Snowe and Rocky's nasty letter -- and the request for their resignation from the Senate
poll shows "global warming" is all about politics
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Policy — Comments (123) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In October, Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) sent a bullying letter to the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, demanding that the corporation ignore all "global climate change skeptics" and accept the liberal orthodoxy that mankind is baking the planet.
In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporations activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States. We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history. Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world's largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts. We believe this would be especially important in the developing world, where the disastrous effects of global climate change are likely to have their most immediate and calamitous impacts. [emphasis mine]
The Senators want the corporation to "improve the public debate" by helping to limit the debate to a single, disputed position. Why? So the United States looks good to those with the agenda behind the global warming claptrap ("reputation of the United States").
Well, from Britain, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, former advisor to Margaret Thatcher Carie Rannoch, has sent a letter to the two Senators. [pdf]. In it, he appeals to the Free Speech right in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and presents evidence that human-caused global warming is not a unanimous verdict. He calls on the Senators to either withdraw their letters or resign from the Senate.
Read More...
I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call “disastrous” and “calamitous” consequences.
Strong stuff, but five will get you ten that Rockefeller and Snowe care no more about the consequences of their actions than they do about scientific inquiry.
Some people, though, seem to see through their unctuosity. Despite having "manmade global warming" hammered into their heads daily, despite the deification of the crusading Al Gore, and despite the dismissal of the skeptics, Rasmussen has found that Americans are not ready to pin global warming on mankind.
A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters found that 45% consider Global Warming a “very serious” problem while another 28% say it is “somewhat serious.”
Forty-six percent (46%) of American voters believe that Global Warming is caused primarily by human activities. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it is the result of long-term planetary trends. Eight percent (8%) say there is some other cause while 11% are not sure.
The poll also found that it is all about politics. This issue hypothetically involving the future of our planet and/or our progress and prosperity breaks down on political lines.
Fifty-six percent (56%) of Democrats say human activity is the cause while 51% of Republicans identify long-term planetary trends as the culprit.
As with most issues, the understanding of why something is happening has a huge impact on perceptions about the issue. Among those who believe human activity is the primary cause of Global Warming, 71% consider it a Very Important issue. Among those who believe long-term planetary trends are causing the warming, just 17% rate the issue Very Important.
And the agenda of the left is apparent:
[T]hose who see human activity as the cause of Global Warming are more likely to see a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth. Overall, 47% see a conflict between those goals while 29% do not.
Those who believe mankind is heating terra firma on a hotplate believe that we have to slow down or stop economic growth in order to save the planet. That's the agenda.
I too am conflicted, though only over whether to laugh at Gore, Rockefeller, and Snow, or to pity these Pecksniffian louts.
[hat tip, the great Pat Cleary (RedState contributor) at NAM blog. Additional links at NAM.]
« Upset About The World Food Crisis? — Comments (3) | Defending The 17th — Comments (45) »
Snowe and Rocky's nasty letter -- and the request for their resignation from the Senate 123 Comments (0 topical, 123 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Can you document the 'disinformation' that you claim Exxon is putting out?
And are you aware of the massive disinformation that the global warming crowd has been putting out for decades now?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I love the fun facts.
"Advised by an AEI Fellow"
"Dick Cheney is a Former Senior Fellow"
So you feel innuendo discredits these ?
You challenge regarding the article?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Film at eleven:
Think Tanks have links to prominent people that have opinions.
The article doesn't refute anything. It merely tries for guilt by association.
The only thing I didn't see in their was them throwing in links to Haliburton.
Think tanks that are overtly skeptical of global warming are receiving funding from Exxon-Mobil. That was my original point which you are apparently conceding since you haven't actually challenged anything in the article.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You initially claimd that Exxon was spreading "disinformation". You have done nothing to back that up so far.
Why is it a problem here ?
Let me be a little bit forward here.
What you are saying is that only science considering that man is heating the environment is legitimate.
If a company funds research that shows anything else its an evil corporate plot and the fix was in.
And God forbid that a corporation do anything that would prevent them being kicked in the jimmies by liberals.
Is that what you are trying to say ?
