, the stubborn refusal of the left to accept data on IQ studies, sneering and smearing (see ATTP’s latest childish sneer/smear at the Conversation).
He then invents this story that it’s all about policy.
And your response is pretty typical of you. Upset that I essentially called you a denialist? If so, maybe you should stop behaving like one and should stop associating with those who very obviously are. Your “Climate Denialism” site is just bizarre. This is not a complicated concept.
I presented a view. Of course, it’s a view that you won’t like, but that doesn’t make it wrong. I also didn’t sat “it’s all about policy”; I suggested that the author’s arguments are an attempt to deligitmise those who present views that are inconvenient when it comes to the policy they would like to promote.
And then there’ Physics and Willard are the same person. As an example of this guy’s integrity he often posts under both names (maybe morre?) in the same thread creating a false illusion about the number of people who agree with his arguments.
No, Willard and I are not the same person. Willard sometimes posts articles on my blog and sometimes acts as a moderator, but that doesn’t make us the same person.
No, we are not the same person and I have not posted under multiple names in the same thread, or at the same time on different threads.
aTTP I will retract my claim. I was sent an email that you had posted a smear against me on your website. I just revisited that attack and it appears it was just a guest post by Willard on your site trying to justify his dishonest obfuscation of my article here: How Gaia and coral reefs regulate Ocean pH. So perhaps you are just 2 different people.
“I have not posted under multiple names in the same thread, or at the same time on different threads.”
I can vouch for ATTP’s consistency in identifying himself. Whether at his abandoned blog ToTheLeftOfCentre, or at the next blog he abandoned (Watt’s All This Then Eh?), or at his latest blog AndThenThere’sPhysics, AndThenThere’sPhysics has *never* used the blogonym Ken Rice.
Call him what you will—call him ToTheLeftOfCentre, Watt The Watt?, And Then There’s Physics, or wattever—at least Ken’s not a sockpuppet.
now that you know ATTP is not Willard, it’s Willard you should be apologizing to for equating them :-)
Yeah Ken, you presented a view – one that had almost no bearing on the Tierney article. Which is why you had to create your own version of what the article said. Perhaps you think having a superior intellect allows you to act dishonestly without people recognizing what you are doing.
> it appears it was just a guest post
Once again, like a boss.
charles the moderator,
> Did Ken ever figure it out.
Yes and no. Someone tipped him off, so he knows I tricked him into espousing anti-science.
But to this day, he doesn’t have the faintest idea WHY Feynman would make such a counter-Kentuitive claim, or why proper scientists side with Feynman.
To someone like Ken, science’s disregard for authority is a scary and incomprehensible anathema.
He knows now that he’s gonna have to pay lip service to values like independent thought, disregard for authority and the possibility that the consensus might be wrong if he wants to continue impersonating a scientist. He just can’t explain why. It’s one of life’s mysteries, to Ken.
” Doesn’t matter how beautiful the model is, doesn’t matter
how smart you are, if-it-doesn’t-agree-with-the-real-thing,
> Doesn’t matter how beautiful the model is
How true. These days it’s all about poise, the talent round and the trivia round. Nobody even watches the swimsuit round any more.
if climate science has taught us anything, and it hasn’t, it’s that all models are wrong, but some are also useless.
(Do scroll down to Willard’s answers—the only serious attempts at answering the challenge I’ve come across so far.)
> all models are wrong, but some are also useless
And then there are some who say “hello” to TV anchors at the most inconvenient times.
Yes Paul, KenRice typically doesn’t react to the actual contents of things. It’s an emotional issue I think. Then he accuses those who point this out of being “denialists.” Just name calling really, an ordinary artifice of the consensus enforcement mindset.
Aside from vague statements about “yes there are problems but not really significant ones,” Rice is in denial about the replication crisis and the role of bias in science. That will perhaps never change given Rice’s chosen role as an apologist for the science establishment. It will be left to others to do the heavy lifting of making change.
AAT Physics, (aka Willard),
The author is indeed against the current direction of science. In the past we have always advised our university students to avoid advocacy because it undermines our objectivity. Objectivity evolves from having many eyes and voices vet any given hypothesis, and if well vetted then we trust the science.
But current politicization of climate change hypotheses has tried force the opposite of what was once the foundation of science by claiming the debate is settled and calling those with skeptical view deniers.
The author rightly concludes the only direction that will save scientific integrity saying
“To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires. They need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos. “
Not quite comfortable with his conclusion.
“To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics” followed by “start welcoming conservatives”. One’s politics doesn’t matter. The science does.
I get what I think he meant. But that’s an interpretation. What his words represent is an injection of politics and belies the premise, IMO.
How do you know that “…and Then There´s Physics” and “Willard” are the same person?
“AAT Physics, (aka Willard),”
ATTP is a guy called Ken.
Willard is a guy called Willard.
And only one of them is a pseudoscientist.
==> “To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires. They need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos. “ ==>
So to preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and identify conservatives to spot their biases. How does one simultaneously avoid politics and identity people on the basis of their political outlook?
you don’t need to *identify* people of a certain group i order to put out a Welcome mat for them. In order to make a workplace non-threatening, welcoming, safe for and inclusive of (say) LGBQT people, do you need to *triage your employees on the basis of sexual orientation*? Of course not.
There’s a *potential* for things to backfire in the way you suggest, sure, but it’s certainly not inherent in the aspiration itself.
Joshua, I interpreted his conclusion to mean that there should be less of a gatekeeper effect that allows publication and discussions by more skeptics. He is not advocating to identify their politics. As the article states earlier skeptics have been labeled and marginalized as as conservatives who are antiscience. People like Trenberth have advised colleagues not to engage in debates with skeptics. Similarly Gavin Schmidt refused to share the state with Dr. Roy Spencer. Such actions are attempts to control the debate and flow of research as a means to protect their personal interpretations.
Again as the author states “They (ie Trenberth, Schmidt and their ilk) need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos.
In other words skeptics from all walks need to be included in the debate.
I have no problem in particular with saying that more diversity of all sorts is a desirable outcome. The problems arise however, when people promote selectively-reasoned arguments such as those we’ve seen in this thread, and indeed, almost everywhere where these issues are discussed (over and over and over in the same flawed manner).
IMO, the influence of biases such as confirmation bias run across political orientation and underlie the basic mechanics of our psychological makeup and reasoning processes. If you agree, then look again from that perspective as you look at the arguments being presented. For example, if you agree that people of all ideological and cultural and political stripes are vulnerable to identity-oriented “motivated-reasoning,” then what do you think about articles that finger point about about the biases among “liberal” scientists even as the political orientation of the author is dismissed as a potentially relevant factor?
I think it is important to not conflate the underlying issue being discussed with the flawed manner in which people manifest their identity by exploiting that underlying issue.
Indeed, a welcome mat is a fine analogy, and reflecting on why, if such a mat is laid down, there is a lack of diversity in the resulting demographic cross-section, is a worthwhile discussion. But exploiting diversity as a cover for identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors won’t get the job done – it will only perpetuate the existing cleavages.
> scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires
Are you suggesting that Judy should shut down her blog, JimC?
Given that there is nothing really stopping “skeptics” who would like to be included from trying to become involved, what are you actually suggesting? Surely, in this circumstance people have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not to actively welcome “skeptics”, and I assume that noone is arguing that we introduce anything formal (correct me if wrong). Why should it be up to others to welcome “skeptics”? If “skeptics” would like to become more involved, then why shouldn’t the onus be on them to work out how to do so?
“Given that there is nothing really stopping “skeptics” who would like to be included from trying to become involved, what are you actually suggesting?”
Thank God climate science has become so much more ecumenical, non-tribal, un-Manichaean and skeptic-friendly since the bad old days of 2005, when Tom Wigley wrote:
“If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”
Brad Keyes: “And only one of them is a pseudoscientist.”
And the other is not even that.
CatWeazle, the difference is:
Ken lists his profession as scientist.
Willard lists his profession as ninja.
I have nothing against pseudoninjas. :-)
” Why should it be up to others to welcome “skeptics”? If “skeptics” would like to become more involved, then why shouldn’t the onus be on them to work out how to do so?”
In reaction to efforts of some climate scientists like Schmidt and Trenberth to marginalize skeptics, and realizing their entrenched biases would not be easily resolved via peer review, skepetics accepted the onus and took to the blogosphere.
” Why should it be up to others to welcome “skeptics”? If “skeptics” would like to become more involved, then why shouldn’t the onus be on them to work out how to do so?”
First you if you cherish the objectivity of science then you would strive to ensure all hypotheses are well vetted, and not hijacked by politics. Obviously attp apporves the lack of objectivity.
In reaction to efforts of climate scientists like Schmidt and Trenberth to marginalize skeptics, and realizing their entrenched biases would not be easily resolved via peer review, skeptics accepted the onus and took to the blogosphere to provided the public with a more objective perspective.
So why would attphysics disagree with Feynman’s view of the responsibility of scientists to ensure objectivity and skeptically challenge any hypothesis???
“I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you’re talking as a scientist. . . . I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, [an integrity] that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen. “
That’s not all ATTP thinks Feynman got bass-ackwards:
+ Really nice one Brad. Did Ken ever figure it out.
When Feynman got a tummy ache, did he go to a witch doctor or a MD?
JCH, the answer is neither (as I’m sure you know perfectly well).
One doctor’s opinion would mean nothing. (You may as well consult a witch doctor!) Even a second opinion wouldn’t be nearly enough.
Fortunately though, as a tenured Professor, Feynman had excellent an health plan and, for example, in the case of a simple tummy-ache his HMO let him consult 100 doctors.
He went with whatever 97 of them said.
You know, the Scientific Method.
Was this intentionally ironic, or not? Of course we should do our utmost to vet all hypotheses. I’m simply asking you to explain how you think we should achieve what you seem to want without imposing conditions onto those who should – in the interest of free academic enquiry – not have politically motivated constraints placed on them. Maybe you think we should place politically motivated constraints on people, but that would seem to then make it difficult to prevent science from being hijacked by politics.
He went to a MD. He had cancer… a very large tumor. He died. But before he went to the MD the women in his life probably gave him herbal tea.
the author is arguing that certain people who present information that might inform policy, should stop getting involved in anything related to policy and should leave it to others;
Please explain why you believe “certain people who present information” that are biased, agenda-driven, dishonest, deceptive,,careerist, and/or greedy should be allowed to inform policy.
That this is ‘peculiar’ to the left: “The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.”
is farcical. Yes, it’s rampant on ‘the left’ but it’s equally rampant on the right.
It’s based in politics. Politics in science is the problem. It ‘creates’ ‘science wars’.
“Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy).”
That’s not what happened according to: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2744932/
“The policy was intended as a compromise and specified that research on lines created prior to that date would still be eligible for funding. Seventy-one lines from 14 laboratories  across the globe met Bush’s eligibility criteria, and scientists who wished to investigate these lines could still receive grants through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In practice, however, only 21 lines proved to be of any use to investigators .”
Making a point, sure. Making a fully informed comment for reader consumption. Nope.
This is what the study you link concluded:
“Stem cell research is a hotly debated issue on Capitol Hill and likely will remain so in the coming years. However, federalism and the presence of wealthy donors have allowed several states and major academic institutions to bypass the NIH entirely and function independently . Nevertheless, as Obama made clear on March 9, “(m)edical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research … and from a government willing to support that work” .
Making a point, sure. Omitting facts while complaining about refusals to fully inform, no doubt.
Who is funding stem cell research? Well, more so than the feds are the states, unencumbered by Bush’s NIH cut, and of course, private funding:
“Foundations and private philanthropists are spending a ton of money on hESC. While we don’t have it all by a long shot, we counted some $1.7 billion in private donations over the last few years to support stem cell research, most of it to establish stem cell programs free of federal funding restrictions at a number of different universities and other research institutions. This doesn’t count grants supporting hESC and other stem cell research made by disease foundations such as the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Disease, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society.”
“That this is ‘peculiar’ to the left: “The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.”
is farcical. Yes, it’s rampant on ‘the left’ but it’s equally rampant on the right.”
Let’s test that? can you find examples of Confirmation Bias from right leaning scientists?
The problem is you have misunderstood the author’s argument.
It goes like this.
1. As a community the science’s are dominated by left leaning folks.
2. A community of like minded folks, tend to be more prone to
group think– or confirmation bias.
3. Then he cites and example
merely asserting “they do it too” is not an argument
What you need to do is
1. Show that #1 is not the case
2. Challenge #2 in some way
3. Argue that his examples are isolated cases
I didn’t at all misunderstand the argument. In fact, I find much support for his premise. However, that being said, he stated ‘as fact’ that Bush “George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research”. This is not what occurred. I addressed his words. That’s all. His words were incorrect in the specific segment of the argument he presented.
I didn’t suggest ‘they do it too’. That was not the intent.
I clearly did as you proposed via ‘what I need to do’.
1.) I showed what he stated was not the case.
2.) Challenged and provided link to support.
3.) This was not a challenge to the overall essay. But one must wonder why he felt the need to provide false information easily refuted.
It’s not that complicated.
Mosh, I doubt Danny misunderstood anything. This looks like more of his fair and balanced posing – if someone offers argument directed at one side, Danny rushes in to show how it is valid against the other as well, thus confirming once again he is the non-partisan arbitrator we all secretly wish for.
“Danny rushes in to show how it is valid against the other as well,”
Thank you. Exactly the intent. Beginning to figure it out yet?
Which it usually isn’t.
“usually” is a broad term. Where, in this specific instance, was what I showed not?
Or you can use a paint roller in lieu of a brush.
“Yes, it’s rampant on ‘the left’ but it’s equally rampant on the right.”
How ‘hard’ do you wish me to read?
“The narrative that Republicans are antiscience has been fed by well-publicized studies reporting that conservatives are more close-minded and dogmatic than liberals are. But these conclusions have been based on questions asking people how strongly they cling to traditional morality and religion—dogmas that matter a lot more to conservatives than to liberals. A few other studies—not well-publicized—have shown that liberals can be just as close-minded when their own beliefs, such as their feelings about the environment or Barack Obama, are challenged.”
Continuation of the politicization is the concern. It doesn’t matter who does it. And the magnitude (no link provided) appears subjective.
If you have a point. Make it. ‘Read harder’ is not useful.
This statement below:
“Yes, it’s rampant on ‘the left’ but it’s equally rampant on the right.”
Is contradicted by a subsequent statement you make:
“I didn’t suggest ‘they do it too’. That was not the intent.”
Check your premise.
Noted. Correction. Should have been more expansive: (Mosher) “merely asserting “they do it too” is not an argument” was not actually the argument.
Both sides do it, and that because one side does it doesn’t mean it’s acceptable for the same kind of behavior from the ‘other side’ (not caring which side ‘started it’). This is the old ‘Mommy, they do it’ argument of a child. Doesn’t matter the magnitude. Two wrongs don’t make it right.
Thank you jean paul.
See danny. Not that hard.
Just follow instructions.
I’ll accept your apology offline
No need for offline. I miswrote. I apologize for the error. Hoping my response to JPZ provided needed clarification.
The point is that if academia itself is biased more to the left than society in general, it will see things differently and suggest things that do not match societies needs and wants.
If societies take on environmental issues ranges from hard left “environment trumps all other concerns” to hard right “environment doesn’t matter at all”, while academia covers merely “trumps all others” to “mildly important but requires a balance with others” then the “centre” of academia will be significantly different from that of society in general – the whole bell curve is shifted left.
Ignoring opinions of which side is “right” (ie, correct), this bias is now (apparently) manifest in academia, and THAT is what needs to be corrected. Not to “save” academia from left bias, but to save it from itself – to save it from being ignored or downplayed because it is automatically assumed biased left.
Even worse is the active purging of those who disagree – the left is supposed to be “sticking it to the man”, but since they became “the man”, they are now sticking it to those who simply disagree with them.
‘academia is itself is based more to the left than
society in general, but since academia trains
the educators, society itself anon will become
the left…. Gramsci himself told us so.
When you presume, you make a PRES out of U and ME both.
That was meant for you, ATTP. But please, continue to regale us with your telepathy-based exegeses.
Unless I missed it, it hasn’t really been pointed out that the author of this piece works for The Manhattan Institute. He’s is contributing editor to the Manhattan Institute’s quarterly publication.
Another classic. Does he work for the Manhattan Institue? What is the Manhattan Institute? I’ve never heard of it. Who cares? What matters is what he says. Which Merchant of Smear Ken Rice has utterly failed to address, as always.
Somehow pointing out where someone works is a smear. Bizarre. The relevance, for those who can actually think, is that his article mentions think tanks and implies that they are poorly funded relative to other organisations that might express views about this topic. The Manhattan Institute openly regards itself as a think tank, therefore it is useful to know that the author of this piece is associated with (employed by) a think tank and one that comments on energy & environment. Pointing this out is not a smear.
==> Another classic. Does he work for the Manhattan Institue? What is the Manhattan Institute? ==>
It’s a politically-oriented think tank.
==> I’ve never heard of it. Who cares? ==>
I would imagine that those who would be concerned about the politicization of science might consider the importance of politicized analyses of the state of science.
==> What matters is what he says. ==>
Indeed. So do you think, as opposed to scientists, “what he says” should be excused from examination for political bias, out of hand? If so, why, when it seems that much of his point is that it is important to consider the potential for biases (such as confirmation bias) to influence how people perform and perceive analyses?
I haven’t read the full article, but it appears from this section that he’s quoting some factual numbers on money distribution to highlight the bias of the Obama administration. I don’t think it matters who he works for.
> I don’t think it matters who he works for
Then I humbly suggest you take Climate Science 101. Of course it matters. To some people. :-)
” Pointing this out is not a smear.”
Ken Rice works for a left leaning university.
Pointing this out is not a smear, it is simply allowing the reader to have all the facts and so can then decide for themselves what his comments are worth.
Perhaps more accurately described as a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question.
kneel63: “Ken Rice works for a left leaning university.”
Don’t you think “works” is pushing it a bit?
At least put it in inverted commas!
…and Then There’s Physics: Unless I missed it, it hasn’t really been pointed out that the author of this piece
Are there serious flaws in the article?
works for The Manhattan Institute.
I for one am glad that he has a good job and that the Manhattan Institute has a good science writer.
That was a good essay. It won’t be the last word or persuade my liberal friends that I am not a total science illiterate. But I expect that it will add to the Republican House and Senate’s resistance to a large anti-CO2 program.
==> It won’t be the last word or persuade my liberal friends that I am not a total science illiterate. ==>
Try employing the same strategy that you employ to persuade your conservative friends that liberals, as a class of people, are not total science illiterates, or for that matter, many of the “denizens” of this blog.
I’d say that a strategy that works so well with conservatives might work for liberals.
And Then There’s Physics,
enough with the genetic fallacies already. They’re boring. If I wanted to embarrass and discredit you by association, I’d point out to everyone that you’re the author the blog And Then There’s Physics.
But I’m not one to go for the cheap shot.
> But I’m not one to go for the cheap shot.
Of course you’re not, just like I wouldn’t be the one to underline that your appeal to the genetic fallacy is invalid.
Exactly. Happily there’s no need for you to underline that fallacy, since I’m not one to make it. I’d never dream of mentioning the fact I mentioned I wouldn’t mention.
I’d never say you’d fall for the genetic fallacy unless you presumed that AT was implying that the A’s wrong because of his affiliation, Brad.
And I’d never think you’d go for that cheap shot because AT was simply expressing astonishment as to why nobody mentioned the A’s affiliation.
That the op-ed is crap can’t be explained by the A’s affiliation anyway.
AT might have better chances to claim such thing if the A’s affiliation was the GWPF, or if he was from Clisep without being you, of course.
Thanks Willard—that reminds me, yes, ATTP is a notorious frequenter, habitue and denizen of science-denying hateblog https://cliscep.com/, isn’t he? I wonder: is there any particular reason he decided not to be up front about his connections with the kind of individuals who read and write that… material?
An innocent omission, no doubt.
I don’t think so, Brad.
Here’s how I see it:
Sometimes, Judy mentions an author’s pedigree.
Sometimes, she doesn’t.
Sometimes, it rains.
>Sometimes, Judy mentions an author’s pedigree.
The article was written by a dog?
I haven’t read it, of course (because it’s quoted in A BUNCH OF LONG SLABS OF ITALICS, MAKING IT HUMANLY UNREADABLE, JUDY!)… but even if it’s mediocre by climate-debate standards it’s presumably prodigious by canine standards.
> was written by a dog?
Of course, since it was written on the Internet.
Please, do pay attention.
Here’s an usage of the word “pedigree” that doesn’t seem to involve dogs.
“We see it frequently right here that ‘climate scientists’ (due to their employment) are biased towards consideration of their very own financial concerns. Why would that not apply equally to ‘the other side’?”
It is unfortunate that a climate (pardon my pun) of guilt by association pervades the climate debates and it is even more unfortunate still that “the court of climate blogging” remains such a kangaroo court, but in actual court cases guilt by association is not so favored, although in fairness to puzzlement, police officers often interpret Terry v. Ohio to be a blanket approval of guilt by association, and in fairness to police the courts have adopted an “automatic companion” rule that allows police to frisk the companion of someone they are investigating in the name of officer safety.
However, in Ybarra v. Illinois the SCOTUS held:
“A person’s mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.”
The so called “automatic companion” rule arose due to subsequent confusion in the lower courts over what was held in Terry v. Ohio. I personally believe that ruling is a damn good one but the subsequent effects of that ruling stink to high heaven.
In Terry v. Ohio, a police officer sitting in his cruiser noticed what looked like criminal behavior or the makings of criminal behavior between three people, two on bicycles all loitering around a bank. One of the bike riders had a shot gun which is perfectly legal, but because this loitering was done in front of a bank and due to the suspicious nature of the three, the police officer detained them, frisked them and found enough evidence that they were about to rob the bank that he arrested them.
