Flopping Aces threads on global warming invariably strike the debate chord. They are a study in one-upmanship, chock full of quotes from supporting links, studies and articles. But our debate always suffers from one fatal flaw… that is the starting point of our respective opinions.
Our commonality is we all believe the climate is, and always has, changed. The disagreement begins when we discuss whether that change is significantly connected, or caused by man releasing gaseous emissions into the atmosphere.
In this respect, I felt it a worthy post to dedicate a thread to the so-called “consensus” on AWG (or Anthropogenic Global Warming)… or also oft put as “settled science”. And for this, I give a big H/T to Mike’s FA thread, Another Global Warming Lie Bites the Dust”, which has endured days of lively and, for the most part, civil debate.
Also, H/T’s to both commenters Dave Noble and Aye Chi, inspiring me while trading good-humored barbs about “consensus”. Or perhaps best summarized by Dave on that thread as:
Your closing statement is a dogmatic assertion because it is unsupported by facts. Similarly, it is now up to you to provide supporting facts, or to knowingly fail to do so. Otherwise our conversation degenerates into a meaningless (and boring) do-loop of:
“There is a scientific consensus”
“No, there isn’t”
“Yes, there is”
“No, there isn’t”
That was post #17, and by the time post #88 (as of this composition) had been completed, the challenges were met, more made, and arguments arose based on which source was deemed more expert, and thereby more credible.
Voila… da lightbulb appears – and not the compact fluorescent version. Just why is it none of us can agree on this simple starting point for debate? I’m going to use many of Dave’s cogent points because they bring up some of the base points of contention. Not pickin’ on ya, guy.
i.e. Dave Noble exudes great confidence in this “consensus” belief by saying:
The Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society all agree that that anthropogenic (man-made) climate change is a reality.
Please provide an example of a scientific institute of comparable repute that takes a contrary position.
I’m not sure what standards Dave has for these institutions over another. But if it’s supposed to be based on unbiased conjecture, or where they derive their funding, then that’s where I’m going to battle. I’ve learned enough over time on what institutions do to placate those who deliver grants. Bias, when it comes to financial survival of institutions, runs both ways.
And as you can see by my post’s title, I not only believe there is NO “consensus” or “settling” of the science, but I’m extremely un’settled that a premature decision has been made… signed, sealed, delivered – case closed. Darken the theatres and run the trailers. No late comers are allowed entry…
Indeed, there is a very disturbing pattern that shows any debate on previous data is being deliberately thwarted and/or quashed, and nothing new is allowed to be added.
My brief mention of this censorship was, perhaps, misunderstood… construed by Dave as “conspiracy”. First off, I’m not speaking of our own lay debates, but public disclosure of the ongoing battles between the experts even now. And conspiracy isn’t the word I would use. The lack of credibility given to opposing views is boldy overt and deliberate – far from conspiratorial. They can afford to be bold, because they have orchestrated a very successful propaganda and intimidation campaign which allows them, obviously, to be above question.
Dave does say he will “trust the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process. Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.” It is from this old school belief in the separation of science, ideology and politics that I begin an ugly tale of intimidation and censorship. Or perhaps better put, the morphing of the science community into political and policy activists.
Robert M. Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote the best one-stop-shopping article on this intimidation campaign in March 2007. So I’ll use this as the focal point, and add supporting data from there.
And our first jumping off point will be the obvious… Yes, I am anticipating the cry of “foul” by using a man who’s expertise as a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist also happens to be invaluable in research for oil exploration and extraction.
So first up is the intimidation/McCarthyism campaign: vilifying the naysayers as biased sources.
For the treatment of global warming “skeptics” has long been characterized by attempts to discredit their views and challenge their integrity using ad hominem attacks. In particular, there is an absolute obsession with allegations that industries or interest groups may be paying or offering non-monetary inducements to climate skeptics.
~~~Mr. Mooney, the AGU, and bedfellows like George Monbiot and Ross Gelbspan, completely miss the point that truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.
George Monbiot, author of the novel, Heat, runs an activist campaign using both website and internet media against what he calls “climate criminals”. One such example of his accusations includes his 8 minutes YouTube video, assailing advertisements or studies who benefited from Exxon funding.
Again, Mr. Carter’s statement bears repeating:
…. truth in science does not depend upon who pays for it. The key question is not “where is the money coming from” but “is the science sound”.
Note that Monbiot doesn’t dispute the actual information, but merely casts sinister shadow over the source of funding.
Instead of addressing the science itself, believers merely cause a diversion, playing on the int’l sport of “hate big oil” – passing the suspicion buck to deflect from the science presented…
Mr. Carter rightly points out:
They remain oblivious to the obvious fact that their own motives are suspect in proportion to the estimated US $50 billion of public research money that has been allocated to “global warming” investigations since about 1990, not to mention the additional hundreds of millions that have been spent on climate lobbying by NGOs. Why should it be supposed that the directors of supercomputer laboratories and environmental NGOs do not have motives every bit as venal as the senior managers of big business?
Approx 2:30 minutes into the video, Monbiot speaks with a member of the Royal Society of London, who mentions a letter they sent to Exxon requesting them to cease and desist funding of organizations that:
“…misrepresented the science of climate change, by outright denial of
the evidence …., or by overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge, or by conveying a misleading impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change”.
This letter, written by Bob Ward, Communications Director for the Royal Society, was not well reported to the lay persons via the MSM. But it certainly sparked worldwide protests amongst the professional community for their attempts at censorship, as noted in a comment by another demonized entity, the Marshall Institute.
That such a call comes from such a venerable scientific society is disturbing and should raise concerns worldwide about the intentions of those seeking to silence honest debate and discussion of our most challenging environmental issue – climate change”.
From Mr. Carter’s paper:
Bob Ward explained it was never the Society’s intention to shut down legitimate debate, but rather to ensure that public discussion be conducted solely on the basis of published and peer-reviewed scientific papers. Coming from a primary gatekeeper to that literature, this is lese majeste of the first order, peer-reviewing being more of an editorial quality control procedure than it is a guarantee of scientific correctness. Witness the repeated failures by journals as prestigious as Science24 and Nature25 to conduct rudimentary data checking for papers that they publish, or to detect conflict of interest26 or outright fraud. They also maintain a rigid politically correct bias in their editorials28, and in the choice of comments and criticisms that they publish on climate change. Therefore, an insistence on the use of peer-reviewed literature only does indeed shut down necessary debate.
Not getting the message that intimidation by authority is an abhorrent form of censorship, US Senators Rockefeller and Snowe composed a similar letter to Exxon in Oct of that year, aping the Royal Society’s mockery of liberty. And Australia’s Labor Shadow Minister for Public Accounting embarked on his own witch hunt, writing a letter to leading Australian companies stating:
“global warming is happening, it is man-made, and it is not good for us”. He continued “I am writing to ask whether your company has donated any money to the Institute for Public Affairs, the International Policy Network, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the European Science and Environment Forums or any other body which spreads misinformation or undermines the scientific consensus concerning global warming. If your company has donated such money in the past, is it continuing to do so? If so, I request that your company cease such financial support”.
Our Oregon climatologist, George Taylor, was stripped of his title last year by Gov. Kulongoski… refusing him to be allowed to be called the “State Climatologist” because of his status as a skeptic. He quietly retired this year, but not without rumors of him being publicly scorned and mocked.
When powerful political authority figures start applying such intimidation to private enterprise and the opposing scientific community – and the media isn’t atop it screaming about censorship at the top of their collective voices – even businesses and experts not in their cross hairs have to think twice if they are able to withstand such pressure and financially survive. After all, by school yard rules, if you can beat up the bully in the ‘hood, the most vulnerable are apt to fall in line for you without so much as a whimper.
Up to the 1950s, the Royal Society of London used to advertise in its Philosophical
Transactions that “it is an established rule of the Royal Society … never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject, either of Nature or Art, that comes before them”. Leaving such old-fashioned integrity behind them, the modern involvement of national science academies in the policy-setting process has led, quite inevitably, to their political corruption.
Times truly have changed when science academics gain such political involvement and power.
And those that oppose? Fall in line they will, for they know the butter for their bread in the form of grants or government funding can – and will – be withheld. [UPDATE: Otherwise where will they get their grant money to study cow farts and their effect on global warming?] It becomes the height of irony to know one of the lone hold outs demanding further debate is the Russian Academy of Science.
One also cannot discount the power and influence of advocates with personal financial interests in AGW… never better exemplified than by Al Gore’s mega bucks enterprise, along side of a plethora of other green businesses cropping up to take advance of the “settled science”.
For every accusation of “biased sources” leveled by believers, none can be a more powerful counter than the IPCC and the UN as the consummate benefactors – for it is they who have the most to gain. With the implementation of their stated goal of integrating “the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources” comes centralized, one world governing power over the world’s economy and energy demands.
Now that the “settled science” is blessed by the one world power, an overhaul of global mandates is required as the cure. The believers pursue that agenda with a vengence, mowing down any who get in the way of the path by using legal intimidation, harassment, censorship, bias in the media, and some ol’ fashioned McCarthyism. Thus the debate, for all intents and purposes, must now be halted at all costs.
Mr. Carter’s report is filled with instances where media has refused to run articles by skeptics, only to surplant those still using older, debunked data – even the flawed Hockey Stick curve. Even smaller towns have the censorship and bias. The editor of the Middlebury VT community network, James A. Peden, experienced the same rejection by his local paper, the Addison Independent in Dec 2007…. Two weeks later the paper opted to publish a believer version from another novice who’s report was considerably less complete. (Mr. Peden has quite the article and graphics at the link above.) You will find letters and emails from scientists all over the world, complementing him on packaging the data:
Even for scientists your article is more convincing than many of the truly peer-reviewed science papers, and I have sent it to a number of my meteorologist and climatologist friends….”
John Brosnahan
Retired Physicist
( Whose past affiliations include the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, the Univ of CO, Department of Astrogeophysics, Tycho Technology, and the UCLA Physics Department. He was also NOAA’s public face for Technology Transfer, giving testimony to the U.S. Senate Science and Technology Committee. )
Documentaries prepared for cable are better labeled “crock-umentaries”, or “disaster porn” by Chuck Doswell – a weather scientists who has aided production companies on severe weather subjects, saying they:
“have the story written before their research even begins. They’ve decided the “angle” the story is going to follow, and nothing I say or do seems capable of swaying their determination to produce the story that way. The goal of the production crew’s “research” ….. is to film soundbites … they can use to back up the story as it has been written. They are definitely and consistently not seeking to understand the story first on the basis of what they learn by interviewing me. I’m simply there to give credibility to their story”.
Hollywood is, of course, an entity unto it’s own. As the adage goes, alarmism sells. And this simple economic factor makes skepticism highly unattractive as any media story line. Read more of the media bias, all of which starts on pg 6 of Carter’s paper.
California AG, Bill Lockyer’s – along with the Sierra Club and the Nat’l Resources Defense Council – lodges a lawsuit against the six largest US/Japanese auto makers for damages to the envirornment. California Bill wants cash for sundry AGW sins, such as reduced winter snows, coastal erosions, ozone pollution, etal… then files for pre trial discovery for *all* communications between the auto makers and 18 high profile skeptics.
The intent is clearly twofold. First, a fishing expedition for material that might be useful for the state in pursuing its case. And second, a warning shot across the bows of all climate skeptics that they speak on this issue, in private let alone in public, at their own peril.
The lawsuits are not stopping there. That shot over the bow is causing many a business and scientist to pay close attention to the repercussions of speaking out.
Intimidatory legal threats of the Lockyer type have started to mount against the oil, electric power, auto and other companies whose emissions can be alleged to be linked to “global warming”, with at least 16 cases pending in U.S. federal and state courts. In Mississippi, a class action has been mounted against literally dozens of companies for damages for destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina, the power of which is alleged to have resulted from these companies pumping the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases.
As Dave Nobel said above, he trusts “the scientific community to police itself through the peer review process. Science knows no ideology, only the scientific method.”
Perhaps that was so in the past. But today’s reality is the Royal Society keeps a tight grip on the publications and peer review process, and even steps boldly into the fray, not hesitating to attempt censorship. This quasi-scientific “consensus” is achieved not by ongoing, open and public vetting by experts, but instead is politically orchestrated thru the IPCC.
Instead of maintaining their professional distance from ideology and the politics of policy, the science academies have turned into activists – jumping headfirst into helping form political policy at national and international levels:
By giving false assurances that a “consensus” exists on human-caused global warming, or indeed on any other disputed science issue, and by attempting to inhibit public debate, these bodies betray the very foundations of their existence.
Besides the attempts at intimidation and censorship by the Royal Society, the US Senators, and Australia’s Public Accounting minister, two recent US studies by science academies (The Nat’l Academy of Sciences and the Climate Change Science Program) issued Executive Summaries that contained “egregious” disparities between what was issued to the press, and what was contained as scientific evidence in the study’s text. Mr. Carter deems this “Frisbee science” becoming “public reality”.
This 39 page published (and ignored) paper contains much much more than I can cover here. The “new religion” with churches jumping on the bandwagon. The blatant campaign to orchestrate “behavioral change”. How much of the effects are indistinguishable from human “noise”. And why is the largest contributor of greehouse gases, water vapor, not included in IPCC’s neatly packaged facts. So many other places the link to link research took me in my cyber travels. But I’m already long in presentation.
Instead I focused only on the bold campaign to silence opposing scientific viewpoints, labeling them as not credible. This very bold effort to slam the door shut on debate… despite new empirical data being introduced daily… is more than troubling. Indeed if the evidence is so strong as to be obvious and scientifically unchallenged, why are the ranks of the skeptics growing? And why are the efforts to silence from highly placed authorities so patently oppressive?
Considering our climate is again trending colder… a much more dire environment for human suffering than heat… just what is the rush to restructure the world’s economics under a global warming mandate? After all, if time shows we must actually plan for global cooling in our more immediate future instead, our efforts may well be sorely misplaced.
Mr. Carters final words ring in my ears:
Attempting to “stop climate change” is an extravagant and costly exercise of utter futility. Rational climate policies must be based on adaptation to climate change as it occurs, irrespective of its causation.
Considering the economic impacts of traveling the path the global believers advocate, we would all be wise to eye their rush for mandated and expensive “change” warily.
Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
I still blame the Heat Meiser
Nice post Mata. Although I often disagree, I really appreciate the amount of research you put into your posts here at FA. I do agree with your closing line. My only critique is that you should at least acknowledge that the censorship and distortion is not just a one sided problem.
Mata,
I agree with Fit that this is a thoughtful post.