While there are 50+ studies (I forget the exact number) -- peer reviewed studies done by scientists from all over the world, funded by all kinds of organizations and governments -- that all agree that climate change is at least in part the result of human activity, there are no peer reviewed studies disputing this finding. None. Zero.
The problem with company funded studies is that no rational person will believe it. Remember tobacco company studies refuting that cigarette smoking caused cancer?
There are a large number of peer reviewed studies that directly contradict a great deal of the data that those studies are based on ... on stuff such as glacier growth, solar activity, atmospheric CO2 content, the Little Ice Age, warmer temperatures in the early part of the last millenium, the Mann hockey stick, atmospheric temperatures, etc.
The problem with company funded studies is that no rational person will believe it.
This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding or profound confusion as to how scepticism works in science. Funding has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a study produces correct results or not.
If a study produces wrong results i.e. non-predictable or non-replicatable results then the study is wrong even if it is funded by the saintly We Love The Environment™ organization. And if a study is conducted properly, analyzed and reported properly, then it is correct even if it was funded by the eeeeevil We Hate Clean Air™ Corporation.
If the first thing you look at to determine whether or not a scientific study is credible is the funding sources of the scientist in question ... then what you're doing is not science.
Remember, peer review is well-defined process. I'm unaware of a single study disputing the human factor that has gone all the way through this process.
If one exists, I'm very interested in seeing it.
BTW, I'm in agreement about the funding not mattering. It becomes an issue when a) its findings are clearly in line with what the funder wants to find and b) the study is then not submitted to the peer review publishing process. That was where I was going in my post.
But not the proof of your statement. A subtle bit of misdeirection.
But here is one from the American Geophysical Union
I provided the link so that anyone wanting to know what the definition of peer review is. Subtle way to misdirect anyone reading this thread into thinking I have ulterior motives in this debate.
I'll read this report after work, with an eye toward methodology and whether it went through peer review as defined. Thanks for providing it.
Is this about the solar flares? That was another poster who brought that up.
My only request is that someone provide a link (can be a link to a newspaper article) to a peer reviewed study that shows no link between human activity and climate change. Something that disputes the finding of over 50+ studies that say otherwise.
The point is that there is overwhelming scientific proof that this is happening. If you're going to believe otherwise, your belief needs to be based on logic, not cant.
What you are saying is that only science considering that man is heating the environment is legitimate.
Where did I say anything even close to that?
Where is the peer reviewed papers that show that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening?
The OP pointed out that Snow and Rockefeller have asked Exxon-Mobil to stop their campaign at discrediting GW.
I don't Exxon-Mobil is evil. But clearly they are not interested in seeking the truth. They are interested in pushing their corporate agenda, as they should be.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But clearly they are not interested in seeking the truth.
Says you.
So if you think that Exxon-Mobil, a company that could experience significant turmoil if certain environmental laws are passed to combat GW, is now interested in truth seeking, well then you and I have clearly differing views on corporate behaviour.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
... sponsored by ExxonMobil, would you even bother to read it before you dismiss it as misinformation?
Heck, the Sierra Club and other so-called Environmentalist organizations has made it a policy that the only scientists considered credible are those who have never accepted any funding from the energy industry and those who are not registered Republicans.
They don't even bother reading or peer reviewing the studies of dissenters and critics before dismissing them.
The Mother Jones article mostly says that the energy industry is funding some of the sceptics of the Faith and therefore they should be considered compromised and untrustworthy and that their work can be safely dismissed out of hand.
As Peter Kann (Pullitzer Prize winning Chairman of Dow Jones) noted here:
Businessmen are not, by definition, greedy, and environmentalists, by definition, saintly.
If Exxon-Mobil were to fund peer-reviewed studies that were critical of of GW I would be fine with that.
I don't care what the Sierra Club does as they are not the people I follow regarding this matter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
“The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. Eco-Imperialism is the first book I’ve seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It’s a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet.”
– Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder
To read more Fun Facts, Go to http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
I could care less about the environmental movement. A bunch of hippies with too much time on their hands.
Doesn't change the scientific realities.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The earth has already gotten about as hot as its going to get. And temperatures have been in a downtrend for the last 10 years.
Greenland harvested barley for the first time in 600 years. That was this year.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
What caused the gobal cooling in the intervening 600 years?