The defendants cried 4th Amendment foul but the SCOTUS disagreed, arguing that it was good police work. I agree with that, it was good policed work, and I think the subsequent problems stem from the likelihood that police officers do not actually read the case law they are told grants them certain authority and privileges. Or maybe its just a matter of granting an inch to mile takers. Either way, Terry v. Ohio should not be interpreted as justification of guilt by association.
The so called “automatic companion” rule was fashioned by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (year for year the most overturned court in the nation), but not all courts accept their rule and some rightly understand that Terry v Ohio requires an examination of the totality of the circumstances before a stop and frisk can be constitutional. Of course, stop and frisk was a big policy in NYC for some time, so in some areas the courts approve of this guilt by association, and other areas not so much.
Sorry to take so long to argue that it is not so simple as ‘because so many argue guilt by association’ in climate blogs it is fair game. It remains a logical fallacy and the advocacy for its use should be competently countered by advocates of a less fallacious method of fact finding. In actual courts of law, the reason the courts keep clarifying their own use of the fallacy is because of advocacy for and against the fallacy.
“Sorry to take so long to argue”. Please do. My background and ‘schooling’ is well outside anything remotely analytical and much (except the entertaining poltitiks threads) is a bit of a slog at times. Frankly, I appreciate the effort you put forth.
And to the point, I agree that painting all with the same brush is inappropriate. That is not the intention as while many do paint ‘climate scientists’ as less than professional many do not. Sometimes the writing is for a selection as you’re aware.
Being out of my element in the science oriented offerings I’m much less vocal and do indeed take Mosher’s ‘read harder’ to heart.
Since the topic article was premised on ‘the biased left’ and that’s not found to be substantiated within it makes me skeptical. When evaluation of the premise included discussion of the ‘leanings’ of the author it was arm waved away as unimportant. Yet since the following examples within was founded on that initial premise I equated it to the argument that ‘climate scientists’ are biased due to their funding and that would seem to make fair game of looking at the background and tendencies of the author.
The overall climate discussion is so unbalanced from both sides with common ground lacking that it’s a windmill at which I choose to tilt in discussion. And I’ll take the grief earned.
Whilst I am humble in your presence sir/madam, I object to your rude response. I sought this forum out to learn from, if I want to be insulted, I can visit Facebook. We can meet there if you wish.
If the author of this article must have his employment called into question, then so must every other author, of every article ever published, unless they were entirely financially independent, then it might be Mummy and Daddy who can be called to book.
We all have to eat and feed our families. If you question the motives of a scientist, irrespective of their employment status, you chip away at the credibility of science itself.
As far as I can gather, scientist’s should be judged on their science, not their employers. And whilst there are scientists who will undoubtedly toe the party line, sceptical scientists could hardly be described as such.
Indeed, trust in a scientist is engendered by his personal courage and belief. His/her desire to stand up to the establishment and challenge it. Surely?
Accepting establishment science is to undermine the craft itself, isn’t it? It is the one enduring bastion of rebellion that shouts, ‘I am right, you are wrong, and I can prove I am right’.
But you seem happy to criticise someone who, if not a scientist them self, is employed by someone in order that they can feed their family.
And from that perspective, I have immense admiration for every honest scientist who is prepared to defy their employer’s position. In this case, however, I suspect a scientist is also employed by someone who agrees with his position. Is that wrong? Furthermore, is it grounds for criticism?
Who do you work for?
Danny, I didn’t read the article Judith quoted in her post. As I’ve explained several times, it’s unreadable.
I still have every logical right to endorse HotScot’s deploration of the genetic-fallacious obsession with the author’s background. It’s a matter of principle—I would feel the same about any author of any article, without even reading it (which, as I mentioned, I haven’t done in this case, because it’s unreadable).
There’s no inconsistency here. Why are you puzzled?
> We see it frequently right here that ‘climate scientists’ (due to their employment) are biased towards consideration of their very own financial concerns. Why would that not apply equally to ‘the other side’?
Which ‘sides’ are you referring to? Do you mean:
– dangerist climate scientists vs apathist climate scientists, or
– climate scientists in general vs everyone else, or
– dangerists in general vs apathists in general
Only the 1st of those dichotomies would really make any sense in the current context (i.e. the problem of financial/career-related vested interests).
But there’s an obvious asymmetry, isn’t there? Climate alarm/concern/fear creates jobs in climate science; by contrast, climate apathy threatens the entire field with unemployment. Nobody needs climate scientists if there’s no climate crisis. (The world got along perfectly well without them for centuries…. until the outbreak of the present panic.)
Help me help you overcome your puzzlement! Together, we can end puzzlement in our lifetimes!
I doubt my puzzlement will ever be eliminated in my lifetime.
“by contrast, climate apathy threatens the entire field with unemployment.”
This leaves out the ‘income’ of the author who’s earning income by being the author. But I guess based on the theory expressed he could write himself out of that income stream. After all, if ‘climate science’ goes out of business how can he remain a ‘contrarian’?
“A self-described contrarian, Tierney is a critic of environmentalism, the “science establishment”, big government, and calls for limiting emissions of carbon dioxide.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tierney_(journalist)
For now, it seems like a pretty good gig.
The non-italicized article via the link Dr. C provided in para 1: http://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html
I just realized you gave me a link to a non-italic version. Cheers. I appreciate it.
Haven’t read it yet. And even though I’m now able to, I doubt I will.
I don’t find “skeptical” articles remotely interesting. I get nothing out of them, since I’m already a skeptic. Plus, enough of it has now been quoted, in fragments, throughout this thread that I’ve been able to get a feeling for the main problems with it. Your criticisms are prima facie fairly convincing. I don’t “know” for sure you’re right. And if I really cared, I’d read those fragments in their full, original contexts. But I don’t. So I’ll provisionally say you’re likely right.
“So I’ll provisionally say you’re likely right.” Thank you, but not actually wishing to be right. Just wishing to bring some balance to the conversation and I appreciate your participation in doing so. I’m a windmill tilter after all.
Did you hear the one about what’s the difference between scientists and other academics?
Scientists want to get it right; academics want to have gotten it right.
No it’s not. Not according to your definition of “A BUNCH OF LONG SLABS OF ITALICS, MAKING IT HUMANLY UNREADABLE”. It’s only her blockquotes that are in italics, as a simple exploratory click on the link would show you.
As for italics, I would recommend get over it. Blockquotes are a standard method of style:
AFAIK the WordPress style used in this blog includes indenting and italics.
Danny, final comment:
having said that your arguments problematizing the article appear generally sound, overall….
I can’t resist pointing out that they’d be just as sound without knowing the first thing about the author! That information contributes nothing good to your arguments, and contributes nothing to your good arguments.
“The article was written by a dog?”
Someone takes the time to set up a blog you are invited to comment on and you are overtly rude?
Manners maketh man.
> Someone takes the time to set up a blog you are invited to comment on and you are overtly rude?
Brad simply jumped on my “pedigree,” HotScot.
Look. You must be new here. Start here. Then go over there.
Blog commenters are stuck between a harsh and safe spaces.
Thank you nevertheless for your concerns.
I feel pretty much the same way as you about the “author of this article [having] his employment called into question.” If anything, you probably put it better than I would have.
As indicated by Willard, my canine allusion was a faux-literal reading of his choice of the word “pedigree.” He got my point, and I got his counterpoint, but a third party might have to know us well to understand some of our jokes.
I’m no Gandhi. I can be a black-hearted bastiche on the Climateball field. But I never made anyone cry who didn’t have it coming.
And you’ve done nothing to antagonize me, so why would I be rude to you? I wouldn’t. And I wasn’t.
You misinterpreted my snarkastic Aussie sardonicism, that’s all. (You’re not the first person in the world to do so, though you might be the first one in Scotland :-).) Contrary to a literal reading of my words, I wasn’t even trying to disagree with you, let alone delegitimize you personally. You seem like a top bloke.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Puzzles me to no end.
“I feel pretty much the same way as you about the “author of this article [having] his employment called into question.” If anything, you probably put it better than I would have.”
“The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.”
An attorney might suggest in the court of climate blogging that ‘the authors employment’ goes to ‘reasonable suspicion’ of the authors own ‘prejudices’.
We see it frequently right here that ‘climate scientists’ (due to their employment) are biased towards consideration of their very own financial concerns. Why would that not apply equally to ‘the other side’?
You need to read again. The author explained that confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left.”
Hence, there is no reason to consider whether his political orientation might bias his views on the politicization of science. If he were on the left, that would be a problem. But he isn’t, and hence he is free from biases such as confirmation bias and there’s no need to take an account of that potential problem.
Danny, I accidentally posted my reply to you in the wrong sub-thread (just above this one). It’s stuck in mod, but once it clears it’ll be here:
Not up yet. If you could provide a key phrase I could search for it.
Isn’t there a link in the comment you’ve just replied to? It should point you to the quarantined reply once it gets out of purgatory.
Danny, this is also a bit simplistic:
> “The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.”
It’s rather difficult to “seek out” information that confirms a particular idea, because you can’t know what a piece of information will tell you until you get it in your hands. That’s the nature of information, isn’t it? If you knew what the information was going to say, you would (by definition) already possess it.
It’s not impossible, it’s just not as easy as it sounds. The more you think about it, the more paradoxes you run into.
Of course, confirmation bias is a real thing. But there are easier ways of going about it than the seeking-out method. For instance, you could forget the information you don’t like, and remember the information you do like. Or you could place more weight on the latter than the former.
“Or you could place more weight on the latter than the former.” Yes. And by, for example, inclusion of that which supports a narrative and omission (folks used to call this ly1ng).
And that happens all the time. That some profess that ‘climate scientists’ do so in order to insure continued funding (IE income) is the same reason to consider what work they do professionally (IE funding/income) which might influence that bias. It’s a reasonable consideration when evaluating product.
Is that stock broker looking out for their best interests or the customers? How do they get paid. It’s a question one should always ask if skeptical.
> And by, for example, inclusion of that which supports a narrative and omission (folks used to call this ly1ng).
Actually they used to call it suppressio veri, suggestio falsi. (Those were more elegant times.)
> How do they get paid. It’s a question one should always ask if skeptical.
Maybe—but there are about 30 or 40 questions you should ask before you start resorting to that one. It’s figuratively scraping the bottom of the barrel.
If you can’t think of a better objection to an argument than “the author is potentially biased,” it’s a good sign that the text is fairly unassailable.
Anyway, corruptibility is (obviously) not the same thing as corruptedness.
So conflicts of interest in themselves prove nothing.
Happily, *corrupted* authors almost always betray themselves in the body of their argument. You don’t even need to read their Author’s Disclosure Statement.
You might think of it this way:
A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests of [alarmist] climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.
They should never use it as an ARGUMENT or EVIDENCE that [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.
But that’s not enough. (Why are you only giving readers half the picture?)
The actual code by which to live one’s life is:
Test, but detest.
30 or 40 questions. Such as requesting substantiation of the premise “But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.” Without taking a look at the ‘potentials’ for bias of the source of the statement and noting that it’s unsubstantiated in the article?
On this I think we concur.
“The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.”
So does the author then imply that people ‘not on the left’ are therefore not people?
Hence my “And by, for example, inclusion of that which supports a narrative and omission” (didn’t complete the thought) of that which doesn’t.
As far as not finding ‘a better objection’ the entire work is based on that premise. It’s early in the article, and all other support comes from that foundation.
But bottom line as you suggest:
“A skeptic should talk about the vested career interests of [alarmist] climate scientists only if asked to EXPLAIN why [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.
They should never use it as an ARGUMENT or EVIDENCE that [alarmist] climate science is shoddy.”
We agree fully. Only commenting that so many (no evidence you do so) predominately come from this view. And my only goal was to point out that if that is the starting point it rightly should be applied equally.
Entertainingly, the 2nd premise: “And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics.”
(WordPress being hinkey so breaking in two)
Danny, you seem to be making good sense, but your comments might be better appreciated by someone who’s read the article, which I didn’t, because it’s unreadable.
> Only commenting that so many (no evidence you do so) predominately come from this view.
They may *seem* to, but I doubt they do. Nobody I’ve met is that irrational.
It’s just that most people can’t argue their way out of a paper bag. So when you ask them why they reject a certain view, the first argument they blurt out is quite often so idiotic, your immediate thought is: that couldn’t possibly convince anyone, even them! And in most cases, it didn’t.
People aren’t convinced by The Science because they see no evidence for it, and because its claims are a priori extraordinary.
But if you ask them (particularly if you ask them in an adversarial setting) to justify disagreeing with The World’s Top Scientists, they’re liable to give you their theory as to what corrupted those scientists. In other words, they’re answering a totally different question, missing the point entirely and coming across as utterly unconvincing. This gives the impression that they have no remotely good answer to the question you actually asked. And if you take this at face value, it is very easy to conclude that they’re total beefwits.
Still puzzled. But have reasons to be skeptical of the authors’ presumed apolitical approach. Framing and al
(new part 2 as WP doesn’t like the para above this one in SA link, so please take a look)
“Environmentalism may be an ideal place to find common political ground. “Conservatives who are religious have this mind-set about being good stewards of the earth, to protect God’s creation, and that is very compatible with green energy and conservation and other ideas that are usually classified as liberal,” Nail says.”
Brad it seems to me that is the appropriate cord to strike. We need to indict fraud in science. Not talking about indicting for the purpose of punishment but for exposing the lies advanced for the purposes of acquiring power and control over the populace under false pretenses. The only needed punishment is to ban these people and institutions from accepting taxpayer funding going forward, that means no work in Government more importantly academia. Finally put the “Peer-less” review process under the microscope because currently they operate as the high priests of faith based science.
Sorry, but inciting people for scientific endeavour, no matter how misdirected is a gross waste of money and public resources.
Assuming Trump does do something about climate science funding i.e. cut it off almost altogether (sorry Judith) there will be a lot of unemployed climatologists. Universities will get back to allocating funds to research that make a real impact on the scientific world, because if they don’t, they will lose money.
It seems the golden goose may have laid, and is now moving on. The subject of climate change, GW, AGW, CAGW….whatever you want to call it will wither on the vine. The public largely dont believe it, and in another 4 or 8 years time, unless something earth shattering happens, they will just accept it as yet another media scare.
And we all move on, to the next media/political global crisis.
> The public largely dont believe it […]
Please don’t overplay your hand, HotScot:
I’m afraid AGW is here to stay.
It’s AGW, btw, not CAGW.
That’s just a contrarian meme.
The meme is here to stay too.
Why else would there be places such as Judy’s?
“It’s AGW, btw, not CAGW.”
When President Obama Tweeted, back in June of 2013:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”
He was talking about (rather disingenuously) CAGW not AGW.
DAGW, to be pedantic.
Obama doesn’t have the time to Tweet. Or the succinctness.
“DAGW, to be pedantic.”
I stand corrected. DAGW is not nearly as scary as CAGW.
> He was talking about (rather disingenuously) CAGW
Of course he wasn’t, for the C in “CAGW” doesn’t stand for “dangerous,” but “catastrophic.”
And it’s “catastrophic” like in “catastrophism.”
In other words, it’s the good “but alarmism” contrarian claptrap.
CAGW makes little sense as an acronym anyway, since it conflates a set of scientific theories and a contrarian claptrap.
> DAGW, to be pedantic
Not pedantic enough, Brad.
It should be AGW => R.
Not sure where to start here.
Like I said, I don’t care what you call earth’s historical (and ongoing) temperature variation (is that better?) the possibility (probability) is that:
1. The public is sick of it because it has produced no catastrophes. Point me to all the surveys you want, but I live in the real world and talk to real people. They have had enough. The whole world will breathe a collective sigh of relief if the subject is knocked on the head.
And as has been very well proven across the Scottish independence vote, Brexit and Trump victories, polls and surveys are doubtful indicators of reality, people will say what they think they are expected to say.
2. The 97% thing is, as well you know, utter rubbish and it does science, nor the GW case any good in the eyes of the public because they know that not one single meaningful debate is much better than 50/50. If a debate is worth having, it wouldn’t be if it were factually 97% in either’s favour. Every layman knows that the ‘Nanny Nanny Boobie, I’m right, you’re wrong’ debate was left in the primary scool playground.
Seriously, it is the most puerile concept ever devised by adults over a political, economical, social and environmental question.
3. No one has yet proved that CO2 causes global temperature rise. 40 years, billions of $ and millions of scientific man hours devoted to proving a fairly simple concept, has come up with nothing.
Isn’t it time to give up? I mean, 40 years ago, we were supposed to be engulfed by ice, 30 years ago, charred by the sun. And the final result? Well, the planet has greened by 14%, 70% thanks to increased atmospheric CO2 (NASA figures, not mine) and you still bang on about AGW.
Has anything, ever, in the portfolio of CAGW (or planetary temperature variation, if you want to call it that) disasters ever even approached 14%!?
FFS……try looking on the bright side of life for once.
“CAGW makes little sense as an acronym anyway, since it conflates a set of scientific theories and a contrarian claptrap.”
Not to mention studies and papers such as:
Ten years to prevent catastrophe?: Discourses of climate change and international development in the UK press – Hugh Doulton, Katrina Brown
Public understanding of climate change in the United States – Weber, Elke U.; Stern, Paul C – American Psychologist, Vol 66(4), May-Jun 2011, 315-328:
“Of particular concern to some scientists is the possibility of catastrophic climate events as the result of changes in a complex and incompletely understood system that has moved outside the bounds of historical experience. Climate catastrophes may be highly unlikely, but their probabilities cannot be confidently estimated, so they cannot be ruled
out. These possibilities have led many scientists to become seriously concerned about climate change as a threat to the natural environment and to human well-being.”
How about that impressive navigation of the “double ethical bind”? Or, fro the same paper, this double ethic:
“By suggesting that future catastrophe is certain unless action is taken, it goes beyond what many scientists consider defensible. However, the idea that continued emissions of greenhouse gases increase the likelihood of catastrophe is entirely consistent with scientific knowledge ”
and of course, this from the same paper:
“Even strong efforts to teach better frames and mental models may not yield rapid improvement in public understanding.Resistant mental models, cognitive and emotional investments in current understandings, misguided media attempts at balanced coverage, and the vigorous campaign to deny the science are major barriers to change. It may
take noneducational scenarios to shake up thinking on a relatively short time scale. One such scenario depends on climate-related catastrophe.”
Or how about that stalwart of contrarian clap trap Bill Nye:
“Oh, it’s very troubling. My goodness – it’s apocalyptic if you let it get to you. Certainly the worst case scenarios are terrifying.”
Granted “apocalyptic” is not “catastrophic”, I’m just saying…
> Not to mention studies and papers such as […]
“Not to mention” makes little sense as a decoy, and yet it suffices to operate a deflection.
Finding usages of the C word in the lichurchur or the media is unresponsive to the observation that in CAGW, the C is a different beast than the AGW part.
“Finding usages of the C word in the lichurchur or the media is unresponsive to the observation that in CAGW, the C is a different beast than the AGW part.”
The difference is wholly political. Obama’s disingenuous Tweet, whether it be “dangerous”, “catastrophic” or “apocalyptic” – and he did use the word dangerous – is disingenuous because there is no such consensus on the dangers of climate change, only that climate is changing and it is likely caused, at least in part, by humans.
> The difference is wholly political.
For the CAGW meme, you bet. Denizens are here for the politics mostly. Which begs the question: if we accept, like Judy seems to do, that to preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics, should we close down Judy’s, which is undisputably a political megaphone?
That AGW implies tangible risks can still be a scientific conclusion. Which goes on to show that the CAGW meme is just that: a meme Denizens fabricated to peddle their reactionary concerns.
“That AGW implies tangible risks can still be a scientific conclusion.”
Until scientist use that conclusion to advocate public policy, then it is a political conclusion. Science cannot tell people what to do.
> Science cannot tell people what to do.
Science is not a thing that “tells” anything. It has no agency.
And of course scientists can tell us what to do. Judy does it in just about every post she writes.
These considerations are irrelevant to the observation that statements such as “dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow carries important risks” or “if we burn 4000 quads of coal, chances are we’re doomed” can still be scientific evaluations.
These evaluations can’t stand alone. They delimit a ballpark. It is always possible to risk our way out of this ballpark. If we do try to risk our way out of the ballpark indicated by our scientific evaluations, then so much the worse for our pretense to be scientifically minded.
“Science is not a thing that “tells” anything. It has no agency.
And of course scientists can tell us what to do. Judy does it in just about every post she writes.”
And of course, when scientists tell us what to do, they are being political not scientific. Isn’t this your tiresome complaint with Judy?
“These considerations are irrelevant to the observation that statements such as “dumping CO2 into the atmosphere like there’s no tomorrow carries important risks” or “if we burn 4000 quads of coal, chances are we’re doomed” can still be scientific evaluations.”
Very sloppy highly politicized scientific evaluations, sure. I don’t know why you want to be seen as the guy selling sloppy highly politicized scientific evaluations, and not sure why you wouldn’t expect criticisms of that politicized sloppiness.
“These evaluations can’t stand alone.”
Not even if they were more restrained with their hyperbole could they stand alone.
“It is always possible to risk our way out of this ballpark.”
Begging questions won’t stand alone either.
“If we do try to risk our way out of the ballpark indicated by our scientific evaluations, then so much the worse for our pretense to be scientifically minded.”
Conversely, if we attempt to renovate a ball park that didn’t need fixing based on perceived risks that only translate into costs with no discernible benefit, the so much the worse for the pretense it was done so because the “scientifically minded” told us so. But that is just more begging of questions.