You say:
“For every accusation of “biased sources” leveled by believers, none can be a more powerful counter than the IPCC and the UN as the consummate benefactors – for it is they who have the most to gain. With the implementation of their stated goal of integrating “the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes; reverse loss of environmental resources” comes centralized, one world governing power over the world’s economy and energy demands.
Now that the “settled science” is blessed by the one world power, an overhaul of global mandates is required as the cure. The believers pursue that agenda with a vengence, mowing down any who get in the way of the path by using legal intimidation, harassment, censorship, bias in the media, and some ol’ fashioned McCarthyism. Thus the debate, for all intents and purposes, must now be halted at all costs.”
How do I respond to that? It forces me to prove a negative – No, the UN is not using AGW to support their goal of one world government. As I noted before, conspiracy theories are trump cards. They don’t advance the argument; they don’t win the argument; they end the argument.
Mr. Carter’s article is published by the Center for Science and Public Policy. I’m not sure why a science organization needs to refer to itself as “Projects on the Frontier of Freedom”. Be that as it may, below is a direct lift from their About Us page. That would be their primary face to the public.
“About Us
Center for Science and Public Policy aims to bring real, clear, unfilited and unbiased facts to the Global Warming debate in order to come to a reasonal conclusion for the best possible and prosperous outcome. ”
Note this is not in a blog on that site. It is not in the middle of a long article. It is a one sentence mission statement. Don’t you think they could go to the trouble of editing it for typos/misspellings. You didn’t let Michelle Obama get away with this in her college thesis. Maybe the author of this mission statement got their job through Affirmative Action.
Sorry, Mata, I couldn’t resist that. But seriously, if you saw this on another site, what would that suggest to you about the credibility of that site?
from 400 b c till 1600’s it was established opinion that the sun revolved around the earth, and that bodies in motion stopped as soon as the applying force stopped, all due to the timidity of challenging Aristotle, which for twenty centuries was approximately as dangerous as challenging Al Gore.The damage done to mankind can only be guessed at,, but Arthur Koestlers book,” The Sleepwalkers” and “On the Trail of the Dinosaurs” estimates that the Dark Ages would never have occurred.Recently in the early 1900.s the transmission of electricity was debated as hotly as Global Warming.The accepted concept, backed by most of what was then the political and scientific elite , primarily because of Thomas Edisons support of the Direct Current method and his violent attacks on all opponents, including the bribery of politicians to support him.But eventually , Tesla’s method,Alternating Current, was shown by experience and experiment to be superior.
Thats the way Science works.Stifle dissent and you are stuck for years with investments in things which just do not work, and you lose the opportunities otherwise gained.Science has tests of theories every day, and it proceeds by questioning whether the results of todays experiments match the expectations and why not, and what did we learn.The Global Warming people are stuck with the fact that their predictions are not validated by what we see around us every day.Rather than stepping back and see why their predictions are wrong they prefer to attack those who are saying some very basic statements…why is it that the world is growing colder when you are predicting warmer?I have yet to meet anyone on either side of the arguement who can tell me how we are measuring global temps now. Can we agree on a system of measuring what we are trying to discuss? How valid are the current measurements?Anyone who has actually worked in Science where temperature measurement is a key issue knows how tough it is to get the measurement of what you are looking for at the points where you need it.The very first question when experimental result varies from the prediction is “How are we measuring these temps,and are we sure the instruments are properly calibrated and place and corrected etc?If we succumb to the incredible pressure to avoid discussion of these key points we will yet regret it and our children will have lost much.
Well, I am sure Dave feels honored with the attention. He’s probably the best current example of the noise machine which attempts to discredit, deny and obfuscate this issue in favor of a political agenda.
Why are globaloney alarmists so desperate? Can it be that the science, which every credible scientist admits has been weak in this field, is about to catch up?
In a few short years it may well be undeniable that the alarmist predictions of globaloney adherents has been shown to be a fraud.
And that fraud has steered world attention and massive resources away from other REAL problems like poverty, illiteracy and hunger that are being ignored.
And to add to your catalog of intimidation and attempts to censor and manipulate the news on this issue, this post from April is another example:
An interesting, semi-relevent aside over at NewsBusters:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/09/wikipedia-promoting-global-warming-hysteria
Here is another good site for getting information on the AGW hype
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
POINT OF LOGIC
If a number of individuals say….
“Is there a consensus?”
“yes, there’s a consensus.”
“I agree, there’s consensus.”
“That’s right, we’re in agreement”
“here! here!”
“me, too”
etc.
…then there is a consensus. (Incidentally, that proves nothing about the truth of what the consensus holds.)
Conversely, …
“Is there a consensus?”
“Nope, none that I can see”
“Me neither.”
“None from where I sit.”
“Not a chance!”
“Same here”
etc.
…also means there is a consensus, presumably that on some other topic there is no consensus.
If there either were, or were not, a consensus on AGW there would necessarily be consensus about THAT. The fact that there isn’t IS significant.
Therefore, one can NOT say that the following exchange is meaningless…
“There is a scientific consensus”
“No, there isn’t”
“Yes, there is”
“No, there isn’t”
…because it is very enlightening. As childish as it seems, it provides two relevant facts.
(1) – There was NO consensus on AGW to begin with, and …
(2) – They cannot agree on that fact now.
Therefore someone has to be lying,..
and since if there was a consensus about the topic in question,
and since it would involve ALL the same parties who now disagree,
the liars are clearly those saying “there is a consensus,” …
…otherwise there would be no reason for a dispute amongst the same people now about something they all allegedly agreed on earlier.
(Alternatively, they could all be insane, which would be a far worse predicament. But it might be best if we don’t go there, OK?)
If anything it should be embarrassing to those who hold that there is a consensus about AGW, but that would require they have even a modicum of common sense, not to mention honesty. It’s because they don’t that we are still having this conversation.
It’s amazing how much information is contained in such a trivial bit of nonsense.
Okay… again I can pick my head up from work and try to catch up with you all.
Fit Fit, many thanks for the kind words. I am a voracious research junkie, so you don’t find me posting often, and it usually takes days (and a combination of old links I’ve kept for years for subjects that interest me) to put thoughts and links together. It’s not like I’m sans opinion, but at least I try to show how I got from there to here.
INRE your reverse censorship link: My assessment is Cheney’s attempt to delete discussion about “likely” impacts on human health as a result of climate change was less about bucking the IPCC, and more about not opening up potential new regulation authority, not the mention the domino of lawsuits that could ensue.
Since one has to think hypothetically about the impact on health in relation to the unsettled science propaganda, I think it is prudent to leave observations and predictions based on what “may” happen out of current regulations and mandates. i.e., your car may break down next year, so the state will mandate you to obtain towing coverage today.
Thus it’s strikes me as less sinister than intimidation, legal lawsuits and censorship imposed on the skeptics.
___________________
Dave Noble, ol pal and inspiration ‘o’ mine…. LOL. Again I believe you leap to a “conspiracy” theory without considering the UN’s performance – ala their march towards global governance and erosion of State sovereignty. Whether it be from their desire to set up an international tax system, mandate policy guidelines for individual States on various subjects, be the enforcer of their various mandates, subscribe to the ICC for int’l justice, create the guideline for mandates for energy and AWG plus be the administrator and enforcer of those mandates…. I’m sorry, but I see their entire existance as being the highest global authority of governance. That is hardly a conspiracy theory. Merely my opinion on their goals, and their ways of achieving those goals.
And of course if these mandates are implemented, collected by and enforced by a global governing body, they enjoy ultimate power and benefits as that body. It’s not like they don’t get and spend cash. They are very fund-oriented.
____________________
John e, thank you for the reminder that science has been dead wrong in the past, and they are slow to correct themselves. And also to you all who have posted yet more links on the subject of closed debate.
And Yonason? As I said on the other thread where you accidently posted it… sure made me smile to see the bizarre logic in the absolutes of your literary translation. When bizarre makes so much sense, we have to know we’re wading thru muddy waters, eh?
I would like to offer the observtion that the greatest evil ever to cause suffering on the planet, had tremendous consensus. The greatest good seldome enjoyed any consensus. Just on that observation alone, I will take comfort in *not* joining in the AGW consensus.
The late great George Carlin said it pretty well,, http://www.jibjab.com/view/122257
yonason
Your analysis is spot on. It is similiar to the logic puzzel about being on an Island where two tribes. One tribe allways lies and the other tribe always tells the truth. You meet two people, one from each tribe and can ask only one question of one of the people to identify which tribe each belongs to.
It’s the same logic as you have explained.
31,000 Signatures Prove ‘No Consensus’ About Global Warming
http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
THIS is one of the very best summaries of the topic
http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009
…and he concludes with…
This is not “conspiracy theory mentality.” It is a rational assessment of the consistency of the stated goals of the UN with their efforts on many fronts. I repeat, it is NOT a conspiracy, but the goal toward which they themselves say they are striving.
http://www.unesco.org/most/wsfunesco.htm
NOTE: the UN may pay lip service to “ethics” as did Stalin and Hitler and so do the Muslims who mutilate bodies and chop off heads, most “ethically” according to their system. But the G-dless, or those whose gods are cruel, can’t inspire the enduring “ethical” behavior necessary to govern a nation, let alone the World.
Yonason,
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m plagiarizing you on my motorcycle forum. I would “quote” you but it wouldn’t mean squat to thim if I did, so I hope I can get the Obama style approval to use your words.
“When bizarre makes so much sense, we have to know we’re wading thru muddy waters, eh?” — MataHarley
What is bizarre is that the waters are currently so muddy that a candidate for president can contradict himself repeatedly (spewing an undeminished stream of outright flasehoods) without raising people’s concerns. It seems that none of his supporters has the ability to think critically, or be morally sensitive to the significance of what it means that Obama is a pathological liar. That, to me, is bizarre. (Almost Kafkaesque, even.)
BillC – Thanks for you input. As to using my words, I’m not going to sue you, if that helps. “They’re just words,” after all. Or is that, “words matter?” Probably depends on what day of the week it is on Mars or something. Anyway, thanks for asking. Let your conscience be your guide.
SIMPLY PUT
Jeff says “Joe, Carl, Sammy, Don, Fred, Jack, Moe and Larry all agree with me that the San Diego Padres were the best baseball team ever.”
(Note that it doesn’t matter if what Jeff says they agree on is true, only whether there is agreement as asserted)
Joe, Carl, Don, Jack, Moe and Larry hear that and say, “no we don’t agree with you!” while Sammy and Fred say, “sure we do.”
But that means Jeff is a liar, because he made an assertion that isn’t true. So, all I am saying is that Al Gore and the few who agree with him are liars when they say that there is a consensus when so many members of the scientific community say there isn’t. It should be obvious.
My lengthy “proof” was just my attempt to get as much mileage out of that corn as I could. I wouldn’t want it to be said I’m not doing my part.
Where’s your m’cycle forum, Bill C? You’re denying those of us – other scooter trash – the ability to head over for a visit by not providing the link, ya know….
Mata,
It’s sportbikes.ws I’m in the Pacific NW Oregon area. There is a political forum but you have to request access. There are the occasional lefties that show up for a gutting and scaling from time to time. Your welcome to join the fish fry even though you appear to ride something a little less sporting than most of the crowd there.
Well now, we are from the same neck of the woods. Columbia County, OR girl, myself.
Gawd… you mean there’s another conservative in this state???
I have come to see the AGW skeptics in much the same way you might come to view Steve Randall (played by David Janssen) in the 1978 TV mini-series “The Word“.
Randall is a book publisher that just doesn’t have a good feeling about a newly discovered 5th book of the New Testament. He thinks it’s phoney. Just as he finally tracks down the lone forger/creator of the document, the forger dies and the proof of forgery is destroyed. At the end of the series, Randall is left in anguish as he sees thousands of people celebrating the new fake 5th book of the New Testament and he is the only person alive who knows to a certainty that it is a fake, but he has no proof.
AGW and the Church of Gore/IPCC fits into this scenario just perfectly. Except as you have outlined here, it isn’t that there is no proof, but rather the proof is always marginalized. Meanwhile, just like with the anguish of Randall, thousands, perhaps millions, of people go about in ignorant bliss that they are part of AGW, and can be part of the “solution.”
Mata,
Hate to burst your bubble but, I’m in Vancouver Wa. But I do know a few other conservatives in Oregon. Actually, the further you get away from I-5 the more conservative people seem to be.
So you’re about 25 miles away from me, and across the river. Well… WA most definitely needs more than a few conservatives too. So I’d say you’re holding up your end across the river.
Me? Wander one mile, and I’m looking at the western hills of Ridgefield across the Columbia.
Yon,
The premise of your analysis is that consensus means unanimity. It does not. Proper logic based on false premises leads to erroneous conclusions. I refer you to my Comment 32 in the Greenland Icecap Thread.
Re: the 31,000+ petition, I refer you to that same Comment.
Re: Dr. Robinson vs. The Black Helicopters
This is one man. You happen to believe him. He said it, you believe it, that’s it. What more can be said. If only all our complex problems could be solved that way.
“NOTE: the UN may pay lip service to “ethics” as did Stalin and Hitler and so do the Muslims who mutilate bodies and chop off heads, most “ethically” according to their system. But the G-dless, or those whose gods are cruel, can’t inspire the enduring “ethical” behavior necessary to govern a nation, let alone the World.”
I’m not quite sure what this means. Are you claiming moral equivalence between the UN, Hitler, and Stalin? I’ll bet Harry Truman and all our soldiers who died in Korea fighting under the UN mandate are turning in their graves over that. What do Muslims chopping off heads have to do with the UN? Finally, are you saying the UN is a godless organization or an organization that worships cruel gods?
Doood!
Are you seriously comparing todays UN to the UN of 1950?
Really!?! Naw shit!?!
And what “one man” are you referring to?
I’d say this statement of yours adequately sums up the “scientific consensus” you’re willing to accept in a nutshell, Dave. You know, that conclusion that’s closed to further scientific debate and discovery with mafia style intimidation?
And I’m with BillC here… today’s UN is not your father’s UN. The CATO Institute had a terrific assessment back in 1996 on the UN’s 50th anniversary. And what held then has only proven yet more true today… mismanagement and lack of accountability for budgeting and corrupt officials (OFF is one terrific example), the membership now consists of approx 2/3rds countries that are anti-democracy and made of of despots and dictators. And they keep trying to assume more and more universal dictates that erode the sovereignty of all members… remember the attempt to ban capital punishment? Even the US stood with the tyrant membership on that one.
They are as bad as the US for big government, ballooning in employees from 1500 to over 80K (not including peacekeepers and consultants…) all after the Third World majority took over. Below data from 1996, and has only gotten worse.
They are, in short, laden with sloth, inefficiency and corruption. And we are their biggest financial supporter. Go no… part of that “feel good” crap we do. And I stand by my original statement that the UN has the most financially to gain by being in control off global energy standards, emissions trading, penalties imposed, et al… and thereby manipulating State’s economic well being with their mandates.
“The premise of your analysis is that consensus means unanimity. It does not.” – Dave Noble
Sorry, but the consensus is that sometimes it does….
NOTE: in def., 1b “most” is not defined. It’s not clear how many more than 50% would satisfy that author, especially when he also invokes unanimity or it’s equivalent (…to cover all his bases?).
BUT, it doesn’t matter because there isn’t even close to a majority of scientists who support the AGW assertion. If there were, and it were as dire as the whackos claim it is, they would be screaming from the rooftops. Their silence speaks volumes. On the other hand, 31,000 (actually 32,000, now) responsible scientists, among whom are about 9000 PhD’s, are essentially screaming “NO AGW!” And if you want to have people look at a specific link, put it in your post LIKE THIS, otherwise don’t expect us to waste time looking for what’s most likely nonsense.
ALSO, and this is IMPORTANT, while consensus on ideas, or the rational for a specific action isn’t usually unanimous, consensus on the action often must be. In a democracy, we agree that even when we don’t all vote for a president, when he’s elected he is president for all of us, …like it or not. Ideology is usually not unanimous, but action by a group must be. While there was great diversity, and even ideological opposition to the Declaration Of Independence by some, when it was signed they did so unanimously. The reason the AGW fascists want you to believe that there is ideological unanimity (what their “consensus” implies) is in order to drive a commitment to disastrous action, which is much less likely when the truth is known about the dearth of agreement on it’s necessity.
My making it appear to need to be unanimous above was essentially to mock the Gorebots who assert that it is nearly unanimous, with only a few (primarily fruitcakes) opposing it, when it’s really the other way around. I.e., I was exaggerating for emphasis.
And, if you can’t understand what I said about the other topics, which is quite clear enough as it is, then you wouldn’t understand my explanation. I’ll just point out that you are wrong, and if you want to know why, go and look at some of my other posts on similar topics (hey, it works for them).
@MataHarley
Is this the article to which you refer?
And, thanks for the reference. I wasn’t aware of it before.
Yep, it ’tis, Yon. I forgot to add the link. Thank you for doing so.
Yon,
Before you scold me on how to link to my “nonsense”, you might actually read the posts I directed you to. Rather than cut and paste magic, I try to lay out my argument as carefully as I can within the four corners of my posts. I do that in the posts I cite. You might do me the courtesy, and everyone else that has to hear you cover old ground, and read the relevant posts so that you can keep up with the discussion.
For the record, correct me if I’m wrong, but if you embed a URL it becomes a hot link. If I am wrong, Mata, maybe you can set me straight on this. In the meantime Yon, if all you have is to get snarky about my technical skills, well, I guess that’s all you’ve got.
Aye Chi and I have already exchanged responses on the inadequacy of a generic dictionary definition of consensus rather than a specific and more pertinent definition of “scientific consensus” which is never, I repeat, never unanimity. If you have a problem with that, I can’t help you, you will have to straighten out those crazy fascist, bought-off scientists.
Also if you slowed down before unloading on me and actually read my posts you would see that the real nonsense is offering as support for your position a petition (not the standard way for a scientists to get themselves heard). That petition with almost 32,000 signatures regards a climatological issue yet only contains the signatures of 40 climatologists. That just doesn’t get it, except for someone like yourself who has already decided, science be damned.
Agreed action of AGW must be democratically decided. Who is suggesting otherwise.
So the UN wants to take over the world and they’re using global warming to do it. Fine, if that makes you worldview work for you, stick with it. But would you hazard a guess as to the sources of the biases of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and American Geophysical Union (all of whom support AGW)? Who bought them off?
BillC,
Yeah, Dooood, I really am suggesting that. The five permanent members of the Security Council of the UN with veto power are Britain, France, the United States, Russia, and China. That looks to me to be about a 3.5 to 1 majority in favor of democracies on key issues. The ten non-permanent members include 8 democracies and 2 socialist countries Re: the total number of democratic nations in the UN in the 1950’s vs. 2008 – Since WWII the number of democracies in the world has increased in waves of democratization. Remember in the 50’s all of Eastern Europe as well as the Soviet Union were under totalitarian control. United Nations members who contributed to the war effort in Korea: Australia, Belgium, Canada Colombia, Denmark, Ethiopia France, Greece, Holland(Netherlands), India, Italy, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Republic of South Korea, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand ,Turkey, United Kingdom. To the best of my knowledge they are all still members. http://www.koreanwareducator.org/topics/united_nations/p_un_involve.htm
If you want to make an argument that the UN is a totally different organization than it was in the 1950’s, make it and support it. A tone of incredulity is a weak substitute for argument. Finally, I was reacting to Yon’s hyperbolic musings about the UN, Hitler, Stalin, godlessness, cruel gods and Muslims cutting heads off.
The one man I was referring to was Dr. Robinson, whom Yon quoted a length as an authority.
Mata,
I am afraid we have reached the point at which we will have to agree to disagree. If you don’t trust the scientific community and its peer review process, I can’t convince you otherwise. The debate is not closed because there is a scientific consensus. There is still an opportunity for skeptics to get their papers published, notwithstanding your conspiracy theory. A great irony here is that Mike started the 100+comment thread with his “Another AGW Lie Exposed” post. That post quoted from an article being considered for publication in Science, the peer-reviewed journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a proponent of AGW and my source for the finding of a scientific consensus on AGW. This is like Skye in her post citing to a website for her statistics on oil reserves and ignoring the fact that the same site strongly supports AGW. You can’t be rational and have it both ways. Either it’s an authoritative site, or it isn’t.
Dave Noble, INRE the links… you can either do it manually, or do it the easy way. You’ll notice there is a box with an arrow above the comment box. Click on it and it expands to some formatting short cuts.
What you can do is type the title you want to use for your external link. Highlight those words, then click on the “Ext. Link” box. A pop up box opens up and you just paste or type in the URL you want to link to.
To manually do it, you enclose the HTML code in between the greater than < and less than > brackets with no spaces.
i.e. open with a less than symbol, then type a href=” then immediately paste the http:// URL address ” (close quotation marks) then close with the less than symbol. After the words you just type /a, bracketed by the greater than and less than marks. Hard to show you since the system wants to make everything a hot link…
But it’s much easier doing a highlight, and using the Ext. Link shortcut in the comment editing.
INRE your comment:
Because of their past refusal to publish, that it’s being “considered” is certainly an improvement. Perhaps you’ll get back to us if they actually *publish* it, yes?
“Before you scold me on how to link to my “nonsense”, you might actually read the posts I directed you to – Dave Noble
I’m not scolding you for your technical skills (people in glass houses, and all that), what I am beating you up for is your lack of consideration. I’m glad you are trying to put things into your own words. But I want to see the original to see if I understand it the same way.you do. Like I said, link to it or at least to the page it’s on with the time and date, whatever I need to identify it, and I might actually read it. Copy/paste is something everyone knows how to do, and it only takes seconds. Work with me, Dave. Do that, and I’ll lay off the sarcasm, and maybe even take you seriously.
Of course, it may still be difficult, given some of the weird stuff you come out with, but I’m willing to make an effort, …if you do.
One of the leading proponents of AGW is Hanson, who edits data to make it fit his view, but won’t tell anyone the protocol he used to do the editing. That sort of obstructionism is a red flag for FRAUD! He’s also rude and ungracious (typical Lefty), AND on the payroll of Socialists like Soros, and the Heintz foundation. By contrast, large payments by “big oil” to many “climate deniers” are largely (if not entirely) false.
And as far as the AAAS being non-biased? They are run by a small group of activist editors who decide what is allowed into the peer review process and what is not. It’s not so “pure” as you want to pretend it is.
Here’s an article on how vicious, irrational and unscientific allegedly objective “science” journals can be when they have an agenda to advance.
UPDATE – Since Dave Noble likes the WSJ, here’s an interesting article on the game Al Gore is playing with us.
Yon,
Thank you for your response. I understand that you need to be able to access my sources. I always check sources as well.
As far as “weird stuff”, that’s in the eye of the beholder, my friend.
“And as far as the AAAS being non-biased? They are run by a small group of activist editors who decide what is allowed into the peer review process and what is not. It’s not so “pure” as you want to pretend it is.” I have conceded the peer review process is not pure. There are no pure processes. But to say that major scientific organizations are engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate a “hoax” and to suppress all those who attempt to unmask that hoax is another thing entirely. Please provide a factual support for your assertion re: AAAS and please do not cite to denier sources unless those source provide factual support for their position.
Then please explain why the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union have risked their considerable reputations to perpetrate a hoax.
Mata,
Thanks for the technical assistance, once again.
I checked Science magazine under “greenland ice” and did not find the article Mike cited. I don’t know where it is in the review process.
Dave,
As I read your post #28, I thought, “how refreshing, a rational post from the left” then you puked up this jewel “I can’t help you, you will have to straighten out those crazy fascist, bought-off scientists.”
Wow. That’s some rational open minded thinking there.
So by the time I got you your personalized reply to me, I had pretty much already come to the conclusion that my first response to you was not to flippant after all. No, I may have taken you too seriously.
But as for your argument that since the UN still has the same major players and a growth of “democracies” as defined by the UN, I am at a loss for words to frame my incredulity to your obfuscation of the plainly obvious fact that the current UN is simply not recognizable as compared to the UN of 1950, just as my home town in 1950 isn’t anything like my home town now. Same name, same geographical location, wholly different place. Just as the Democratic party isn’t the same now as it was in 1950 or in 1870. Before, the UN was a gathering of independent sovereign nations who would then work together for mutual benefit. Now the UN has all but become a government to it self. It is like comparing the Federal government of 1778 to the Federal government of today, only minus the accountability.
“…to say that major scientific organizations are engaged in a conspiracy to perpetrate a “hoax” and to suppress all those who attempt to unmask that hoax is another thing entirely.”
Well, it’s a hoax for some, and a fervent belief for others.
“…why [would] the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union have risked their considerable reputations to perpetrate a hoax.”
I’m not a psychologist, but I would suggest that since there is NO evidence for HUMAN caused global warming, and no evidence for warming in any way deviating from historical norms, that whatever their motives, they have NOTHING to do with science.
Besides, what actual “risk” is there to their reputation? When people find out they are wrong, what will they suffer? Nothing. The reputation doesn’t belong to the editors, some of whom might be replaced when the error is revealed, but since the researchers they publish (most of whom don’t either endorse AGW or not) are reputable, the effects will be minimal.
If all you are relying on is someone’s “reputation” and are unable to evaluate his opinion for yourself, then no wonder you have been conned into believing Al Gore’s fibs. (Now, if you want to know HIS motives, I can assure you they are purely self interest.)
BRIEF OVERVIEW
1. the earth’s average temperature over it’s history has been 23degC, and is currently relatively “cold” compared to what it has been in the past, so one would expect it to be warming.
http://www.global-samizdat.org/Global-Samizdat/GS8-GlobalLie1/GS8-GlobalLie1.htm
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
2. glaciers have been steadily progressively melting for the past 18000 years, so why does it surprise us that they are melting today?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/anim_glac.gif
(kya means “thousand years” – ago)
3a. human added co2 is only a tiny fraction of naturally occuring co2, and the contribution of co2 is so much less than water vapor, over which we have no control.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
3b. for every bit of co2 that’s added to the atmosphere, the effect is less than the bit added previously, until it becomes saturated and then no additional co2 will have any effect.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html
3c. co2 is an essential plant nutrient which we will need in order to feed increases in world population.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-929734926844472977
4. even if trillions of dollars are spent, taken via draconian taxation, the amount of co2 reduction will be so minimal as to be immeasurable, unlike the effect on the economy which will be disastrous.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299419,00.html
5. everything they know is wrong
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=co2+essential+plant+nutrient&sitesearch=#q=co2%20fertilizer%20good&sitesearch=
Why wouldn’t I trust, not “believe” the pronouncements of major scientific organizations on scientific issues? Al Gore did not “invent” AGW (anymore than he invented the internet). Scientists determined its existence through use of the scientifc method. You simply choose not to trust them.
Let’s be honest, neither of us are climatologists so we must rely on the expertise of others.
I rely on major scientific organizations who present their findings in peer-reviewed journals, the standard scientific forum in all disciplines. You rely on skeptics who present their views in petitions because they and you believe the system is rigged and that is the only way they can get the truth out.
NO evidence for AGW? So for you it’s not even a dispute. Have you read any articles, studies, or books in which the evidence of global warming is presented?
As I have noted to Mata, we are down to a conspiracy theory that I can’t disprove, because you can’t prove a negative – real scientific evidence of equal weight and validity to that supporting AGW is not being suppressed.
Yes, it is
No, it’s not.
DO-LOOP
“Why wouldn’t I trust, not “believe” the pronouncements of major scientific organizations on scientific issues?” — delusional do-loop Dave
See my previous post, when F.A. digs it out of the spam bin.
“NO evidence for AGW?” — ….Dave
That’s right, Dave. Read my lips. “NO (conclusive) EVIDENCE.” (pretty flimsy, actually)
“So for you it’s not even a dispute.” — ….Dave
Of course it’s a dispute. They claim that what they have is “evidence,” and I and thousands of other scientists claim it is not. Now, if there WERE evidence, and it were conclusive, then there would be no dispute that it were occuring. But even then there still could be dispute over what, if anything, could be done about it. (NOTE: they are different problems 1-temp rise or not, 2-what’s causing it, 3-whether we can stop it or not, 4-whether we should stop it, if we can. It’s a lot more complex than you seem to understand.)
no consensus, either!
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf
“we are down to a conspiracy theory that I can’t disprove”
Sure you could, if AGW were real. You could show that the evidence for AGW is there, and that would prove those guys aren’t fudging it. But you can’t. And you shouldn’t feel bad about that, because….
NOBODY CAN!
Because it’s a lie!
Dave… a couple of points I’d like to address, first in your post #38.
The words “hoax” and “conspiracy” are your words. Not mine, and certainly not those of AWG supporters. Addressing “hoax” would mean that the science community is deliberately advancing a theory they know to be wrong. Fact is those that support AWG are just as stubborn in their belief in it as true as the skeptics in the science community believe it not be not proven as true.
Therefore I’d say the work “hoax” should be dropped from our discussion of “stifling debate” as I’m not accusing anyone of deliberately forcing a theory they know to be incorrect down our global throats.
Conspiracy in the most common sense – secret agreements to do a wrongful or illegal act – suffers from the same definition perception as “hoax”. However in the second, lesser used meaning to conspire – as in to “act in harmony towards a common end”… then the word conspiracy is indeed appropriate. And leaving the AAAA aside as the lone academy that you wanted some “proof”, the “conspiracy” (ala act in harmony to a common end) has been amply proven by this post, and by the various links I provided.
I do not know what you call legal intimidation by high elected officials, deliberate refusals to publish opposing peer review theories, pressure by the UN on State legislators to not only sign on to Kyoto, but also to fall in line with their Millineum Development Goals (of which AWG heads their list of issues), media indoctrination and censorship… but I call that stifling debate.
Instead, we have the powerful UN, stating unequivocally:
This was at their annual MDG’s meeting this past February. And what do we get from the UN’s statements?
1: They think the AWG argument is closed as it’s “compelling”
2: They stress the “importance of mobilizing popular support to build a global solidarity”. Obviously that solidarity is undermined if there are convincing scientific theories published that challenge that so called “authorative and compelling science”
3. They have every intent to pressure State legislators to adopt laws for AGW, and hold citizens accountable to these laws. As is the norm for the UN, they dictate to governments the types of laws that fit their idea for a global community in harmony. And if a nation doesn’t enforce these laws, they will be answering to the UN… the higher authority as a centralized “global” entity with laws, punishments, fees, mandates and their own court system.
So yup… I’d say we have to agree to disagree. I have no doubts that the UN, enpowered by a willing scientific community who now enjoys more power in creating policy, is on a quest to suppress any further debate on AWG. They do not want their “compelling” science undermined by pesky little details and facts. That is… in it’s very base definition… a conspiracy. Even if it’s one based on blind gullibility and good intent.
BillC,
Thank you for considering the possibility that someone on the left might make a rational post. But, alas, I failed to meet Bill’s standards. Just another crazy lefty. Well, hell, I just better give up and go home.
How much more supercilious and arrogant can you get?
Now look at what you wrote and look at what I wrote and see if you think I “puked” the above up as well. I’d argue I am responding to your clear implication that I am just another one of those crazy lefties. Am I supposed to just absorb that insult and proceed to be rational.
Now look at what Yon wrote about scientists who support AGW:
One of the leading proponents of AGW is Hanson, who edits data to make it fit his view, but won’t tell anyone the protocol he used to do the editing. That sort of obstructionism is a red flag for FRAUD! He’s also rude and ungracious (typical Lefty), AND on the payroll of Socialists like Soros, and the Heintz foundation. BOUGHT OFF
The reason the AGW fascists want you to believe that there is ideological unanimity (what their “consensus” implies) is in order to drive a commitment to disastrous action, which is much less likely when the truth is known about the dearth of agreement on it’s necessity. FASCISTS
So now I ask, did I “puke that up” (OK I did take editorial license and add “crazy”) or did I sarcastically reiterate the hyperbolic claims that Yon had made. Why is that unacceptable?
Re: your paragraph on the UN, I tell you incredulity is not a substitute for argument and ask you to support your position and what do you do? You up the tone of incredulity:
“I am at a loss for words to frame my incredulity to your obfuscation of the plainly obvious fact that the current UN is simply not recognizable as compared to the UN of 1950”
Whenever someone uses “plainly obvious fact”, it’s because they can’t support their argument. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of “well, everybody knows that . . .” Then you offer the actual “clearly obvious fact” that of course it’s different now then it was then, just like your hometown has changed. Well, to quote you – “NAW SHIT” But that isn’t really what you want to say, is it? What you really want to say is the UN of 1950 could be trusted and the UN of 2008 cannot:
“Before, the UN was a gathering of independent sovereign nations who would then work together for mutual benefit. Now the UN has all but become a government to itself. It is like comparing the Federal government of 1778 to the Federal government of today, only minus the accountability.” The UN is an unaccountable government unto itself. That is your opinion.
I asked for support, but in fact an opinion like that cannot be supported. You would likely cite actions on the part of the UN that you don’t support. I can do the same thing with the United States government, but that does not mean our government is a government unto itself that can’t be trusted. The UN was founded on noble goals as was our nation (And, no, I’m not suggesting a moral, or any other kind of equivalence between the UN and the US). No governing body lives up to its founding principles totally, but that is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.
Yon, it is up to you to seek out the evidence that supports global warming. It is not up to me to meticulously lay out the evidence for a complex scientific determination.
I asked you what evidence you had considered. You provided no examples. I have to assume then that your mind is closed. And you prove that with your categorical statement:
It is a lie!
Yon said it, Yon believes it, that’s it.
Mata,
“Even if it’s one based on blind gullibility and good intent.” Scientists guilty of blind gullibility? One trusted scientific organization after another, collectively guilty of blind gullibility? OK, if you can believe that there is no more for me to say.
Wait, just one more try, since you brought up the AAAS – Yon took a whack at it. What do you think would be the motivation of the National Academy of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union to promote bad science, and worse yet, defend it by suppression. Why would they do that? Blind gullibility and good intent?
And for every scientific organization that believes, there are scientific organizations who are skeptics, Dave Noble. So yes… scientists (as you admitted yourself, are human) are gullible. They chose to believe one side, then gullibly and as a well trained herd of sheep, present this to the public to aid in garnering the “popular support” that is needed to advance mandates.
You, evidently, have a higher and less realistic viewpoint on “scientists” nowadays. They have proven themselves to be as unprincipled to their base foundations as journalists have to integrity in journalism. And why? The usual… power and money. Power to shape policy, money and grants from those who they helped with the policy shaping. Think one of those science academies would stay in business without friendly government and private funding? They’d tell you the moon was blue, backed up with all kinds of evidence, if it was the way to keep their money flowing.
And I did not “take a whack” at any of your beloved science organizations. I’m not the one putting them on a pedestal over others. And yes, they too can’t buck city hall without losing their financial asses.
I look at the facts… laid out over and over here. And for you, again, one more time, and the *last* time.
Proof of legal intimidation at the highest levels of authority and govt,
media and science journals censorship,
the UN in their own words stressing the importance of “popular support” and “global solidarity”
Look at yourself for the results of all the above…. you have shut your mind to the possibility that AGW theories may not be correct. You close your eyes to the science communities’ part in all this because you think they live by a higher moral standard, and don’t have to grovel for cash to stay in the science business. You concede there is popular support and global solidarity.
I’d say the UN and the science world has accomplished their goals nicely with you. They even tell you this up front, and in writing, and you still bow your head to their propaganda, happy to never see a dissenting AWG argument because science and the UN *must* be right.
Dave, ya disappoint me guy. Still find you a kick in the pants to chat with. But boyo… you ain’t got the stuffin’s I thought were in you.
DELUSIONAL DO-LOOP DAVE
“Yon, it is up to you to seek out the evidence that supports global warming.”
SAY WHAT?! He doesn’t understand that if he says something is true, it’s up to him to prove it, not the person he’s trying to convince?
“It is not up to me to meticulously lay out the evidence for a complex scientific determination”
He just keeps digging himself in deeper and deeper.
He can’t prove anything, as I showed above (#38), and he hasn’t even a clue how one might go about it, or any hope of knowing that others who know how to can’t prove it either. He has no idea that the problem is all contrived, as is clear from what he writes, and the material I presented in my post #34, which I doubt he’s able to understand.
It won’t matter what we say to him, he’ll just keep regurgitating the garbage we refuted and pretend we are wrong. Therefore, I am done with him, too. To paraphrase MataHarley, ” …you ain’t got the stuffin’s I was sure weren’t there to begin with, but kept going in the hope I was wrong. I weren’t. Thanks for confirming.”
And that gives me an odd thought. Since he’s so much like the stuffingless Obama, perhaps he’s one of Ooobie Boom KaBoobie’s “Paduan Learners?” Just a thought.
END DO
——————————————
@MataHarley
Nice Posts!
“Dave, ya disappoint me guy. Still find you a kick in the pants to chat with. But boyo… you ain’t got the stuffin’s I thought were in you.”
I should have thought it was obvious from the start.
Dave Hussein Noble is a legend in his own mind.
Another zinger from Mike Hitler’s America! You should get that one trademarked, buddy!
Oh, wait–you don’t mind that I stuck somebody else’s name in the middle of your handle, do you? I didn’t think you would, since you do it all the time. Am I right? Am I right?
THE PROBLEM WITH THE “SOLUTION”
Combine that with O’Bummer’s tax strategy, and you can kiss America good bye.
“I should have thought it was obvious from the start.” — Mike’s America
Maybe she’s just playing with him? He does seem pretty gullible, after all.
Mata,
If you want to put the Russian Academy of Science on par with the American National Academy of Science, so be it. Kind of puts the crimp in that American exceptionalism
I hear so much about. We have the best healthcare system. But our science sucks. Yes, I trust reputable scientific organizations, not a website that doesn’t bother to proofread it’s mission statement and while posing as a scientific website has an American flag and on eagle in its graphics. If that makes me a conformist in your mind and not an independent thinker, that will have to be.
The irony is that I’m the traditional conservative in this argument. I trust establishment organizations. Just as I trust our democracy to work itself out and I trust the judicial system to do the right things on balance. Does that mean I have unerring devotion to each and everything they say? No. But what is the alternative? We can’t take any action on global warming because there are scientists, 31, 960 of whom are not even climatologists who dispute it and besides we’re afraid the UN is trying to establish one world government. Stop voting because my guy doesn’t always win? Seek to pack the Supreme Court with judges that have passed my litmus test?
Your implication is that I don’t think for myself. But notice that I, a liberal, am third in the number of posts this month on this site, a staunchly conservative blog. What does that mean? It doesn’t mean I get a medal. But what it sure as hell also doesn’t mean is that I am over at the DailyKos or the Huffington Post high- fiving my liberal bro’s and engaging in a self-congratulatory BDS fest. No, I am here. Willing to carefully debate people who think very, very differently than me.
Don’t assume that because someone has come to different conclusions than you, they have drunk somebody’s Kool-Aid. That’s one thing that’s gone wrong in this country. We don’t respect divergent opinions.
I’ve enjoyed speaking to you as well, Mata. I believe you are an intelligent person who expends substantial efforts in research. But, if I have disappointed you, please don’t flatter yourself; it was never my goal to impress you. I’m here to have a respectful debate. Your opinion of me is not the issue. The issues are. The facts, the logic, the evidence. And girlo, who ever said you were any judge of someone’s “stuffins”, whatever the hell that means?
You seem to possess your own particular standard of science academic hierarchy. Is that based on whether they swallow the AGW argument pill sans debate?
And, BTW, climatologists are not the only, nor last word, science specialty involved when assessing AGW. They measure epochal history in different areas. One might consider that the “result” of various influences, but certainly not the cause. One must reconcile other events affecting that result in a moment of time…. i.e. chemistry, stratigraphy, natural disasters, solar events, etal… all interface to create that result climatologists see on record.
The IPCC also deliberately ignores natural influences… i.e. water vapor… the largest source that affects greenhouse gases. How can one consider man’s influence when it’s not combined with natural influence?
You miss the point. We *should not* be taking “action on global warming” when the debate is incomplete, and ever changing data compiles daily. The alternative of taking the wrong action is worse than no action.
And actually, I’m glad you’re here doing just that. Most of the time it’s stimulating. Because unlike the DailyKOs group, you generally present your beliefs in a more reasonable fashion, with sources that contributed to your opinion. This even tho I think you are flawed in accepting too much on “trust” when there is overwhelming evidence the global community is jumping the gun.
And BTW, I have never, and never will, use the expression “kool aid”. Somehow I just can’t get myself to use such a sophomoric in expression.
Never suggested you were trying to impress me, Dave. And if you knew me, flattering myself and vanity is an impossibility. I live humbled daily, and hold no unrealistic perception of myself, nor my abilities. But my judgment of your “stuffin’s” (i.e., what you’re made of) comes from what you suggest you consider to form your opinions – the logic and the evidence. When it comes to AGW, you are considering neither.
As far as my capabilities of human judgment, last I checked, I am still allowed to form opinions based on what people project of themselves. Therefore I’m not quite sure what you even mean by that statement. It was rather a call on you, deliberately choosing to ignore those facts and evidence on which you place such import. Yet when faced with significant evidence contrary to your current position, you constantly revert to blind “trust” in scientific institutions as your base argument.. but only those you choose to revere. Again, in this issue it’s not about funding or reputations. It is *all* about “is the science sound”.
This entire post is not about asking anyone to abandon leanings to acceptance of AGW. It’s about getting everyone to open their minds to facts that this issue is not a scientific open and shut case. There needs to be an admission that perhaps all those facts and evidence aren’t making it to the table, and thereby it is premature to “take action” on the scale the global forces suggest. The economic fallout of these proposed mandates, based on incomplete science, are far too serious to take on “trust”.
More time needs to pass, which will either support AGW, or prove it to be bungled science. And the last decade of increasing CO2 and falling temperatures shows that we may not have to wait very long to find that global warming was little more than a misguided chicken with a loud and influential voice.
Mata,
I trust scientific institutions because I am not a scientist. I seek the best evidence. I rely on certain sources and evidence that has been vetted through the peer review process that has worked for so long and provided us with amazing scientific discoveries. That’s how you avoid “junk science,” not how you create it.
“Yet when faced with significant evidence contrary to your current position, you constantly revert to blind “trust” in scientific institutions as your base argument.. but only those you choose to revere. Again, in this issue it’s not about funding or reputations. It is *all* about “is the science sound”.”
You are being dishonest. You have stated previously that you do not trust the IPCC findings, because you see them as the camel’s nose under the tent in the UN’s power grab. I suggest that is a reflection of your own political, non-scientific biases. You have also suggested that scientific organizations are driven by money. So it isn’t in your mind all about “is the science sound.”
Please note my post to Yon. If this is the quality of the evidence you expect me to consider and the quality of the sources you want me to rely on, excuse me for passing on it. If you doubt my characterizations, which are admittedly written with an edge, please check out the cites yourself.
Then I ask you, if this were an issue of my health or that of a loved one, would I trust sources of this quality? Or would I put more trust in the AMA or the American Heart Association?
The interesting thing is that the vast majority of measures that would effect global warming would also improve the enviroment and reduce our dependence on limited fossil fuels. But if you want to wait, you’re entitled to your opinion. Hopefully calmer heads with a long range perspective will prevail.
In my humble opinion, you are not looking at the evidence and the logic. I guess in your world that’s reflects on your stuffins.