I guess this could be rephrased as "What caused the global warming 601 years ago?"
The atmosphere cools and warms constantly. All sorts of reasons for it.
What's your point?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The atmosphere cools and warms constantly. All sorts of reasons for it.
The fact that you think scientists are basing their work on observed temperature change alone speaks volumes about your knowledge or interest on the matter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
So your saying that the earth cools and warms constantly, yet somehow you come to the conclusion that THIS TIME, it's man's fault because some scientists say it's so.
Somehow the warming that happened 700 years ago was a "natural" cycle and this one isn't.
Wow.
P.S. I wish there were scientists around 700 years ago to document the reasons for that warming trend. Then maybe this whole dust up would be ignored.
I'm not the one making the observation. The scientific community is.
You are making some odd assumptions.
Just because warming and colling occurred in the past does not, in any way, disprove that human activities could be affecting our climate NOW.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But it makes me a heck of a lot more skeptical of anyone saying that "This time" we are causing it.
Until someone can show me what "caused" the warming trend 700 years ago and what "caused" the cooling trend of the last 500 years, then I'm going to be mightly skeptical that "THIS" warming trend happening now (last 100 years) is somehow "our" fault.
And I'm darned sure not going to negatively impact our economy in some vain attempt to minutely (.000001% or less) impact the global environment.
That's it in a nutshell for me.
The flatulent cattle of capitalistic Vikings.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
I am not arguing that Global Warming is man-made.
I am not even arguing that Global Warming is bad.
All I am arguing is that Global Warming is happening.
Personally, I don't care about Global Warming. I think that any benefit we receive from cutting, say, carbon emissions is about an order of magnitude smaller than the benefits of not cutting them. I don't care about Kyoto. I don't care about deforestation. I don't care about "our Great-Grandchildren" (what have our Great-Grandchildren ever done for me?).
Please do not think that by my saying that Global Warming is happening that I am arguing that, therefore, you need to change the way you live. I don't really care how you live.
I'm just saying that it is happening.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=B7CF1DBB51DB462F...
Heres the graph they don't bother to show graphing the years by their relative level.
I am not sanguine about global warming. But, before we go hysterical it would be good to have a solid understanding.
I'm certainly not hysterical about it. I think we need to have a discussion about what to do about it, if we need to do anything at all.
But that doesn't change that anthropogenic warming is indeed happening. Unfortunately there is an unnecessary political battle going on over this matter when it really isn't in question, among the scientific community.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Think about that. Even if AGW is happening it might be a very good thing.
As I keep saying, I am not advocating changing anything right now. I am simply pointing out that AGW is occurring and that the overwhelming evidence from the scientific community supports it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But "they" also say that mankind is somehow causing this too - and we should take steps to stop it.
That's the part that gets a lot of peoples hackles up.
for those who like barley in Greenland?
According to many documents, people raised sheep in Greenland (on the plentiful grass, which gave it the name Greenland) during the 14th century. Then it got much colder, the sheep froze to death and the people fled south to friendlier climates.
So what caused Greenland to warm up in the 14th century? Were the Vikings burning too much whale oil? Or might there be other mechanisms for climate change (in both directions) that have nothing to do with mankind?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Don't bring disturbing facts like this into the debate.
They're too hard counter.
- except to say that it happened over 500 years ago and no one cares - (fingers in ears) La la la la la!
...that show human activity as a cause cite it as the sole cause. But they all cite it as having a significant impact. The studies vary in degree of responsibility assigned to human activity, but not that it isn't a cause.
I suppose I should ask at this point - why is it bad to think that we're affecting climate change? What's the downside to reducing consumption of fossil fuels? That Middle East and South American despots won't have us by the short hairs anymore? That nuclear power will have a renaissance? I don't get it.
What's the downside to reducing consumption of fossil fuels?
We can pass a law tomorrow mandating that US fossil fuel consumption must be cut 20%. The immediate result will be increased energy costs, which will result in increased costs for everything else.
If other countries don't join us (and they won't) then we will also be at a disadvantage in competing with them.
why is it bad to think that we're affecting climate change?