How much risk does humanity face and what are the risks of decarbonization? Do the benefits of decarbonization outweigh the costs? Are there benefits to added Co2 in the atmosphere? Do those benefits outweigh the costs? The questions go on but none of these questions are satisfied by using phrases of art such as “no tomorrow” and “doomed”.
*Sorry, that should have been indicting
> Brad it seems to me that is the appropriate cord to strike.
Thanks Bill but I was thinking more along the lines intended by David Roberts, who first came up with the Nuremberg analogy, only to apologetically change his mind the next day: [Science] War-crimes trials, pre-stretched rope, drop tables, oiled hemp and black caps.
After all, an all-out attack on science, if such a thing has indeed been launched, is surely a crime against humanity and—science being the pulsing heart of 90% of human progress, modernization and civilization—must be punished accordingly, must it not?
Whether or not I actually mean this—or am I just being provocative in order to get people to think a bit deeper about how serious they’re being when they talk about Science Wars??—isn’t really important.
The real question is, if we’re talking about “Wars on Science,” are we really prepared to follow such talk to its logical conclusion: The Hague?
Or are we just ‘aving a larf?
Politics is not a threat to science.
Science is a threat to politics.
Failed science has to hide under the skirt of politics.
rebel, the relation between science and politics is more incestuous than that. From the Hartwell paper:
“So, a distinctive characteristic of the climate change debate has been of scientists claiming with the authority of their position that their results dictated particular policies; of policy makers claiming that their preferred choices were dictated by science, and both acting as if ‘science’ and ‘policy’ were simply and rigidly linked as if it were a matter of escaping from the path of an oncoming tornado.”
… perhaps a bit above my pay grade, as most stuff here is.
My point is I think these discussions often get the threat relationship backward.
Science threatening politics is the real reason for the tribulations of Judith Curry.
The path of history is littered with the rotting wreckage of the conceits of ‘authorities’.
Not to mention ‘policy makers’.
“Politics is not a threat to science.
Science is a threat to politics.”
A wholehearted agreement with the spirit of your argument, but I would quibble with what is being threatened. Politics isn’t under threat, individual rights are. All the while rights are under threat it remains the same with politics…as usual.
Progressives yearned for a society guided by impartial agencies unconstrained by old-fashioned politics and religion. Herbert Croly, founder of the New Republic and a leading light of progressivism, predicted that a “better future would derive from the beneficent activities of expert social engineers who would bring to the service of social ideals all the technical resources which research could discover.”
There is a critical distinction that must be maintained between science and policy. I don’t know when/if social engineering will be on par with “hard” engineering. But I do not think that engineering of any sort should be free and unconstrained by politics. Engineering works to solve problems by using our best scientific understandings. But the definitions of societal problems resides within the policy sphere. It’s a dangerous assumption to believe that policy can or should flow directly and unimpeded from purely scientific understandings.
“It’s a dangerous assumption to believe that policy can or should flow directly and unimpeded from purely scientific understandings.”
Yes, eugenics comes to mind. But that seems to have been the worst of politics given a sheen by science. Is there a way to drive policy without policy? No magic answers…simple honesty about means, methods, goals and allowing end results to modify means and methods, and dump goals when those results indicate it, will do.
Stick a fork in global warming science, it’s done.
No more bilking US taxpayers to fund it at any rate.
Mark Steyn said it so eloquently. I don’t recall the exact quote but he was looking forward to seeing Trump yank John Holdren’s snout out of the public trough.
I find it tremendously ironic that many of the same people who are saying “AGW is too uncertain” are now advocating that we quit funding the science.
If you think the current science is bad, why not fund good science? Just defunding all the climate science is basically saying “no, it’s not uncertain; all the past science is wrong”. It’s inconsistent and contradictory.
Then you haven’t been paying attention Ben.
A large portion of the “defunding” arguments are directed to the continued funding of multiple GCM’s and some of the research that is based on those models. That is not the same as not funding climate research. The point some of us are arguing is that billions of dollars have been spent trying to improve an exploration tunnel which is looking a lot like a glorified rabbit hole. It might be a better use of research dollars to try new exploratory efforts.
“I find it tremendously ironic that many of the same people who are saying “AGW is too uncertain” are now advocating that we quit funding the science.”
But Benjamin, it’s you lot that keep bleating that “the science is settled” isn’t it?
“I remember Lord May leaning over and assuring me: “I am the President of the Royal Society, and I am telling you the debate on climate change is over.”
Or are you going to start denying that, now it looks as if you’re going to be taken seriously?
While I think that the research is sufficiently settled to warrant some sort of action to reduce carbon emissions, I think there’s plenty of work left to be done on better understanding the impacts of climate change and many of the finer details of climate. Particularly clouds, regional and temporal variations, etc.
Well, my name isn’t “Lord May”, so I don’t have any control over what he says. He doesn’t speak for me, any more than random people on the internet speak for you.
It’s not a good idea to defund the GCMs.
Modeling is incredibly important in almost every scientific field these days, and moreso as both computing power and numerical techniques improve. Cutting out the GCMs is getting rid of one of our most powerful tools for doing research.
The ultimate goal in science is always to produce a solid, reliable model of the system under study. For simple cases, that might just be a mathematical law, like Hooke’s law of elasticity or the Ideal Gas Law. But for more complex cases, the models will also be complex, and will often involve computation.
So the goal for GCMs is to include our best understanding of the climate, and then to compare the model against the real world, and then to refine, refine, refine, until we have a well-tested and reliable model. So if you think the GCMs are unreliable, the solution is not to toss them out of the window, but to improve them. And of course, there’s already an incredible amount of work being done on just that, and there has been for decades. (And commensurately, the models have improved significantly over the past few decades).
Ben, how important modeling is in other fields is irrelevant. And the improvements and advances in computing you refer to are as well. They are not making a dent in the inadequacy they currently operate under. And we haven’t even touched on the multiplicity in models or all of the research that takes inadequate model output and treats it like empirical data in order to model other processes.
You don’t have to defund all of the GCM research. But thinking you need to keep funding all is nutso.
I don’t advocate for removal of funding. I want to prosecute misuse of the funding.
I want to bring the scientific method to climate science, which currently abhors criticism. I want to punish these racketeers for falsifying reports and lying to the American People all the while they are extorting taxpayer funds and advocating for government regulation, which limits individual liberties and channels more funding into “Climate” science.. These crooks need to go to jail.
Subsequently we need an independent and impartial review board, open to the public, that includes members from all disciplines in science .who will validate all government funded findings and approve future funding. Now that would be peer review.
What I object to is any ideologically driven science based on the idea that the science is settled.
“Satellite observations, which began in 1993, indicate that the rate of sea level rise has held fairly steady at about 3 millimeters per year. But the expected acceleration due to climate change is likely hidden in the satellite record because of a happenstance of timing: The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160810084619.htm
In other words “We know what the data SHOULD be showing us but it isn’t in the data so we will come up with an explanation, add an adjustment and fiddle with the data until we get the right answer out of the computer models.”
And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics.
No one believes they can rely on the NYT to be impartial or report fairly or that it would have held a Clinton administration to the same level of scrutiny that a Trump administration will receive. Climatologists of Western Academia face a similar situation: they no longer have credibility: the election forecast models were wildly wrong. Climate prediction models share one thing in common with them: even if they could be right, their creators will not want to believe them if predicted results do not correspond to politically correct preconceived notions of the establishment about how they should be…
Perhaps the media ought to endure more scrutiny for their activities than scientists.
I fail to understand, for example, how it is morally right that (in the UK at least) Rupert Murdoch et al openly express support for one political party or other, then devote considerable broadcasting resources to that support.
Whilst freedom of speech is sacrosanct, journalists are no less reporters of fact than scientists are. To distort that and act, as they all do, as funnels of information, to be released to their agenda instead of in the national interest is, IMO, at best questionable.
Politics and the media have dragged themselves through the mud and the public openly scorn them both. They have now dragged science into it. Who is next?
I caught a bit of PBS last night and they had on a NYT’s reporter, talking about Trump and whether he will pursue his campaign promises. The reporter says it looks like he will and then adds this gem of a comment , ” even though Hillary won the popular vote, Trump feels like he has a mandate.” I guess stoopidity is not a handicap if you are a reporter or journalist. It has the advantage of allowing you to use any argument you think helps push your opinions, no matter how weak or non-applicable.
It is looking like the MSM has learned nothing from the election. Which is ok by me, as it means they will continue to dig the hole they are in. The one called irrelevancy. I was reading where the NYT’s has received the greatest amount of comment and letters in the past couple of weeks than at any time since 9/11/01. The vast majority of which are critical of the paper and their obvious bias.
Trump may in the end do more for California than it is able to do for itself.
The first thing I will note is that every scientist in the room should object ( and should have objected to ) the metaphor of “War on Science”. To the extent that they did not and do not, I question everything they have to say about the subject.
There is no war on science
There could never be a war on science.
They’re still writing books about the “war on science”:
Chapter five of Mann’s latest book is titled “The War on Climate Science”:
Sadly, and incorrectly, but understandably, the public is waging it’s own little war: “what do the experts know?”
And whatever you say to convince them they will ignore as, at least when it comes to GW, nothing has changed for 99.9% of them over the last 40 years.
All the media scare stories, all the scientific projections and all the political shenanigans have done nothing but spend tax money.
Worryingly, BBC Radio 2 did an article on inoculations today. There were a couple of callers condemning the MMR vaccine, despite the doctor who published a fraudulent paper linking it to Autism being struck off (he’s apparently now on a speech tour of America!).
Bad science creates contempt and distrust. I hate to say that we should all know our place, but scientists are, necessarily, ‘backroom boys’. They inform, they don’t dictate or politicise, as many in the GW debate have deemed to do so.
“They inform, they don’t dictate or politicise, as many in the GW debate have deemed to do so.”
I doubt it hardly began with Stephen Schneider but his “double ethical bind” is a principle that directly contradicts your claim. It was Schneider who said:
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
This is a political strategy not a scientific one. His caveat at the end is ironic given that what he is struggling with regarding this so called “double ethical bind” is the compunction a scientists feels to take political action based upon their understanding of the science. A scientists cannot be both a scientist and an activist at the same time. A scientist who is concerned that pointing (honestly) to the uncertainties regarding climate change only undermines the sounding of the alarm.
Senator Tim Wirth still brags to this day of how he sabotaged the air conditioning of the Congress and of which James Hansen gladly played his part in that political theater. Steve Ghan whole heartedly disagrees with your assertion, countering:
“Just as citizens are increasingly participating in the scientific process through numerous citizen science programs, scientists are increasingly exercising their rights as citizens in the political process. This trend is most notable in the effort to develop the political will to prevent climate change. Since climate change is a global problem arising from the actions of almost everyone, global political solutions are required to prevent it.
A large number of AGU members, motivated by the energy use implications of their climate research, are actively advocating local, state, national and international commitments to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases that their science has concluded is driving climate change. Climate scientists are not only speaking to the public about the science of climate change, but also are calling for policies designed to reduce use of fossil fuel, the primary anthropogenic source of greenhouse gas emissions.”
~Steve J. Ghan – Climate Scientists as Activists – 6/2/16~
Few would doubt Micheal Mann’s political activist credentials. Gavin Schmidt, Jason Box, Judith Curry, Rodger Pielke Jr., to list just a few more scientists who also take on the role of activist.
All of these people are human and posses the same rights as any other human. They do not sacrifice their right to speech just because they are scientists and they have the right to actively advocate for the policies they think best. The problem isn’t any “double ethical bind” nor is it scientists moonlighting as activists. The problem is the kooky notion that scientists are purely honest and good.
Not so sure why this notion pervades so consistently among scientists and their sycophants. In film and literature the mad scientists is far more iconic than the noble scientist.
@Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)
Apologies if I misinterpret your remarks, however, if I do perhaps it demonstrates the disconnect between high-handed intellectuals and the common man.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
So we can choose, can we? Fair enough, that entitles humanity to choose between expelling immigrants, prosecuting wars, ensuring mob rule in the black/white debate etc. etc. Effective or honest? Perhaps both.
The statement is then apologised for with, “I hope that means being both”.
Sorry, that’s not good enough.
“This is a political strategy not a scientific one.”
From an observer’s perspective, it’s very much a scientific problem, not a political strategy. Until someone can prove CO2 causes global temperature rise, humanities future is based on an unproven scientific hypothesis. Until that can be proven, I don’t care how may meaningless scientific and philosophical quotes you care to muster, they are rendered meaningless by that one single fact. Sadly, most of the rest of the world is in the same boat.
“scientists are increasingly exercising their rights as citizens in the political process.”
Right, so it’s now OK for politicians to exercise their rights in the scientific debate, it’s OK for barbers to theorise on quantum physics. Wtf does a scientist know about politics? Honestly, you get educated in a science and all of a sudden it’s OK to cut hair, fix a car, build a house. The least capable people I know in everyday life are scientists. Would you like me to dress you up in a Police uniform and take you into a city centre anywhere in the world, or perhaps a nurses uniform into any ward in the world and expect you to operate without training? Scientist’s are, almost without exception, politically naive, as a barber is scientifically naive.
Your arrogance is profound, no wonder the rest of society has a growing resentment of ‘experts’. Stick to your lab!
As to being a political movement, you are entirely correct. But GW is based on an unproven hypothesis which you can’t get away from. CO2 has never been proven to cause global temperature rise.
Nor will I bore you with observations on you continuing high-handed rhetoric on, well, as a common being, I haven’t a clue what you’re driving at (I do, but I just can’t be bothered with your sh*t). But as I said earlier, I apologise for my ignorance. So I’ll skip to the end of your diatribe.
“The problem is the kooky notion that scientists are purely honest and good.”
Thankfully (whew) I don’t conform to that ridiculous notion, and thankfully, I’m sure, when anyone criticises scientist’s for their employment status, (for example) relative to their scientific opinions, you will surely promote your analysis on the merits, or not, of their science. Kooky or not, from whatever side of the debate.
Seriously, though, I haven’t been on this forum long, and I’m happy to admit I’m educationally challenged, I’m also a beginner in the climate change debate, but man, do you come across as a pompous ass or what. I’m sorry if that’s offensive, I don’t mean it to be, but it’s a fact, as I see it.
There are 7Bn(?) people on this planet and only several million(?) scientists.
You have got to get better at speaking to the people that pay for your existence.
Will science suffer because of the climate debate? Hopefully, with Judith and her colleagues, it won’t, because she communicates in plain language.
Will you contribute to the common understanding of climate change? Not a snowballs chance mate, cos’ I can’t understand you.
“Apologies if I misinterpret your remarks, however, if I do perhaps it demonstrates the disconnect between high-handed intellectuals and the common man.”
It is tragic that the high handed intellectual struggles so hard to understand the common man…oh wait…were you calling moi the high handed intellectual? As a common man, I can tell you from experience that there appears to be a profound disconnect between common men, not just they and intellectuals.
“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
This is a quote of Stephen Schneider’s, which is why there are quotation marks around it and a space between paragraphs, but I suppose I could have been more clear that it was Schneider I was quoting.
““This is a political strategy not a scientific one.”
Now you’re finally quoting me, but don’t seem to realize that I am accusing Schneider of employing a political strategy to communicate science, which is why I continued with this:
” His caveat at the end is ironic given that what he is struggling with regarding this so called “double ethical bind” is the compunction a scientists feels to take political action based upon their understanding of the science.”
“His caveat” is a reference to his qualifier following his statement about balance between being effective and being honest. The qualifier being “I hope that means being both.”
““scientists are increasingly exercising their rights as citizens in the political process.”
Now you’re quoting Steve Ghan so apparently you are addressing he via me when you say:
“Your arrogance is profound, no wonder the rest of society has a growing resentment of ‘experts’. Stick to your lab!”
“Nor will I bore you with observations on you continuing high-handed rhetoric on, well, as a common being, I haven’t a clue what you’re driving at (I do, but I just can’t be bothered with your sh*t). But as I said earlier, I apologise for my ignorance.”
Instead of apologizing for your ignorance, maybe you could put just a tad more time into reading carefully that which you respond to which very well might eliminate the need to apologize for ignorance. Just a suggestion.
“Seriously, though, I haven’t been on this forum long, and I’m happy to admit I’m educationally challenged, I’m also a beginner in the climate change debate, but man, do you come across as a pompous ass or what.”
When you go actively looking for pompous asses you’re likely to find them everywhere you look. Don’t at all concern yourself with how you might look.
“You have got to get better at speaking to the people that pay for your existence.”
‘They’ had better start paying up if that’s what you want. This slow pay looks an awful lot like no pay.
“Will you contribute to the common understanding of climate change? Not a snowballs chance mate, cos’ I can’t understand you.”
And we return to my original argument in this response, there is a profound disconnect between common men. Some common men look at other common men and see scientists in white lab coats inside of laboratories. Other common men look at common men and see common men.
Let me translate my highhanded intellectualism for ya; I am not a scientist, I’m a dude just like you in this site for the same reason as you.
Sadly and incorrectly so many people also equate anyone who has doubt about today’s climate science with those who doubt vaccines and who think we should research chem trails and secret government collaborations with aliens. You know they are NOT the same. There are people who accept the science of vaccines because it is overwhelming and based plausible biology and yet do not accept the science of anthropogenic climate change. Lumping them all together in an effort to discredit doubters does everyone a disservice.
All of them should have objected to “denier.” But they didn’t. People who believe that treaties and solar panels will “solve” climate change are just as much ‘deniers” as the “sky dragons.”
The left still believes in imminent peak oil. Some who were advocating “power-down” and “population control” for peak oil just over a decade ago are regulars on ATTP’s blog now, expressing their superior logical abilities over the lesser intellects here. True, they reluctantly acknowledge that they may – may mind you – have gotten the dates somewhat wrong, but insist they were “right.” Paul Ehrlich is still revered in academe.
Meanwhile, instead of doing the hard work of getting a degree in engineering, you can instead get a degree in “sustainability” – the art of saying “mandate unobtanium!” while wearing a white coat.
It’s always useful to remember that the climate concerned believe global warming is a serious enough issue to rethink capitalism, but not serious enough to justify a nuclear power plant. That’s not science.
“It’s always useful to remember that the climate concerned believe global warming is a serious enough issue to rethink capitalism, but not serious enough to justify a nuclear power plant.”
One of the best sentences ever posted here.
Steven Mosher: the metaphor of “War on Science”.
It’s a useful short phrase. It was invented to tarnish Republicans. The author shows that roughly equivalent behavior can in fact be found among those who use the phrase to tarnish Republicans.
> There could never be a war on science.
There can’t be a war on poverty either.
Yet here it is.
@Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)
And as I write, the evidence is in.
> I’m happy to admit I’m educationally challenged
Nobody cares. And if you didn’t keep admitting it, nobody would know.
Skeptics don’t care about credentials, they care about quality of argumentation. So there’s no need to be self-conscious. From what I’ve seen you’re holding your own just fine, HotScot, notwithstanding the occasional unnecessary fight you get into by taking what people like Jean Paul and I say the wrong way. We’re not your enemies, and we don’t have any preconceptions about being superior to you. As JPZ put it:
> I’m a dude* just like you in this site for the same reason as you.
*You might be female for all I know, but that’s beside the point. In fact, the only hot Scots I can think of are babes. But again, I digress.
What the author presumes to be the Left, I would regard as a pseudo-left. It is indeed an easy target, but not at all consistent with any left-wing theory or outlook that I am familiar with. It simply fills a vacuum since the last high tide for the genuine left (in the late 1960s/early 1970s). Does anyone really think that Al Gore, a ‘creationist’, is left-wing? What a strange world.
I took from the article that ‘the left’ is determined to create big government to act on our behalf in every area of our lives.
Which is pretty much my perception of the left generally, curtain twitchers.
To be honest, whilst I love the UK’s National Health Service, I’m increasingly heading towards Libertarianism as the political mess created in the UK over this issue alone is just appalling. Smoking, drinking, obesity, bad driving, drugs, kids over using mobile phones, injuries from snowballs and conkers (a strange but fun, very British Autumn tradition) are condemned because they cost the NHS money, and of course, we all pay for everyone else’s stupidity.
Is anyone in the UK allowed to say “I’m fat, I smoke and I love whisky?” No, because everyone else has the right to an opinion on my health.
That’s big government. There may be many things wrong with the US, but there is a price to be paid for ‘collective bargaining’ which brings with it individual scrutiny.
Be grateful for what you have, the grass isn’t greener.
The Left welcomes Lenin’s useful idiots whether they be from the pseudo-left or establishment Republicans. For the Left, the ends justify the means– any means… including the sacrifice of the scientific method upon the altar of their liberal Utopia.
Al Gore ran for President as a Democrat. Does it make him “Left”?
Trump ran for President as a Republican. Does it make him “Right”?
Trump won…he must be right.
Indeed. Is there even room for ‘left’ and ‘right’ politics any longer. We all, more or less, occupy the middle ground, which in a bizarre way, could be considered a political, financial and cultural success, considering the western world’s political history.
But we do all love a political punch-up, so now wavering from the centre ground leaves one branded.
I’m all for the British National Health Service, for our welfare society, for our council house provision (now called social housing) and our free education – so I’m pretty Left wing. But I’m also for business, for individual responsibility, for inward investment and for outward investment – so I’m pretty right wing.
What I don’t agree with is a European immigration imposition that demands the UK open its borders to allow everyone in Europe access to our unique welfare and business environment to everyone in Europe when the same benefits are not available elsewhere.
Is that left, or right, or just a bit of common sense?
Left and right no longer have any place in modern western politics, other than by a few degrees in select countries. It is divisive envy politics and I’m surprised it even exists in America, the land of opportunity, with no class divisions, unlike the UK, where it largely stemmed from. Even then, the class question was eradicated generations ago, just fuelled now by a few ‘classless’ bigots.
The only difference I see between left and right now is big government and the snooping state, or light touch politics with individual responsibility. It just depends on whether you want your life run for you, or you want to run your own life.
