[...] warmists, insisting this is much ado about nothing, even one of the most vocal alarmists and stiflers of debate by “climate criminals” – UK’s George Monbiot – admits that the CRU absconded database becoming public is a “major blow” to [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“Unless you are a practicing climatologist currently involved in research into global climate, it is the height of foolhardy hubris to believe you can adequately evaluate the evidence for and against AGW” — Dave Noble, IPCC sycophant

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

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

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes, Bill C. He was one of the examples I gave in my post above… or as I said:

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

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So Dave says there is no intimidation and that only climatologists should be heard.
then explain this http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dave, sorta a waste of time presenting ways to portray Crichton as a credible nobody since my last two sentences say it all..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I’m off topic here… sorry.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

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

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yon,

First off, scientific credentials, please.

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

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

Any scientists you know that participate in challenges for money?

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Mata,

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

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

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

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

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

Finally,

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BEHOLD THE “ARK OF HOPE”

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0

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

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

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

Like or Dislike: 0  0