Its bad to think anything that is unproven, especially if we plan on revamping the entire economy based on those unproven ideas.
Its bad to think anything that is unproven, especially if we plan on revamping the entire economy based on those unproven ideas.
Hmmm, over 50 peer reviewed papers that say it's happening, versus zero peer reviewed papers that say it's not. How is that "unproven?"
As to your other point, who said that we'd be doing it alone? Remember the Kyoto Treaty? I know it isn't working, that's not my point. My point is that most of the rest of the industrialized world is already on board.
How can the rest of the world be on board when NONE of them are implementing the treaty?
So if I sign and contract and then don't honor anything in the contract - am I still "on board"?
I'm absoluting lauhing my rear end off on this.
If they're not implementing the treaty, it's probably because they realize the futility when the US isn't on board.
I never said it was a good treaty, just that the rest of the world is ready to tackle the problem. The earlier post claimed that we'd be going at it alone.
So, do you have anything intelligent to say about the matter? So far you haven't.
If they are serious, then they should do everything in there power to make it happen for their country.
The reality is that Kyoto is a feel good treaty that will ruin any country that tries to implement it.
The signees know this.
Besides, if they really believe in it, it's a great opportunity for some of these countries to lead on an issue that's obviously important to them. America doesn't have to be the leader in EVERYTHING.
Earlier post claimed that if USA changed emissions we'd be going at it alone. I cited Kyoto as evidence that the world is on board for change. As a matter of fact, you could say that they are leading the way.
I never said Kyoto is good or workable (as it was drafted) or that we're wrong for not signing it.
So why bring Kyoto into the discussion if you think it's worthless, unworkable and we were right for not signing it. Is it to give your post more weight?
My point is two fold.
One, The world is not on board as you say, because none of the signees are implementing the treaty. But if you call signing a worthless pices of paper "leading", then we disagree on what leadership is.
Two, Since all the current signees aren't implementing Kyoto, if the U.S changed emission standards we'd certainly be going it alone.
Maybe people believed that solar flares were the cause for that anomoly.
However global temperatures weren't really all that hot...
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If you believe in the graph you posted, then you can't believe that GW is caused by man.
It's obvioulsy caused by solar flares - and I don't see too many industries affecting the sun in any meaningful way.
How does that graph support a solar flares theory?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
That's one of the biggest frauds in scientific history. Try again.
--
Run like Reagan!
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The late John Daly put up a great page debunking the stick.
--
Run like Reagan!
And your evidence is?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Science based only on a predetermined "consensus", a non-falsifiable theory (anything and everything proves Anthropogenic Global Warming, absolutely nothing disproves it) and the blacklisting of dissenting scientists from the all too important "consensus" is not Science.
I call it Faith.
You are confusing the political with the scientific.
I can provide a long list of peer-reviewed papers on the matter, if you like.
But I guess if you think that Science and Nature are in on the conspiracy, then you will just discard this evidence.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
... there are scadloads of credible peer-reviewed studies whose conclusions come down on the other side of the issue.
99% of which are immediately dismissed as disinformation because the guy who conducted the study doesn't drive a hybrid or once contributed to a Republican who was running for Mayor in Nowheresville, Wyoming.
No one's saying there's a conspiracy; like-minded people just tend to act like-mindedly.
If you do have a couple of examples of peer reviewed work that "debunks" anthropogenic global warming, I would like to see it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I'll bet your idea of 'peer-reviewed' is reviewed by the environmental groups that are the ones that are pushing their global warming theories.
Have you ever read anything by Bjorn Lomborg? If not, why not?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
is a well defined process.
And for that matter, have you read anything by Bjorn Lomborg?
Perhaps you'd like to take these folks up on their bet?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
If you can demonstrate that with any of the studies then I'll take your point. Until then that's just claptrap from someone who doesn't understand the peer review method.
Quit claiming that your opponents don't understand the English language. I understand what peer review is probably better than you do. I and many other people are saying that the entire peer community for climate science is corrupt and wedded to the notion that man is causing global warming, and is refusing to even consider anything to the contrary, and is consistently hiding behind innuendo and falsehoods to cover for the fact that they are scientifically bankrupt. For example, if the science in the paper is good, it doesn't matter whether it was funded by Exxon, George W. Bush, or by robbing banks. If you had any neurons to rub together you'd understand that. The science in papers discounting manmade global warming hasn't been debunked, it's been slimed or ignored.