It is the Left not the right that politicized the weather. It was at that time that environmentalism and especially global warming alarmism became, according to professor Richard Lindzen, “a quasi-religious issue.” No matter how much CAGW theory has been debunked, Leftists in academia and an entrenched government bureaucracy continue to keep the faith.
“The only difference I see between left and right now is big government and the snooping state, or light touch politics with individual responsibility. It just depends on whether you want your life run for you, or you want to run your own life.”
Only that eh?
That also is the main difference that I see between left and right, with the added feature that the left (based on their true gods Marx, Lenin, Alinsky etc.) excuses lying in furtherance of state power over the individual.
Those differences should be enough for anyone to make a choice on which path to follow.
I’m quite certain the ‘right’ do a pretty good job of lying. :)
Well, I only saw those on the left excusing the lying (because the potential damage was so catastrophic) in advance of AGW propaganda. I don’t remember any skeptics doing the same.
Terrific article from John Tierney. Used to be a valuable counterweight to Andy Revkin’s AGW advocacy at the NY Times.
Mr. Mooney, today: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/21/things-are-getting-weird-in-the-polar-regions/?utm_term=.422c2085580a
(Quoting Serreze) “However, there’s really no connection between the extreme mutual anomalies in the two hemispheres that we are aware of.”
(Mooney) “Despite a major lack of clarity about what this phenomena meant, many climate change doubters seized on the Antarctic sea ice behavior as a key reason for pushing their contrary message. Now, that argument seems to be vanishing for them.”
Then: (quoting Meehl): ““what you’d expect in an El Nino, as well as transition to positive IPO, so trend for next 5-10 years should be negative, with year-to-year variations.” That comment came at a time when the Antarctic ice was low, but not yet at record low levels, as it is now.”
(Mooney): “We don’t know all the causes of what’s currently happening in either the Arctic or Antarctic. It’s certainly possible that the lows we’re seeing now are an extreme, perhaps tied to the aftermath of the powerful 2015-2016 El Nino, and conditions will soon push more back towards the range of what’s normal as that event continues to fade.”
(Mooney concluding) “But as we steer the planet into the unknown, the default position should probably be to expect surprises — surprises not unlike those that we’re seeing today.”
“….the default position should probably be to expect surprises-….’
With that statement I agree. And it is why I believe the confidence by some about what will happen by 2100 is not warranted. Just this minute I read from a new study the following “Icebergs contribute more meltwater to Greenland’s fjords than previously thought,….”
The specifics are not important. The operative phrase is “than previously thought”. How many hundreds of times have we read something similar to that? Another surprise. Each time a surprise pops up, it should create a little collective humility to the establishment. Instead they double down and go on with their confirmation bias , completely unfazed by these little tipoffs that a lot more work is necessary before they have aced the exam.
Yes. And also at WUWT the work regarding concrete being a ‘net’ sink. (Not actually a ‘net’ sink based on the information, but certainly an improvement on the ‘accounting’ ledger but politics and ‘War on Science’, and all.)
In case you’ve not seen:
“We suggest that if carbon capture and storage technology were applied to cement process emissions, the produced cements might represent a source of negative CO2 emissions. Policymakers might also investigate ways to increase the completeness and rate of carbonation of cement waste, for example as a part of an enhanced weathering scheme, to further reduce the climate impacts of cement emissions.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-11-cement-materials-overlooked-substantial-carbon.html#jCp
Pingback: The Real War On Science | Transterrestrial Musings
I feel that we see a history repeated. In 1931 a book “100 authors against Einstein” was published in Germany. In 1933 National Socialists took over and the dark ages began.
Today the opinions of “97%” are used instead of scientific facts. There are attempts to ban any discussion. (The 97% figure, by the way, is a total fiction).
Professor Curry’s cesspool in action…
I just became the first visitor to your lovely website.
Out of curiosity,
when this is all over, when we finally have some sort of Science Nuremberg, how do you think this kind of excuse is gonna fly with the black-capped judge:
“Well, your honor, as a scientist I was, of course, well aware of the utter meaninglessness of consensus in science! And yes, I was vaguely cognizant of the widespread reports of academics claiming to be scientists, trying to pass off consensus as a form of evidence, and apparently succeeding—I mean, even President Obama fell for it—so why didn’t I speak out? Hmm. Why indeed. I hadn’t really thought about it until now, but I must say, that surly-looking headman is having a mind-focusing effect. But I guess it’s a multifactorial question really. For one thing your Honor must bear in mind that I was mortgaged up the ass and with most of our Institute’s research money coming in on the basis of public concern about climate change, I felt it would be unfair to my wife and kids if I did anything to jeopardize our financial situation. So altruism was definitely a major part of it. Secondly, it’s not like I was the only mentally-competent scientist alive during that period! There’s a couple of million people who were also in a perfect position to do something to stop this abuse of the public trust and the good name of science, if only they weren’t so morally lazy, intellectually craven and financially solipsistic. But your Honor doesn’t seem to care about them for some reason. Why would that be? Why am I being discriminated against? I just want it on record that I’m feeling a bit intimidated now and this scaffold is not feeling like a very safe space at this juncture….”
It is the Politicians that want to so something about CO2 emissions that use the consensus argument.
Instead of railing against the consensus, try refuting one paper.
Try Hansen 1988
But using the little widget here
It looks pretty good.
> It is the Politicians that want to so something about CO2 emissions that use the consensus argument.
Interesting. Please inform Harvard University that Professor Naomi Oreskes is one of the politicians that want to so something about CO2 emissions, not (as some people seem to think) a Harvard Professor.
Please keep us posted as to their response. Here are the contact details for the Department that hired Oreskes in a hilarious case of mistaken identity:
Department of History of Science
1 Oxford Street
Science Center, Room 371
Cambridge, MA 02138
Fax: (617) 495-3344
The main office for the Department of History of Science is located on the 3rd floor of the Science Center,
toward the East side of the building, to your right as you exit the elevators.
For general inquires, email:
To repeat, Bob,
Brad, you fail to refute.
Naomi is still making a political argument, which is what you would expect from a social scientist. Harvard hasn’t popped up on my radar on climate science, Yale maybe or the guys across the street.
No comment on the data supporting Hansen then, I take it you agree with his work?
I’ll go with a hundred scientists over 1 any day, Curious George.
That’s how science works—let a Swiss patent clerk deny it until he’s blue in the face, he was outnumbered and thereby debunked.
Perhaps if “they” were a monolith.
It’s certainly plausible that the whole “consensus” meme comes from people on the fringe, who don’t understand science (no matter PhD’s), or even do understand science but are writing for people whose eyes glaze over when you get technical.
> It’s certainly plausible that the whole “consensus” meme comes from people on the fringe, who don’t understand science (no matter PhD’s)
The whole “consensus” meme comes from Naomi Oreskes.
“It’s certainly plausible that the whole “consensus” meme comes from people on the fringe, who don’t understand science (no matter PhD’s), or even do understand science but are writing for people whose eyes glaze over when you get technical.”
It is certainly possible, but more plausibly the whole consensus meme is a carefully crafted political message intended to sell a political agenda.
I rest my case.
Not mutually exclusive.
Sorry, did I write Naomi Oreskes? I meant Naomi Oreskes.
“Not mutually exclusive.”
Come on, AK. You’ve come to know me well enough to know I have definite attitudes about law that most would call “fringe” and most tend to reject my assertions. I don’t see such a rejection of the consensus meme.
I know who Naomi Oreskes is. She certainly qualifies as “people on the fringe, who don’t understand science (no matter PhD’s)”.
Alas Harvard’s Board doesn’t seem to intellect what is obviously and “certainly” true to the rest of us.
In a heinous dereliction of their duty of care to fragile late-teens, they see fit to let her TEACH America’s future leaders… the History and Philosophy of Science, no less! Unchaperoned. And with no Inconvenient-Truth-style disclaimer at the beginning: The following lecture is for entertainment purposes only. Any resemblance to science is purely accidental and should be reported to University Administration for correction.
Perhaps they prefer to keep quiet and avoid the bullying. That doesn’t mean they agree.
Speaking of fringe “science”, I just found this on a parallel search path. Bit OT, but WOW!
“Perhaps they prefer to keep quiet and avoid the bullying. That doesn’t mean they agree.”
Like so many Trump supporters kept quiet to avoid the bullying? They weren’t avoiding a fringe element, they were avoiding the majority of voters. I don’t think the consensus meme is peripheral, if it were it very likely wouldn’t be a meme.
Most of the intellectual hooligans pushing “global warming” aren’t part of the scientific community. They’re fringe.
Scientists know (real ones do) that the “ consensus meme” has nothing to do with science. But there are probably more fringe bullies pushing it than there are scientists. It’s still fringe. WRT science.
> Scientists know (real ones do) that the “ consensus meme” has nothing to do with science….
…but they leave it up to bloggers to say it.
That won’t weigh in their favor at Climate Nuremberg.
“Most of the intellectual hooligans pushing “global warming” aren’t part of the scientific community.”
Respectfully, this is the false parallel. Since at least 1998 “global warming” has been a political issue and the consensus meme is a part of that. The scientific community takes a back seat, and tragically, are the fringe in regards to “global warming”.
AK, way to diffuse (and thus dispel) responsibility:
> Perhaps if “they” were a monolith.
….yeah, if only “they” were a monolith, they might have official bodies capable of issuing position statements on behalf of their scientist members, they might have some sort of (I don’t know) Royal Society even… they might, in short, be capable of at least a rudimentary form of self-policing, perhaps even enough to render themselves culpable en masse for the abuses they collectively turned a blind eye to, despite having the collective ability to stop them.
But alas, scientists are just a motley, ragtag crew of pyjama-blogging loners who’d be lucky to bump into each other once a year.
Wait… that’s us.
But nah, yeah, you’re right, I’m being unreasonable in my expectations. I should cut The Scientific Community some slack.
Yep. I can personally attest to that.
They take a back seat WRT the political issue.
But the science is different (AFAIK). That the political operators outnumber scientists by more than 10:1 doesn’t change the fact that they’re all fringe WRT science.
“Fringe” doesn’t work by “consensus” either.
““Fringe” doesn’t work by “consensus” either.”
I’ll see your fringe and raise you a consensus. Everybody has to play the hand their dealt…or fold.
Fair point. Problem is, all their resources have been penetrated and subverted (Lenin style) by the enemy.
But I didn’t say the scientists who let their “professional societies” be taken over by Leninists aren’t culpable. I just suggested that the source of the “consensus” meme comes from outside the majority of real scientists.
OTOH, many of them have jobs to lose, families to feed, and the enemy regularly uses attacks on employment.
The source of the consensus meme is Oreskes and her son Cook (who’s scientifically-illiterate, and thus not responsible). The culpability for it is much wider. The Royal Society is culpable because it allows it to spread unopposed. The President of the RS had better have a good war-crimes lawyer.
…have you missed the 50+ years of scientific literature on this subject? It’s all there, in your local university library, if you care to look. The primary literature, the scientific textbooks, etc.
The facts are there, if you care for ’em. The substantial agreement among active researchers simply reflects those scientific facts.
Note 16 “No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.”
IPCC; WGI ; AR5; Page 16; Note 16
And the gut feeling by IPCC is everything from a walk in the park to catastrophe:
“The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi- century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)( Note 16 ).”
Maybe you would be so kind to identify the literature which settles this?
Listen. It’s very simple. You only have to grasp two matters of logic:
1. Consensus is not a form of evidence. (This is a matter of definition in science. If you don’t like it, you don’t like science.)
2. If the physical evidence supported the dangerous-AGW narrative, nobody would ever have stooped to talking about the consensus.
Instead they’d be talking about the physical evidence, and only the physical evidence, all the time… not wasting time on non-evidentiary trivia.
The fact that they drone on and on and on about consensus, which is not a form of evidence, is good evidence that they HAVE no evidence.
Get it yet? Everyone else does.
That is such a brilliant point it sparkles. Dare I say, at the risk of dulling it’s brilliance, that we could replace the consensus meme with Peer Review and it would continue to sparkle. As evidence would negate the need for a “not peer reviewed” defense mechanism.
“It’s [not] peer reviewed” is a slightly more defensible argument than “there’s [no] consensus,” in the sense that it is *sometimes* relevant, whereas the latter is *never* relevant.
Like it or not, peer review can work as a time-saver, in roughly the same way that “Prejudice Is Such A Time Saver!,” to quote an old Onion headline.
But it has to be done competently, or it provides no reassurance whatsoever.
As I write in the (in press) sequel to my History of the Climate Debate: Part 1,
The first Australian ‘Hockey Stick’ paper gets past spell-check and into a journal, but fails to survive climate science’s built-in quality-control mechanism: Climate Audit review. (To its credit, the article withstands 3 weeks of scrutiny—almost a week per $100,000.)
Perhaps if “they” were a monolith.
It’s certainly plausible that the whole “consensus” meme comes from people on the fringe, who don’t understand science (no matter PhD’s), or even do understand science but are writing for people whose eyes glaze over when you get technical.
And that 50+ years of literature you refer to tells as this:
– adding certain gases to the earth’s atmosphere is expected to result in an increase in temperature, all other things being held steady
– humans have been adding several of these gases, CO2 being the primary one of concern
– the empirical evidence shows the planet is warming
– based on point #2, it is hypothesized that humans are the cause of at least 50% of the recorded warming.
So there is the famous 97% consensus. Impressive, huh?
Benjamin Winchester: “The substantial agreement among active researchers simply reflects those scientific facts.”
The same way that the substantial agreement between active researchers for over 50 years reflected the “scientific facts” about Alfred Wegener’s theories of continental drift?
Or perhaps the same way that the substantial agreement between active researchers concerning the causes and treatment of gastric ulcers, until Barry Marshall and Robin Warren demonstrated that they could be cured with a simple course of antibiotics – a discovery that cost the pharmaceutical and surgical industries billions, and led to them being subject to death threats?
Or what about Phlogiston theory? Or luminiferous aether? Or perhaps Piltdown man?
All “facts”, right?
Can you point me to the equivalent body of scientific literature backing up any of these?
No, you can’t. Because there never was such scientific literature. None of those had much evidence for them, and when they were subject to scrutiny, they became failed hypotheses.
In contrast, global warming is over 100 years old, and has stood the test of time and repeated study.
Benjamin Winchester: “Can you point me to the equivalent body of scientific literature backing up any of these? No, you can’t. Because there never was such scientific literature. None of those had much evidence for them, and when they were subject to scrutiny, they became failed hypotheses.”
There never was such scientific literature? They became failed hypotheses? Continental drift and tectonic plate theory are failed hypotheses?
The treatment of campylobacter pylori is a failed hypothesis?
Let’s try “plate tectonics and continental drift” for a start, shall we?
No evidence, you say?
The Geological Society do you?
ALFRED LOTHAR WEGENER
Wegener was a German meteorologist, geophysicist and polar researcher. In 1915 he published ‘The Origin of Continents and Oceans’, which outlined his theory of Continental Drift.
Wegener was a member of four expeditions to Greenland. In 1930 he visited Greenland for the last time, where he died shortly after his fiftieth birthday.
Wegener’s theory of Continental Drift was met with scepticism by many scientists. Although he had a lot of evidence to support the theory, he could not explain how the plates moved. It would be almost half a century before this problem began to be solved.
Or how about “Live Science”?
Continental Drift: Theory & Definition
Continental drift was a theory that explained how continents shift position on Earth’s surface. Set forth in 1912 by Alfred Wegener, a geophysicist and meteorologist, continental drift also explained why look-alike animal and plant fossils, and similar rock formations, are found on different continents.
Wegener thought all the continents were once joined together in an “Urkontinent” before breaking up and drifting to their current positions. But geologists soundly denounced Wegener’s theory of continental drift after he published the details in a 1915 book called “The Origin of Continents and Oceans.” Part of the opposition was because Wegener didn’t have a good model to explain how the continents moved apart.
Plate tectonics is the widely accepted theory that Earth’s crust is fractured into rigid, moving plates. In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists discovered the plate edges through magnetic surveys of the ocean floor and through the seismic listening networks built to monitor nuclear testing. Alternating patterns of magnetic anomalies on the ocean floor indicated seafloor spreading, where new plate material is born. Magnetic minerals aligned in ancient rocks on continents also showed that the continents have shifted relative to one another.
As to ulcers, how about the Center for Disease Control and Prevention? Is that a good enough authority for you?
Ben dear, I am not a climatologist; a mere physicist. I may be wrong on many accounts, please bear with me. After finding that models use a wrong value for a latent heat of water vaporization, I believe:
1. On a planet with an atmosphere of N2 and O2, adding a CO2 would cause warming.
2. On a planet with N2, O2, and H2O we can’t really tell. The effects are too complex. Let’s say CO2 causes temperature to rise.
3. Then more water evaporates (as an avid student of 50+ years of scientific literature, you must know that the water vapor is the worst greenhouse gas of all), thus potentially exacerbating the warming.
4. But water in the atmosphere is not always a vapor. It condenses in clouds and generates phenomena known as rain and snow.
5. During daytime, clouds reflect incoming solar energy, cooling the planet.
6. During nighttime, clouds prevent the surface IR radiation from escaping, warming the planet.
7. Increased levels of CO2 support plant life, greening and cooling the planet.
8. This calls the premise of Point 2 in question. Does CO2 really cause the temperature to rise?
9. Right now, temperatures are rising. They have been rising for 15,000 years – do you believe in ice ages? CO2 is also rising.
10. Is a warmer world better than a cold one? Ice cores indicate that a cold planet was mostly covered with deserts (plenty of dust).
Heh. On the basis of political orientation
I didn’t watch the video, I’m a grubby layman so probably wouldn’t understand it anyway. But the main reason I didn’t watch it is because I’m utterly bored with meaningless scientific naval-gazing.
Scientist’s and politicians will, hopefully, understand one day that the people they need to convince aren’t each other, but we grubby laymen.
My only endearing quality, perhaps, is that when I got so scared about impending climate doom, I took it upon myself to try and understand a little more about it, even if was only to figure out how long I had left.
I have learned 2 things:
1. After 40 years, billions of dollars, and research from tens of thousands of scientists, no one has proven CO2 causes global temperature change.
2. The world’s political and financial future is predicated on this single, unproven hypothesis.
Am I missing something, other than a few billion brain cells I would love to have?
Nah, you pretty much got it all.
Except the brain cells……I can assure you :)
I’m all ears, at least they work well.
Did you forget who weighed in on the medical science behind the female reproductive system?
A man who was on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:
Born in New York City, Akin grew up in the Greater St. Louis area. After receiving his bachelor’s degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts, Akin served in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and worked in the private sector in the computer and steel industries. In 1988, he was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives. He served in the state house until 2000, when he was elected to the United States House of Representatives, in which he served until 2013.
Concern about the scientizing of political debates is, IMO, an interesting question – but examining that question isn’t well-served by selective analysis about where the roots of the problem lay. To the extent that you might think it is a problem, it should be addressed as a bipartisan issue, and any failure to address the bipartisan nature of the problem (to the extent that it exists) does nothing to resolve the issues at hand.
How Political Correctness Limits the Free Exchange of Ideas on Campus (THE SAAD TRUTH_129)
Is there a transcript?
Not that I’m aware of.
Not sure if I would buy that either the left or right has a war on science, more the Oligarchy uses science and, in fact, the entire institution of education to further its ends.
Perhaps just because the ‘left’ has seemingly been more in power it seems like this means the left is out to get science.
Face it, nothing flies in the University unless it is well within the established bounds of what is acceptable by the financing institutions.
Well over 90% of faculty in U.S. universities are Democrats.
When you throw billions of $ at the scientific community to come up with answers to anything, it’ll come up with answers, to anything. That’s not intrinsically wrong, if they refused to spend it, just like any other budget, it’ll be pulled.
It happens, this time, to be ‘the left’ determined to blame something beyond its own failings for the worlds woe’s, a typically socialist outlook. ‘The right’ are more likely to look for solutions to problems, a tad more positive.
And whilst we’re not talking about Trump, I’ll talk about him. As personally repugnant as he may be, he is a businessman who is used to finding solutions and lining his own nest. If I were American, I would rather he was working for America’s interests than Clinton, who has no commercial experience. I might also make the same case for the UK, but the best we have is Theresa May, I hope she and Trump find some common ground and learn from each other.
Nor would I care if Trump made a few billion more from his Presidency, although I suspect he’s lost count. At least he wears his heart on his sleeve (well so far) and America should be a lot better off ten years hence.
And that’s what matters. If the US man/woman in the street doesn’t feel Trump’s impact on his wallet, he will have failed, and that’s not in Trump’s nature. He knows very well where his votes came from and how much each one cost. After all, he paid for them, much from his own pocket, which is more than I can say for any other President or Prime Minister that I know of.
He put his money where his mouth is, respect for that, if nothing else.
Will it make a difference to the scientific community and the GW debate? I suspect more than we can imagine.
> As personally repugnant as he may be, [Teh Donald] is a businessman who is used to finding solutions and lining his own nest.
Here’s a list of such solutions.
The following comment requires a high bar of proof:
==> The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. – John Tierney ==>
It is one thing to say that arguments from the left that the Republicans are engaged in a “war on science” are inaccurate.
It is quite another to then go on to make an argument that the “left” has done “far more” than the “right” to “set back progress.”
Unfortunately, typically these arguments can be boiled down to identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors, reflecting the need to strengthen one’s own sense of self and to demonize the “other.”
The first place to start, if you want to support a hypothesis that the fault lies predominantly with one side as opposed to the other, is to carefully control for the potential of influencing biases.
The third paragraph:
Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced?
Are these the only conceivable measures that could be used to measure “impact on science?”
I don’t think so, I think that they are criteria that were hand-picked to serve as rhetorical devices in service of confirming a bias.
But maybe I’m wrong. So, then, where is the scientific approach used to determine that these are the only, or even the most important, measure of “impact on science??
Paragraphs six and seven:
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias,…
This is the best of all. Too bad he waited until the sixth paragraph to trot that one out.
So confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left.”
Fascinating. So where is the scientific evidence in proof of that claim?
Some methodological issues in climate science
Sorry, nothing to do with methodology. (well some) assuming the following.
Someone needs to prove, by empirical means, that CO2 causes GW, in the real world if the debate is to continue.
“Prove” is the wrong verb in most scientific contexts; “demonstrate” or “find evidence that” are safer choices
The casualties are honest young scientists who abandoned their careers in science because they knew there would be no research grants or advancement if they refused to endorse “97% consensus science” – i.e., pseudoscience!
The key for grading the IQ Test was posted on JoNova’s blog:
“knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.” – Merriam-Webster.
I’ll take a wild stab, and guess that talk of “declaring war on science” is some form of NewSpeak or Climatese for “changing the way taxpayers’ money should be spent (or wasted, if you are of a more cynical frame of mind)”.
As far as I know, there is no evidence that people become more intelligent if they are paid more, or that creativity can be forced.
No doubt some people will resent having their snouts levered out of the trough, others will be grateful for their chance to join the free-for-all at the supposedly inexhaustible Government money trough.
And a giant trough it is. Even scientific publishers manage to siphon off tens of billions of dollars in profits, supposedly advancing the study of the natural world as they go.
I might seem a little cynical, but I wonder if a few hundred billion here and there might be spent on things such as teachers, nurses, doctors, police, emergency workers and so, without affecting society detrimentally.
Much US public use infrastructure seems to be in need of repair. Maybe a little science could be deferred, and a little bit of present need satisfied. Even scientists benefit from good roads, bridges, reliable water and electricity supplies and so on. I’m sure sure scientists wouldn’t mind making a bit of a financial sacrifice for the greater good.
The continuing development of expensive toy computer games could be postponed for a year or two, with no great public detriment, with any luck. That would free up a few billion. Not much, but it would be a start – imagine if other scientists joined in!
You wrote –
“CAGW makes little sense as an acronym anyway, since it conflates a set of scientific theories and a contrarian claptrap.”
Nonsense. There is no set of scientific theories relating specifically to AGW (and its unsaid supposed reason, CO2).
There is not even a single falsifiable GHE hypothesis (let alone one involving CO2), to be found. AGW is a trivial fact. Every time you rub your hands together, bounce a ball, light a fire, or even continue living, you create heat. Heat results in warming.
Seven billion people furiously creating as much heat as they can (it’s also called energy, and people seem to prefer more, rather than less), night and day results in more heat than one billion people created one hundred years ago.
Maybe you are surprised that instruments designed to measure heat (thermometers) reflect the increased amounts of heat being generated. Maybe, like the pedestrian mathematician, Gavin Schmidt, you confuse correlation with causation. Silly, silly, silly. Burning fossil fuels creates heat and CO2. Heat is accompanied by CO2 production. They are directly related, but CO2 does not create the heat.
I digress. You have no CO2 heating theories at all. You don’t even have a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. All you have is an empty bag of wishful thinking.
With all the wishful thinking in the world, plus $5, you can probably buy a decent cup of coffee.
I like Mike Flynn’s language. He seems informed, yet speaks plainly, unlike Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux) who insists on quoting from the textbook.
I don’t know who’s wrong, and who’s right (although I don’t believe AGW is a problem at all) but I damn well know who communicates better to the common man.
Thank you MIke, very well put.
By quoting sources, Jean Paul isn’t trying to obscure his meaning, nor is he trying to hide behind the authority of others, nor is he trying to lend his opinions a higher status than yours, or anyone else’s.
In short, he’s not arguing from authority. He’s not telling you: “believe this because this person said this.” Skeptics despise that sort of tactic.
All JPZ’s doing is borrowing from (and giving credit to) people who’ve already thought about the issues at hand, come to conclusions that make sense to him, and expressed them so well that it would be a waste of his time to try to improve upon the phrasing.
You’re free to disagree with the people JPZ quotes, exactly the same way as you’d be free to disagree with JPZ’s own words. You can disagree in your own words, or you can do it by quoting an author who “takes the words out of your mouth.” Whatever. It’s all good.
And you should disagree (or agree) based on the merits of the argument—not based on the fact that it’s got quotation marks at the beginning and end of it.
> I digress.
Yet it’s always the same digressions, MikeF.
Here’s a guide to falsify AGW.
Here’s another version, this time by NG.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis (even not involving CO2) at either link. As usual.
Nothing to back up your nonsensical “set of theories” assertion. As usual.
Non-disprovable Cargo Cult Scientism. As usual.
Nothing at either link with a GHE hypothesis (even not including CO2). As usual.
Nothing to support your “set of theories” assertion. As usual.
More non-disprovable Cargo Cult Scientism. As usual.
> Nothing at either link.
Are you sure you checked, MikeF?
One doesn’t work.
Sorry. Thought it had vanished. Hence variations in expression. Poor memory. Oh well.
Checked both. Both worked for me. Both irrelevant and pointless. As usual. First, Bert Verheggen. Second, Climate Abyss. No hypothesis stated at either.
Complete waste of time. As usual.
Your next diversionary attempt at time wasting contains –
“Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.”
You call that a hypothesis? That’s your CO2 fuelled GHE hypothesis? Anybody can see why you can’t actually find any basis for the GHE, if that’s the best you can point to.
I’ll point out, just in case it’s passed you by, that the surface of the Earth was once molten. It’s not now. Possibly trivial, but true.
So you can’t seem to find a useable falsifiable GHE hypothesis. How hard can it be? Maybe it’s on the shelf between Ether (luminiferous), and Phlogiston. Or maybe not, as both of those had falsifiable hypotheses – since falsified.
You have nothing except strident faith based assertions. As usual.
> Both worked for me.
Somehow I doubt it, MikeF, since I just checked with two comps and three different browsers.
Not that reading matters much for your argument by assertion.
Somehow you doubt it? You blame me for your incompetence? You provide links and then claim they’re bogus? If you’re going to try to provide non existent links, you need to do a better job! You might need to brush up on your computer skills – you seem a little rusty if you can’t access a linked site. Quite useless, but accessible.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis, I note. Wriggle, wriggle Warmist worm!
Warmist weasel-words might help. Maybe you could claim you meant something else, or you misunderstood the meaning of hypothesis, or even that the IPCC stated that consensus understanding creates fact from fantasy.
Or you could just take refuge by uttering some silly words, trying to divert attention away from the subject at hand. How about loftily declaring that Trump begins with an upper-case T? Obviously elitist, and therefore hypocritical! That sort of thing might suit you better than essaying to understand the scientific process.
You don’t need to thank me. I’m always happy to help.
> You might need to brush up on your computer skills – you seem a little rusty if you can’t access a linked site.
Love how you’re gaslighting me, MikeF.
You said you read the article.
The link works, but the page is empty.
You did not read the article.
It’s quite simple, MikeF.
When a site returns a 404 for a URL it didn’t work.
Why am I not surprised that Flynn doesn’t know any more about the intertubes than he does about science?
“I’ll point out, just in case it’s passed you by, that the surface of the Earth was once molten.” – Mike Flynn
Complete gibberish, Flynn has shown no way to falsify this hypothesis. Must be total bunk made up by astrophysicists who like to use sciency words. Non-disprovable Cargo Cult Scientism.
Just here to help,
So for purpose of argument and definitive proof of AGW theory you linked to a “what I did on my summer vacation” while saving the whales report by Paul Verhaggen” or in Paul’s own words “MY VIEW on climate change”
So there you have it. Move along folks nothing else to see here this science is settled by golly by gum. I know because Paul did a book report on it. You can remove the yellow police tape Willard. The reason there is nothing to see is there is no there there.
The Climate Changed before man walked the earth. Man causes more of everything in our atmosphere including the trace element CO2. Man has an affect on his environment both on the ground an in the atmosphere. There is no evidence linking man’s contribution to his environment being responsible for some impending doom. Move along Willard.
I realize that you guys sit around the faculty rooms philosophizing on overpopulation, limits on natural resources, third world industrialization et.al which has brought about this children’s fairy tale to scare the majority into turning toward big daddy government with pleas and majority votes to save the bad people from themselves. This gives the Governments permission to pass regulations limiting individual liberties and degrading the quality of life for the “have-nots.” And that last part Leo DiCaprio is what is wrong with your phony pulpit preaching. So this CAGW clarion is not resounding because it is a made up fairy tale to scare the children. Unfortunately for you children grow up and have to fend for themselves.
The supremely under-served and under-educated public schools students are not devoid of immediate needs They need jobs, roofs over their head, food on the table, clothes on their back and safe streets to walk. Basic Maslow’s hierarchy of needs stuff. You over-educated pseudo-intellectuals are pontificating about self actualizing while a voting majority are trying to figure out how to pay the mortgage and still feed the kids. Which brings us to how Donald Trump shocked the psuedo intellectual media elites and won the race for President. Now he represents impending doom for your taxpayer funded flim flam.
Thank you for your comment, BillP.
First, it’s Bart, not Paul.
Second, it’s Verheggen.
Third, and more importantly, the title of the post is A quick ‘n dirty guide to falsifying AGW.
Fourth, the post shows the absurdity of a common contrarian argument according to which Da Paws falsifies AGW.
In other words, contrarians might need to choose between “AGW is falsified” and “AGW is unfalsifiable.”
At the very least, those who hold that AGW is infalsifiable should have a talk with those who hold that it’s been falsified.
There is no such thing as a definitive proof in science, BTW.
If you could tell Denizens what we should conclude from the fact that this very blog is called Climate Etc, that’d be great.
Meanwhile, please do continue to harp about the media, elite, and teh Donald.
“There is no such thing as a definitive proof in science, BTW.”
No such thing as in-definitive proof, or ambiguous proof, or imprecise or inexact proof in science either.
> No such thing as in-definitive proof, or ambiguous proof, or imprecise or inexact proof in science either.
Intriguingly, most published proofs in formal disciplines are sketches, hence possibly indefinitive, ambiguous, imprecise, or inexact. So even there there is a need to wait until some kind of consensus to settle a question.
Instead of analyzing the notion of proof, it might be more fruitful to generalize BillP’s claim: in principle, the empirical sciences never reaches definitive conclusions. I say “in principle” because we might need to wait a while to change things like the speed of light or bivalence.
Even if we accept that the whole of the empirical sciences are definitive, consensus is still possible. So yes, Virginia (h/t Willard Tony), there can be something like settled science over many aspects of AGW.
Just ask Defraud Donald about settling matters.
“Intriguingly, most published proofs in formal disciplines are sketches, hence possibly indefinitive, ambiguous, imprecise, or inexact. So even there there is a need to wait until some kind of consensus to settle a question.”
Nice one, Willard. While I rarely agree with you, I almost always enjoy following your reasoning.
A consensus has value but that value doesn’t buy much when it is the only currency offered.
No such thing as proof in science?
Well, I suppose not, unless:
– disproof (falsification) is another way of saying “proof-that-not,”
– theoretical physicists are allowed to publish math papers.
Even Popper considers that falsifications are never really definitive, Brad:
He needed to add this caveat because he too had to deal with wiseguys such as yourself.
I wasn’t being a wiseguy on this occasion, I was genuinely wondering about those 2 potential counterexamples (which always bothered me).
How about I use a special tag on the 3 or 4 occasions a year when I’m not being a wiseguy? How would work for you?
> How would work for you?
Oops! Where are my escape characters when I need them?
I was proposing that if I need to warn readers that I’m not taking the p*ss for whatever reason, I could use a tag like slash-“unsarc” inside angled brackets
Your reading comprehension is on par with your technical comprehension.
For example, you wrote –
“You said you read the article”
Complete nonsense. I didn’t say any such thing! I merely pointed out the truth, that your misleading link did not contain a falsifiable GHE hypothesis.
Now is your chance you thought I did, or you got that impression, or the consensus made you fabricate the statement, or any of the other silly Witless Warmist attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
You intentionally provided a stupid irrelevant link, looking for a gotcha, by the look of it. Not my problem if your malicious incompetence becomes obvious to others.
Not even a good try. Trying to cover your puerile subterfuge by putting words in my mouth, and then contradicting them, is typical of the GHE acolytes ever more desperate attempts to perpetuate Cargo Cult Scientism.
I won’t accuse you of lying. It may be that the average GHE cultist cannot distinguish between fact and fantasy.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2. None. Not surprising, as none exists.
> For example, you wrote – “You said you read the article” Complete nonsense. I didn’t say any such thing! I merely pointed out the truth, that your misleading link did not contain a falsifiable GHE hypothesis.
So MikeF can point out truths about the content of an article without reading it.
Heck, without even seeing it, for Chron’s page was empty.
We’ve got powerful Denizens among us.
Your fantasy continues.
You provided a link which contained nothing of relevance. I pointed this out. You now claim I read something which wasn’t actually there. I’m good, but not that good.
Foolish Willard. You can’t provide a falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2, so now you complain that people can’t read it because it isn’t there!
Brilliant piece of logic, that.
Cargo Cult Scientism – trying to be too clever by ‘alf. Good luck with that.
> You provided a link which contained nothing of relevance.
I provided a link which contained nothing at all, MikeF.
The entry I was citing has been grubbed from Chron’s database.
someone was probably thinking of Paul Verhoeven
You wrote –
“I provided a link which contained nothing at all, MikeF.”
Gee. I thought you were trying to be helpful. My mistake. Here’s what you provided in an endeavour to get me to waste my time –
Here’s a guide to falsify AGW.
Here’s another version, this time by NG.
Very Warmist of you. Exceptionally clever. Don’t blame me for pointing out that “nothing at all” includes “no falsifiable GHE hypothesis”. As I said – no falsifiable GHE hypothesis to be see. As usual.
Providing a link which doesn’t contain a falsifiable GHE hypothesis, isn’t quite the same as providing one which does, is it?
Are you actually able to provide anything at all of use, or just more information free links? Of course not. As usual.
> I thought you were trying to be helpful.
I doubt it, MikeF, since if you did, the empty page would have indicated that something’s amiss.
You went for gaslighting instead.
And now you try to cover that gaslighting with a racehorse.
Please, do continue.
Choose the MOST accurate statement:
1. “all swans are white” was never a theory
2. “all swans are white” might still be true, you never know
3. it’s possible to conclusively disprove a scientific theory
The first one is the most accurate.
The third one is the most precise.
The second one is the one Popper would favor.
But where are the fourth, the fifth, the minor fall and the major lift?
I’m glad Popper’s quote is couched “in point of fact.”
For non-scientists, that means: “in an extra-true sense; moreso than the average true statement.” It’s a way of providing added reassurance to punters who might be considering betting on the statement’s long-term factuality.
Willard, wow! That was complete. I didn’t even ask about precision, but seeing as I’ve caught you in such a supererogatory mood, please rank the statements by
– conformity to the aesthetic of mono no aware, and
In point of fact, which (if any) of the statements is/are true?
You doubt my statement that I thought you were trying to be helpful. You then go on to say that the fact that you intentionally provided an information free link might have indicated that something was amiss.
If you had warned me in advance that you had no intention of providing relevant information I might well have avoided following your silly link. What a Willard Warmist Wally you are!
Typical Woeful Willard Warmist evasion. As usual. Maybe a degree of anencephaly accounts for your attempt to foist aninformation on the unwary.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2, is there? No semblance of actual scientific method, is there?
Wriggle, jiggle, avoid, whirl like a Dervish – it does you good. Deny, divert, confuse. Still no sign of science!
> If you had warned me in advance that you had no intention of providing relevant information I might well have avoided following your silly link.
I think you did avoid to follow the silly link, MikeF.
In other words, I think you’re lying about writing your comments after reading it.
The reason is simple: there was nothing to read.
You wrote –
“In other words, I think you’re lying about writing your comments after reading it.”
For all I know, you think that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist, and that Michael Mann received a Nobel Prize!
What you think is quite irrelevant in the context. I discovered there was no falsifiable GHE hypothesis at the link. Maybe that was your intent, maybe you’re stupid, incompetent or both – I can’t read your mind, or think of any rational reason why you would purposely go out of your way to provide an information free link. Maybe it’s an example of Witless Warmist bloody-mindedness.
You seem to be in an alternate reality, trying to rid yourself of the hook on which you have impaled yourself. Accusing me of lying does you no credit – except, no doubt, in the eyes of other Wayward Wandering Witless Warmists.
Still no falsifiable GHE hypothesis involving CO2, is there? Maybe if you put on sapphire shoes, click your heels together three times, and concentrate really, really, really, hard, you could conjure one up!
Let me know how you go. It might be more successful than your efforts to date.
> I discovered there was no falsifiable GHE hypothesis at the link.
That “discovery” is only relevant in situations where you read something.
You could not have read anything.
The appropriate reaction to an empty link is to signal that there’s a problem with the page, not mere contradiction.
There’s a difference between not seeing a black swan when looking at a bunch of swans and not seeing seeing a black swan when not looking at swans at all, MikeF.
There’s no difference between your pure contradictions and not looking at all.
Hi Judy. This is among your very best posts! Fits with my front row seat on how climate science has sunk into political advocacy and exclusion/ostracism/vilification for those (such as myself) who do not follow their party line.
I think your mistake, Roger, was to assume that you had no need to bow to the consensus when you had detailed data and reasoned argument on your side. The post-modernists no doubt showed you the error in that assumption. Your tenacity though, is not unbounded, as it never is for mere mortals – they simply wore you down. Don’t blame you though – you put up a better fight than most, same as Judy has.
All the best for you and Jr too, who also copped an earful for his troubles – I enjoyed his latest (belated) win, BTW, which thoroughly deserves, but will not get, greater exposure.
The following quote summarizes exactly what the leftist agenda is and why science is in their cross-hairs:
“In a world increasingly devoid of moral authority, the supposed
impartiality of science provides a seemingly objective source of
authority. That authority is a major threat to the environmental
Iain Murray , “The Really Inconvenient Truth” P. 51-52.
I rest my case.
George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
It depends on how you redefine “science”. The Left has already redefined a “marriage”, but keeps polygamy out.
“…people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, ”
To this point of the gathering together of people who feel personally insecure, that is, they spring into the fight or flight emotional mode when confronted with the unknown or particularly, uncertainty, these seem the same people who seek groups who insulate themselves from confrontation of their beliefs and/or having to make a decision, or choose side.
Tribalism is historically the norm for human society and it is not surprising that science would lapse into such a mode over climate science. Hence, the power of the consensus. Also, as our POTUS Obama has shown, transference, as in the psychiatric co-mingling of one’s personality with another’s belief system, Obama has been unable to separate himself from babble science talk. Instead, he perseverates in his diatribe of global warming. He is after all a Sal Alinski community organizer when the job required a pragmatist, dirty hands social orderists. His failures are legion, now visible in a Trump administration, ie, the transparency for which he advocated and shunned assiduaously revealing his abyss. Oh, what might have been.
What is at stake? is integrity; not so much of science, but the people who do the science. The current warmists who lead the parade of climate consensus followers, have positions of power and responsibility. The Gavins, Mikes, Kevins, etc are not likely to alter their direction nor accede their power or positions. The paradigm for change now is to eliminate their departments altogether, risking loosing valuable gains in science, but, like a surgeon operating on a localized cancer, excise a 2 centimeter area around the cancer, encompassing some normal tissue, to eliminate the growth and future metastasis.
The Gavins, Mikes, Kevins are the cancer. Who the surgeon might be is yet the question.
You’re selling abject insanity.
No, it’s perfectly sane. It’s the climate alarmists who represent “abject insanity.”
Yes, cut out the cancer and hope we get it all.
I win, you lose!
“You’re Nuts” “Thuggery”
My kind of nomenclature. Not too clinical. Not too sciencey.
Gets right to the heart of it all. Reminds me of my days working with our legislature.
He starts with what is probably a true statement.
“Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science.” Why is that? Can’t conservatives do science? From what their thinktanks spew to their politicians, you would think not, but also perhaps they have someone who agrees with the mainstream science that is keeping quiet. Why would they keep quiet? Look what happens to Republican politicians who support AGW. They don’t last long, and it is because of politically driven peer pressure. He needs to examine that, and it is documented. The scientific question at hand is whether the course we have towards 700 ppm by 2100 is OK, or should we at least try to keep it below 500 ppm until we know for sure? By the way, very few, if any, scientists think 700 ppm would be OK.
By the way, very few, if any, scientists think 700 ppm would be OK.
you must have taken a poll, can you document the poll.
I don’t find many real actual scientists who think CO2 will cause anything bad to happen.
The US EPA indicates no adverse health effects at all below 1000 ppm.
NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.
Maybe they don’t have any scientists working for them.
Or can you find some real scientists who believe that CO2 has magical planet heating properties?
By the way, Gavin Schmidt is a mathematician, Michael Mann claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, James Hansen claims that super storms will suck giant boulders from the seabed and drop them on our heads, and Kevin Tremberth is convinced that the sun illuminates all continents at the same time – night doesn’t exist!
Reputable scientists only, please.
I know, Edward Teller was a liberal.
How about, the strong religious tendencies in conservatives and progressives colors their view. Even in science.
As an example, it seems to me many CAGW advocates would prefer their CAGW ideas to be true than false.
Jim D – what impact on science or otherwise does Professor Naomi Oreskes of Harvard have?
None on the science. Why do you ask?
“Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science.” Who else does?
The scientists are the ones who have impact on science, by definition.
The question is… Who has an impact on the impact of science (on society) .
Scientists do, as do liberals and conservatives.
Got it. Money has no impact on science.
CG, yes, as you can see by the failure of various industries through the decades to change unfavorable results to them by funding thinktanks or other devices.
United Nations writing and review process for IPCC is an extraordinarily good example of how science has become politicised:
And anyone thinking that IPCC is unbiased should have a look at how heavily biased IPCC was from the very beginning:
Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989
The Principles governing IPCC work are more or less free from sound scientific principles – no mentioning of scrutiny or application of a sound scientific method there.
Rather than imposing scientific principles on IPCC, United Nations allowed IPCC to be governed by:
– the unscientific principle of a mission to support an established view(§1)
– the unscientific principle of consensus (§10)
– an approval process and organization principle which must, by it´s nature, diminish dissenting views. (§11)
And – while I am at it – Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainty shows how subjectivism has been introduced and endorsed by IPCC. That is the document behind the laughable subjective confidence terminology used by IPCC.
Thx Science or Fiction, this will be data fer me next
Serf Under_ground post, ‘Trust but Verify. :)
I look forward to reading that post. Give us a hint when it is ready. :)
Is there a meaning to different box shapes?
Which box describes Ben Santer’s edits?
It might have been an earlier version of that process:
“Let me reiterate my own position on this issue of “Climate Changes”. Changes made to Chapter 8 after Oct. 9th were in response to comments that we received from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also made in response to plenary discussions that took place in Madrid. They were made for scientific reasons, not political reasons. The IPCC had nothing to do with these changes. They were under my full scientific control as Convening Lead Author of Chapter 8. They did not violate IPCC rules of procedure.”
Or maybe the diagram is not how the process actually works.
Science or Fiction,
I like it!
“Consider that, in some cases, it may be appropriate to describe findings for which evidence and understanding are overwhelming as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers.”
Evidence and understanding are overwhelming. We find phlogiston to be a fact.
Evidence and understanding are overwhelming. We find the luminiferous ether to be a fact.
Evidence and understanding are overwhelming. We find the planet heating properties of CO2 to be a fact.
Problem solved. Facts created.
“I don’t find many real actual scientists who think CO2 will cause anything bad to happen.”
And who complies with your definition of “real scientist” pray?
And why are they *more* real than he thousands of scientists who go towards the IPCC’s compilation of the science.
I see nothing other than the usual ideologically driven *sceptics* quoted ad naseum, validating confirmation bias via the concept of “those that shout the loudest” are correct.
In other words you dismiss the vast silent (via the consensus within the IPCC science) majority as either incompetent and/or corrupt.
Go ask Richard Muller.
Or the Exxon scientists, why they didn’t do their *masters* bidding.
There is precious little “real science” on display here my friend, as there is on other *contrarian* blogs. It’s just a self-fulfilling prophecy …. as is your reflexive denial of my sentiments.
Even if you consider some science to be *bad* (obviously there is as that’s the way life works), there is still the good and indifferent too.
Most denizens consider it all *bad*. And sme Blogs too. See WUWT FI.
Just as I say to those types regarding weather forecasting…. “Being always wrong is just as impossible as being always right.
They don’t get though of course.
As neither will you.
It is this failure of critical thinking that is so gob-smacking..
Tony Banton: “It is this failure of critical thinking that is so gob-smacking..”
Yes Tony, how true….
Most of your posts give that impression.
You rant about “consensus” and then you have the damn gall to dismiss sceptics as “ideologically driven”.
At times the author goes a bit over the top with his rant.
Population size does matter.
The proliferation of chemicals and pesticides do have downsides. The upsides prevail but that isn’t much of a consolation to those who are actually affected by the downsides and tend to be portrayed as lunatics especially by the “establishment” (which is as much of the right as of the left this time). Just being frank and honest would help and wouldn’t deny the upsides.
If I recall, RealClimate was created because no one was listening to the scientists. No one was countering the nonsense. I am pretty sure that they would have happily stayed in their labs if there was an organization that applied the knowledge they were collecting. This was not happening and they felt alarmed enough about their results that they had to become political.
Club of Rome listened, and the bureaucrats in United Nations listened and led an enormous international effort to solve the problem. Eventually everybody listened. And those who asked questions were stigmatised.
Not really. It was more of an “enormous international effort to” use “solv[ing] the problem” as a cover for their real, ideological, agenda.
Try a decent and skeptical comment at realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com and see how it is received.
Enh, the problem is that very few “skeptical” comments are actually skeptical; taking into account the scientific facts. They tend to be skewed or cherry-picked.
It’s pretty rare that I see comments from skeptics which actually cite and reflect the scientific literature.
Benjamin Winchester: “the problem is that very few “skeptical” comments are actually skeptical; taking into account the scientific facts”
Don’t you mean the “scientific” facts, very few of which are actually scientific?
D’ya suppose that’s because they delete all the skeptical comments that make sense, and just leave the goofy ones?
I’m calling BS on your characterization of RC and SKS Ben. If there are so few skeptical comments at those sites it is because anyone not toeing their line would be deleted. As one example, in any discussion on renewables, mentioning of nuclear assured deletion, unless it was an anti-nuclear comment. Just asking inconvenient questions were grounds for disappearing into their bore hole. (I will say sks was far worse at his than RC.)
I’d agree that SKS is a little more snip-happy than RC.
But even here, you rarely see skeptical comments that are backed by a broad and measured view of the scientific literature. If they reference the literature at all, it’s picking the one or two outlier papers.
Real skepticism means getting the full picture and then making your mind up based on a careful analysis of all the facts. And that’s just not what you usually see among “skeptics”. (Nor among laypeople alarmists, either, for that matter).
Most people don’t even have a basic understanding of how climate works, but they’re still pretty sure that the scientists are wrong.
So, yeah, if you’re going to post a “skeptical” comment, you’d better have done your DD, and have some solid research to back it up.
Having a job and a family and a commitment to volunteer work, I can’t claim to religiously track all of the literature. Hell tens of thousands of papers get published. Instead I rely on what Judith links to. And it isn’t 97% that climate change is well understood, let alone bad. That’s what made me curious in the first place. Understanding the basics, along with knowing how most researchers are very reluctant to make broad definitive claims, the whole consensus, everything is bad storyline rang false. And the more one checks the literature, the more one finds either a spinning of what the authors are actually stating, or a surety in their conclusions which is unwarranted. When you see science by press release and insights into how some of the supposedly leading lights operate from seeing emails or behavior on social media, being skeptical should be the natural response.
Unless of course you are a true believer. Then all it takes is faith.
There are two sides to every war.
If there’s a “War on Science” then the flip side is a “War on Laity”.
But it’s really more specific than that.
There’s no War on Agricultural Science or War on Medical Science or War on Computer Science. There’s a War on Climate Science.
On the flip side there’s no War on Agriculture Consumers, no War on Medical Patients, no War on Computer Users. There’s a War on Climate Skeptics.
It’s a manifestation of the culture wars. Aristocrats vs. Plebeians. Climate scientists are with the Aristocrats.
There’s only one way these wars ever end. I say to the climate scientists the barbarians have broken down the gates. The main one being the US government, presaged by Brexit.
How do you want to play it out? You have two choices: surrender or annihilation. Pick one.
“How do you want to play it out? You have two choices: surrender or annihilation. Pick one.”
an agreement between enemies or opponents to stop fighting or arguing for a certain time.
Some enjoy the conflict.
Who is offering a truce?
“Who is offering a truce?” Who isn’t?
We don’t know what Trump’s going to do yet do we? There is no benefit to a continuation of aggression unless one’s goal is just a continuation of aggression.
Another choice. Boycotts and labor strikes.
> Boycotts and labor strikes.
Some argue that boycotts are a form of economic terrorism.
Some will argue anything. It doesn’t follow that any argument has merit.
> Some will argue anything.
See for yourself:
Sounds good to me.
Of course, it doesn’t say anything about boycotts, but we can always depend on Wilbur to get the details wrong.
Well the bond market has decided to boycott loaning cheap money. You can join in the fun by shorting the long bond with these Exchange Traded Funds (ETF): TBT & TMV.
> There’s no War on Agricultural Science
> or War on Medical Science
> War on Computer Science
Thanks for playing.
Isolated complaints aren’t wars. Try again. Use examples equivalent to things like US congressional hearings, UN panels like IPCC, treaties like Kyoto, hugely advertised & attended global conferences, billions of dollars in funding, etc.
> Use examples equivalent to things like US congressional hearings, UN panels like IPCC, treaties like Kyoto […]
Only the first in the list can be included as war prop against science.
Judy only participates in the first kind of prop.
An intriguing correlation.
the climate activists can waffle.
First thing is cut US contributions to UN climate propaganda.
Then review the NASA and NOAA temperature adjustments and restore empirical observations. Send NASA back to space and NOAA to observation based measurements. Lots to do to return to the moon and on ARGO plus.
Then focus EPA on tertiary sewage treatment and water desalination. That can absorb all the funding currently disappated in computer models for 100 to 300 years in the future.
Their war on science is fake, our war on science is the “real” war on science.
Oh, and don’t forget,…
But two huge threats to science are peculiar to the Left—and they’re getting worse.
The first threat is confirmation bias, the well-documented tendency of people to seek out and accept information that confirms their beliefs and prejudices.
It just gets harder and harder to wrap my mind around just how far vast is the universe of irony. Every time when I think we’ve approached the farthest extent of that universe, we just blow right past it.
Here we have a post written by a climate scientist in order to complain about the biasing effect of a politicization of climate science, in which she openly embraces an analysis that presents a completely politicized picture of science, without even a cursory attempt to present objectively collected and analyzed evidence in support. .
Where is the scientific evidence in support of a claim that confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left?”
I offer a challenge to the “denizens.”
I would like to see just one put forth some scientific evidence in support of one of the main claims made in this post…that confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left.”
If no one “denizen” can, then I suggest you ask yourselves why so many science-oriented folks would pass by such a claim with nary a hitch in their giddyup.
> I would like to see just one put forth some scientific evidence in support of one of the main claims made in this post…that confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left.”
Why would you like to see scientific evidence in support of something that’s probably not true?
> If no one “denizen” can, then I suggest you ask yourselves why so many science-oriented folks would pass by such a claim with nary a hitch in their giddyup.
Here’s one theory: because THE ARTICLE WAS BLOCK-QUOTED IN SEQUENTIAL SLABS OF ITALICS, MAKING IT ABOUT AS READABLE AS A PAGE OF ALL-CAPS, PROFESSOR CURRY!
PLEASE FIX YOUR CSS, SWITCH TO A BETTER THEME OR SIMPLY INDENT ALL LONG QUOTES INSTEAD OF ITALICIZING THEM, JUDY!
> I would like to see just one put forth some scientific evidence …that confirmation bias is “peculiar to the left.”
That’s just silly. We’ve all read the science of bestselling neurologist Chris Mooney, who finds there are two kinds of people in the world:
– those who are comfortable with ambiguity and capable of seeing the nuance and complexities of real life without reducing it to a black-and-white, us-versus-them Manichaean cartoon
– and Republicans.
I bet you rail against Mooney’s science, too, Joshua. Can you give us a link to your comments hounding him for the “evidence” behind his claims, please? Not that I think there’s any possibility whatsoever that Mooney is wrong; I’d simply like to read the opposite (incorrect) side of the argument too, which I can just imagine you making with your usual erudition and moral incandescence. TIA
You must have missed the last few years of posts/entries that “present objectively collected and analyzed evidence in support.”
Don’t you get it yet? Despite having all the objectively collected evidence that supports a rational view of climate change, we are still needing to have this conversation.
The reaction to our better understanding of climate which does not support a co2-driven scenario seems to be to pass more co2 policy while turning up the agitprop and the deprecating of scientists/people who do not follow along blindly.
==> You must have missed the last few years of posts/entries that “present objectively collected and analyzed evidence in support.” ==>
In other words, your answer is no. Or, apparently, you have a different definition of scientifically collected and evaluated evidence. I’m not referring to a bunch of rightwingers talking about they believe that confirmation bias is “peculiar” to the left. I’m talking about something more scientific than that.
Disagree with Mooney as you will about the differences between the “right” and the “left” (something I disagree with him about because, in the very least, there are far more differences in-group than across-group as described by that taxonomy), at least he brings science to the table. All we get here are arguments by assertion.
Sorry, that should be crypto, not cat.
“you have a different definition of scientifically collected and evaluated evidence. I’m not referring to a bunch of rightwingers talking about they believe that confirmation bias is “peculiar” to the left. I’m talking about something more scientific than that.”
Do you mean like speleothems? Paleoendemic plants? Cultural evidence? Latitudinal shifts in entire plant communities?
Yeh, I have been looking at that stuff for a while now, and I still don’t believe co2 is a significant control on climate. In fact, I don’t believe even more so.
Forgotten your medication again, Jossy?
Please show me two Right “safe spaces” at a U.S. university.
“Please show me two Right “safe spaces” at a U.S. university.Please show me two Right “safe spaces” at a U.S. university.”
Would two different churches on the same campus suffice, or would I have to find another “safe space” that is not a church in order to meet your criteria?
I’m not defending left wing nonsense, I’m just saying.
As a member of the Islamophobic-Australian community, I initiated legal action in 2012 to secure my right to a safe University space. This was all triggered (so to speak) by the administration’s persistent refusal to close a Muslim prayer room, despite being advised that its presence caused daily feelings of anxiety and even panic to myself and the rest of the Islamophobic Student Body. Four years later, to cut a long courtroom saga short, campuses around the country now look to us as a model of inclusiveness. It’s almost unrecognizable. The intimidating prayer room is shuttered; Muslim students no longer wear religious attire on grounds; abstention from pork is now punishable with a fine; they have to attend Manning Bar and consume alcohol like any other Australian tertiary student (though of course, they’re free to drink whatever they like in the privacy of their own home); no more confronting beards, no more nightmare-inducing burkas. Visiting Muslim scholars, guests and cross-institutional students are asked to wear a bell (provided at no cost to them) so as to avoid startling Islamophobic students.
And the best part? I go to class, every day, terror-free. Except during midterms and finals.
Jean Paul, you misrepresent a Left safe space. Discussions are not forbidden in churches. If you are referring to Galileo, that was not in the U.S.
“Jean Paul, you misrepresent a Left safe space. Discussions are not forbidden in churches. If you are referring to Galileo, that was not in the U.S.”
I am Catholic…like a bad boy Catholic, or mediocre Catholic or lapsed Catholic, or an “a la carte” Catholic, but whatever adjective best fits me, it suggests that what I have to say in that safe space is not as welcome as what devout Catholics have to say.
Me and the Pope are not in agreement on climate change. Maybe I’ve kept my mouth shut in church on that issue out of respect, or maybe it’s just savvy and knowing where I am. I certainly couldn’t get away with trying to convince my fellow Catholics to appeal to Mason’s for invitations to join their little club. That wouldn’t fly very well.
Jean Paul, you say that churches are safe spaces as long as you agree with an official line. What then makes them Right, as opposed to Left?
“Jean Paul, you say that churches are safe spaces as long as you agree with an official line. What then makes them Right, as opposed to Left?”
That’s not what I am saying. Despite the fact that my opinion in a Catholic church is less welcome than others doesn’t make the church any less of a safe space. The Catholic church is not a bastion of free speech, but it remains, at least for this lapsed Catholic, a place I can go to get away from the harsh realities of the world, take a breath and, after genuflection, feel safe.
As to your question of left and right, it is a good question. My understanding of the whole right/left dichotomy is it came from the French revolution where supporters of the monarchy would sit to the right of the king and supporters of revolution would sit to the left of the king. The Church sat on the right and historically has supported traditional rule over that pesky American experiment, and it is this understanding that tends to inform my own attitudes on what makes left and right.
Personally, I’m no fan of hierarchy as political rule, but people continually insist on labeling me right wing. I’m a libertarian and consider myself a ‘classical liberal’, but I have to resort to phrases such as ‘classical’ in order to make clear what I mean, and even then it is not so clear how clear I am being.
Jean Paul, I only saw self-labeled “progressives” demand “safe-spaces” at U.S. universities. The idea of a “safe space” was that the participants would not be exposed to any opposing, harmful views.
I am no fan of Mr. Trump, and the fact that he is a President-elect confirms that God works in mysterious ways. But I respect the U.S. Constitution, so he is now my president-elect. Products of a “safe-space” education can not swallow it; they march in streets and set cars on fire. So much for “progressives”. The very word is tainted now.
I saw pretty much the same thing, and only rethought my position after reading a welcoming letter or open letter to incoming students for…I think…the University of Chicago, and his assurances that safe spaces would not be provided.
Here’s my thinking on it, everybody has their safe space. Brian Wilson (along with Gary Usher) wrote an ode to it with ‘In My Room’. Ain’t nothing wrong with a safe space. Would feel safe in what both you and I seem to read from the safe spaces at issue? I wouldn’t feel comfortable, that’s for sure. I would have to go to church, I guess.
Brad this last gets my vote for best parody.
Really enjoyed it.
Of course the subjects of the parody probably won’t get it.
Sounds like you and I are similar Catholics. I came to the Church in high school. My brothers and I were baptized Presbyterian, but occasionally went to Mass with our dad. (He would visit the bakery after church and the only way we would know if they had stuff other than what dad brought home was to first sit through Mass.)
While I am probably far from what the Church says being a Catholic means, I have never felt unwelcome or an outcast. Today we have a Parrish priest who should be cloned, he’s that good. Perhaps the best way to show this is to quote one of his central messages. Faith is all about ones personal relationship with Jesus. Almost sounds evangelical, but it resonates.
Thanks!! Was it clear who the targets of the satire were? Who would you say I was poking fun at?
“It just gets harder and harder to wrap my mind around just how far vast is the universe of irony.”
Like trying to wrap an elephant with a kleenex, huh?
LOL I kill me sometimes!
The US National Academy of Sciences led the real war on science, using control over public research funds to deceive the public about the source of energy that powers the Sun and controls human destiny:
The question is whether the alliance of scientists and globalists exceeded the boundary of ALMOST TREASON in hiding the source of energy that powers the Sun and controls human destiny,
Some of you guys seem to be subject to the same lack of discrimination between Science and Scientific Method that I criticized in Steven Jay Gould back in Science 2000: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5451/253.e-letters
The Gould Standard
Steven Jay Gould has constructed an elaborate hand-waving argument in defense of the Deconstructionist Theory of the Intellectual Left. What he neglects to point out is that Deconstruction is a valuable and appropriate tool for the discovery of sources of error, but that it has no place in searching out the sources of truth. That latter belongs to Scientific Method, and Gould does not distinguish between Science and Scientific Method. The former is the practice of ornery and fallible human beings, subject to all the social and textual influences he so lovingly deplores in his essay. The latter is the process that enables them to achieve conclusions despite all that…
So, in my view, criticizing science is just criticizing scientists, who sometimes fail to practice what they should be preaching. Nothing wrong with that. Scientific Method, now….
This article is Not an own goal as the commenters on this thread seem to think. Its more like the coach or quarterback getting in the players faces about doing their job. Completely senseless arguments for the same of it. As Mosher always says read harder geesh!
Backing off on all fronts, now the Paris deal…
“I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it.” – President King Louie
Dr Curry – some thoughts
With the election of Mr Trump a new door opens, one of equality for good unbiased science. Based on facts not fear or agenda.
His stance on CAGW appears neutral, but has an open mind to a slight warming but as yet undetectable and unproven.
As Senator Roberts in Australia recently asked the CSIRO (the central scientific Govt. advisor) for the imperical evidence that they are making their claims of CAGW, of which there was none, so should the USA ask the IPCC for the impirical evidence. Where are your facts. Until they can provide a reasonable degree of credible certainty other than it is getting warmer – they have no influence. Come back when you have something. Is there a solid enough foundation for the investment. It is built on sand. This needs to be led by someone senior and unbiased
There needs to be a cleanout of the rubbish self promoting science papers, where the references are used for the CAGW cause. That is, a list made of those that are not scientific but full of if, maybe, could etc. Any paper with the words will contribute to or as a result of CO2 climate change should not be used unless the author can prove it with impirical evidence. Judging by some of the very poor scientific papers I have read, there needs to be a refocus on quality not quantity. Poor performing scientists need to find an alternative vocation. The private sector does its best not carry the weak.
The five most accurate climate models based on real data should be retained, and the rest shut down. These five should then be reduced to three over two years with the due capture of benefits from others. They should be staffed by unbiased scientists or people of knowledge.
The USA should remain in the Paris agreement if possible as as a non contributor, simply to control and monitor the biased stupidity. It also shows an open mind, but facts are required. No facts – no money. Where is the business case.
Those bearing the scars of the so called war on science, move forward into the new era quickly. From what I have read about Mr Trump you now have an open window on a sunny day, lets get back to business. There is so much still unknown. Keep an open mind, and get ready to challenge some of those theories that you thought were as good as gold.
Full speed ahead, “its going to be a beautiful thing”
Have just returned to Chicago from several days off grid at my Wisconsin dairy farm, and am now reading all the ‘entswischen’ grid comments.
Am glad there are still places off grid. As for the deer hunting there, we did medium good in lousy weather. A few “dairy deer’ taken. Burned some (about a face cord only) of seasoned oak to keep the 1880’s-1950’s farmhouse warm rather than using newly evil propane. Green. Very Green.
Guarantee would not support a city. Guarantee no city folks are welcome to trespass on my farm. Ever.
Nowhere is “off the grid” unless by choice. That you recognize a need in yourself to disconnect from the modern world is interesting. Self-reflection is atypical for self-aggrandizing internet blowhards.
How do the milkers run without electricity?
Or do you run a sanctuary and use the free manual labor to milk cows and sweep out the manure?
PS – I take it Wisconsin is still a 100% Hunters Orange state.
Forget the milkers. Dairy farm requires refrigeration.
As far as I am aware, politicians as decision makers do not know well enough the issues related to climate changes. They have to rely on experts available or to believe blindly in ideological or institutional views. Even one-sided experts may not understand inter-disciplinary problems of climate changes. Maybe that is why I have exprienced the situation as follows.
Polititicians, all over the world, have been made believe, that the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused by burning fossile fuels, and that the recent global warming is mainly attributed to the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere. I have scrutinized the issue and found that the belief of politicians is totally wrong: the anthropogenic share in the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is minimal, and trends of CO2 content changes in atmosphere follow trends of climate temperature changes and not vice versa.
During 1980s I listened to some academical lectures concerning the correlation between global temperature and CO2 content in atmosphere during glacials and interglacials. In general, the lecturers assumed that the trends of the temperature changes followed the trends of the atmospheric CO2 changes. Towards the end of the same decade UN politicians set up IPCC in order to find scientific background for global warming believed to be caused by anthropogenical CO2 emissions. Since there was not available any evidence in reality for the believed, anthropogenic warming, IPCC adopted results of climate models in order to prove that. To make current warming seem to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, IPCC adopted climate model results, on which (by circular argumentation of parameters, e.g. of antropogenic CO2 and solar insolations) current warming has been made seem to be caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Anyhow, the results of the climate models are only hypotheses, which have no evidence in reality. The lack of evidence was stated even in the Rio conference 1992. The climate models seem to be unworking even today.
Climate sensitivity is not any threat
The climate sensitivity (i.e. increase of glogal climate temperature, when atmospheric CO2 content has been doubled) assessed by IPCC – on the basis of climate models results – is uncertain and exaggerated. For instance Judith Curry et al. have halved the IPCC climate sensitivity, as they have replaced the climate model results by using results of observations in reality. For instance Scafetta and Lindzen have stated still lower values for climate sensitivity than Judith Curry et al. In addition to the view of my own, there are scientists (e.g. Wojick and Arrak) who says that the climate sensitivity can not be distinguished from zero.
The current climate models do not work
By using the climate models, IPCC has not managed to forcast or hindcast trends of global temperatures. For instance, during the last, nearly two decades the climate has no more been warming, even though the CO2 content in atmosphere has been increasing like earlier.
The recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been controlled by sea surface warming
In my comment https://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-198992 I have proved, that the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere has been caused by global warming of oceanic sea surfaces, especially in the areas where CO2 sinks on sea surface are; sea surfaces on the areas of CO2 sinks are warming by lag compared to climate warming.
The share of anthropogenic CO2 from fossile fuels in the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere is minimal
In the comment of mine above I have stated, that all CO2 emissions from sources to atmosphere and all CO2 absortions from atmosphere to sinks together determine the CO2 content in atmosphere. If CO2 content in atmosphere increases, when the CO2 emissions and absorption are striving for a new dynamic balance, this means that the current CO2 emissions to atmosphere are more than the CO2 absorptions to CO2 sinks. As the anthropogenic share of CO2 from fossile fuels in the total amount of CO2 emissions to atmosphere has recently been only about 4%, it means that in the recent increase of about 2,2 ppm CO2 in atmosphere a year contains only about 0.09 ppm anthropogenic CO2 from fossile fuels.
Trends of CO2 contents in atmosphere follow trends of global temperatures and not vice versa
Geological observations prove that during 100 million years 10 million years long trends of CO2 content in atmosphere follow corresponding trends of global temperature. Even as shorter trends, CO2 content in atmosphere follow global temperature trends and not visa versa, for instance during glasials and interglasial, including even the current interglasial Holocene, as I already in my comment above stated concerning the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere.
The Paris agreement to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions is based on a precautinary principle declarated in the Rio conference:
‘Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Having met at Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June 1992, Princible 15, http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual//Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163 ” — Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”’
As I have proved above the recent anthropogenic increase of CO2 content in atmophere is so minimal that there is no need to cut anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In addition, according to natural laws, trends of CO2 contents in atmosphere follow trends of global temperature and not vice versa.
Cutting anthropogenic CO2 emission causes only disasters. Therefore it must be replaced by adaptation to natural climate changes and to threatening weather events. As to the energy policy, there must be taken care of availabity on energy being competetive and clean enough.
Thanks. This is a nice discussion.
Some places make sense for solar like inland CA and Middle east. Plus parts of Africa without grid penetration. that can run water systems and allow cooking with out in side fires in huts. Helps to improve lives of billions of impoverished people. Coal fired central plants for cities or natural gas,(LNG), or Nuclear. The CAGW propaganda took the focus off real environmental problems like energy, clean water, sewage treatment and plain supply of food. Almost deliberate callous disregard for real problems
Lauri – Nice summary
I am yet to find any detailed discussion of the CO2 atmospheric DENSITY during the transition from glacial to interglacial.
Density – NOT ppm.
The ice data identifies that temperature rises prior to CO2 values by some considerable time. This is completely overlooked by CAGW types and ignored as an important key factor by the skeptics.
There is a significant difference between ppm and density when temperature is a key component.
The Vostok and other ice data clearly identifies that the density of CO2 is LOWER during warming and higher during cooling. The same as most other dynamic equilibriums involving a sink (s) and temperature variable transport fluid (air or liquid) that interfaces with the sinks (s).
The discussion should go back and focus on this one key aspect, before proceeding any further, as it remains a key element in the CAGW models and forcasts of doom. That is why they are and will remain so drastically in-accurate.
“The ice data identifies that temperature rises prior to CO2 values by some considerable time. This is completely overlooked by CAGW types and ignored as an important key factor by the skeptics.”
If by “CAGW types” you mean climate scientists, no, they do not ignore the lag. The studies I have seen show they found CO2 rises that came after temp increases, came before temp increases or no lag at all.
I think you reference to density is pure nonsense.
I note that you use the term “think” when refering to my statement on density. I spent 15 years working daily with dynamic and passive equilibriums, also designing various systems to alter the residual state of equilibriums for clients. Trying to get them to see things in relative saturation / density compared to ppm was always a challenge. Some never get it.
Earth and its atmosphere has a relative saturation / density relationship with CO2. At various times you can measure the volume in the fluid (atmosphere) which is quantified in ppm.
Studying the Vostok data carefully during the interglacial period identifies that CO2 was always “short” of “equilibrium” and this explains the development from C3 to C4 species. Low CO2 density at the highest demand period.
It is the most common mistake that people make. When you refer to ppm you must always use temperature as a reference. i.e. 235ppm at -2.3C. Further one needs to look at the trend prior to and after that particular data point when in a transitional state (e.g. moving from glacial to interglacial) to help ascertain the true state.
Harry, I am more than happy to be wrong, but “think” is no proof. I am trying to find time to update an article first published in 2009 to provide a more detailed understanding.
Which contains the most energy –
A volume of gas at 1 bar, or that same volume of gas at 0.001 bar?
Does the specific heat of a given mass of gas depend on pressure? Does the actual specific heat vary whether you are considering volume or pressure?
Rhetorical questions, of course. You don’t have to provide an answer. The ratio of CO2 specific heats, k = c sub p / c sub v is 1.40. Oh, by the way, that’s specified at 20 C and 1 atm. The physical properties will change at other temperatures and pressures, of course.
I wouldn’t expect a GHE follower to understand reality, though. Much better to live in fantasy land, and replace reality with what you mistakenly refer to as “thought”. If only.
Keep trying to think. You’ll get the hang of it one day, I’m sure.
“I spent 15 years working daily with dynamic and passive equilibriums…”
Appeal to Authority logical fallacy AND narcissism.
“I wouldn’t expect a GHE follower to understand reality, though. ”
And I don’t expect you to be intellectually honest about The Greenhouse Effect.
Go away troll, you are boring me.
>I am trying to find time to update an article first published in 2009
You have a link?
“than can be found in academia with its federal funding and ever growing liberal bias.”
Making claims again? Not very scientific.
“Making claims again? Not very scientific.”
Your criticism isn’t very scientific either. It is not as if you bothered to find any research that might refute the claim you criticize, or if you did, not as if you bothered to share it here.
A survey by Inbar and Lammers on Political Diversity in Social and Personal Psychology found only 6% who identified as conservative, that respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among them and that conservatives feared revealing their political thoughts for fear of reprisal, of which the study concluded conservatives had good reason for this fear. From reviewing papers to hiring, many of the personality psychologists responded they would discriminate against openly conservative peers.
~Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology – Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers (2012)~
A 2010 study looks at self selection bias and surveyed honor students at a private Midwestern university. In examining the claim justifying a disproportionate ration of liberals to conservative, the claim being conservatives are less interested in becoming professors than liberal students because they seek out higher paying jobs where liberal students are more likely to seek out community or service oriented, of which they believe higher education to such a thing; the survey found, however, while conservative students were more likely to complain about the price of higher education they were just as likely to express an interest in higher education and it was liberal respondents who ranked salary more highly than conservatives. Finally, that study, like the previous one, found that conservative students believed their political ideology affected their grades and that nationwide professors are more liberal than conservative.
~ Why are there so Few Conservatives in Academia? Testing the Self-Selection Hypothesis – Kevin Hudson (2010)
A 2005 survey of 1643 faculty members hailing from 183 four year colleges found the conservative faculty members were by far out numbered by their liberal colleagues and that these differences are not unique to elite universities and the social sciences. Even after analyzing professional accomplishment conservatives wind up teaching at lower quality schools than do liberals. The survey found that the same is true of women and practicing Christians who teach at lower quality schools – despite their qualifications – than do liberals.
~Politics and Professional Advancement Among College Faculty – Rothman, Lichter, and Nivette (2005)~
Zipp and Fenwick, however, disputed some of this, acknowledging that left of center faculty increased some between 1989 and 1997, but argued “the best overall description of these trends suggest increased movement to the center”, pointing out that there are sizable differences across field and in some fields conservatives hold the plurality, and that changes in age and gender have offsetting effects on liberalism. The study also claims that conservatives and liberal professors have significant differences in educational values. (Is The Academy A Liberal Hegemony?
The Political Orientations And Educational Values Of Professors – 2006)
There are plenty of studies for you to find for yourself…if you are at all interested in the scientific response to claims of liberal bias in academia.
Individuals questioning this statement are very young or if they are old then their observational skills are sorely defective. I’ve lost track of the number of decades where I have either read studies or read about studies concluding the same. There are just some things that discerning adults know.
Swimming rodent tries being smart and Jean Paul drops a rat trap on him. Nice work JP. Infestations of pests need a good exterminator
Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’
This is what we get now, you contemptible fools. That includes you, Dr. Curry. Shame on you.
It’s way past time to get politics out of science. This is a great day for TRUTH!!!
Yeah, lets get politics out of science by eliminating science, makes sense.
“Yeah, lets get politics out of science by eliminating science, makes sense.”
There’s science,and there’s “science”, Harry.
You need to learn the difference.
“Yeah, lets get politics out of science by eliminating science, makes sense.”
Science isn’t a function of government funding. Eliminating government funding of science does not “eliminate science” unless the “scientist” is only good enough for government work, I suppose.
Eliminating extraneous “missions” from NASA will allow it to focus on space activities. That’s what it’s for. This will save money and refocus what was once a great agency. MAGA!!!
NASA – national (amputed) space administration…
The most expensive US weapons system of WW2 had great difficulty in hitting its target because we had limited knowledge of A or of S?
JCH NumbNuts – the “A” stands for “Aeronautics,” not “Atmospherics.”
Traveling through the air…
Climate models don’t help you travel through the air, either.
You might be confusing climatology with science.
Climate is the average of weather. No science involved. Basic mathematics. NASA recognised this, and put a mathematician, with a less-than-stellar record, in charge. Gavin Schmidt.
After many years of listening to a motley crew of delusional fortune sellers
pretending that toy computer games could predict the future, the US Government has apparently decided that real science needs a spot of catch-up funding.
Self anointed climate scientists are perfectly free to follow their interests at their own expense, or being funded by a patron if they wish. Maybe they could get a job, if all else fails.
I’m sure you would get a lot of support if you started a crowd-funding initiative to support tearful climate scientists to continue to avoid any form of accountability connected with their employment.
I’ll contribute a dollar to get the ball rolling. Please send me a stamped, self addressed envelope.
So they’re going to fly around space and avoid planets. Far out.
“This is what we get now, you contemptible fools. That includes you, Dr. Curry. Shame on you.”
Oh look! Another sore loser. And bitter with it.
Would you like some cheese with that whine, Stephen?
Here is your assignment:on a blackboard list all of the Federal agencies that have missions that are redundant to other Federal agencies.
No bathroom breaks.
Those oh so flawed models on which cli -‘science’ is based
– sigh! Pat Franks demonstrates what due diligence should
have taken place twenty-five years ‘n a trillion$ ago.
Dr. Curry has done credible science. That’s why I think that deep down she knows that most of you here, and the people Trump is promoting, are just ranting, yapping cranks and badly-informed ideologues. It’s almost poignant that this is what she has to surround herself with now.
From your own link: ““My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
It goes further: “Nasa has appointed two officials, Tom Cremins and Jolene Meidinger, to lead the transition to the new Trump administration. However, the president-elect’s team has yet to formally review the space agency.”
Placed with other agencies is a key term here IMO. NOAA might be a good candidate. Too early to panic. Let’s see where the chips fall first.
“…ranting, yapping cranks and badly-informed ideologues…”
As you have described yourself perfectly, I presume you were looking in a mirror when you typed that, Steven?
Uncertainty, monster. )
Perfect response for getting enshrined in the Huffington Post Hall of Fame for Left Wing Ideologues. Keep up the good work.
Pat Frank makes a devastating error of his own with this analysis that he has been peddling for years. Skeptics need to be skeptical sometimes.
This is OT but since Steven apparently thinks skeptics are daft, I want to explain why skeptics think warmists are a bit daft.
I just read an apparent transcript of the infamous meeting between Trump and the NYT hierarchy. The discussion turned to global warming and the back and forth that is being reported on. Tom Friedman, warmist extraordinaire and a single digit golfer said as an aside to Trump “You wouldn’t want Royal Aberdeen to be underwater.”
Royal Aberdeen is a famous golf course owned by Trump. I’ve played in the area so Friedman’s comment piqued my interest. Royal Aberdeen underwater from sea level rise, really?
So I checked the NOAA Tidal Gauge record for Aberdeen. The rise is 3 inches per century. 3 inches, much below the global rate.
Friedman considers himself an intellectual and deniers to be Neanderthals. But he makes a stupid statement like this . Only a warmist would say something like this without even knowing the facts. Is it any wonder there are so many skeptics.
I heard that Trump has already had to reinforce the seawalls on one of his courses, so it is not a completely off remark. Trump feels this impact already, and has said so.
At 3 inches per century with no evidence of acceleration at that location, his predecessors 100 years ago faced the same problems. A case for natural variability. With or without AGW, storm damage along the coast has always been a threat.
The sea-level rise rate in the last 25 years is twice the average of the 20th century.
Professor “kickass” Jevrejeva has been Professor Curry’s SLR girl.
Coastal sea level rise with warming above 2 °C
Svetlana Jevrejevaa,1, Luke P. Jacksona,b, Riccardo E. M. Rivac,d, Aslak Grinstede, and John C. Mooref,g,1
Two degrees of global warming above the preindustrial level is widely suggested as an appropriate threshold beyond which climate change risks become unacceptably high. This “2 °C” threshold is likely to be reached between 2040 and 2050 for both Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 and 4.5. Resulting sea level rises will not be globally uniform, due to ocean dynamical processes and changes in gravity associated with water mass redistribution. Here we provide probabilistic sea level rise projections for the global coastline with warming above the 2 °C goal. By 2040, with a 2 °C warming under the RCP8.5 scenario, more than 90% of coastal areas will experience sea level rise exceeding the global estimate of 0.2 m, with up to 0.4 m expected along the Atlantic coast of North America and Norway. With a 5 °C rise by 2100, sea level will rise rapidly, reaching 0.9 m (median), and 80% of the coastline will exceed the global sea level rise at the 95th percentile upper limit of 1.8 m. Under RCP8.5, by 2100, New York may expect rises of 1.09 m, Guangzhou may expect rises of 0.91 m, and Lagos may expect rises of 0.90 m, with the 95th percentile upper limit of 2.24 m, 1.93 m, and 1.92 m, respectively. The coastal communities of rapidly expanding cities in the developing world, and vulnerable tropical coastal ecosystems, will have a very limited time after midcentury to adapt to sea level rises unprecedented since the dawn of the Bronze Age.
Regarding sea levels –
“GNS Science has been assessing the impact of the earthquake and this video shows a section of seabed on the Papatea Fault on the south end of Waipapa Bay which was raised by 1.5 metres. One one side of the fault the seabed was raised by as much of six metres of uplift, geologist Kelvin Berryman said.”
Is the resultant seabed now being above surrounding sea level a demonstration of a fall in sea level? Given that the Earth’s crust is in constant motion, how do GHE enthusiasts take this into account? Do the models assume that the crust is unchanging? Even the ancients were aware that the land rises and falls independently of sea levels. Maybe the GHE crew need to accept reality.
As the crust moves, so apparent sea levels change. Radical for carbon haters to believe, but true nevertheless.
No GHE – no need for one to explain anything, anyway. Ordinary science works fine.
I know your song and dance about the GMSL rates. We’re talking about one location and one golf course in Scotland. The Aberdeen tidal gauge shows the levels today to be lower than 1935 and 1950 with the decadal oscillations.
Coastlines erode, as they have done for thousands of years. Coastlines suffer storm surges as they have done for thousands of years. Sea walls have been built ever since humans were confronted with these natural events. Sea walls are being built all around the Great Lakes. Those coasts are not influenced by SLR but they are impacted by the normal geologic and erosional processes just like everywhere else in the world.
If you have a link that definitively demonstrates an acceleration of sea level rise at Aberdeen, have at it.
Erosion facts/logic matter not to people who fear overpopulation, limited resources and third world industrialization. They need to control the energy use of the great unwashed, justify blocking their industrialization and implement central government mandates to control population e.g. replace DDT with mosquito nets purchased with donations from American Idol fundraisers.
We need to stop using fossil fuel so that there will be plenty of reserve for Dicaprio to fly his personal jets to “save the planet” rock concerts and Paris accords.
Greenland is undergoing a slow-motion collapse with the Antarctic to follow. These glaciers are not sustainable as CO2 levels trend towards 500 ppm and beyond. Sea-level rise is part of our future, no denying and advanced preparation is wise.
Steven Sullivan | November 23, 2016 at 7:34 pm |
“most of you here, and the people Trump is promoting, are just ranting, yapping cranks and badly-informed ideologues”
It must really suck for you to know that we own your ass now. Guess what? You are SO fired.
“Greenland is undergoing a slow-motion collapse with the Antarctic to follow.” We shall take Jim’s word for it. Any bets?
History shows that Greenland has no glaciers with CO2 levels of 500 ppm. It is no coincidence that they formed as CO2 dropped towards current day values just prior to the Ice Ages. Glacier extent changes with CO2 levels, no denying.
Way to change the subject. I challenge you to provide a link to shows SLR is accelerating at Aberdeen and you come back with old news about Greenland. We’re you aware a study this year identified geothermal activity on Greenland more extensive than previously known? You do remember that chapter 13 of IPCC showed the contribution to GMSL rise from Antarctica was .27mm/yr. That is precisely 20% of the thickness of a US dime. That is really thin. But listening to the ubiquitous scare stories from the usual sources, one would think it was a foot per year.
I replied to Danny below about the WaPo fright piece by the fright piece maestro Chris Mooney, concerning West Antarctica glaciers. The usual stuff. We are doomed.
cerescokid, SLR is globally accelerating. Go to your favorite sea level source and compare the 20th century average rate with that since 1990. I am assuming you have not looked at the data in that way yet. Why is it accelerating, you ask? Two factors: global warming and glaciers melting. This much is known.
SLR in the last 25 years is twice the rate of the 20th century.
Quick Jim D what is 1.7 x 2?
I’ll help you with that, the difference between using tidal gage data and satellite data.
I’ve read the data hundreds times of just as you have. The pseudo science is unimpressive. I know all about how the GMSL magically accelerated precisely when they went to the satellite system. What a coincidence.
I continue to take note that when I brought up Aberdeen you change the subject. When I brought up the geothermal activity in Greenland you change the subject. When I brought up the pathetically insignificant contributions to GMSL rise from Antarctica you change the subject.
See a pattern here?
But why quibble today. Detroit Lions won another game in the last second..
As jim. Does not seem to want to provide a link, here is one t he NOAA data.
Averages are very dangerous things as it disguises the places where sea level is dropping, as well as rsing.
It aso fails to tell the whole story regarding the changes in land relative to the sea, whereby some land is rising whilst others are falling, in part due to glacial action
Bearing that in mind, There were sea level stands higher than today around the third century and around the 12 th and 16 th century.
The current rise rate since 1990 is about 3.3+/-0.1 mm/yr, so in answer to timg56, yes, it has doubled from the 20th century average. Your point was? As for Aberdeen, why should we care when Trump’s golf course with the sea walls was in Ireland? Point sea-level rise rates are highly variable. You should try measuring it at New Orleans, for example.
My point is Jim that you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about. Which is more charitable than believing you do have a clue and are being deliberately misleading.
You can’t splice satellite data on to tidal gage data and claim the rate has doubled.
I’d explain further but the only facts you seem to accept are those you make up.
timg56, so you think tidal data is ignored since 1990. They are both used together, if that makes any sense to you. Show your tidal data alone since 1990. Does anyone do that?
I can show you this one, but you will dismiss it after studying the result.
You will be delighted to hear that Scott’s logs show the Antarctic hasn’t changed since his expeditions there a century ago
I commented on these a couple of Years ago when I visited the Scott
Polar institute in Cambridge in order to carry out research for an article. The documents are kept in a giant vault which the curator has to open for you after you identify the documents you want to view
On the other hand.
Ah. 2008! Obama what done it!
Over the last 5 years, the AVISO reference rate is 5.15mm pyr.
Over the last 10 years, the AVISO reference rate is 4.05mm pyr.
It does not appear much energy left the oceans during the El Niño. We have experienced a regime change… from nature’s total failure to cool a system dominates by AGW… with everything it had short of a volcanic eruption… to nature joining hands with AGW and warming the crap out of this place. Enjoy.
My first comment above had to do with the scientific illiterate Tom Friedman and his statement that Trump wouldn’t want to have his golf course Royal Aberdeen flooded out by SLR. That was and continues to be my challenge to you, show me why Trump should be concerned about Friedman’s idiotic statement. You got off topic by bringing up Ireland.
Thanks for not being able to show Aberdeen SLR rate is accelerating. I will call the Donald to let him know he can now rest easy about his course. I know he will feel better.
Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807
…There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2 ± 0.4 mm·yr− 1) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1 ± 0.6 mm·yr− 1 from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993–2009). …
My guess is that Friedman was misremembering the Irish golf course which made the news for Trump earlier. While Trump may also be worried about Aberdeen because of his past experience, I am sure he has looked into it already, so Tom didn’t need to remind him.
They’re leaving all sorts of potential ice melt out of that calculation because the science is not there yet. But so far, every time they advance, a bigger swath of that ice melts by 2100, or sooner.
So they have Aberdeen at a very conservative number at 2100. They’re not done.
Soon they will have to add a number to rebound for all the heads stuck in the sand.
I read the link about Trump’s golf course in Ireland. While it is on the opposite coast to Dublin it is only 150 miles away as the crow flies. Since 1938 the Dublin Tidal Gauge has been rising at the rate of only . 07 mm/yr Jim, I can’t count that low. Given that a dime is 1.35 mm thick, that means the sea level rise is only 1/20th of the thickness of a dime per year. You can’t be serious about all this.
I’ll drop Trump a line letting him know he can rest easy about another one of his golf courses.
You and JCH need to pick up your games. First, JCH throws up an air ball on some PDFs at a bunch podunk villages and then you fall for a scare story about a golf course where the water has risen in the last 100 years to the tune of the thickness of 5 dimes.
cerescokid, regarding Ireland, Trump was blaming it on global morning, and so you would have to take it up with him.
..actually I think he said it was global warming.
I have an assignment for you. The NOAA Global Tidal Gauge system shows that Dublin, Ireland SLR rate is .07mm/yr. Your “cities” link above has PDFs of future SLR for many cities including Dublin (assuming not Dublin, Ohio since it is 500 miles from the Atlantic). Would you crosswalk the almost imperceptible SLR rate of .07mm/yr to the apocalyptic scenario that is included in your link? I am having a hard time understanding how anyone can get from A to Z knowing how little the Sea Level Rise has been at that location for the last 80 years.
If this link that you provided was a High School project by some 9th grade prodigy, then that is understandable. On the other hand if it was supported with Federal funds, I think I can help with Trump’s efforts to find a few dollars of budget cuts.
If you need help with this assignment, there should be some scientists from NOAA and NASA looking for consulting jobs on January 21st.
Steven Sullivan, are you currently or have you recently been feasting on the teat of climate related federal funding. Your nastiness would suggest so.
And yours would suggest you’re just a dumb sucker.
I’m just a Deplorable. Viva Le Deplorables!!!
Or should that be – how deplorable?
I think it should have been Les Deplorables … but anyway …
Being deplorably pedantic, and seeing as how you brought it up, maybe even vive les déplorables!
Mr. Sullivan is suffering from a simple case of impotent post-election rage.
I recommend burning some sage. It’s calming.
Say Steven, pre the Industrial Revolution, lots of
natural solutions for melancholy – so prevalent in
those days. Summer recipes to be used in Winter,
brrr, rose vinegar the colour of summer roses, syrup
of violets… perhaps the best, Robert Burton’s ‘The
Anatomy of Melancholy, published in the 17th century.
I suspect we have had the pleasure of being visited by this Steven Sullivan
I am sure Mr Sullivan has some interesting things to say but it is clear he detests Climate sceptics.
Perhaps he may have an article he could contribute here that might convince the ‘yapping cranks’ of the rightness of his arguments?
it’s turtles all
Despite the dreaded fear of perpetrating an ad hom, one that potentially disqualifies the logical power of my later statements and also entails the risk that some sociology professors will frown at me, I still must note that I can think of no other profession more suited to The Bubble, than that of a:
Curator of Urban Ecology.
Steven Sullivan, I’ve been called worse by better than you.
Curator of Urban Ecology at a museum …………gimme a break!
> Perhaps he may have an article he could contribute here that might convince the ‘yapping cranks’ of the rightness of his arguments?
What kind of article would you have in mind, TonyB?
Charles, that’s a great video. Made my day. Happy Thanksgiving.
Alert! Escaped clown on the loose. In addition to red nose and floppy over sized shoes, exhibits preening arrogance and contemptuous attitudes towards anyone not of like mind.
What’s the matter Mr Sullivan, the circus not paying enough?
“West Antarctica is in huge trouble. But now, scientists say the problem may date back to 1945”
Interesting statements: “For their part, the authors insist they’re staying neutral on the human role, known in the science world as anthropogenic — they’re just reporting new, extremely hard-to-get observations.”
““In terms of the human influence on the Antarctic, I think you have to be very cautious about over-interpreting the results of the paper, that’s the bottom line,” added Eric Rignot, a polar researcher with NASA and the University of California-Irvine who published a blockbuster study on the destabilization of the Amundsen Sea in 2014.”
Mooney filled in the blanks a bit.
While this article could be slightly interpreted as favoring the skeptical view, what’s with the breathless hyperbole? Blockbuster studies? Really? That is all I ever read when it comes to the Antarctic. Just the facts, maam, just the facts. But I nitpick.
My complaints are two fold. Mooney got it right to say it is complicated. He got it wrong by saying it just got considerably more complicated. No, it was always extremely complicated, it’s just that the establishment have chosen to make it simple. AGW did it. Case closed. There are many uncertainties associated with the source of glacial destabilization and how long it has been going on. Because scientists have chosen to make it a simple story does not mean it is.
Secondly, notice how there is no mention of geothermal activity in the region? Very rarely have I read an article that includes this potential factor or the fact that scientists are investigating this activity’s impact on the glaciers. Studies in the last couple of years have identified more geothermal activity than previously thought. The usual response is to say nothing there, move on. Insignificant and all that. Maybe so. But there is so much unknown about the Antarctic, as evidence by this latest study, how can anyone conclude with such confidence that the basal melt processes from the geothermal activity are not much greater than can be understood at this time. When such studies are completely ignored then the scientists and journalists credibility are naturally going to suffer.
A touch of reality for those thinking that Government research always solves the problem –
“NASA vowed to award up to three $30,000 prizes for the most promising in-suit waste management systems.
The goal is to test them within a year and fully implement them within three years.”
Amazing. NASA spends billions on coding toy computer games which achieve nothing.
Can’t figure out how to improve on a square of absorbent cloth – a diaper! Surely it’s not rocket science. Or maybe that’s the problem.
Go ahead and explain how to change that diaper in a space suit. You might win $30,000!
I no longer want to be an Astronaut.
That’s why NASA is offering you $30,000 I believe. NASA doesn’t know how, so the astronauts may have to wear their dirty diapers for up to a few days without changing.
My point is that NASA knows that the sum of their scientific knowledge and billions of dollars in funding is totally useless when it comes to a simple task, with simple and observable outcomes.
Spending billions of dollars on producing toy computer games does not get assessed in the same practical way. Instead of just acknowledging their inability to predict the future, they apparently claim that spending billions more will achieve a practical result.
This from an organisation that admits it can’t come up with anything more technologically advanced than a diaper, claiming it’s too difficult.
So, their solution is to offer a measly $30,000 to a member of the public to achieve a better result than large numbers of highly qualified rocket scientists with thousands of peer reviewed papers.
Maybe NASA could admit that billions of dollars spent of weather prediction is less effective than examining the contents of a dirty diaper. Offer a billion dollar prize for an effective and verifiable method of predicting the future. Think of the savings!
Notice Flynn doesn’t bother to submit a solution and collect the $30K prize.
When they landed on Iwo Jima one of the first things the USMC had to get up and going was the laundry.
Umm… go #1 and #2 before putting on the space suit?
Where do I collect my prize money?
You don’t. Try science for a change.
” This makes the astronauts have to pee a lot. In space, astronauts pee more and drink less, so they can become dehydrated very easily.” https://askabiologist.asu.edu/frenzied-fluids
Longest space walk almost 9 hours: http://www.space.com/22414-cosmonauts-break-record-longest-russian-spacewalk.html
“Hold it!” wins nothing.
Pingback: Carry On Up The Wazoo | Climate Scepticism
While the author has some good examples, I imagine that those who think that climate change is an existential threat to civilization will weight the conservative obstruction and foot-dragging – even when they’re mostly out of power – far higher than even liberal opposition to incredible life-saving measures like the Green Revolution.
To lukewarmers the weighting will obviously be very different.
Still, if the point that you want to make is that conservative are mindless troglodytes and liberals are light-workers, this article is an effective counter to anyone honest on either side.
Aztecs knew that they had to sacrifice a human each day to the Sun, otherwise it would refuse to rise tomorrow. An existential threat to the whole planet, handled with a brilliance that only progressives display today.
And, like the Left in Western civilization today, the Aztecs were sort of the ISIS of their day…
Today I am grateful the universe is unfolding exactly as it should:
Those who continued to fudge temperature after Climategate emails surfaced in 2009 helped Trump win the presidential election in 2016: http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html#ixzz4R8hL5dbU
Natural News, that top scientific journal.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
You wrote –
“It does not appear much energy left the oceans . . . ”
Precisely what mechanisms prevent exposed water cooling at night? Magic?
Considering that the reason the oceans remain liquid is because they are sitting on top of hot rock (no, it wasn’t at absolute zero – that’s a GHE fairytale!), why would you think the surface of the oceans are not continuously radiating energy?
As a matter of fact, you can actually create ice from water in a desert at night. The Romans did it thousands of years ago. The ocean heating from above? Complete nonsense, compared with solids. Heated water doesn’t sink, it sits on the top.
At night, it cools, contracts, sinks, displacing now less dense water to the surface, which cools, sinks, and on it goes.
No GHE. No hidden heat. No heat storage. Keep trying to reinvent physics – I wish you well.
That was JCH, but good to see you are still on the molten earth theory trail. How’s it panning out for you? You just need to put that with omanuel’s iron sun, and you make a pair of denizens Judith must be proud of. What is your opinion of omanuel’s iron sun? Discuss.
Ya, a theory that is not falsifiable made up by those wacky geologists using their sciency words. Cargo cult scientism all the way and Flynn has bought in to it hook, line and sinker. Foolish funny Flynn
One denier seems indistinguishable from another, but I apologise on your behalf if you took offence.
I suppose you deny that the Earth has a molten core, but then, you would have to, to support the nonsensical GHE rubbish. Bad news, denier. The Earth gets hotter as you go deeper, the continents move, and the crust is in constant motion. Real scientist actually do measurements.
I’m not sure what the iron sun theory has to do with the non existent GHE, but I suppose that having denied geology and fact, you have to go on to divert and confuse!
Good for you! Maybe you could throw in overcoats, blankets or a big brightly coloured picture of all the continents being lit by the Sun at the same time!
Maybe you could point out that Gavin Schmidt is not even a scientist, or even a first rate mathematician! That’ll confuse your average climate science believer! What do you think?
Have you confused real science with RealClimate “science” perhaps?
Real scientists go beyond falsifiable hypotheses. GHE cultists haven’t quite managed to get that far, it seems.
Oh well, maybe one day magic will come to the Earth, and CO2 will have magical heating powers. Until then, so sorry, no GHE!
MF, your molten earth seems to be heating somewhat higher up than the core, but I don’t have to explain your theory to you. Maybe wikipedia can answer some of your questions. The part you are focused on is only 0.03% of the total energy budget at the surface, but you knew that already, of course, and are just trolling.
You wrote –
“MF, your molten earth seems to be heating somewhat higher up than the core, but I don’t have to explain your theory to you.”
You might have to write something that I can understand, instead of the incomprehensible gibberish above. What are you trying to say?
Anyway, according to your Wikipedia link –
“Based on calculations of Earth’s cooling rate, which assumed constant conductivity in the Earth’s interior . . . “.
What part of “Earth’s cooling rate” do you not understand? It seems fairly clear to me. I understand that GHE acolytes are confused about the difference between cooling, warming, and heating, so I can try to explain the difference, if you like.
If you need lessons on how to effectively deny, divert and confuse, maybe you could consult a passing Bearded Balding Badly Behaved Blundering Bumbling Buffoon, of the Climatogical Cargo Cult persuasion. I wish you every success.
Somehow, it reminded me of you, MikeF:
MF, I am not sure if you can access Wikipedia from where you are, but check out the link. That actually has quantities of heat that come from below and above. At this point your level of knowledge is trailing somewhere far behind wikipedia, so you need to catch up a bit before commenting on this subject.
Deny, divert, confuse.
It seems in your fantasy world that everything reminds you of everything else. Is the name Esther S Bushell supposed to be of particular Importance?
Is she a leading light in the GHE movement? After all, in Cargo Cult Scientism, people with English degrees claim to be scientists, undistinguished mathematicians claim to be scientists, Michael Mann claimed to be a Nobel Prize winner, so I suppose that a retired English teacher might remind you of me for some bizarre reason.
I can’t see the connection, but maybe you can explain. I’m not interested, but maybe other GHE cultists might be,
Are you just pretending to be thick?
I quoted directly from your link. It’s not my problem if you find that the link that you provided contains inconvenient truths!
Maybe you should read the contents of your links before posting them.
The Earth has been losing heat since its creation. It’s known as “cooling” by scientists. The current rate has been measured, although real scientists differ amongst themselves, for various scientific reasons. No heating, however. Physically impossible.
So sad. Too bad. No GHE. Collective delusion, just like the luminiferous aether, caloric (even Lord Kelvin took a fair amount of convincing before he accepted that the caloric theory was false), and many others.
Feel free to believe in fantasy. It must make you happy, otherwise you’d just accept reality.
For anyone who wants to put into context the letter that Willard posted , here is a full transcript of the interview by Trump with the NYT
I enjoyed the scientific discussion about global warming by the hierarchy of the bastion of elitism, the Grey Lady, the NYT. This is the same organization that treats anyone living west of the Hudson River as being Neanderthal reincarnates. Their Chairman, Artie Sulzberger, part of the Eastern Establishment, weighs in on the climate debate with some sage perspective, dripping with scientific rigor. He said “Well, since we live on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.”
Now, that is what I like from the well spring of intellectualism. “…what these storms are now doing……” Exactly what storms would that be? You mean the Cat 1 that hit Manhattan at high tide? So Artie, tell us what was the probability of it hitting Manhattan without any AGW? How often in the last 1000 years has Manhattan been hit by similar storms. Does any of this analysis take into the consideration the attribution problem? What numbers are you coming up with for Transient Climate Sensitivity? The Chairman of the Board falls into the same logic trap that most warmists with an 8th grade education fall into, inductive reasoning. Warming? CO2 did it. Sea level rising? CO2 did it. A forest fire in Canada? CO2 did it. A drought in Macon, Georgia? CO2 did it. I do love critical thinking skills most aptly demonstrated, especially when performed by the brightest of the brightest, And when it comes from the Patriarch of The Newspaper of Record, it is even more delicious.
Thanks, Artie for letting us know how ordinary the extraordinary folks of the top echelon are. Of course, when he added “Straight up.” I genuflected in deference to his aristocratic heritage because it sounded like something out of “Downton Abbey” Sorry Tony :)
Mike Flynn, more deny, divert and confuse. The earth has no magical heating powers, just more cargo cult scientism by Flynn. Sorry, that big ball of fire in the sky is what governs the earths surface temperature. How silly to think that when I go outside and feel the warm sun on my face it’s really the molten core of the earth. Funny, foolish, fraudulent, Flynn. Maybe you could ask a first grader what makes you feel warm on a sunny day. Until then, good luck with that molten core heating the surface theory.
MF, the part you quoted and forgot to complete was from 19th century science and I would conclude that you don’t believe in any science since 1900. Did you notice from the link that the sun’s input is thousands of times stronger than earth’s internal heat? You should also notice that if you ever get outside. Even doubling CO2 has an effect of 1% of the radiative input compared to the 0.03% of internal heating. Perhaps you are not trolling, and really don’t know this stuff. Amazing.
Somehow this reminded me of Willard:
“Barbaro’s article — “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private” — includes several widely reported incidents that have been shown to be questionable, but the story really started to unravel when the woman featured most prominently in the article, Rowanne Brewer Lane, started publicly calling out the authors for misleading readers by twisting her words to paint Trump in a negative light.”
“Last June, Barbaro took aim at Florida Senator Marco Rubio, claiming that he had “splurged” on a “luxury speedboat” as part of a larger story about Rubio’s mismanagement of his personal finances. Even Politico ran an article debunking that whopper titled, “Rubio’s ‘Luxury Speedboat’ Is A Fishing Boat.” The Daily Show With Jon Stewart mocked the story at the time:”
“For Barbaro it’s not the first time he’s been called out by those on the left for a weak hatchet job on a Republican Presidential candidate. In 2012, Ari Melber—a columnist for The Nation, a hard leftwing magazine—blasted an article Barbaro had written about Mitt Romney during a segment on MSNBC. Speaking of Barbaro’s hit piece about Romney back then, Melber said: “I want to call bull on both the substance of the story and the way the New York Times dealt with it.”
Happy belated Thanksgiving!
I’m hoping Trump picks Flynn to be his science advisor.
Thank you for your kind thoughts.
I might even be able to do a better job than a pedestrian mathematician or a tree whisperer who falsely claimed a Nobel Prize, or maybe even an odd lad who apparently claimed it was a travesty that he couldn’t find the missing heat.
Unfortunately, I’d have to decline the offer, because I’d probably break into fits of uncontrollable laughter every time a GHE enthusiast breathlessly claimed “it’s worse than we thought” or “hottest year EVAH!”
Maybe you could volunteer that eminent scientist, Steven Mosher? I’m sure he’d appreciate the nomination.
I don’t think Putin would approve Mosher.
I bet. I’m hoping he picks Prof. Curry. Tho I don’t suppose it would be that much fun for her.
No, Flynn would be vastly superior to Professor Curry. There is a chance Professor Curry may end up siding with reality. No chance of that with Fynn.
Here is some strange green news: “EU requires pension funds to assess climate change risks.” http://planetark.org/wen/74873
They seem to think that investing in fossil fuel companies is a climate change risk. How is that?
More meat for Brexit.
From the NYT discussion: Trump’s stream of conscience on windfarms.
“But not having to do with me, just I mean, the wind is a very deceiving thing. First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. The windmills kill birds and the windmills need massive subsidies. In other words, we’re subsidizing wind mills all over this country. I mean, for the most part they don’t work. I don’t think they work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. You go to a windmill, you know in California they have the, what is it? The golden eagle? And they’re like, if you shoot a golden eagle, they go to jail for five years and yet they kill them by, they actually have to get permits that they’re only allowed to kill 30 or something in one year. The windmills are devastating to the bird population, O.K. With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. So, if I talk negatively. I’ve been saying the same thing for years about you know, the wind industry. I wouldn’t want to subsidize it. Some environmentalists agree with me very much because of all of the things I just said, including the birds, and some don’t. But it’s hard to explain. I don’t care about anything having to do with anything having to do with anything other than the country.”
He also does a lot of complaining about “regulations” without explaining what they are. Does he mean pollution control regulations, or those related to worker safety and compensation or product safety. What exactly is he complaining about here? Regulations are put in reasons like this.
This on regulations. Make what you can of it.
“But we’re going for big tax cuts, we have to get rid of regulations, regulations are making it impossible. Whether you’re liberal or conservative, I mean I could sit down and show you regulations that anybody would agree are ridiculous. It’s gotten to be a free-for-all. And companies can’t, they can’t even start up, they can’t expand, they’re choking.
I tell you, one thing I would say, so, I’m giving a big tax cut and I’m giving big regulation cuts, and I’ve seen all of the small business owners over the United States, and all of the big business owners, I’ve met so many people. They are more excited about the regulation cut than about the tax cut. And I would’ve never said that’s possible, because the tax cut’s going to be substantial. You know we have companies leaving our country because the taxes are too high. But they’re leaving also because of the regulations. And I would say, of the two, and I would not have thought this, regulation cuts, substantial regulation cuts, are more important than, and more enthusiastically supported, than even the big tax cuts.”
Bigly tax cuts, trickle down to lower income paying the bills and the bills don’t get paid:
“But leaving the head of household filing status and personal exemptions intact would lower tax revenue by $2.1 trillion over the next decade, the Tax Policy Center says.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-some-in-middle-class-trump-plan-would-mean-tax-increase/2016/11/25/394990f4-b325-11e6-bc2d-19b3d759cfe7_story.html
Surely we’ll be hearing a lot about the ‘massive’ debt and not addressing it starting any second now.
The bird thing is hilarious. He apparently wants regulations that can stop windmill entrepreneurs from building and operating windmill farms.
It’s indisputable. A well-placed turbine farm could have saved four human beings, and not only that, a really really good airplane… by killing this one really evil bald eagle.
It’s simple. Bureaucratic regulators aren’t going to be allowed to nit-pick businesses to death with regulations. That’s what he’s saying.
What regulations? Be specific.
Sounds like he wants regulations to protect birds, for example. Does he know he contradicts himself?