Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Global warming spurs fundamentalist fervor

December 26, 2007

Advertisement

You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways.

One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, "are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that global warming caused by humans endangers the planet.

Like most cultists, the true believers struck back, not by debating science, but by charging that a small number of the scientists mentioned in the report have taken money from the petroleum industry. A spokeswoman for Al Gore said 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobile Corp. Exxon Mobile spokesman Gantt H. Walton dismissed the accusation, saying, "the company is concerned about climate-change issues and does not pay scientists to bash global-warming theories."

The pro-global warming cultists enjoy a huge money advantage. Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, noted in an EPW report how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions: "In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $50 billion (U.S.) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one," he wrote on June 18, 2007. The $19 million spent on research that debunks the global warming faith pales in comparison.

Also included in the Republican report are comments by Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes: "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number - entirely without merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the report debunks Mr. Gore's claim that the "debate is over." In fact, the debate hasn't even begun because the global warming cultists won't debate. Despite numerous challenges, Al Gore has refused to debate the issue with any credible scientist who is a skeptic.

Shouldn't the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize be willing to debate such an important issue? What does he have to fear? If his theory cannot stand up to scientific inquiry and skepticism, it needs to be exposed as a false religion and himself as a false prophet before he and his followers force us to change the way we live and alter the prosperous society that generations of Americans have built.

Gore and his disciples will still be living in their big houses, driving gas-guzzling cars and flying in private jets that leave carbon footprints as large as Bigfoot's, while most of us will be forced to drive tiny automobiles and live in huts resembling the Third World. But hypocrisy is just one of many traits displayed by secular fundamentalists like Gore.

Before adopting any faith, the agendas of the people attempting to impose it, along with the beliefs held by them and their disciples, should be considered. Gore and company are big government liberals who think government is the answer to all of our problems, including problems they create. In fact, as Ronald Reagan often said, in too many cases government is the problem.

The secular fundamentalists who believe in Al Gore as a prophet and global warming as a religious doctrine are being challenged by scientists and others who disbelieve and who think we ought to be spending more time on developing new technology and energy sources for the future and not preaching gloom, doom and retreat. Let them debate the issue. If they won't, we can only conclude that all they are spewing is hot air.

- Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Comments

JSpizias 7 years ago

Below are some comments from the "defenders of the holy faith of global warming". Looks like religious zeal to me-and I don't think it is healthy for our society.

Marlo

You are so full of cr*p.

You have been proven wrong. The entire world has proven you wrong. You are the last guy on Earth to get it. Take this warning from me, Marlo. It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on. Mike Michael T. Eckhart President American Council On Renewable Energy (ACORE)

RFK Jr. Lashes out at skeptics of global warming: 'This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors' (July 8, 2007) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heku9oTLy... Excerpt: "Get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington, who are nothing more than corporate toadies," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmentalist author, president of Waterkeeper Alliance and Robert F. Kennedy's son, who grew hoarse from shouting. "This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F... NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS (October 11, 2006) Excerpt: Grist Magazine's staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the "bastards" who were members of what he termed the global warming "denial industry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102473_2.html?sid=ST2007121102518 Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who came to the Bali talks for a day-and-a-half this week, said he believes that the administration wants "a document that keeps the process moving," but that delegates are looking for more concrete leadership from nations such as the United States and China.

"There's a question mark of how long is it going to take the bigfoots to step forward and do what they need to do, or will that happen in 2009 with the right leader?" Kerry said. "You need to believe in this issue. You can't just do it on the side because it's an obligation that somebody throws at you. This has to become a crusade, a passion, a monumental undertaking."

boltzmann 7 years ago

Ceallach says "I'm beginning to think Evolution and Intelligent Design proponents are waaaaay more alike than either side would care to imagine, since neither can tolerate someone doubting their theory."

I really think you should stop using words that you do not understand. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense. It makes no predictions or testable hypotheses. It is as much a "theory" as someone saying that planes fly, not because of fluid dynamics, but because invisible angels hold up the wings.

Logan5 7 years ago

Once again Cal is trying to raise the ire of scientists and reasoning people (vs. those that trust in faith) by invoking all kinds of religious undertones as he refers to global warming science.

"Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways."

Why should Al Gore, a non-scientist, debate global warming debunkers. Shouldn't the scientists debate this among themselves? Oh wait, they are--constantly. If a scientist has an important and scientifically valid argument, they should write a scientific paper on it and have it published in a scientific journal.

There is no doubt that Al tends to push the limits of certain predictions in his movie, but until now nearly all of scientist's predictions have turned out to be too optimistic.

Why don't we make it fair and have a Global Warming debate between Cal Thomas and Al Gore.

Magpie 7 years ago

"One of the traits of a cult is a refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith."

So faith in spite of evidence isn't a virtue? Cal Thomas imagines that he is making a clever jab at Al Gore by associating him with religious fundamentalism. In the process of committing a logical fallacy, he's also inadvertently criticizing people who follow religion based on faith. Mind your fanbase, Cal!

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

Al Gore is not a scientist but a messenger who may be making lots of money of which some supporters of pollution are probably jealous. He is making money so I read on promotion of green investments which is where new money is thriving. Lawrence,Kansas should jump on the Green Collar Industry for more jobs...some of which are here.

Meanwhile let's work with scientists: What can we do to help with the situation? Solutions and frequently asked questions are offered at these websites: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/global-warming-faq.html

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

Sen Jim Inhofe is all about Tulsa oil money no question about it. There is documentation all about EXXON spending to send out misinformation.

The bottom line the USA needs to pull away from oil use and move forward with technology instead of sitting on it. GW's war for oil control is a bad business decision for which GW Bush is best known. Too bad taxpayers can't clear their eyes of bogus BUSHCO patriotism and realize the $2,000,000,000,000(trillion) could have been spent on matters that create new economic growth for the USA.

INSTEAD Bush is driving a serious USA recession at full speed ahead.

Logan5 7 years ago

I can't believe there are still people out there that have not accepted global warming as fact though the intensity of the effect and measures to correct it are still up for debate. They tend to be the same people that still think Iraq played a role in 9/11 and doubt evolution.

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

"One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith."

For once Cal makes a correct statement, although inadvertently.

In his poking at scientists and reasoning people, he skewers faith.

Couldn't agree more, unless the word "cult" was replaced with "faith-based religious belief".

salad 7 years ago

I don't doubt mankinds contribution to global warming or our abuse of the environment for a second. But I'm also pretty sick of all the moral superiority of the environmentalists. You won't get people on board by talking down at em, and nothing will happen until it hits americans in the pocket book. You want people to recycle? Make em pay for each pound of trash they throw away. You want people to conserve? Then make energy cost the same as it does in europe. Don't like chinese products? Insist that the government charge a tariff on all that imported crap. We make it better here anyway.

devobrun 7 years ago

overplayed: "Why not treat global warming the way Pythagoras approached God? Why is it necessary to turn those who are passionately concerned about the environment into religious zealots? What does it hurt to believe in global warming?"

Because the real long-term damage is to science. The transfer of wealth from Exxon to the wind farmers is really not such a big thing. The deconstruction of that which constitutes science has the potential to render rationality into a touchy-feely political mess.

Science-as-cult is a very real danger. Science-as-politics is sure to be a disaster. The 400 scientists who are protesting the UN BS do so mostly for the concentration of power that it represents.

Peace prizes and statements about the science being "a done deal" are not appropriate in the scientific world. Arguments between Gore and Cal Thomas are not scientific. This whole AGW thing is a two-ring circus of politics and religion.

yourworstnightmare 7 years ago

"Science-as-cult is a very real danger. Science-as-politics is sure to be a disaster. The 400 scientists who are protesting the UN BS do so mostly for the concentration of power that it represents."

This sounds good, until you realize that in order to make evidence-based decisions, politicians need to listen to scientists and vice versa.

Global warming is the consensus of the majority of scientists, not "science-as-cult". This is how science works and how evidence-based decision-making should happen.

The "400 scientists" have every right to criticize, but they should do so with evidence and experiment, not name-calling and accusations of "cult belief" and politics.

Devo, you are again close to dismissing science, the scientific process, and scientists as irrelevant (or at least irredeemably biased and political).

preebo 7 years ago

Why don't they add the title of American Enterprise Institute spokesman to Cal's list of accomplishments?

If Cal supports your cause you should probably pack it up and move on. His inept grasp of scientific results is enough to disqualify him from discussion of such.

salad 7 years ago

Once again, R_T, Cal Thomas, and the neo-cons using nazi scare tactics for political advantage.

Fact: Gore has been pitching climate change since the 70's, you can look it up. Fact: Third world for you and me-giant super-sized carbon footprints for Gore.... is just neo-con bunker mentality BS. Fact: Gore is pretty centrist, not far left. You can look at his voting record if you want.

The only people bring the third world here are the bushies and their zeal to pee all over the rest of the world.

Ceallach 7 years ago

Logan5, you might remember that evolution is a theory, and as such should be questioned by all and researched by the scientific community until such a time that it is proven as fact. You should not attempt to demean those who may question it while it is still a theory.

Logan5 7 years ago

Gravity is also a theory, as is nearly all science. Yet this does not cause me to worry about tethering myself to my desk.

boltzmann 7 years ago

Ceallach,

 Maybe you should look up how the word "theory" and how it is used in scientific research. Gravity is a "theory", but I would demean anyone as stupid who didn't believe it exists.

Why is that no matter how much we try to explain the scientific meaning of "theory" to people, someone still tries to pull the old "evolution is just a theory, so we don't have to accept it" lie. And at this point someone exposing this is either lying or ignorant.

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

Salad makes a point relevant to Gore politics. Anyone can seem radical left when not in support of BUSHCO war/oil economics.

Gore is a moderate politician who has come around to some very smart realizations on energy. Moderate politicians in general have taken the lead on the environment for decades although never to my satisfaction. Too damn slow which I'm sure is/was due to special interest funding of campaigns.

The country needs to cut back substantially from fossil fuels as a primary source for all the reasons we all know about. Too bad it takes a crisis point to move it along.

Richard Heckler 7 years ago

RT why don't you see how you could possibly make some money going green in your work. Who knows maybe you'll become wealthier than ever. What is there to lose?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

If Gore was going around saying the sky was blue, Cal would find a way to dispute it.

salad 7 years ago

"If Gore was going around saying the sky was blue, Cal would find a way to dispute it."

Truth!

Ceallach 7 years ago

Ceallach,

Maybe you should look up how the word "theory" and how it is used in scientific research. Gravity is a "theory",


Since I obviously question the theory of evolution, explain to my why I should accept evolutionists meaning of the word "theory." And yes, if the theory of gravity had as many gaping holes in it as the theory of evolution has then I would also doubt it. Evolutionists need to get over their "I'm so intellectually superior" selves. By admitting that there are too many unproven links in their chain to teach it as absolute fact, they might actually make some progress with the doubting cretins they are forced to co-habit with on this planet. But no, I say show me more proof, and your answer is that I should accept whatever the majority of the scientific community says (defines) as fact . . . and I do not. Last time I checked I still have a right to my opinion.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years ago

When faith is made criminal, only criminals will have faith!~)

Magpie points out Cal Thomas' demonstration of abject stupidity within his preachings of wretched duplicity.

$till, $ome here guzzle his $will and vomit it out like prayer$ to Exxon god$. Your money i$ where your mouth i$, RT, ...up Cal's A$$umption$! Keep $ucking! $omething good will trickle down $oon! Keep looking up!

Newell_Post 7 years ago

overplayedhistory:

Are you referring to Pascal instead of Pythagoras? ("Pascal's wager")

devobrun 7 years ago

nightmare: "until you realize that in order to make evidence-based decisions". Same ole mistaken mixing of evidence and test.

How 'bout test-based science and decisions? Since science is based on the test not just the evidence, I would like some tests. Go to the GSM web sites and see that they refer to computer model runs as experiments.

Redefine science to match the limited ability to test. Can't test AGM? No problem, define a computer model as a test. Have problems with the test, like erroneous predictions of 10 km temperatures? Ignore them. When other scientists point out problems with the computer model, call them "deniers".

The danger to science is that the general population will come to believe that this new crap is science. It is politics. It is created reality. It is fuzzy logic. It is social engineering. It is redistribution of wealth. It is a new religion. It is data applied to an agenda. It ain't science.

Ceallach 7 years ago

Perhaps one of our scientists could tell dorothyhr that the sky is not blue.

Logan5 7 years ago

Dorothyhr,

The sky is not actually blue. It only appears that way because of the sun's rays defracting off of nitrogen molecules in the air that make it appear that way.

Logan5 7 years ago

Ceallach,

Can you offer up a theory of your own that carries the same weight of empirical evidence that the theory of evolution does (without using the word "faith")?

JSpizias 7 years ago

overplayedhistory (Anonymous) says:

What does it hurt to believe in global warming?

Beliefs cost nothing-it is the actions that follow from such beliefs that have huge economic implications. Lieberman has acknowledged that his bill (Lieberman-Warner, "America's Climate Security Act of 2007"), if enacted, would cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. The Stern Review, on which many of the estimates of the costs of climate change and its mitigation are based, has been shown to be seriously flawed by Roger Pielke Jr. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/ and Yale economist, William Nordhaus. http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/ Pielke has also testified before the US Congress that any reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, even if successful, will have no effect for many decades. Other leading climate scientists, for example Prins and Rayner in an article in October 25 Nature, argue that the Kyoto approach is seriously flawed and a failure-that we need to rethink our whole approach to dealing with climate change (Time to Ditch Kyoto). A similar view is argued by Sarewitz and Pielke in a paper available on Pielke's web site (The Steps Not Yet Taken).

Even if one accepts that climate is warming, it remains far from clear that the increase in anthropogenic CO2 is driving the warming. Climate on earth is continually changing. Anthropogenic CO2 represents a small fraction of the total CO2 emitted on earth each year. Scientists explore past climate changes to try and understand what may happen in the future. A recent paper in the 25 December Nature (Sluijs et al) reports that during a very warm period at the Palaeocne/Eocene boundary, warming occurred several thousand years before injection of light carbon into the atmosphere. The authors suggest that the source of such carbon might be dissociation of submarine methane hydrates due to temperature changes(methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2). A recent paper published in Science by Stott et al noted: "Deep-sea temperatures warmed by ~2°C between 19 and 17 thousand years before the present (ky B.P.), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropicalsurface-ocean warming by ~1000 years. The cause of this deglacial deep-water warming does not lie within the tropics, nor can its early onset between 19 and 17 ky B.P. be attributed to CO2 forcing. Increasing austral-spring insolation combined with sea-ice albedo feedbacks appear to be the key factors responsible for this warming." Thus, increased atmospheric CO2 levels may be a consequence of , not the primary driver of warming.
There are serious questions about many aspects of climate change and the forces that drive it. These questions arise from peer reviewed studies in our best scientific journals. Honest climate scientists will acknowledge that there is much not known and that predictions of the earth's climate for a 100 years from now are questionable at best.

staff04 7 years ago

I'm sure glad I didn't grow up in many of your houses...I'd have never graduated high school, college, or anything else if I shared such ridiculous convictions.

staff04 7 years ago

kozakid:

Since I'm the one using kid in my screenname--oh wait, that's right.

I hope you don't teach your kids science so they can be there to support you in your old age with their minimum wage jobs--that is, of course, if you don't succeed in abolishing a minimum wage between now and then. Last I heard, dogma doesn't pay for the nursing home.

Ceallach 7 years ago

Ceallach,

Can you offer up a theory of your own that carries the same weight of empirical evidence that the theory of evolution does (without using the word "faith")?


Nope! But then again, I'm not the one acting as if everyone must agree with me to be right. I'm the one saying I have doubts about the theory.

I'm beginning to think Evolution and Intelligent Design proponents are waaaaay more alike than either side would care to imagine, since neither can tolerate someone doubting their theory.

7 years ago

Cal Thomas, the male Ann Coulter, only not as smart.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 7 years ago

Logan5 "Dorothyhr,

The sky is not actually blue. It only appears that way because of the sun's rays defracting off of nitrogen molecules in the air that make it appear that way."

All color is differences in wavelengths, refraction, absorption, etc. of light; therefore the sky is blue, for similar reasons that my dress is blue.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 7 years ago

"grandest rip-off schemes of all times" Wow. You can pretend to feel sorry for me all you want, RT. I will weep for you, too. OK? Tears of LAUGHter!~)

Paul Decelles 7 years ago

DirtyLinen,

Science is based on observation, measurement and experimentation. But scientists do not do those things in a vacuum ; conclusions don't magically fall from the sky but involve critical analysis and interpretation of the results.

You are absolutely right that politics ought to be left out of SCIENTIFIC discourse. The problem with the global warming issue is that people with different ideological perspectives pounce on results and interpretations that support their perspective.

Science though is really a very social activity and I don't think it is really so wrong to think of scientists as developing a sort of informal consensus on issues. "Consensus" in science typically doesn't develop as a sort of group think or by political committee, but rather as certain interpretations are revised in the light of new and independent empirical tests. And these issues are hashed out in the scientific literature not in ideological "think" tanks either on the left or the right.

Ceallach 7 years ago

I really think you should stop using words that you do not understand. Intelligent Design is NOT a theory in the scientific sense.


You really need to get over your super special scientific self. You must be a riot at a party! That is if you get invited out.

Guess what . . you do not define reality for the rest of the world. Your reply just validates my earlier observation (oh no, I forgot to ask how you define observation!).

theory /&&char114&& Î,iÉri, &&char114&& Î,ÉÉri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

devobrun 7 years ago

Most of the posts here emphasize science as a gathering of evidence (observation and measurement) and a forming of a hypothesis. Experimentation is mentioned, but not emphasized. Traditional science prior to the late 20th century was more reticent to pronouncing truth on that which cannot be directly tested.

Today, people are quick to believe computer generated inferences. Models from the correlation of data and models of models of models of the data are possible. Contrary to popular opinion, these manipulations of measurements are not more believable than simple solutions. They are less so.The more sophisticated the modeling, the less trustworthy it is.

Why are people so ready to believe complex, government funded research from thousands of people who must publish or perish? Why aren't people just as skeptical of government sponsored research as they are of that from private industry? All researchers benefit from gazetting their computer-based predictions. Money comes in, careers are made.

Some folks here in this blog are so hateful of money and the people who have it, that anyone who questions authority (government and NGO's) is immediately labeled a protector of big oil. That we are apologists for big business.

Crappy science is crappy science. That's all. This whole AGW thing is sloppy and far from rigorous. Is it AGW or climate change? What is global temperature? This crap is nonrigorous at it's most fundamental levels. Irrespective of big oil. Without giving any alternative, I must say that political motivation is so strong that science as a discipline is turned into religion, just as Cal says.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/virtual-science-is-no-substitute-for-the-realthing/2007/12/21/1198175338154.html?page=fullpage

JSpizias 7 years ago

pdecell says:

"Consensus" in science typically doesn't develop as a sort of group think or by political committee, but rather as certain interpretations are revised in the light of new and independent empirical tests...."

Unfortunately, this view is contradicted by the evidence. Two examples of such "group think" in science are the eugenics movement in the US that was supported by many leading scientists in the US and elsewhere in the early 1900's and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. The history of the eugenics movement is documented at: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/ and the ideas from this movement likely contributed to Hitler's attempt to "purify" the Aryian race in Germany. In the US, laws were passed to select the most fit and prohibit the "unfit" from reproducing. In the period from 1907-1935, over 21,000 were forcefully sterilized. The US Supreme Court upheld the laws of eugenical sterilization in a case from Virginia. In an 8 to 1 decision Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr wrote the following: "The judgement finds that Carrie Buck "is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring:.that she may be sexually sterilized: and that society will be promoted by her sterilization:.It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring:.society can prevent those who manifestly unfit from continuing their kind:Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This movement arose from reformist zeal to purify and improve the genetic makeup of the US and was supported by many leading biologists.

In the Soviet Union, Trofim Lysenko, with his promotion of the Lamarckian idea that acquired characteristics of organisms could be transmitted to progeny set back Russian biology for many decades. This view succeeded because it was compatiblewith the communist view that man could be moulded by altering environment.

In a new book termed The Honest Broker, Roger Pielke Jr. argues that it is impossible to separate science from politics. He notes that scientists generally fall into one of three categories: 1. The pure scientist-seeks to focus on only scientific facts and does not interact with policy makers (government) 2. The Science Arbiter-answers questions posed by policy makers but is not an advocate for a particular policy. 3. The Issue Advocate-advocates a specific position to policy makers and seeks to reduce the choices available to them.

Unfortunately, all too many climate scientists would appear to fall into the third class.

gr 7 years ago

"Is it AGW or climate change? "

Notice it started with global warming. Then the believers thought better of it and changed to climate "change". For they were promoting that we need to change to prevent "warming". In effect, they were saying if it was not for warming, then there would be no problem with building coal plants, driving huge vehicles, etc. They fear when more scientists get paid to find global cooling than for finding global warming, they would have lost control. So, to hedge their bets, they changed it to "climate change" - 'We're the cause of it (whatever "it" may be) whether warming or cooling.' Even if it switches back and forth depending upon who is the sore loser in the last election.

"What is global temperature?" Why it's what you measure to give force to what you want to force people to do! Actually, they won't discuss what to measure as "it's not up for debate". 400 scientists are rejected because they don't say what they want to hear. Same as they were accusing others of beforehand.

They also ignore tropical fossils found at the poles. A few say the plates have moved to result in those. If so, why isn't there a gradient of climate change in the fossil record? Why is there evidence of glaciers south of Lawrence? Was Lawrence at the poles earlier? Why the other fossils found here? Why in the early 1800s was there a cold summer which they don't take into consideration that one natural event can completely and overwhelmingly overrule pathetic human attempts to control a very small fraction of a natural and good global gas?

JSpizias 7 years ago

Pielke suggests a 4th option for scientists.

The Honest Broker of Policy Options-seeks to expand, or at least clarify the scope of choices available to policy makers.

While this would appear to be the ideal, one must wonder how often it is seen regarding hot button political issues involving science.

Paul Decelles 7 years ago

JSPizias,

Funny, the Lysenko situation is exactly what happens when science becomes politicized. As for eugenics, that is sort of stuff when people including some scientists make wrong inferences about proper social policy from limited data. Unfortunately people still do this today don't they? Think about books like the Bell curve that make wrong policy inferences about education based on a misunderstanding of genetics.

You will notice that Lysenko's ideas ultimately failed because they did not work empirically.

Scientists are human and of course scientists can't be expected to stay out of politics. For instance I am an environmentalist but that is driven by what the science is telling me we are doing to our planet.

But ultimately scientists need to be advocates for the scientific approach to understanding the world/universe, even if conclusions about the way things work don't match their philosophical biases. The more that scientists do this the closer to the honest broker ideal science as a whole will become.

Ideally this is, if I am understanding what you said, the honest broker option. Pielke's book sounds interesting by the way.

Policy makers and citizens have an obligation to at least try to understand what the scientists are saying and develop some sort of scientific literacy and world view that matches reality. That's why when I evaluate presidential candidates I would like to know what the candidates understand about science and their attitudes toward science.

Ceallach 7 years ago

Congrats, Ceallach, you found a dictionary. Unfortunately, "scientific theory" and the general term "theory" are not synonymous.


Being a general person (as opposed to a super special scientific person) I've always had a dictionary, just couldn't resist pushing some scientific buttons.

You know that I was not advocating intelligent design in my reference to its proponents so I'm not sure why you went into your anti-id rampage. Part of the reason many people do not worship at your scientific shrine is found within your description of theory.

Scientists set the rules, analyze the data, interpret their data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for their new hypothesis. Followed by publishing and retesting . . . ad nauseum.

1) Define the question 2) Gather information and resources (observe) 3) Form hypothesis 4) Perform experiment and collect data 5) Analyze data 6) Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis 7) Publish results 8) Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

I'm off to KC for a fun afternoon and evening . . . not scientific in anyway, just relaxing. Something you and several other posters might consider. While this has been quite humorous . . . oh, do scientists have a definition for humor . . . or do they even acknowledge that it exists? (Lighten up guy!)

Y'all have a terrifically scientific day!!

JSpizias 7 years ago

PDecell,

I think Pielke Jr. is one of the best and most realistic and reasonable of the climatologists that I have read and his book is on my "must read" list. He is extremely prolific and I am very impressed with his work. HIs web site is here and most of his papers are available for downloading.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/search.html?searchString=&selectedMetadata%5B%5D=2432&action=Search&goInto=&toClose= I especially recommend his 2006 testimony before the Congress, his paper with Sarewitz, his paper on Future Economic Damage from Tropical Cyclones, and the paper by he and Hoppke on the Hohenkammer meeting dealing with the question of whether there have been more and/or more intense tropical cyclones. He argues, I believe rightly, that there has been an improper and unproductive focus on mitigation of climate changes rather than adaptation to deal with the effects of climate change. HIs father, Roger Pielke Sr. is also a distinguished climate scientist and very skeptical of a lot of the "global warming" predictions and conclusions regarding CO2 and greenhouse gases. His web sites are here: http://climatesci.colorado.edu/ http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/pielke/

bondmen 7 years ago

A must see for both lovers of science and worshippers of earth is the Great Global Warming Swindle, in DVD at http://store.demanddebate.com/index.html

devobrun 7 years ago

logic says: "Because there is no financial incentive related to a particular outcome of the reseach in government grants.

In private industry, producing certain desired results are essential for turning the research into profit, and is therefore more susceptible to falsification.

In government-funded research, the grant is awarded for conducting the research. In other words, the financial incentive comes BEFORE the results, making it silly to imply that the results are falsified to capture more money."

You have it quite backwards, logicsound04.
Government scientists have more incentive to fudge numbers. In private industry if a researcher fudges well log data or plastic production vs catalyst temperature he does so with his job on the line. When errors are found, he must explain. If he can't he's fired.
When a government scientist fudges numbers, there is no one there to care. No one has any $ at stake. The boss just sweeps it under the rug, 'cause he can't fire the bugger anyway. When data is fudged, it is done so to satisfy an expectation. If the results are properly produced, more experiments are in order based on the promising preliminary results. Funding is assured for next year. Nobody invests any $. Nobody loses any $. It is pure subterfuge and its unchecked. What a life! And now, with AGW, AlGore will cover your a$$ publicly. Ya can't lose!

devobrun 7 years ago

Actually, logicsound04, I should thank you for answering my questions. Your explanation was quite clear. I often make the mistake of looking at the world exclusively thru the eyes of a grownup, to the exclusion of the fairytale perspective. So now I know better what to expect from AGW defenders.

Thanks again.

objectiveobserver 6 years, 12 months ago

Wow. This goofball perspective is so naive that it had to be intentionally debate-inciting. The whole article reeks of that old familiar fear-based stick -your- head in-the- sand and swing blindly with both arms right-wing conservative rhetoric. Who's calling who fundamentalist? Unfortunately, our daily complacency, fear and denial moves us ever closer to the point of no return. The inherent truth of science is that it always remains objective - and never self-serving. Hey Cal, do you recycle?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.