Now get off your bloggyhorse before streiff pulls it out from under you.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
that I won't just take your word for it. If you can believe that peer review is nothing more than a way to enforce orthodoxy, then I believe I do understand it better than you.
I thought we had an agreement on this line of argumentation. Didn't we?
It was ok I guess.
Ljonborg is a political science professor.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You say it's peer reviewed? Let's see it.
If I'd known I would have had a need to quote the urls, I would have saved them, but I didn't. What is happening is that if you're in 'climate science', and the thesis of your paper questions global warming, you don't get funded. Even if you do manage to get funding from some other source (like, say, Exxon), your paper is derided as being biased because you're not being funded by the Approved Groups, and the climate science journals, which only get attention paid to them when they're predicting the Imminent Destruction Of Life As We Know It, will refuse to review the paper. And criticism of the papers that do get reviewed gets derided as not being by a 'climate scientist', even if the criticism is by a statistician of the use of statistics in that paper.
You can believe me or not, I don't care. But if you don't believe me, then you have to believe that there is another conspiracy out there that's trying to deny global warming, one that is less organized than the climate science groups and has less to gain.
So which conspiracy is more plausible?
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
So I have to believe that there's a conspiracy afoot at all?
That speaks volumes about where you're coming from.
you come on here all the time and argue "peer review" when it is really evident from your commentary that you wouldn't recognize "peer review" if it leapt out of the tall grass and latched onto your posterior.
Without rehashing previous discussions on the subject suffice it to say that Hwang Woo Suk pimped his peers quite successfully over a long period of time and this in a field where there are laboratory experiments to verify scientific papers.
In climatology, which is much more akin to a social science than a real science, all peer review does is ensure that everyone agrees on the same worldview.
But let's look at peer review across the ages. Louis Pasteur was pooh-poohed by the scientific community of his day. And this inability on the part of the scientific or academic communities to accept competing views has played itself out most recently, and is still playing itself out, in archaeology/anthropology in Mesoamerica where the "peer reviewed" views of only a decade ago are being revealed as nothing short of wrong.
What does that say about the "peer review" process that up until the last decade simply would not accept alternatives to the Clovis hypothesis?
So if you want to play here any longer, address the specifics in the posts and if you fall back on chanting peer review as an answer then consider your career here ended.
Guess I've riled up the blogging police.
Sorry guy, but the whole lynchpin of discussion here is "climate change - fact or fiction?" My point is that it's fact. My reliance on peer review is that it's a proven method for sorting out good science from bad. So occasionally one person slips by? You could use that as an argument here IF there was only one study (not over 50) at dispute. So Pasteur was given a hard time in his day? His good science was proven over time because it stood up to repeated tests. Which is completely beside the point.
Hmm, what point have I failed to address? Besides distracting ones that don't address the point I'm trying to make?
Peer review pretty much guarantees that work conforms to accepted standards.
Mann's Hockey stick paper was peer reviewed as well. It was a total fraud.
I can easily go on for days on this subject and its not germane.
that as your MySpace profile indicates you really don't know very much about science. But history majors rarely do.
Your reliance of the mantra of chanting peer review is nothing more than a very juvenile debating tactic one step remove from plugging up one's ears and shouting lalalalalala.
Peer review does not prevent bad science. Again, I point to the numerous cases of publicized scientific fraud and the incredible number of cases that are handled by the employers of the scientists involved. What peer review does is sort out research that runs contrary to the prevailing volume of research in a discipline. Fifty studies, and here again I would point out that these fifty studies are not uniform in their predictions by any stretch of the imagination only in blaming humans for the increase in temperature, proves little more in this case than that is scientific conventional wisdom. Unlike chemistry. Unlike pharmacology. Unlike a lot of scientific fields where peer review is based on replication of laboratory results, peer review in climatology can't be replicated because it is based on modeling.
Is saying Monte Verde preceded Clovis by some thousands of years bad science? No. Now it is accepted. A decade ago it was bad science. I bring up this particular case because Monte Verde, unlike human caused climate change, was verifiable in a laboratory.
And the Pasteur case proves my point. Peer review did not weed out good science from bad science. Time did. And that isn't beside the point. Had peer review prevailed we would still believe in spontaneous generation. Had peer review prevailed the work of Jenner, Lister, and a number of other physicians would have never seen the light of day.
So if you can't concede the limitations of peer review there is really no need for you to continue to waste our, and presumably your, time.
that peer review is limited and imperfect. There just isn't anything better at hand.
You say the studies vary. I say that too. They all describe the degree to which human activity plays a role in climate change and that varies from study to study.
You've cited individual cases of fraud. Can you cite a case where so many studies, from so many sources, and so many scientists, were fraudulent?
So just because we're speaking of something too big to fit in a lab, that science can't work to provide a scientific theory? If that were the case then they couldn't accurately measure distance in space and all those probes and explorers would have been millions of miles off course in reaching them.
Nice work tracking me down. I can assume you brought it up to intimidate me into not posting here anymore. You clearly don't like me debating this point.
1. To the contrary, you've been pushing peer review as meaning something other than it was reviewed by peers with the same views.
2. The degree to which humans are responsible varies according to which model you use. For this to be meaningful the models have to be accurate. If your airflow modeling in an aeronautics lab had the variations in the climatology models, we wouldn't be flying.
3. There is a difference between fraud and mistaken, I make that clear with the example of Clovis. I don't claim the climate studies are fraudulent, only that we have no guarantees that they are meaningful. The examples of fraud and "good science" held back by peer review were brought up to challenge the notion that peer review is conclusive.
4. Nice try. We've been measuring distances to celestial bodies since trigonometry was invented. The ancient Maya calculated variations in the orbit of the moon and predicted lunar eclipses hundreds of years into the future. But no one is saying what you are saying. We encounter theories in economics, political science, sociology, psychology, and on and on that simply can't be replicated in a laboratory. The difference is that no one is asking us to reorder society based on those theories and when they are discarded (see Freud, for instance) no one cares.
5. Thank you. I'm a professional. I don't mind you debating anything you wish to debate but in this case you are making a fraudulent argument. You obviously, in my reading, didn't know squat about the peer review process. My research seems to bear out my impression. Debate away, just do so honestly and if you are going to hold a process out as conclusive at least be familiar with it.
We want you gone, you're gone. You aren't particularly worth intimidating, in fact.
Now play nice before I make you write a five hundred word essay on the history of the meteorite debate in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
a major part of the problem is that there are at least two parts to the puzzle:
1. Global Warming - is it or is it not occurring?
2. Anthropogenic - if it is occurring is it caused by human activity to the degree that man can change behavior and change the outcome?
Practitioners of the Unquestionable Church of Global Warming have conflated the two questions to the point where acceptance of the first implies acceptance of the second and denial of the second implies denial of the first.
Personally I am prepared to accept that we may well be in a warming period; after all, there is ample evidence that it has happened dozens of times in the past and it will happen dozens of times again in the future. Part of my concern is that Global Warming cycles are so long as to be extremely difficult for us to detect meaningful changes in our short lifespans.
The other part of my concern has to do with the ideological assertion that Global Warming is a proximate result of anthropogenic activity and that changes to our behavior will change the nature of the warming cycle. This is where I part company with the Holy Church of Global Warming. My humble, non-peer reviewed opinion, is that a) we have no real idea about all the possible contributors to a warming/cooling cycle; b) that human activity constitutes a tiny fraction of the impact of other factors such as solar cycles. I think the Practitioners greatly overestimate the possible impact of humans when assessed against that gigantic fusion ball the Sun. In addition, the dependence on anthropogenic activity does nothing to explain the innumerable warning/cooling cycles that occurred before man climbed down out of the trees.
At the end of the day I am a whole lot more prepared to accept that we are in a warming cycle than I am prepared to accept the we have much to do with it. The Holy Church of Global Warming has declared that such a position is heretical.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
no dissenters can publish in "peer-reviewed" journals. Like it or not, editors of scientific journals CAN have political opinions that slant their decisions about who gets published and who does not.
For example, anyone who questions evolution theory is derided as "unscientific" and a throwback to pre-Galileo geocentric ignorance. Many of those questioning evolution theory hold PhD's in geology or biochemistry, but the "peers" are wedded to their agenda and their funding for "evolution" research, and refuse to admit dissenting views. Still, no one has come up with a plausible theory of how non-living matter got around the Second Law of Thermodynamics (increasing entropy) and hydrolysis (breaking up of long molecules by water) to form the first protein, the first DNA molecule, and the first cell.
These are well-established scientific principles that are supported by mountains of experimental data, but according to the "peer reviewers" of the Church of Evolution, they miraculously were suspended in the past, and thou shalt not write otherwise.
The goal of the "global warming consensus" is to establish government policy that taxes CO2 emissions as an "incentive" for preventing "global warming". If such a CO2 tax were established, I would bet dollars to donuts that "scientists" hyping "global warming" theory would get some handsome percentage of CO2 taxes and retire in luxury on tropical islands, complete with yachts for escaping to cooler waters when hurricanes approach.
Why does Exxon/Mobil fund global-warming dissenters? Sure, they want to sell oil and not pay CO2 taxes. But everybody knows (or should know) that CO2 taxes, if enacted, would be passed on to consumers. Do we want to spend trillions of dollars trying to keep the earth a tenth of a degree cooler (maybe?), or spend much less money slowly adapting to a warmer climate, if it occurs?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
You're sure that the "dissenters" just don't have bad science on their side?
I bring this up because scientists are human too, capable of not believing science when it challenges their own fundamental beliefs. Albert Einstein famously disputed the scientific findings that form the basis of quantuum physics. That doesn't negate the important work he did, just shows that just because someone dissents, even someone as learned and accomplished as Einstein, is right.
The papers of the dissenters focus on the science of global warming, and the bastardization of science in the global warming papers. The critiques of the dissenters focus on where they got their funding.
You tell me which one sounds more like science to me.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
so I'll take your word that the only thing they criticize is the funding.
I'm relying on the original studies, and waiting for a plausible scientific dispute. I'm basing my judgment of such plausibility on whether it's peer reviewed. The reason for that is that I have faith that, even if there were some vast conspiracy theory keeping down good science, that the good science will win because it always wins.
On second thought, the idea that critiques (other than those from hardcore lefty rags) focus only on that isn't something I buy. But that's beside the point.
The reason for that is that I have faith that, even if there were some vast conspiracy theory keeping down good science, that the good science will win because it always wins.
You are entitled to your own personal faith, but don't try to force me to adopt your faith or adhere to the tenets of your faith through government regulation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
We're all presented with the evidence and conclude what we want. If I vote for people who take climate change seriously and try to address it, and they win and pass laws about it, you can't say I forced anything on you.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
So you are "waiting for a plausible scientific dispute"?
There is a link in the main story to a pdf, which lays out the "plausible scientific dispute", including links and cites to various scientists, some of whom believe in global warming but think its overblown. I don't think you read it.
Why don't you write a detailed analysis of what is said in that document, rebutting the arguments made?
But I will. But I don't think it's what I asked for - a peer reviewed study. Do you know if it is?
Keep in mind that just because an accomplished scientist says it's not so doesn't mean it's not so - not by itself. Einstein was wrong about quantuum physics, so even the greatest have to be treated with skepticism.
It might be useful in the future if you took the effort to read the evidence that is being put before you, before loudly complaining that no evidence is being put before you.
Speaking as your peer on Red State, and reviewing your work, I think it lacks any intellectual rigor. Please try to learn a new note instead of chanting "peer review" as if its a magic talisman which wins all arguments for you.
Has this become some sort of rite of passage ?
I would feel embarassed to publish Lew Rockwell Links on another website.
I felt like pulling out a few select quotes just to demonstrate the extent to which this propaganda resembled bad, 1950s Soviet Agitprop.
>>>>>"S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial,"
Now there's a detailed, scientific analysis if I ever read one.
>>>>>"S
You are aware that Exxon-Mobil is spending millions of dollars a year on an overt disinformation campaign regarding global warming?
Why should American Senators give a hoot what a viscount from England has to say about them?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw