Avoiding Climate Derangement Syndrome
If you are a member of the climate concerned community, you are likely distressed by the recent turn of events. One of your best known warriors has badly blundered, resulting in an important (if temporary) PR victory for your opponents. The fallout has been worsened by some of your most zealous allies, who have either excused the blunder or, incredibly, twisted it into an act of valor.
What should distress you even more is that, before this PR nightmare, the momentum had started to swing your way. Or rather, your opponents were helping you make your case.
Let’s review. In the last six months, several events have elevated climate change into the headlines in a way that has cast climate skeptics/contrarians in a negative light. Remember, politics at its worst is all about who has the higher negatives and we know that climate change has become politicized–very much for the worst.
First, there has been the periodic jostling among Republican Presidential contenders on climate-related issues, with the loudest of them asserting that climate science is a big hoax. How does this fringe view play to moderate Republicans and Independents? We can probably judge by Jon Huntsman’s one meaningful contribution to the campaign. So while there may be tepid public support for action on climate change, it doesn’t follow that a large percentage of the electorate thinks climate science is bogus. Such extreme rhetoric, which has become the GOP position on climate change, has marginal appeal beyond its Tea Party base. Generally speaking, it probably harms Republicans more than it helps them. Last April, months before Huntsman bowed out of the GOP presidential campaign, he warned his party:
The minute the Republican party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. When we take a position that isn’t willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 out of 100 climate scientists from what the National Academy of Scientists said on what is causing climate change, and man’s contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science and in a losing position.
Well, that minute has long since arrived. Republicans now have a problem on their hands when it comes to science.
Another revealing moment, for those paying attention to the larger climate change discourse, came after the release of a widely anticipated analysis of temperature data that, as the Economist wrote, “leaves little room for doubters. The world is warming.” Richard Muller, the climate skeptic-friendly physicist who led the study, confirmed the findings in a WSJ op-ed:
Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.
Or perhaps not. Many climate skeptics, including one who had said he would accept the results even if they proved unfavorable to his position, ran from Muller and his results as fast as they could.
Regardless, the story that played out in the media was that a major critic of climate science had overseen a study proving that global warming was real. A widely covered event like this, combined with the GOP’s hardening rejection of climate science and dismissal of global warming, reinforced the narrative that U.S. conservatives have willfully put their “heads in the sand.”
Climate scientists and activists don’t appear to have recognized this impression that climate skeptics and Republicans are creating in the public’s mind. If the former can be accused of hyperbole in service of their cause, then so can the latter, and it is their brand of hyperbole that has been dominating the national conversation, making them look out of step with the mainstream. By no means is this limited to the Republican stance on climate change. As Maureen Dowd notes in her weekend column, the remaining GOP Presidential candidates
are tripping over one another trying to be the most radical, unreasonable and insane candidate they can be. They pounce on any traces of sanity in the other candidates “” be it humanity toward women, compassion toward immigrants or the willingness to make the rich pay a nickel more in taxes “” and try to destroy them with it.
Surveying the latest damage resulting from all the fiery talk on contraception and religious doctrine, Dowd writes:
Republicans are getting queasy at the gruesome sight of their party eating itself alive, savaging the brand in ways that will long resonate.
“Republicans being against sex is not good,” the G.O.P. strategist Alex Castellanos told me mournfully. “Sex is popular.”
Yeah, I’d say they stand a better chance being against science. But it appears that at least one of the candidates is doubling down on the notion that he can ride a retrograde plank on social issues all the way to the nomination. Good luck with that! Democrats, you can be assured, will not stand in his way. They are also plenty happy to let the remaining GOP candidates continue slugging away at each other.
This latest Tom Toles cartoon illustrates a maxim in politics: If your opponent is hurting himself, you stay out of the way.
With respect to the climate change war, it’s too late for Peter Gleick to learn that lesson. Perhaps some of the saner heads in the climate community will remember that their vocal opponents are also afflicted with “climate change derangement syndrome.” In this war, the side that strikes the general public as least deranged is the one that probably helps its side the most.
UPDATE: I just saw this mind-blowing Guardian column, which suggests that “perhaps more climate scientists should play dirty.”
In the comments, Richard Betts is incredulous:
I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though – I am just telling you that for context).
I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all. “Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.
Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called “climate wars”. People’s reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.
Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.
If you think the AGW movement has been winning these past several months, I would suggest that you are a good example of CDS.
The AGW edifice is crumbling everywhere you look. That Gleick chose to commit professional suicide in such a public fashion is just another sign of how weak it has become.
Latimer,
Ah, the old crumbling edifice/nail in the coffin/stake in the heart. That one never gets old, does it?
“First, there has been the periodic jostling among Republican Presidential contenders on climate-related issues, with the loudest of them asserting that climate science is a big hoax. How does this fringe view play to moderate Republicans and Independents?”
Probably pretty well. The polls show big drops in public confidence in climate science even among moderates/independents. Politicians keep a closer eye on that than I do; I’ve little doubt that their statements are playing into the trend in public mood, rather than against it.
You see, while it may be a “fringe” view to ardent believers, it’s not a fringe in the general population. Even where it is a minority view, numbers around 15% to 40% (depending on the question you ask) are still a significant chunk of the people.
You might argue it deserves to be fringe, but it isn’t.
“when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 out of 100 climate scientists from what the National Academy of Scientists said on what is causing climate change”
I know it’s a quote, but I’d be interested to see that survey. So far as I know, the figure is around 80-85%, unless you cheat. Still, I think the end result of even saying it’s so will be that people will stop regarding the NAS as a credible voice. That’s probably not what you wanted.
“as the Economist wrote, “leaves little room for doubters. The world is warming.” Richard Muller, the climate skeptic-friendly physicist who led the study”
All the serious sceptics already said the world was warming. This is not news. And Muller was never climate sceptic friendly – what he said was that Climategate had revealed bad science and it needed to be done properly, but his belief was always that it would show the consensus to be correct. He was a rare example of a mainstream pro-AGW consensus scientist taking a stand for good quality science. He was never a climate sceptic.
“Many climate skeptics, including one who had said he would accept the results even if they proved unfavorable to his position, ran from Muller and his results as fast as they could.”
It would really help if you could get this one right.
What the sceptics said was that we needed a transparent, high quality reconstruction, that took account of all the data issues, and didn’t practice science-by-press-release in which the warmist message was trumpeted in the media as or before the data was released, while critics scrambled to analyse the result from a standing start, usually only finding the flaws and errors and missing data weeks later after the press had lost interest. The BEST group promised not to do that – the data and methods would all be released together, and the media hoopla would only follow once everyone was satisfied the conclusions were firm.
Muller didn’t do that. He released a preliminary data set, with incomplete quality control, gaps in the methodology, issues and anomalies left unconsidered or unexplained, and big warnings slapped all over it not to use in further research. Which would be fine, except that he then held several press interviews which declared that the result was solid (it wasn’t), the climate sceptics had been proven wrong (they hadn’t), and that the BEST data showed it had continued to warm at the same rate over the last decade (which was not true, as he later conceded).
And yes, the sceptics were annoyed. So were some of the other people on the BEST team, who had to scramble into damage control mode.
They eventually decided that it was a combination of miscommunication and over-enthusiastic journalists who had followed the usual script instead of the new one, and a truce was declared. The next update to BEST was recently conducted much more sedately, with several prominent sceptics now on the team. It will be a few more years before it’s ready for prime time.
Sceptics still support BEST. Albeit more warily than they did.
It will be interesting to read what the BEST paper says if it get through peer review.
NiV,
CDS means never having to worry about pesky things like being accurate. The general reaction of the cliamtocoracy to Gleickgate (with the notable few exceptions of people like our host) is that “fanke but accurate” is their operating standard.
Your points on BEST, shows how Muller in effect pulled a Gleick and betrayed his own standards. The big question, “why?” is for others to answer. Is it in order to mislead the public? The lessons of what is going on in AGW will not likely be taken seriously by those who need to understand this the most.
More like Richard Betts, please. More Tim Palmer. More James Annan.
Less Mandia, Mooney and Mann.
i’ll take questions on BEST, if folks have any
@4 “The polls show big drops in public confidence in climate science even among moderates/independents.”
Do you have a cite for a poll that shows that? I think you’ll find that you have misread those polls.
As for the Muller/Best results, I’m sure you, Watts et al will just move the goal posts again in two years time.
I’m struck by the self-destructive nature of Gleick’s (and others’) overreaction to Heartland. I talk about it in a too-long post at my blog I titled <a href=”http://www.lies.com/wp/2012/02/25/the-cytokine-storm/”>The Cytokine Storm</a>. The analogy I make is that overreactions to a perceived threat are similar to a healthy immune system’s overreaction to a virulent pathogen.
The counter-productive nature of Gleick’s actions, and his more-rabid supporters’ attempts to justify those actions, in terms of the larger societal debate seem obvious to me. But not to them, apparently.
Heh. Can’t remember which comments do and don’t support HTML. Apologies for the ugly.
Keith (comment 3) says
“Ah, the old crumbling edifice/nail in the coffin/stake in the heart. That one never gets old, does it?
It sure does get boring, though. How many times does the death of climate science have to be proclaimed incorrectly before the proclaimers wise up that it ain’t happening?
Republicans now have a problem on their hands when it comes to science.
I just got my RNC fundraising letter…lets see what the RNC considers ‘key issues’.
1) Cut taxes
2) Rein in spending
3) Lower the federal deficit(Not sure how they can do that given #1 but hey sounds good)
4) Repeal Obamacare
5) Get rid of regulations that are choking businesses
6) Protect the future of medicare and social security
7) Tap the nations ‘vast energy resources’.
8) Responsible Foreign policy
9) Unleash the power of ‘Free Enterprise’
Sorry Keith…the RNC isn’t going to run ‘against’ Climate Change. They are going to be for ‘untapping vast energy resources’.
I checked the Right Wing sites this morning…Newt is apparently in California today standing in front of gasoline pumps.
There isn’t any need for Republicans to run ‘against’ Climate Science. They are just going to point at the price on the gasoline pump…and mumble something about the Keystone pipeline.
There is a simple solution to connumdrum:
Stop saying the science “demands”/”dictates” specific solutions. Be clear that the decision on what to do about the science is a political and economy question and that it does not automatically follow that a focus on large scale reductions in CO2 emissions are the best policy for reasons that have nothing to do with the science of CO2.
Report the science with the uncertainties and caveats. Acknowledge facts like the recent pause in warming and, more important, acknowledge that the pause in warming might indicate that the climate models over estimate the amount of warming. Dogmatic insistence that the models can’t be wrong is a tactic only adopted by blind zealots in pursuit of a cause.
Keith –
You seem like a good guy and you run this blog in a very fair way, giving all sides a chance to speak. You also dish out criticism to both sides when it is warranted, and as a result receive unfair bashing in return.
But, you do have a blind spot in this “Republican War on Science” meme. Look, hardly anyone disputes that it has warmed a bit over the last century and hardly anyone disputes that CO2 will have some warming impact. The charges of “hoax” and “fraud” are directed at the alarmist claims, for which there is, frankly, no evidence whatsoever. So, it is the Hansens and Gleicks of the world that are being anti-science, not us skeptics.
@keith
‘Ah, the old crumbling edifice/nail in the coffin/stake in the heart. That one never gets old, does it? ‘
Compare and contrast the situation when I first started to get interested in climatology – and had some time on my hands – in mid 2009.
‘Climate change’ was the worry du jour. Our UK government had recently passed the Climate Change Act committing us to drastic emission cuts. Our political parties were outmanoeuvring each other to claim to be the Greenest. Copenhagen was on the horizon, with the prospect of a worldwide cc regime being agreed. The Science was Settled, Gaia would be saved and life as a climatologist/climate campaigner seemed to be about as secure and cushy as it could be.
But it didn’t work out like that. From that summit of expectation it all started to go downhill. Copenhagen was a flop, as were Cancun and Durban. Nobody now expects any global action within the next decade if ever.
And there have been scandals galore – none to the credit of the climate movement. Climategate itself showed the scientists to have only a passing acquaintnce with integrity. Amazongate/Voodoogate showed that the leadership of the IPCC failed even that test. Fakegate merely demonstrated the lengths that one self-appointed leading campaigner woudl go to try to shore up his personal and the campaign’s position.
Interest in CC issues among the public has plummeted. It is the least worried about thing of 20. It hardly features on the political radar any more. In UK the insanely generous subsidies to ‘low carbon’ generation via wind and solar have already been dramatically cut – and more cuts are to come. Three cold winters have caused the Met Office to become a laughing stock…with the prospect of the government ditching it altogether.
So, though you may not notice it among the hullabaloo of day-to-day events, the AGW bandwagon is losing its wheels. Just two and a half years ago, the prospects for it were very bright. Now they are sunk in gloom.
I stand by my remark that it is crumbling. Long may it continue so to do.
harrywr (13)
What you get in your fundraising appeals sounds different than what I’ve been hearing in the Republicandebates.
Tom C (15)
I’ve got a much more nuanced view on that Republican anti-science meme. If you’ve been following this blog (and my twitter feed), then you’ll see that I believe liberals are just as “anti-science.” But I will be fleshing all this out in a future post.
Don’t follow the deranged – Got that!
Now who exactly are on the list of deranged?
Has the policy conflict turned into a war?
If so, what constitutes victory and what constitutes defeat?
Does this conflict consist of battles and campaigns, or is it just one long struggle without pause?
I have often written that the consensus position can win the war while losing every battle, and only partly because I like Bob Dylan. But it will take another generation, because they seem determined to lose every battle. The ability of the consensus team to screw up every opportunity is amazing.
It looks as though that is the only road to victory for the consensus brigades is to outlast the skeptics. Which they can do. But we all should recognize that that is the most wasteful strategy available to them and one which increases whatever threat AGW poses to the planet, as it is sure to delay implementation of effective countermeasures.
#9,
“Do you have a cite for a poll that shows that? I think you’ll find that you have misread those polls.”
Here’s one. Here’s another. Yes, I know they’re old. I tried to find a more up to date one but they’re getting scarcer.
As for the Muller/Best results, I’m sure you, Watts et al will just move the goal posts again in two years time.
I already said, we agree that the temperature has risen over the course of the 20th century. BEST does not examine the question of why, which is where the major dispute is.
And you’ll no doubt have noted that when Watts’ SurfaceStations analysis showed that errors in long term trends for the US temperature record roughly cancelled, that’s exactly what he published. That some people falsely concluded from that that everything was therefore fine with the record is another argument. But both Anthony and I will acknowledge points even when they’re not necessarily convenient for the politics. The greenhouse effect is real physics. Anthropogenic CO2 will make a positive contribution to temperatures. The solar connection has yet to be proved. And so on.
We shall see, though. Check back with me in two years time. 🙂
9#
Goal posts.. thats a bit Rich
Muller went to Press BEFORE peer review..
Lots of criticisms were made.
Lets wait and see on the papers…
NIV (20)
I’m surprised that a smart guy like you wouldn’t have a better understanding of polls. You understand why there was a spike in U.S. public concern in the mid-2000s and why that declined between 2008-2010 (it has started to rebound in the last year)?
Presumably you also understand that individual polls are a snapshot in time.
Even allowing for this loose (dare I say selective?) reading of these three year old polls, please show me evidence for this statement of yours:
“The polls show big drops in public confidence in climatescience even among moderates/independents.”
You are a meticulous sort, someone who likes to provide detailed arguments for his positions, so I would expect such statements to be backed up.
Tom Fuller
I have often written that the consensus position can win the war while losing every battle
If by this you mean the economy may de-carbonize then this seems very likely, and a process that many sceptics I’ve read also believe will occur. It seems most likely to happen from a resource (energy) rich society. So it might be more accurate to say we’ll get there DESPITE the activities of the deranged fringe of climate consensus crowd giving such ideas a bad name.
Just took a look at the Guardian article…. wow.
The Guardian seems to be determined to convince one and all that climate scientist = green activist. Who should play dirty for the cause.
Marc Morano can’t probably believe his eyes. The Guardian is doing his job!!
#22,
From figure 2 of the first link, 22% + 28% of independents reported much or somewhat less trust in scientists because of ClimateGate. 4% were more trusting. Supplemental figure 4 shows 53% + 13% of independents reported much or somewhat less trust in scientists. 6% were more trusting.
Do 50% and 66% count as “big drops”? 🙂
Point taken on the post-ClimateGate spike. I shall keep an eye out for more up-to-date results.
Anyway, like I said, my belief is that politicians pay close attention to public opinion, and I consider them highly cynical about such matters. I’m not in the least convinced that their statements that they think climate science is a “hoax” are genuine. (And as far as I’m concerned the vast majority of climate science isn’t.) I think they made those statements precisely because they thought those views were popular.
With the possible exception of some Tea Party candidates, I think most Republicans still privately adhere the the Byrd-Hagel consensus from a policy point of view, and don’t know (or care) enough to have an opinion from a scientific viewpoint. That’s opinion, though – I have no way of really knowing.
I’m beginning to think Morano ran a deep cover legend strategy by infiltrating the Grauniad with Garvey years ago and has now unleashed him. 😉
Hey. My wink didn’t turn into a smilie.
Tom Fuller,
Hey, you are making the AGW community sound like the Pentagon during the Vietnam war, with the Vietcong losing every battle but winning the war.
And we have BBD making a great case for McCarthyist lists of wicked denialists. Have we all fallen into a time tunnel?
Hey Keith, the Guardian is really on a roll today!
Climate change will shake the Earth
A changing climate isn’t just about floods, droughts and heatwaves. It brings erupting volcanoes and catastrophic earthquakes too
I especially appreciated this nugget of information:
In the detached US state of Alaska, where climate change has propelled temperatures upwards by more than 3C in the last half century, the glaciers are melting at a staggering rate, some losing up to 1km in thickness in the last 100 years.
Wow!
Forgot the link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/26/why-climate-change-shake-earth
hunter
That McCarthyite slur again. For about the 150th time. Please stop it.
Having read through Garvey’s Graun piece again, I note that he does not say ‘play dirty’. That would be the subs.
On a careful re-read, IMO Richard Betts is over-reacting.
From the Garvey piece:
What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action. Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall ““ if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press ““ then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. It could go the other way too ““ maybe he’s undermined confidence in climate scientists. It depends on how this plays out.
The fact that so many people are criticising Gleick for his lie, rather than Heartland for its secret funding arrangements, is itself remarkable. It points to something weird in the way we think of climate scientists as opposed to other scientists who use their expertise to campaign against new earth creationism, homeopathy, and other stupid ideas. It’s said that climate scientists must maintain objectivity to retain credibility, and therefore that they ought to stay clear of politics and debates in the wider world. If they’re partisan, how can we trust what they say about the science of climate change?
Does anyone think that Richard Dawkins’ work on evolutionary biology is undermined because he campaigns against teaching creationism in schools? Did anyone suggest that we strike Ben Goldacre off the medical register when he undermined Gillian McKeith’s credentials by “using deception” to get his dead cat membership to a body of nutritional consultants? Climate scientists should stand up against people who misrepresent climate science just as evolutionists and medical doctors fight equally absurd claims in their domains. Did Gleick go too far? I’m not sure he did, but I do wonder whether some climate scientists go anywhere near far enough.
There is balance here, and these are reasonable questions.
Expose Heartland? What exactly was exposed.
Anybody?
Gotta love it when Keith tells Republicans what Republicans think and cites Jon Huntsman as an authority. I live in a Republican area of a state trending Republican. I’ve got lots of friends and family who vote for each party. None of them gives a damn about global warming. The environmental touchy-feelies who vote for Democrats can get worked up about their love for clean water and clean air, but global warming is generally recognized as Algore’s way to get rich.
kdk33
Actually, you have a point. Everybody knows HI has been peddling pseudo-science and disinformation for years. Gleick just drew wider attention to the fact.
NIV @ 5
Good summary.
Keith,
“If you are a member of the climate concerned community, you are likely distressed by the recent turn of events. One of your best known warriors…”
There’s no end of tribalism and commentary that promotes it. May as well just accept that it is part of human nature and give up on the kum-bay-yah efforts to pretend that it doesn’t.
Must say though, you fell deep into the ‘us v them’ abyss in this blog. Your recap of the BEST stuff may as well have been written by RealClimate.
But thanks for adding that update. It is mind blowing. Looks like that so called ‘philosopher’ thinks Plato’s Noble Lie rational can be applied to this… so I assume he must have fully supported the WMD lies too.
Good discussion of it starting up at Bishop Hill.
On the bright side, he just put in print what everyone already knew – that some AGW activists believe themselves so much that they lie and adjust and exaggerate because they believe that their ends justify their means.
All radical ideologues tend to do that. That is why they are so potentially dangerous, and why they can never be trusted to be objective.
AGW Humpty Dumpty just jumped off a very high wall.
33 – What was exposed, again, is that the AGW Team believes that THEIR ends justify any means. Faked data, faked hockey sticks, faked memos, and, of course, scaring children with fake fairy tales.
More importantly, this particular episode has exposed how much funding goes to BOTH sides, and that isn’t going to help the AGW Team who have been wallowing in cash for decades.
So, the Team can spin all they want. The common sense and intelligence of the ‘little people’ is not nearly as low as they wish.
Crying wolf about a poodle has inevitable consequences.
Keith, if you think this is “winning” let’s hope the climate concerned community keeps on doing just what they are. Nothing inspires confidence like a zealous minority elevating a common criminal to “hero” status or running goofy “ends justify the means” arguments under the guise of philosophy.
But, please, carry on. A few more years of these antics and “climate change” will be a dog whistle for every bearded, Birkenstock wearing, nut eating, lefty on the planet. You’ll be able to say “he believes in climate change” and know that you are code wording fraud, misrepresentation and data manipulation.
It should make any number of political speeches ever so much shorter.
I think what is happening on the Republican side is not so much “anti-science” per se, but “anti-environmental scientist”. Which is a lot different than being against the environment. Let me explain.
A lot it has to do with the fact that the greens like to wrap themselves in a “cloak of science” when pushing their thinly veiled liberal agenda. This has been an effective trap to set for the Republicans as opposing “environmental science” gets turned into anti-science for propaganda purposes.
I think of environmental science in a similar way to Colbert’s “truthiness”. It’s kind of has a science veneer, but there is huge leap between it and the “real sciences” such as physics, chemistry, etc. Environmental science is kind of mutant merging of science and politics that does not exist in other areas. There are no Greepeaces, WWF, etc. for physics and chemistry.
You have to ponder why the vast majority of environmental scientists are Democrat or left leaning. This is not a mere coincidence. So you really shouldn’t be surprised that the majority of Republicans reject the ideology of this area of “science”. It is not the science that is repelling, it is the constant drumbeat of left leaning policy solutions that are constantly recommended to solve the problems of the day. Regulation heavy, demonization of business, tax increases, roadblocks to economic progress, heavy centralization of govt control, etc. What’s to like?
So there is a knee jerk reaction from the right to anything coming out of this area of “science”. Often viewed as tainted science with a goal of a liberal policy agenda. You get the feeling they can’t get their policy solutions passed through congress, so they try to jam it down your throats using a science Trojan horse. Kind of a paranoid view, but not without merit.
Which is not to demonize the entire area, one only has to visit Bejing China to know that air pollution control is a necessary evil if you want to see more than 500 yards on any given day.
Although the Guardian has gone off the rails, it should be pointed out that many (most?) have handled this with appropriate moral outrage. Notably Revkin and Gavin have made unmistakably negative comments.
The AGU has been very vocal, giving interviews to NPR and others on their feelings, handling it head on. I consider this a sign of positive progress, and I commend them.
http://www.agu.org/about/presidents_msg/
Heh. You say I should be distressed, but I am practically giddy.
Look, a lot of people think of me as “that guy who used the F-word eleven times in one posting”. But I don’t do that very often. Once in a while a dramatic gesture is called for.
Nobody is saying that scientists should hack into right wing circles on a regular basis! (Although some people are trying to establish a charming precedent that every scientist’s every email should be published, retroactively. Too bad I have used up my lifetime quota of F-words.)
Gandhi and MLK, and I may say Nuremberg, taught us that on some occasions ethics is more important than law. The case for transgression is purely utilitarian: whether the transgression acted against a greater evil, or not. So far, there is a case that there is a positive balance of utility to Gleick’s transgression.
To be sure, Gleick’s shenanigans revealed relatively little that was not already know about Heartland, and they pretty much ended his career. So what possible reason is there for my feeling more optimistic about the situation than I have been in decades? And my attributing it directly to Gleick’s peculiar behavior?
Well, the people who actually understand science are aware that there is organized disinformation that is at the root of the failure of the political process to even begin to come to grips with the problem. We have been demanding of the press for decades that they pay some attention to what forces and strategies create and promote the confusion. We have written lots of books and articles about it, and the press continues to ignore it.
But the press cannot ignore the spectacular flame-out of Peter Gleick’s career. And every time the press or the public thinks about Gleick, they have to also think about think tanks.
So far these events have arguably been a net win for the forces of honesty and decency. To be specific, I count seven very positive outcomes to date:
1) Huge reinforcement for the Doonesbury series on myFACTS and the whole liar-for-hire industry
2) The internet community at large, which was split on AGW, was almost unanimously horrified by Heartland for their SLAPP threats, which received a lot of attention on geek sites
3) The press, even the New York Times, even Revkin, are finally talking about Heartland. FINALLY.
4) The whole issue of 501c3s and the Whitney Ball phenomenon are on the table
5) An opportunity to point people at Mashey’s fastidious research with some understanding of the real-world implications of the networks he documents
6) Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) pressed the Heartland Institute Friday for original copies of internal strategy and budget documents
and
7) The wonderful gift of the monniker “fakegate”, which we should adopt with a vengeance
Against this must be put the embarrassment of various institutions, and the bruises on various chins from jaws hitting the floor. As I say in the linked article, there is little sign that Peter sought to cover his tracks at all. This can be taken as a very spectacular way to announce retirement. Presumably his nest is feathered and his kids can take care of themselves.
Of course, the anticipated flood of venom ensued. But the venom keeps flowing regardless. So that can’t be counted as a negative.
Everything coming out of the American anti-science crowd for the last couple of weeks had had an aura of panic. They are off-balance and making mistakes. And people are finally thinking about, who they are, why they do what they do, and such questions as why the leader in putting on the “skeptics'” conference also is in the business of PR in favor of the tobacco industry.
Of course, they will try mightily to turn this around.
If Keith’s mournful jeremiad is any indication, apparently the press, rather than taking the opportunity of investigating the disinformation industry, their dubious tax status, and their dubious fundraising mechanisms, will chose to mourn the tragic end of a moderately successful scientist’s career and the extremism of those who persist in being angry at the organized purveyors of disinformation.
Pity. As I said a couple of years ago, if the press persist in not doing their job, we’ll have to do it for them.
Re: the AGU President’s Message
Why does he feel the need for this boilerplate: “the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” ?
Linda Gundersen had a similar recital of the climate catechism last week.
MT – I have some new f-words for you. You are fooling yourself about this epic fail. Fabrication of fakes is folly and the public will not fall for any of your wishful fantasies. Follow the funding to both sides, like the public is now.
And, really, you must be kidding: “Pity. As I said a couple of years ago, if the press persist in not doing their job, we’ll have to do it for them.”
By any objective measure, the usual media has been a nonstop AGW propaganda machine for the past decade. Their silence on Climategate confirmed that.
Now, why didn’t they look into HI? Because it is a tiny story and, worse, it sheds light on the bigger AGW funding story… which, as noted, is not a pretty one for the AGW Team.
All that money and no results – except for those who personally benefited from this.
a lot of people think of me as “that guy who used the F-word eleven times in one posting”.
Perhaps, but I think of you as the guy who proferred the notion that climate is changing in ways that are simultaneously dangerous and not detectable. And for that you hold a special place in my heart.
Tom Scharf Says:
I think what is happening on the Republican side is not so much “anti-science” per se, but “anti-environmental scientist”
My side(the republican side) will close ranks when major capital assets are being threatened out of existence with regulation. We are almost universally against ‘capital’ destruction.
People purchase things and expect they will be able to use them for their full useful lives. Republicans believe in ‘property rights’.
If you go look at the history of EPA regulation of coal fired plants the owners of those plants haven’t been able to use them for their ‘full useful life’ without paying substantial sums to upgrade them…and their is a long list of other industries that have been subjected to the same.
At least 50% of the residential housing stock in the US doesn’t meet current building standards. Imagine the public backlash if someone proposed a law forcing the owners of those homes to bring them up to current standards immediately. Building departments don’t do it because they know the public would just do away with the building department.
Mr.Kloor: have you read this post?? Link: http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/02/mckibbens-dishonest-huff-post-piece.html
Nice screed by Maureen Dowd on all things Republican…..there’s nothing better than an edifying lecture from a known plagiarizer………
42 – a lot of people think of me as “that guy who used the F-word eleven times in one posting”.
Now, I’ll remember you as the guy who made me throw up in my mouth a little bit by using Gandhi and Martin Luther King in the same paragraph as Gleick as if their actions are somehow remotely commensurate.
Gee, you missed Nelson Mandela in there somehow. Isn’t he worthy of being mentioned alongside your hero Gleick?
EdG, returning the favor:
Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax
On a purely ultilitarian basis I think its unclear what “good” Gleick’s actions maximized. I’d like to see some calculus. The rather thin list that MT gives would have to be balanced against the integrity hit. That equation is not at all clear.
Look, if you are going to break the law for a greater good.
1. Don’t get caught. That clouds the issue. More people disbelieve in utilitarian justification than disbelieve in climate science. You just cause cognitive dissonance
2. Make sure you actually get the goods. And make sure the goods are worth something in the big scheme of things.
3. Think AHEAD. When I accused Gleick people responded ” How dare YOU” That’s not the right question IF your ultimate defense is “Gleick is a hero” You should thank me for exposing the hero.. which raises the issue of why Gleick had to hide his identity from the 15. Gleicks own actions show you he didnt believe what he was doing was heroic.
#49, You’re not reading carefully. I didn’t make the claim that he is comparable. He is not and won’t be remembered as such. I am just trying to remind people that civilized discourse distinguishes between law and ethics.
Leaving aside the 501c3 status, probably what Heartland does is legal. In fact, it is probably impossible in a free society to make it illegal. But in no sense does that make it ethical.
And since the law can’t help, the society needs to develop skills to protect itself from this form of abuse. Which we cannot do given that it is a press taboo to discuss it.
Which is why forcing this issue into the press is arguably huge enough to justify ending a career and embarrassing a few institutions.
http://init.planet3.org/2012/02/how-oligarchy-works.html
Michael, you are very nearly as big a gift to we doubters as Peter is. As Judy Curry, rather easily, illustrated, you could “get the goods” on Heartland simply by asking.
No need for the unethical, indeed criminal, super dooper wooper secret agent penetrations – just ask and Heartland seems happy to tell.
Fuck, Michael, the folks at Heartland had invited the Gleickster to debate and he was such a chickenshit he hid behind the alleged opacity of their funding to avoid any such debate happening. Then the turd donned his cape of invisibility (or stuck his head in the sand) and tried to phish out their sources.
Dumb, cowardly, ineffectual – the Gleickster is setting a new standard for the “climate concerned community”.
And the best part: you dimwits are now fighting among yourselves as to shunning or canonizing the Gleickster – with the adults (and the guys with money) voting for shun before this buffoon can do any more damage to “the cause”.
I am nearly out of popcorn but, apparently, you people are not nearly out of tone deaf, media alienating, philosophically incoherent, justifications for criminal acts.
Thank you.
Just went to get some more popcorn myself. Thanks back.
#52 Michael Tobis
‘And since the law can’t help, the society needs to develop skills to protect itself from this form of abuse.’
What sort of skills do you envisage being needed?
Identity theft?
Inept forgery?
Lying?
Avoiding debate?
Because all those seem to be reasonably well-developed among the leaders of the AGW community already.
Or had you something else in mind?
PS: We are often told (usually by themselves) that the AGW guys are ‘very bright’. Perhaps somebody could give me a concrete recent example of where that brightness can be demonstrated. Because to me it is hard to find. Their main current skill seems to be shooting themselves in both feet.
Jay (39)
You have completely misread the post. Can you point to where I say or even suggest that the climate community is winning because of Gleick’s recent actions (or the rationalization of them by some of his cheerleaders)?
Michael (42)
somebody in your community needs to do an intervention with you.
Keith, you keep missing the mark with the politics. The issue is purely scientific (and philosophic). The CO2GW is a perfect example of cargo cult science. As a liberal, I hold my fellow liberals, who jumped the AGW bandwagon, responsible for the damage they do to science and liberalism, not to mention environmentalism. Please stop! You’ve been misled by Big Oil and Big Money in general. They LOVE AGW. MSM, banks, they all love it.
Such a shame!
there is organized disinformation that is at the root of the failure of the political process to even begin to come to grips with the problem.
MT, you assume that once politicians accept there is a problem, they will do something effective about the problem. Especially when action is going to cost a lot and lose votes.
What we have learned from climate conferences is that it is perfectly possible for politicians to weep and wail about climate while simultaneously increasing emissions.
War on climate change, war on drugs, war on terrorism….when will they ever learn?
@Keith
> In this war, the side that strikes the general public as least deranged is the one that probably helps its side the most.
I disagree. I’d argue we need vocal activists the equivalent of those on the anti- side, who are willing to lie, and misrepresent, and dissemble, and obfuscate, and do so with breathtaking energy, and vigour and refusal to accept any contrary argument whatsoever.
Those putting forward a moderate and considered opinion are already smeared as purveyors of the above. What we need are real targets for that criticism to make the current level of criticism of scientists obvious for what it is – empty smear.
We need equivalents of the energizer bunnies of idiocy that pop up everywhere, reasserting the Hockey Stick “fraud” or the lack of warming over the past ten years, or whatever banal trope-of-the-day is doing the rounds.
We need someone to shift the Overton window back where it belongs – with the restrained assessments of the IPCC at the centre. That can’t be done by twiddling thumbs and appealing to moderation.
None of this will happen.
# 60
Kinda like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKgtWWCGQZ8
somebody in your community needs to do an intervention with you.
Holy Tuesday morning, Batman, I agree with Keith. I guess he enjoyed himself at the Tea Party more than he let on.
@Jarmo
Yes, thanks, yours is exactly the kind of post I was thinking there needs to be a more extreme mirror of.
MT,
You are going to look back on this someday, if you are lucky, and deeply regret the choice you made in responding to Gleick’s crime.
@60
thanks for another postcard from an alternate universe.
Wow, we really need to find out who is secretly funding this person:
http://oilprice.com/The-Environment/Global-Warming/The-IPCC-May-Have-Outlived-its-Usefulness-An-Interview-with-Judith-Curry.html
How dare an academic disagree with another academic! Why that is not science, that is wicked denialism.
Tobis, you are most well written mentally ill person I know – ha ha.
#60
I’d argue we need vocal activists the equivalent of those on the anti- side, who are willing to lie, and misrepresent, and dissemble, and obfuscate, and do so with breathtaking energy, and vigour and refusal to accept any contrary argument whatsoever.
The Marc Morano’s of the world will just hit ‘everything’ such a person would say ‘out of the park’.
You miss the most fundamental point….on the policy side almost everyone has a ‘short term personal financial interest’ in not believing in Global Warming.
Go ask any politician, Republican or Democrat…if they believe people generally ‘vote their wallets’.
Hi MT ““ IMO you still have a basic misunderstanding of why there’s been no action on AGW policies, no cap & trade, no significant clean energy push, nothing.
You’ve been told this before but AGW believers, climate scientists and activists have won the war in the media. You’ve got so many stories about the evil and extreme weather that awaits us, the national security & defense implications of AGW, the “˜organized and powerful fossil fuel companies and their shills’ backed by the Koch brothers.
Global warming; causes more frequent – wait scratch that ““ stronger hurricanes, will turn the West side of Manhattan into New Venice, feeds bark beetles, shrinks horses, is killing polar bears, causes acne, exponential growth in malaria deaths, larger fish, smaller fish, more fish catching, lower fish stocks, 20 meter, 1 meter, 3 meter sea level rise, sinking of Tuvalu, harvest increase, harvest decrease, etc, etc.
Climate skeptics; Are catastrophe deniers, evil Exxon backed two faced, 10 cylinder diesel pickup driving liars that do not for an instant actually disagree with consensus AGW theory, too stupid to see clear facts, have parallels with racists, have parallels with creationists, etc, etc,
MT go to “˜the google’, you won’t find anything good about AGW or anything NOT bad/evil /false about skeptics. Stop blaming the media because they will promote any zany theory or symptom of AGW that you, or any researcher, want them to and every school kid in the world will believe it. Their editor will add a sensational headline to it that will allow you to truly enjoy your popcorn carried to you by your new 10″ tall horse. I do not know another subject that gets instant publishing approval faster than AGW doom stories.
AGW believers can’t agree on a solution or even a damned priority list. You should’ve hired a committee of engineers to evaluate “˜it’ (impact on co2 emissions vs. cost vs. political backlash) for you then at least the low hanging fruit could’ve been fixed, but nope those traffic lights on my commute still aren’t timed together to minimize stops & starts. Would anybody here have minded if that was fixed, any libertarians think the traffic lights’ freedom would’ve been violated if they were timed correctly? Or any greens that think they should’ve just been turned off to save energy and we go with every driver for him / herself?
@harrywr2
> The Marc Morano’s of the world will just hit “˜everything’ such a person would say “˜out of the park’.
I would say that’s irrelevant, as long as it helps confine the insane rhetoric to the extremes rather than being used to corral the middle ground.
Of course, I’m being glib. In reality, I’ve long been saying that the populist battle is unwinnable, and that focusing on uncertainty or education or diligent science or painstaking rebuttals of “skeptical” talking points – or whatever the hell commentators want to convince themselves will help public understanding this week – is pointless. The situation is too asymmetric, and this naive belief that “if we could only get the facts out there the public would agree with us” is just garbage.
Another recent study shows that the only major movers of popular opinion on this issue are politicians (channelled through the media) and economics (as affected by political action).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k17856khp026w174/
Places like Heartland understand this.
Dave H
Indeed. Which is why Hayek advised Antony Fisher (the father of ‘think tanks’) to change the way politicians think by altering the climate of opinion surrounding the political class.
@70 Dave H,
It seems as if the AGw community is more and more believing your point “if we could only get the facts out there the public would agree with us” and instead are now working hard to get the lies and deceptions out there instead. Inquiring minds want to know how far back this goes?
Back to Schneider’s infamous counsel on how and why to lie? Hansen’s phonies up 1988 Senate hearing? Who really knows?
@71 BBD,
So Pacific INstitute, psuhing extreme scenarios of global warming is scienctific, and they are wonderful, but HI casting doubt on extreme global warming is unscientific and wicked and needs to have their donors listed for nice fols like you?
@BBD
I think I meant to say in that other thread – thanks for the Adam Curtis link. His documentaries are essential viewing, but I can’t believe I’d never read his blog before!
@hunter
> Inquiring minds
Who paid for the NIPCC report again?
Dave H @ 74
Glad you liked the AC link. Makes it all worth while 😉 There’s some great video clips on there (although I suspect it helps if you are British and old enough to remember dear old Maggie. Ahem).
hunter
but HI casting doubt on extreme global warming is unscientific and wicked and needs to have their donors listed for nice fols like you?
HI is claiming that it is a non-problem. That’s fake science. Real science (currently unfalsified) indicates the opposite.
For the 150th time, it is *public* that has the right to know who is trying to bamboozle the political class by funding fake science. Not me as such. The public.
BBD,
Spencer and Lindzen claim AGW is a non-problem aas well. Peilke, Sr. Says it is not a significant problem. Curry says it is probaboly not a real problem.
You are bamboozlling us when you claim there is some sort of bright line that makes your position unquestionable. Why are you doing this?
BBD
“HI is claiming that it is a non-problem. That’s fake science.”
Huh. science has nothing to say on this matter. People who confuse science and ethics are bamboolizing the public.
Dont be shocked when preople like BBD confuse ethics and science.
They also think that breaking the law and forging documents are obligations.
Your pearl clutching wrt to the Garvey article is predictable but misplaced. Can you point me to the passage where he says “perhaps more climate scientists should play dirty”? Oh wait, it’s in the byline, not the article. Remind me again who writes those?
I agree with BBD that Betts’ (and your) overreaction is unfounded given the actual content of the article.
@80
The ethical contortions you and others are getting into over this is remarkable. Aside from the author’s bizarro rationalization, he makes a faulty analogy to Dawkins et al. I often think their style is counterproductive but they are content to play the argument, and see no need to engage in dirty tricks. (Well, P.Z. Meyers approves of Gleick’s actions, but PZ is also relentlessly political.)
Anyway, here’s the kicker to that Guardian article:
“Did Gleick go too far? I’m not sure he did, but I do wonder whether some climate scientists go anywhere near far enough.”
So how would you interpret that? Also, has the author disavowed the subhead? Be curious if has in the comments, which I haven’t read through.
Dave H Says:
The situation is too asymmetric, and this naive belief that “if we could only get the facts out there the public would agree with us” is just garbage
The last I checked…elected politicians can bend public opinion pretty much at will.
They manage to convince the voters that they are ‘personally the best candidate for the job’.
At the US Federal level there are only 536 elected politicians that matter. They managed to pass the Energy Act’s of 2005,2007 and 2009. The Energy Acts of 2005,2007 and 2009 had large chunks of money for alternative energy and alternative fuels.
We wouldn’t have any new windmills, solar panels, nuclear power plants, corn ethanol, higher fuel economy standards etc without those acts.
If I look at what is happening to coals ‘market share’ of the US energy market whatever ‘cap and trade’ was supposed to achieve is already happening.
The US Congress Acted three times(twice under George Bush) and ‘market forces'(rising coal extraction and delivery costs and lower natural gas costs) added an additional push.
At the same time the ‘alarming’ increase in global temperatures that occurred in the 1980’s and 1990’s seems to have tapered off.
hunter
Spencer, Lindzen and Pielke Snr have produced *nothing* that convincingly backs up their claims. Nothing. It’s all been dissected and found wanting by others. There is no evidence for a low CS. No evidence that ACO2 emissions are not the major driver of recent warming.
steven mosher
Huh. science has nothing to say on this matter. People who confuse science and ethics are bamboolizing the public.
Eh? Are you seriously claiming that accepting the substance of AR1 is an ethical matter? And that in doing so I am bamboozling the public?
No evidence that ACO2 emissions are not the major driver of recent warming.
Enlightened. From the Trenberth school of thought.
@84 BBD,
OK…so yes you are trying to bamboozle the public. You are just not diong a very good job of it.
Here is another academic heading for the exit door from the AGW show:
http://thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/5086-michael-kelly-models-over-egged-to-produce-alarm.html
For the 150th time, it is *public* that has the right to know who is trying to bamboozle the political class by funding fake science. Not me as such. The public.
Oh, well then, that’s different. Let’s go ahead and make the list available to every wacko nut job. Yea, that’s the ticket.
Michael Tobis, are you quite sane? Or, rather, a sampler of what is considered ‘sane’ in your circles? I mean, don’t you understand how insane (or,perhaps, sloshed – a sin I could forgive – like Gleick on that fateful ‘wet’ lunch of his?) you seem!
No, but rather, none of these things. I know you from old – when you defend the indefensible, you always have a bad conscience and it always makes you sound insane. For it would take more character (or less) to stand on such a ground and not show it!
Keith,
Remind me again what ‘bizarro’ ethical ‘contortions’ i’m getting into again? I find your comments puzzling, especially since they’re coming from someone who regularly accuses others of ‘shutting down’ debate. Your moral certainty in this case enviable. I for one am not so sure, and nor it seems are many others. Now maybe you think that lying is never OK. I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that such black-or-white certitude is the hallmark of a conservative mind 😉
I think it’s interesting ethical question. Is it ok to lie to someone who works for an organization that one believes is itself lying on a regular basis in the public sphere (i.e. what Naomi Klein said)? Do the ends justify the means in this case? Was it tactically wise given the features of the contemporary climate debate in the U.S.? I truly don’t know. But neither do you, I think.
@BBD 83 BBD,
It is your right to have that opinioin of their work. It is my right to give to HI to disagree with you. And recall that I did donate to HI, in honor of you.
But I betcha good money that you are not a scientist or even an academic. so all of this is has been and will be simply your opinion. Just like mime.
But you, in your hubris and self-absorption confuse your opinion with fact.
I know I could be wrong. taht AGW catastrophism could be real. I, however, notice that there is a lack of substantive evidence for this and point that out.
Keith,
I’d like to offer a suggestion that you pursue a story that just might shed some light on the nature of Climate Derangement Syndrome (or at least one variant of it). Anyone trying to understand Muller’s seemingly schizoid pronouncements has to be left scratching his head. I would submit that there is probably a very interesting story behind the forces that he feels are working on him.
He assures Curry and the world that BEST won’t pull the anti-scientific tactic used by the IPCC of issuing pronouncements before the science is done and ready for release. Then he does precisely that. His op-ed makes crazy claims that go far beyond the scope of the BEST work. Curry calls him on it and he retracts the crazy claims saying he never intended to be understood to write what he clearly wrote.
Lots of interesting questions re why the early pronouncement by op-ed?, who wrote the op-ed for him?, why the excessive claims in the op-ed?, Why did he approve it (did he read it)? and the quick retraction. Who is pulling his strings or putting pressure on him? Or is he just incompetent or wacko?
I suspect he is neither incompetent nor wacko. Which leads to some questions regarding pressure.
[add- The odd assertion by some media that he was once a skeptic is interesting on its own. Where did that come from?]
Marlowe Johnson
I find your comments puzzling, especially since they’re coming from someone who regularly accuses others of “˜shutting down’ debate. Your moral certainty in this case enviable.
None of this recognisable from this, Keith’s blog. It seems, Marlowe, you have a ‘distortion field’ around you. Or, perhaps, you just don’t bother to read.!
hunter
The GWPF is another denialist lobbying organisation masquerading as a ‘think tank’ and – appallingly – claiming tax-exempt status to boot.
It also refuses to reveal the identity of its funders.
BBD,
I assume you are aware that lobbying is, within limits, allowed for 501c3 organizations. Do you have any specific claims about violations?
hunter
But I betcha good money that you are not a scientist or even an academic. so all of this is has been and will be simply your opinion. Just like mime. But you, in your hubris and self-absorption confuse your opinion with fact.
The difference between you and I is that I am not such a colossal prat as to think that I know better than the experts. I don’t try and second-guess my lawyers or accountant, or indeed doctor. They are trained (and paid handsomely) to excel in their specialisms.
You need to wake up, matey.
BBD,
So you dimsiss the article because you don’t approve of the source. And your use of the term “denier” which in this discussion is the equivalent of “ni**er” makes you feel superior how? Since people like you declare your intent to ostracize (or worse) those with whom you disagree, I find your pretense regarding anonymity, which is permitted, ethical and legal, to be anything but sincere.
And I take your silence irt your academic qualifications to be an acknowledgement that I am correct. So you dismiss what qualified cliamte scientists say, simply because it disagrees with your opinion, you seek to damage those with whom you disagree, you cannot defend your policy demands regarding lists of donors, you offer no mechanism for enforcing your policy dmeands, and you confuse your opinion with fact.
Have I left anything out?
They also think that breaking the law and forging documents are obligations.
Is there really any difference between saying “forging is an obligation” and saying “hacking is liberation?”
Two wrongs don’t make a right – I’ve condemned Gleick’s actions here and elsewhere – but it’s hilarious to see all the people who are suddenly standing up for the rule of law when someone they like gets got.
I mean, come on. You guys at least have to have a sense of humor about how silly this looks. Don’t you?
BBD, I once thought, or at least, you have sometimes proved to be, somewhat rational. Because you don’t like how other people think doesn’t mean you need exaggerate their importance or foam at the mouth because they do have ‘agendas’ not your own. Calm down, be confident. I’m sure you’re right, really!
And, of course, I agree, it is appalling that political, propaganda ‘lobbying organisation masquerading as a “˜think tank’ and ““ appallingly ““ claiming tax-exempt status to boot’, like Greenpeace, are allowed to continue their nefarious activities. But that’s democracy! And life – O well!
Professor hunter
I seem to have one stuck in moderation, so here again:
The difference between you and I is that I don’t pretend that I know better than the experts. I don’t try and second-guess my lawyers or accountant, or indeed doctor. They are trained (and paid handsomely) to excel in their specialisms.
I accept the expertise of atmospheric physicists in the same way. The vast majority of experts disagree with Lindzen and Spencer. QED.
Why are you making a fuss about academic qualifications when you have none yourself?
PDA – “but it’s hilarious to see all the people who are suddenly standing up for the rule of law when someone they like gets got”.
Or the reverse, such as the people who refused to post or discuss the “stolen” Climategate E-mails but who quickly displayed the stolen HI documents? The people who trumpeted the HI documents the loudest were people who fall into this category and humorously many still cling to the idea the memo is real or the release has done some damage to HI. The only real damage I see is to Gleick’s career and the doubt that objectivity can be maintained by climate scientists who have shown they are also climate activists.
And regarding MT’s posts on this issue, I keep wavering between MT being sarcastic and purposely presenting a caricature of the crazed environmentalist driven over the edge by Fakegate or being serious and this actually has driven him over the edge. MT’s words are often sensible and thoughtful but that has not been the case over the past couple of weeks.
BBD,
The real difference is that I use critical thinking skills and you expend all of your energy on your faith.
I know the smell of bs. For some sad reason you do not. But do note that you have confirmed my bet: you do not know and are relying on your opinion to make your stand. Are you ready to renounce your use of ‘denier’ and accept that there are a variety of opinions on climate, and that those who hold them are enttitled to their opinions and can be sincere in their holding them?
hunter
I know the smell of bs. For some sad reason you do not. But do note that you have confirmed my bet: you do not know and are relying on your opinion to make your stand. Are you ready to renounce your use of “˜denier’ and accept that there are a variety of opinions on climate, and that those who hold them are enttitled to their opinions and can be sincere in their holding them
I always used to avoid the d- word. Unfortunately, it is the correct term for certain types of systematic evidence rejection. You will have to look to yourself on this issue I’m afraid.
I have just explained the difference between pretending to know better than the experts and common sense. I’m not going to repeat myself.
I don’t doubt the sincerity, it is the wisdom and mental balance of the more dogmatic contrarians that is in question.
JimR, showing one’s opponents are guilty of hypocrisy is not in itself a defense of hypocrisy.
Put more concisely: tu quoque cuts both ways.
BBD,
Is the refusal to acknowledge Gleicks bad behaviour ‘denial’? Worse, to set him up as some kind of ‘hero’ – ‘denial’? What think you?
@BBD #99 “I don’t try and second-guess my lawyers or accountant, or indeed doctor. They are trained (and paid handsomely) to excel in their specialisms.”
I’m sure this is exactly what people thought in the 19th century as they were being bled by their “trained” and “handsomely paid” doctors.
PDA – not defending hypocrisy, I see it all around. But the biggest difference is that while Gleick tried to pretend to be an insider, a whistle blower and was quickly exposed as an outsider illegally obtaining the documents we still do not know if the Climategate release was by a whistle blower or an outsider hacking in. Gleick obviously had a ax to grind with HI, but the Climategate release by someone calling themselves FOIA may very well be an insider who observed the blatant disregard of UK FOIA by UEA that was exposed in the E-mail release.
I accept the expertise of atmospheric physicists in the same way. The vast majority of experts disagree with Lindzen and Spencer. QED.
And there you have it folks. The sheep follow the shepard. Or more precisely, the majority of shepards – they sometimes don’t all go the same direction.
And you all you non-followers: shame, shame, shame. Get in line. It’s a democracy, ya know. In lockstep now: left, right, 3,4; left, right, 3, 4.
kdk33 @ 94
I assume you are aware that lobbying is, within limits, allowed for 501c3 organizations. Do you have any specific claims about violations?
First, this is the UK – 501c3 does not exist. Second, there is real ambiguity over whether the GWPF in in breach of the terms of its tax-exempt status. Hopefully this will be clarified during the course of this financial year. Accounts 2010 – 2011 are not yet available for inspection but if they are as opaque as those presented for 2009 – 2010, they will not help much.
According to the 2009 – 2010 accounts (interestingly, unaudited under Section 477 Companies Act 2006 exemption), the GWPF – self-described as an ‘educational charity’ spent £128,342 on ‘charitable activities’ without providing any further detail. I can find no evidence that any of the monies were spent on anything you or I would normally consider to be ‘charitable activities’. Rather, the main activity of the GWPF has been to produce large quantities of misleading and sometimes incorrect information, much of which is fed to the Daily Mail and Telegraph newspapers.
kdk33
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason that the vast majority of atmospheric physicists do not agree with Lindzen and Spencer is because they are mistaken?
It is the simplest explanation, after all. Occam’s razor and all that.
@107
I humbly suggest that our resident billionaire consider investing in some english writing classes 🙂
It’s spelled “shepherd” not “shephard”
JimR: glad you’re not defending hypocrisy.
That would, it seems, be a little hypocritical.
By the way, BBD, I noticed you reference earlier Adam Curtis, the Dennis Potter of thought. That is what I mean by ‘rational’! An unheard of master. And it show how much more we proximate that oppose!
O, bad English! Some Pedant will object!
Lewis Deane
Glad to hear it. Dave H appears to be another fan. Here’s a link to the original comment for the curious.
Has it ever occurred to you that the reason that the vast majority of atmospheric physicists do not agree with Lindzen and Spencer is because they are mistaken?
Indeed it has. So has the opposite. Did you have a point?
kdk33
So has the opposite. Did you have a point?
I did hint at the likelihood of the parsimonious explanation being correct (‘Occam’s razor and all that’). Did you not understand that bit?
BBD,
Did not realize you are British. That would explain your ignorance regarding our freedom of speech, but it still does not excuse your bias in favor of totalitarian solutions, always of course in the name of democracy.
BBD,
I think he’s beautiful and I think it proves, once and for all, we have far more in common than divides us. It is not the science we argue over – even the most obtuse of ‘us’ have excepted your arguments – it is the politics, the What Should Be Done?. We disagree on some things but we agree on far more. I am by no means a ‘right’ ‘winger’ – on the contrary, I am an old ‘leftie’ but I just hate being bullied into ‘thought’. As soon as that happens, I become ‘contrary’. Just as I will always defend the weaker party. Maybe that is irrational?
106#
Why,I don’t think the CRU leak was a outside sceptic?
If he was a sceptics friend, he/she would have leaked the lot in one go..
not the restricted release, 2 year gap, and 200k held back… maybe trying to protect science a bit?
hey! I’m British too….
More media derangement – Prof Michael Kelly said the tImes, edited out partt of his letter to them, and totally changed the context!!
The Times edited (deleted!) these words..
as the climate has always been changing
If I told you that the first sentence of my letter was edited, your readers might be mollified.
I wrote:
Andrew Motion (report, Feb 23) is correct to castigate climate change deniers, as the climate has always been changing, but he is profoundly mistaken in linking all those who oppose the current climate science orthodoxy into one group.
Michael Kelly
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/cambridge-professor-michael-kelly-on-deniers-and-climate-change-science-has-been-consistently-over-egged-to-produce-alarm/
hunter
Since when is arguing for transparent funding as an instrument of open democracy a ‘totalitarian solution’?
Endless, nasty smears.
Lewis Deane
I just hate being bullied into “˜thought’. As soon as that happens, I become “˜contrary’. Just as I will always defend the weaker party. Maybe that is irrational?
Fair enough. Have a pop at the lovely hunter then 😉
Sorry Lewis – I cut the comment in half by mistake.
Yes, I think we agree that we need more nuclear baseload in a hurry.
Re 119 “Why,I don’t think the CRU leak was a outside sceptic?”
Yes I also keep tripping over that presumption all over the web. We know that the Heartland documents were obtained illegally from the outside through phishing.
Was UEA ever officially determined to have been an outside hack? The incredible organization and breadth of the files made it smell to me more like an inside job.
@122,
Because in a rights based world, I have the right to privacy to do with my resources what I choose. Because secret societies have existed throughout history and have dome many good things. The founders of the US were members of a secret society-the Masons- and did just fine. becuase I may choose to give anonymously based on certain ethical scruples. because it is none. of. your. business. Because totalitarians love to register people and put them on lists. And use those lists when they cross the final border and need to round up the wicked. Do you think Bashir Assad is not using every little listing technique he can devise right now?
But enough of your silliness.
gleick’s is much better:
From Lucia’s blackboard:
Copner (Comment #92133)
February 28th, 2012 at 11:06 am
In case anybody missed it, a couple of threads back, I posted this retrospectively hilarious tweet sequence.
Gleick was even warned (although not specifically as regards document forgery), that it wasn’t wise to use the phrase “anti-climate”
Got to laugh.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Nate Lloyd “ @macbuckets
@PeterGleick @stephenfry When you use terms like “anti-climate” you give the game away. #ScienceIsPolitics
3:41 PM ““ 30 Jan 12 via TweetCaster for Android · Details
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Peter Gleick Peter Gleick “ @PeterGleick
@macbuckets @stephenfry Yes, “anti-science” might be better. Or worse. But #WSJ isn’t anti ALL science. Just climate science, apparently.
9:21 PM ““ 30 Jan 12 via web · Details
Game set match: delilberate forgery, probably aided and abetted by more than a couple of his fellow believers.
BBD,
You don’t know an ‘olive branch’ when you see one? It’s no use saying ‘Yeah, but he was worse’, someone has to give. You might as well put your tongue out! Yeah, I’ll leave you alone and start on someone the other ‘side’!?
BBD, This is from a previous exchange. My initial is in italics, your response in regular:
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
What you cannot do is try to stop HI (and everyone else who disagrees with you) from speaking. That would be anti-democratic and anti-freedom.
Wrong. Paying fake experts to emit a miasma of pseudo-science and disinformation aimed at politicians and children is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””“
Your reply starts with “wrong”. As in, I am “wrong” to suggest that you cannot stop HI from speaking. In other words you CAN stop HI from speaking.
Maybe I misunderstood.
Hunter,
That this is ‘game, set and match’, maybe true, but glee about it is neither productive nor pleasant. If this is a ‘triumph’ of confirmation for you, then ‘sit back and enjoy it’. Don’t dwell on it. It proves nothing, means nothing, amounts to nothing. That you find that someone is a liar does not mean that they ‘lie’ – for even the ‘lie’ they tell maybe the truth!
hunter
Because in a rights based world, I have the right to privacy to do with my resources what I choose.
In a rights-based world, I have the right to personal representation, as do you. What you do not have is any right to cheat the system by buying a disproportionate amount of influence because you are rich. That is profoundly anti-democratic. How can you not grasp this?
To prevent such behaviour becoming rampant and completely stifling the democratic process, we (the people) need to be able to see it.
We need of transparency of funding. Not of little nobodies like you but of the big players. I’ve been over this endlessly, so you can only be pretending not to have understood in order to keep on pushing your non-arguments and wasting everybody’s time.
Because secret societies have existed throughout history and have dome many good things. The founders of the US were members of a secret society-the Masons- and did just fine.
This is just barking mad. Secret societies are there for their own benefit. They are exclusive and covert. That’s the opposite of open and democratic. Understand?
“Gleick tried to pretend to be an insider, a whistle blower and was quickly exposed as an outsider illegally obtaining the documents”¦” Jim R
Actually Gleick did not pretend to be the whistleblower or a whistleblower in presenting the information. And it is evident you are not familiar with the legal framework in as much as Gleick’s actions are not necessarily illegal.
Of course, what could be legal is not free from questions about ethics — as Gleick’s own admission openly acknowledges.
Regardless, if you are interested in the law, I suggest you at least equally concern yourself with why those who work in the legal framework and especially those who understand the modern legislative and regulatory framework for such organizations understand that Heartland will not want to go to court on this matter. I suggest you learn why not.
That you find that someone is a liar does not mean that they “˜lie’ ““ for even the “˜lie’ they tell maybe the truth!
That was worth a second look. Don’t for life of me know what it means. But it sounds neat.
kdk33
Your reply starts with “wrong”. As in, I am “wrong” to suggest that you cannot stop HI from speaking. In other words you CAN stop HI from speaking.
Maybe I misunderstood. Please do go on.
You misunderstood: I said that what HI is doing is anti-democratic and anti-freedom. I’m not arguing that it should be stopped. This is your ‘BBD is anti-freedom of speech’ rubbish again. Try to actually *understand* what I am saying instead of twisting my words to suit your own misconceptions:
Wrong. Paying fake experts to emit a miasma of pseudo-science and disinformation aimed at politicians and children is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.
For the nth time, I’m saying that HI should be widely exposed as a peddler of pseudo-science and disinformation, and its principal funders made public. The public has both a need and a democratic right to know who is trying to cheat the system.
Lewis
I’m sorry if you felt I was being rebarbative and it was not intentional. However, as you can see, I have my hands full at the moment. This nonsense has been going on for a week now, and is becoming wearing.
Marlowe
I think it’s interesting ethical question. Is it ok to lie to someone who works for an organization that one believes is itself lying on a regular basis in the public sphere (i.e. what Naomi Klein said)?
Is it okay for me to lynch someone I personally believe is guilty of murder?
The problem with ‘vigilantism’ is that the vigilante’s inevitably lynch an innocent person, or worse…they lynch people who simply ‘disliked’ by the majority of the community.
The US Internal Revenue Service maintains a rather long list of 501(c) organizations that have had their 501(c) status revoked.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=141466,00.html
The IRS even has a form you can fill out if you believe a tax exempt organization is ‘coloring outside the lines’.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf
BBD,
Your socialist delusions are showing:
What you do not have is any right to cheat the system by buying a disproportionate amount of influence because you are rich.
We need of transparency of funding. Not of little nobodies like you but of the big players.
We are rapicly approaching Marlowe’s assertion that democracy is only possible when everyone has the exact same amount of money.
In BBD’s mind, the little people, the gullible people, the not-quite-competent people need protection from the evil, rich, powerful people. Surely BBD will volunteer to make the rules that level the playing field – at least per BBD’s agenda.
It’s part of world view where rich are evil and regular people are not powerful. It leads to all manner of perfidity and eventually to totalitarianism; or, at a minimum, tyranny by the majority.
If BBD could adjust his thinking to allow that all people are competent and capable, not easily fooled, and not needing of protection, a more rationl world view might emerge. One in which us little people can be exposed to a variety of opinions – from various factions, both rich and poor; some right and some wrong; some well intentioned, some less so – and could be trusted to sift through it all and govern ourselves.
BBD, of course, imagines himself one of the enlightened, who can decide right/wrong lies/truth good/evil. I’ve asked before, but must inquire again: on what basis BBD, do you grant yourself such high esteem.
BBD,
What cheat?
You claim it is a cheat to be private but offer no rationale for it. As usual.
as to your strange idea that private groups must be open and fully disclosed or they are anti-democratic: bunk.
government organizatins must be open, because we all pay for them. my personal life, including who I choose to associate with, and what I believe about politics or religion or about the color of your car is MY business, not yours. I do NOT have to disclose them to some smug self-righteous twit like you. And I especailly do not have to divulge this to some government censor.
You have a profound level of ignorance or bad intentions towards a civil society. My bet at this point is you are both ignorant and badly intentioned.
martha,
Your universe is so different from the real world.
HI is doing nothing that Greenpeace, 10:10, WWF, etc. etc. etc. is not doing every single day. As to Gleick, in America committing fraud over the internet by misrepresenting your self as someone else is in fact a crime. And in California, stealing someone’s ID on line is a crime as well. But good luck with your fantasies.
For the nth time,
Yes, I have understood you every time.
I’m saying that HI should be widely exposed as a peddler of pseudo-science and disinformation,
Then you are free to tell everyone that this is your opinion. You are not allowed to do anything to interfere with HI sharing it’s opinion – even if is different than yours, no matter how strongly you feel about it.
and its principal funders made public.
No, this is a direct restriction on free speech. Unconsitutional in America. Anti-democratic on either side of the Atlantic.
The public has both a need and a democratic right to know
No, they do not. They have a right to disagree and voice a different opinion. And they can do so anonymously without fear of reprisal. the rest of us can evaluate the arguments and decide for ouselves, like grownups.
who is trying to cheat the system.
HI (and it’s opposition, and the other “institutions”) are not cheating the system. They are participating in democracy. They are providing a public service, they are putting their opinions into the arean, the clash of ideas. Not all ideas are good. So what.
The public doesn’t need protection, they are fully capable of deciding for themselves on the merit of the message, not the identity of the messenger.
And now I am in moderation. Bummer.
kdk33,
BBD has painted himself into a corner and has been floundering for most of this week. history is replete with examples of why his ideas are pure bolsh. But he just pretends it ain’t so. I think, sadly, he is probably representative of a fair amount fo the pathology of the AGW movement: They are deranged that only total control over political thought will staisfy them.
BBD:
Do you think HI has not sufficiently been called out by those who agree with you that they are wicked anti-science anti-climate mercenaries?
Does it bother you that they are still getting lots of support from private people? It must bother you more when you find out they have actually increased their funding as a result of Gleick’s crime and the relentless attacks by your friends. What next then? People have heard your message about how wicked they are and it is not working.
Oh, that’s right. You need a list, so you can “speak” to those who have so far not listened to your enlightenment.
You are really rather transparent on this, BBD.
hunter and kdk33
You are both beyond the reach of reason. God knows I have tried, but your responses above are just more proof that you cannot be reached. Anything I say now will be repeats of repeats of repeats and I am too fed up to bother. Be happy in the darkness.
Goodnight.
Lewis,
It means that all of the extremists who sold out their principals and tossed away their moral compass to maintaint hte fiction that their cause is somehow morally superior to skeptics just wasted their efforts.
as someone who has been insulted, had my compassion called into question, who has lost business over this, who has been insulted in my ownhome becuase I have dared to dount the consensus, this is a pretty good deal. not as good as what will likely come out withe climategate 3.0, but pretty good never theless. For a believer to tell me it means nothign now is a bit of sour grpaes.
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:5
NiV,
BBD’s unintended irony is completely amazing. If he was a 2.3 meter tall basketball player drowning in the shallow end of a pool I could not be more amazed. Notice he yet to once make a meaningful topical answer. It is like maybe he is unable to do so. CDS, indeed.
BBD,
I hope you sleep well.
BBD,
Don’t let things ‘exhaust’ you that are meaningless.
Hunter,
It would be impossible to ‘insult’ you, because you are above that!
NiV, Now we’re on to John? Now he was friend of mine (and still is, mad ‘poet’ that I am) . Try I Corinthians 13:
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Also, ‘as it is written’:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
And the antecedent:
When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
Why are there limits on anonymous donations to politicians?
#143,
It’s one of those worldview things. Some people’s minds are so firmly entrenched in one context – it’s not simply that they disagree with other viewpoints, they genuinely cannot understand them. Some call it “cultural competence”, although the term has unfortunately got taken over by the specifically ethnic context.
It’s a mental skill that takes practice to be able to do – I prefer to call it ‘paradigm switching’. The first stage is to be able to think in one particular paradigm – the one you’re first educated in, usually. The second stage is to recognise that there are other paradigms, and that other people sometimes use them. The third stage is to understand how a different paradigm works, and be able to translate. The fourth and most advanced stage is where you are able to utilise several different paradigms, and you can select between them which is the best tool for addressing a particular problem.
It’s a particularly valuable problem-solving skill for mathematicians and scientists – if the problem looks awkward and messy in one paradigm, try a different one. It’s often the case that when you look at it the right way, all the complexities fall away and you see the simple solution as immediate and obvious. Abstraction, generalisation, simplification, approximation. It gets easier with practice, and has wide application outside of science too. I’m very used to it, and I sometimes have to remember that others may struggle to keep up.
BBD seems stuck on stage one. On some topics at least. It’s very hard to explain to someone who can’t do it that other people really can think in different ways.
Yeah Kdk33,
but the greatest of these is charity.
The Greek Caractas? – which meant love and sacrifice.
Keith, we might as well have the whole thing, but if you think it to much, please scrub:
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become assounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; 7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. 12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
another great post from Megan McArdle: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/why-we-should-act-to-stop-global-warming-and-why-we-wont/253752/#disqus_thread
NiV @ 149 –
I agree with what you say. Sometimes I think it is very much easier if you’ve been in a position where you’ve found it necessary to adopt a whole new world view. However, I don’t think that is actually true – many people I encounter who’ve changed their fundamental paradigm are even less able to switch to (or even recognise) other paradigms – including their previous ones. BBD may be an example of this – being more open-minded in a previous life as a like-warmer, and now dogmatic as a believer. Something like being born-again – it doesn’t lead to greater understanding, quite the reverse.
Besides that, with the climate debate, there seems to me to be something of an asymmetry. A conversation I had here with OPatrick a while ago concerned the fact that it was easier for me to put myself in the position of someone alarmed about the future of the climate, than it was for OPatrick to envisage a view with no worry in it. I can imagine the worry very easily, but to OPatrick, the view without worry is just wrong and as it seems so obvious (er, to him..) then the obvious answer is that people who don’t see the need for concern are wilfully not seeing it ie they’re lying.
It sounds a bit arrogant but since I’ve had views that have felt certain, I can understand that position too. I can understand Peter Gleick and his certainty about climate change, the importance of it, and the absolute distinction between good and evil involved. It’s not just fundamentalism, but fanaticism – which allows him to contravene such things as his own beliefs about fraud and lying, because the greater good (ie his fanatical belief) is at stake.
Gleick, I assume, is not able to believe that people he disagrees with also believe they are working towards something good – otherwise he would understand them. Understanding them, his ethics would prevent him from discarding his own moral standards.
It’s odd. It seems to me that most of the panic about the future of the climate is the product of imagination – it certainly doesn’t have much to do with reasoning or science. However, what is needed to understand other people who have a different world view is also imagination, but it appears that those who have overly much in the case of the former, have painfully little left to do the latter.
Who wants to bet when the rest of the ClimateGate e-mails are released? I would guess it to be fairly obvious, as in directly prior to the release of AR5.
The IPCC get togethers are fading into the background.
The only impact it will have is probably making Michael Mann’s head explode.
Lewis Deane et al
I think the original sense of charity rendered in a modern idiom would be ‘love’.
Assuming that the message that the New Testament hadn’t been lost by that point…
@ 154
I have a suspicion that there’s nothing left of interest, and that the ‘threat’ of further releases is just something to put the frighteners on Jones and Mann etc.
It’s been a whole day since Latimer’s post. Surely it must be time to proclaim another nail in the coffin , or at least a new bit of crumble from the edifice? No?
One reads such bloviating, then turns to the tables of contents of Science, Nature, et al for evidence of this ‘crumbling’. Talk about cognitive whiplash.
11When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. 12Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity.c All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.
13Three things will last forever””faith, hope, and love””and the greatest of these is love.
The WUWT contributors are compiling this timeline of events:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/28/the-fakegate-timeline-from-soup-to-nuts/
The plot thickens.
P.S. #148. Dave H
“Why are there limits on anonymous donations to politicians?”
As I understand it, with these new ‘Super PACs’ there are no limits. Although they are ostensibly not directly “to” politicians, they are.
It’s from the redneck bible. We don’t use such big words. Not being so smart and educated and all. But it’s good to see a little bible on CaS
I’m for some reason reminded of one of the closing lines in A River Runs Through It:
Each one of here today will at one time in our lives look upon a loved one who is in need and ask the same question: We are willing help, Lord, but what, if anything, is needed? For it is true we can seldom help those closest to us. Either we don’t know what part of ourselves to give or, more often than not, the part we have to give is not wanted. And so it those we live with and should know who elude us. But we can still love them – we can love completely without complete understanding.
@157 Steve,
Do you really think the organs of AGW propaganda are going to follow this very closely or accurately? They have managed to misrepresent climate science for decades. Why would they stop now?
@144 Lewis,
You say it is impossible, but here you are, giving it a go. Never say never. I find it impressive you are reduced to quoting scripture. I assume you skipped over the same parts Peter Gleick did about bearing false witness and honest testimony?
Hunter,
As usual you don’t read – because strangely enough, I’m supposedly on your side, though I’m on no ones side, except it be those who I feel need ‘defence’! No, I quoted the whole lot because Kdk33 etc and I were passing quotes and I thought “Why not, it’s probably the only good passage in the New Testament?!” Except for Pontius Pilots “What is Truth?” For which he never staid for an answer!
Keith @81
“Did Gleick go too far? I’m not sure he did, but I do wonder whether some climate scientists go anywhere near far enough.”
So how would you interpret that?
Surely you would interpret that in the obvious way – that Gleick may (or possibly may not) have gone too far, but there are some who aren’t doing enough? The ideal would probably be somewhere in the middle.
Garvey is arguing, and this is pretty obvious from the rest of his article, that there are many people who aren’t doing enough to stand up for their science through the usual, acceptable methods available. Gleick’s actions were probably as a result of this, either borne out of desperation or possibly some sort of calculated sacrifice. Any other interpretation would seem to come from a wilful misreading of the peice, or possibly a reading of other’s wilful misreadings.
@EdG
SuperPACs represent a way to circumvent the rules on anonymous contributions. That they exist at all demonstrates those rules exist – so, I repeat, why do they?
SuperPACs represent a way to circumvent the rules on anonymous contributions. That they exist at all demonstrates those rules exist ““ so, I repeat, why do they?
Superpacs are a lesson to those who would restrict free speech by restricting money. The limit on contributions (and some other laws, but I’m no expert) are a misguided effort to do just that. SuperPACS demonstrate the futility of such efforts.
#153,
Good point. Although in that case I’d say they saw it as a case of error rather than simply a different way of thinking, and their certainty is based partly on having constructed a more detailed argument to persuade themselves, and on having to consciously suppress their inclinations towards their old way of thinking. They have to be harsh to stop themselves thinking that way, and that spills over onto other people. People like to be helpful, and they have an insight that they believe helped them enormously.
But from BBD I don’t get disagreement, as one would expect of a convert, but incomprehension. I say something that doesn’t fit his worldview of the clear and obvious, and yet he knows I’m not stupid. So he leaps to the conclusion that I must be being dishonest, because I couldn’t possibly not see the world his way. He doesn’t say “Oh, I used to think that, but…”
Perhaps I should have said that the first stage is when you believe there is only one valid paradigm, and all others are error.
#164,
Garvey’s article is a version of the famous Schneider quote, which I always get into trouble for leaving the end off. “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but “” which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
There are all sorts of problems with that, ethical and scientific, but perhaps the most significant is the one Megan McCardle identified: “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” The big question therefore is, why are these guys holding this conversation out in public?
#165,
The theory is that politicians act as agents for the public, but there is a problem separating an agent’s personal interests from the public’s, so the public get more visibility of their private affairs to ensure they’re sticking to the deal. It’s an exception to the rules made because government is itself an exception to the rules. The theory doesn’t work, though – exceptions to these rules are inherently inconsistent and unstable.
But a more simple explanation is that BBD is not alone in his view that society has the right to monitor and regulate every aspect of people’s private lives, and some politician in the past has foolishly decided to pander to them in exchange for votes.
It’s easy enough for the incumbent oligarchs to get around. They can use intermediaries, they can use covert means, or they can simply use their power and influence to persuade the public that their funders are the good guys. Anybody new coming along, with new ideas and no already established base of power and reputation is vulnerable to attack by this route. A couple of new start-up UK parties have been disposed of this way – not through arguing about their policies, but by attacking the way they’re funded.
The case under discussion here is similar. Those here arguing for Heartland’s funders know perfectly well (because I’ve told them) that funding to drive public opinion has been massively in the Greens’ favour. Green NGOs are definitely a subset of the megarich. But they’re not worried about that, because they know that nobody on the other side has the power to challenge the Green multinationals, and because they’ve used their power to ensure that ‘Green’ is seen as virtuous.
However, knowing their opponents funders would enable them to attack Heartland by pointing out funding from those they have previously presented as ‘baddies’, and attack the other funders by harassment, persecution, and bad publicity, and thereby deprive anyone who might challenge them of any significant funding with which to do so. They don’t mind people opposing them so long as they have no power to do anything about it. They justify this with a “because I’m right and you’re wrong” attitude.
All totalitarians think of themselves as the good guys – it’s OK for the state to have such powers and for there to be no place for opposition to hide because it’s being done to ensure the right outcome. Bad people and wrong ideas should obviously not be given any power to mess things up. The right to freedom obviously doesn’t mean the freedom to do bad things. It would be a charter for wickedness to prevail if we allowed that sort of thing, which is just ridiculous! The Enlightenment philosophers couldn’t possibly have meant that.
Willard commented on the ‘Yes, but freedom!” tendencies of libertarians on the previous thread. This I would call the “Yes freedom, but…” tendency of those who think there is only one right way to believe, and the ends justify the means.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
@NiV
> The theory is that politicians act as agents for the public, but there is a problem separating an agent’s personal interests from the public’s, so the public get more visibility of their private affairs to ensure they’re sticking to the deal
So, understanding that money is a prime motivating factor, I have to know where a politician’s money is coming from so that I can better judge whose interest they are really acting in, correct?
Irrespective of whether you like it or not, that is why these rules exist, yes or no?
#168,
You don’t need to know whose interests they’re acting in. All you need to know is whether they’re acting in yours.
NiV
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Exactly. Transparency is essential to functional democracy. Opacity is the tool of special interest.
NiV
You don’t need to know whose interests they’re acting in. All you need to know is whether they’re acting in yours.
Impossible if you don’t know who’s paying the piper. Also shockingly naive. Not what I expect from you at all.
Oh, and can we not go down the well-trodden path of blatantly misrepresenting me? I get enough of that from Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee.
I have *never* said this:
But a more simple explanation is that BBD is not alone in his view that society has the right to monitor and regulate every aspect of people’s private lives,
Cease and desist.
#171,
You don’t need to know who pays the piper – the question is: do you like the tune?
If you don’t like the tune they’re playing, you know they’re not working for you so don’t vote for them. Why do you need to know anything more than that?
#172 BBD, I would suggest BBD, by not even understanding what it is you demand in your faux democracy that you are suffering from CDS.
#172,
Are you saying that I am not allowed to say that you seem to think you have the right to regulate what I can or cannot say?
@NiV
You’re now arguing the merits of these rules. But the rules exist for a reason, and you seem to have accepted that that reason is to give voters the knowledge of the presence of a conflict of interest.
According to you, politicians should be permitted to take anonymous campaign contributions. I’ve gone round in circles with you on this before – you flit between an idealised version of your free-market interpretation of politics, and when that is criticised on a theoretical basis you switch to practicalities. Wash, rinse, repeat.
So, I’m taking this one step at a time in an effort to avoid long time-wasting detours. Rules exist to prevent politicians from taking anonymous donations. Are we in accord as to why those rules exist *irrespective of your personal views of the merits*?
NiV
Are you saying that I am not allowed to say that you seem to think you have the right to regulate what I can or cannot say?
I am saying do not make up false statements then attribute them to me. Since – astonishingly – you are querying this, please find the comment or comment where I argue that:
But a more simple explanation is that BBD is not alone in his view that society has the right to monitor and regulate every aspect of people’s private lives
I repeat: stop misrepresenting me. Do not do it again or I will call you out again.
BBD,
Perhaps if you actually said what you believe in depth, so many people would not do, as you claim, and misrepresent what you are saying.
Can you give it a go?
Dave H,
Yes, and those rules are good. So what?
#158 Kdk33,
These ‘modernes’ don’t half take away the poetry in things!
If you don’t like the tune they’re playing, you know they’re not working for you so don’t vote for them. Why do you need to know anything more than that?
Because things change. Without knowing who’s pumping money into whom you have insufficient information to ‘like the tune’. You need the score, not just a few whistled notes.
Anyway, answer Dave H. It sounds as though he’s been round the block with you before and is keenly aware of your obfuscatory tendencies. Over to him for now…
@Hunter #179
NiV says of those rules:
> If you don’t like the tune they’re playing, you know they’re not working for you so don’t vote for them. Why do you need to know anything more than that?
Thus seems to think those rules are redundant.
#176,
“Rules exist to prevent politicians from taking anonymous donations.”
True.
“Are we in accord as to why those rules exist…?”
If by “why” you mean “with the intention of preventing politicians taking anonymous donations”, then yes.
Nullius in Verba @167
Garvey’s article is a version of the famous Schneider quote
No it isn’t.
Individuals cannot contribute more then 2% or $5,000 (whichever is greater )of a 501(c)3 organizations budget ‘anonymously’, as least not as ‘individuals’. They would be reported to the IRS on schedule B of form 990. The IRS considers the names of those individuals to be ‘confidential’.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990ezb.pdf
There may be special rules that apply to ‘foundations’ since Foundations are themselves Tax Exempt organizations and as such there is no question as to whether the foundation would exert ‘undue influence’ on the 501(c) charity which would result in ‘personal financial gain’.
It seems to me the rules in the US are reasonably well thought out in an effort to distinguish between a ‘donation’ and a ‘bribe’.
OPatrick,
Yes and you know it is. Stop parsing. It’s so embarrasing!
It was the superPAC lobby that insisted on anonymous donation limits. See, they know full well that such rules are counterproductive and ineffective, and that, as soon as the rules were passed, they could propose the superPAC concept to get around the rules. And skim a little off the top. This was an example of a institution, superPACs, lobbying the government for special favors. They played the BBD’s of the world rather effectively, I would judge.
/sarcoff
ps. Dave H., 2 wrongs don’t make right. The existence of bad rules doesn’t justify more bad rules.
Lewis Deane, the Schneider quote is about simplifying and dramatising the science to present it to the public. Where is this in Garvey’s article?
#188,
It’s about whether one can compromise honesty for effectiveness.
NiV
Sorry, do you mean the Garvey piece? If so, would you mind providing the relevant quotes to back this assertion up?
#190,
“Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?”
“If his lie has good effects overall ““ if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press ““ then perhaps on balance he did the right thing.”
Lack of honesty being justified by its effectiveness, yes?
Garvey is not advocating that others follow Gleick’s example.
The believers are desperately trying to turn this conversation into a discussion of election finance.
The conversation is about how low the AGW community has fallen irt to its ethics. Deflection into politicians has little to do with this, unless we are giong to review how big enviro and green think tanks like Pacific Institute use public money to in effect lobby politiicans while pretending to do science or other work. The real focus of CDS is the believers who rationalize wrong diong by their guys, people like Gleick, or Hansen, or sadly, Andy Lacis, in either committing crimes, enriching themselves or rationlizations of crimes.
BBD’s dictotrial fantasies, while endlessly entertinaing are just a cheap diversion. He is never going to be appointed list monitor, much less hall monitor, of free speech. He is just obsessed with endlessly making his tawdry and disgusting assaults on freedom.
Blaming Heartland Institute, which literally did not one thing wrong for either existing or being defrauded by Peter Gleick is only a demonstration that those here engaging in those tactics have as little regard for integrity and the law as Peter Gleick. the interesting question is how much of AGW is infected and to what level with the same corruption?
As to pulling funding, Mr. Koch has some thoughts on that:
http://www.kochfacts.com/kf/ckf-confrontsnyt/
the slimeballs in media that broadcast this crime and have refused to do anything to communicate with their readers the truth are no better than Gleick when you get down to it.
if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press ““ then perhaps on balance he did the right thing.
How sad. Now we know why BBD (and others) wants the list. And if donors don’t pull out due to bad press, what next?
#192,
Neither was Schneider, if you read it carefully. All he said was that it was a decision each scientist had to come to, and there was no simple formula to answer the question. He didn’t say scientists shouldn’t all come down on the side of honesty.
Garvey avoids committing himself to the position by phrasing it in the form of questions. But if people do consider Gleick’s lies to be justified, why shouldn’t others follow his example?
Garvey avoids committing himself to the position by phrasing it in the form of questions.
No, Garvey is discussing whether Gleick’s actions might be justified. He’s not avoiding committing himself to a position by asking questions, he’s saying that at the moment he doesn’t know – asking questions is part of the process of reaching that conclusion, it is not an avoidance.
If your claim that Garvey’s article was a version of Schneider’s argument is just based on the observation that both discuss ethical decisions that climate scientists might need to make then that is trivially true.
But Garvey’s discussion of what scientists should be doing is separate from his discussions about whether or not Gleick’s actions were justified. In fact his only suggestion for others is in the final sentence – they should do more to engage in the debate.
NiV @ 191
I’m more in agreement with OPatrick’s reading here (197 final para). Although this has cleared up a potential misunderstanding:
I thought you meant that Gleick was supposed to have lied about the science – which is of course fundamental to Schneider’s meaning.
Obviously it’s Heartland that is lying about the science in order to be ‘effective’. Good to get that cleared up.
@198,
BBD, in your delusions it would be nice if you could still the difference between your opinion and fact.
It would be even more impressive if you knew the difference between disagreement and lying.
But you really are incapable of this, apparently. Reading you is similar to dealing with a mildly autistic person who can only stick to one script on a topic and hopes if they just repeat it enough and ignore the questinos they will eventually get out of the situation.
NiV: If you don’t like the tune they’re playing, you know they’re not working for you so don’t vote for them. Why do you need to know anything more than that?
BBD: Because things change. Without knowing who’s pumping money into whom you have insufficient information to “˜like the tune’.
—————————————————————————
Wow. this is like ad hominem in extremis. I can’t know if I like a piece of legislation until I know who supports it enough to give money.
At this point, I’m wondering if mental illness is out of the question.
#198,
And Schneider and Garvey are saying that it is an open question whether Heartland is justified in doing so? Is that your position?
Seriously, I hadn’t intended any statement, one way or the other, on that point. To discuss it we would need some specific examples to consider. But it’s a complete diversion from the topic of the thread, which is the general reaction of the climate community to Glieck’s wire fraud, and the wisdom of trying to argue (or even ask the question) that lies and criminality on the part of climate scientists are justified by the desire to stop Heartland’s entirely legal political free speech.
Most sensible people, I think, would agree that it’s clearly not, and it’s unwise even to be seen questioning it. It’s illegal, unethical, unprofessional, unscientific, and tactically suicidal. It is profound idiocy for which there is no excuse. The general willingness of the community to provide, or even hint at excuses is therefore a sight that should deeply disturb any innocent supporter of the AGW consensus.
As Megan said, “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.” This is obvious and trivial, and a point even groups like Heartland well understand. I should think Heartland are bouncing up and down with glee at this general implosion. Why are you helping them?
NiV
And Schneider and Garvey are saying that it is an open question whether Heartland is justified in doing so? Is that your position?
I did not understand either Schneider or Garvey to advocate lying, no. Also I very much doubt Schneider would endorse HI were he alive now and Garvey is openly critical of it.
I should think Heartland are bouncing up and down with glee at this general implosion. Why are you helping them?
Helping HI by pointing out that it is responsible for fake science propaganda? You have me there.
But it’s a complete diversion from the topic of the thread
Which you introduced. But thanks for clarifying.
hunter and kdk33
I have stopped reading your comments so there is no need to continue addressing them to me.
Thanks.
NiV
Interestingly, while we are touching on the deliberate deception of students, the Guardian has more on the HI’s infiltration of the curriculum
Now this is very, very naughty. Are you going to defend this too?
An associate of the Heartland Institute, the thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change, taught a course at a top Canadian university that contained more than 140 false, biased and misleading claims about climate science, an expert audit has found.
The course at Ottawa’s Carleton University, which is being accused of bias, was taught for four terms from 2009-2011 by Tom Harris, a featured expert at the Heartland Institute.
[…]
A team of scientists, who reviewed the videotapes of Harris’s lectures provided by the university, found 142 false, biased and misleading claims. The course, which is not intended for science majors, may for many students be the only academic exposure they have to climate change while earning their undergraduate degree.
The report found the course under Harris’s direction systematically deviated from the scientific mainstream on climate change, embracing extreme opinion.
“The content of this particular course is heavily biased against the scientific consensus concerning the anthropogenic causes of dangerous climate change,” the report from the Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Scepticism said. “The unbalanced nature of the course, the lack of peer-reviewed literature cited, and the non-science audience mean that the course fails to constitute ‘promotion of debate’ and instead merely presents a biased and inaccurate portrayal of contemporary climate science.”
[…]
“It was fairly shocking really,” said Chris Hassall, one of the team that wrote the report. “To look through some of the claims and to find that he was spinning those things as either a scientific debate, or muddying the waters on the extent of the consensus in scientific literature, or providing theories that really lacked empirical evidence ““ it happened time and time again and we document it extensively.”
The report, coming on the heels of the revelations about Heartland, offers further evidence that the misinformation campaign against climate change is becoming more entrenched in the academic arena.
@200 kdk33,
I thought you noticed that question had been answered days ago.
What kind of insecure weak minded person cannot maike up their mind if they like a song unless they know who wrote it, or even more strangely, financed it? The historical illiteracy, the lack of scruples or independent judgement, the derivative outlook on life that the BBD’s of the world embrace is on no way an indication of mental health, to be sure.
MiV,
Notice how BBD’s article relies on confusing ‘consensus’ with ‘good science’, as if science is some sort of religoius movmeent, and not a constantly changing on-going debate and discovery process. It is clear the BBD’s of the world cling to their AGW as a pseudo-religion that permits them to be as reactionary as any fundamentalist Moslem, Hindu, Chrisitan, etc.
@NiV
As I expected, this is futile. I was as clear as it is possible to be, and said:
> that reason is to give voters the knowledge of the presence of a conflict of interest.
Yet you still avoid giving a straight answer to whether or not you agree that this is the reason the rules exist. Once again, I wash my hands of this exchange.
@kdk33, likewise, given that I can’t find common ground on the rationale for having the rules in the first place – a really, really basic first step – I see no point discussing the merits, especially not as filtered through value judgements.
#206 – Well then, may as well just cut to the chase and call it Consensusism. And, yes, there definitely are Consensus fundamentalists who see IPCC reports as infalliable scriptures just like other religious fundamentalists read their books literally.
The parallels are endless, and obvious. In terms of irrational religious faith, the whole meme about AGW causing everything – too warm too cold, too calm, too windy, too wet, too dry, too wierd, too normal – pretty much sums up the core delusion.
And apparently Gleick is the new Jimmy Swaggart.
That said, I am all for freedom of religion. If people want to believe Jimmy Swaggart or Jimmy Hansen that is up to them. But I am even more in favor of the separation of church and state – particularly a religion like AGW which wants to impose its radical beliefs on everyone.
Keith
First, there has been the periodic jostling among Republican Presidential contenders on climate-related issues, with the loudest of them asserting that climate science is a big hoax. How does this fringe view play to moderate Republicans and Independents? We can probably judge by Jon Huntsman’s one meaningful contribution to the campaign. So while there may be tepid public support for action on climate change, it doesn’t follow that a large percentage of the electorate thinks climate science is bogus. Such extreme rhetoric, which has become the GOP position on climate change, has marginal appeal beyond its Tea Party base. Generally speaking, it probably harms Republicans more than it helps them
I read here and there that Fox News is in part actively responsible for the degeneration of the Republican Party nominations into the rather grotesque charade we have recently witnessed.
This is an interesting notion, but being British and based in the UK I am far from well placed to assess to what extent it may be true.
Would you agree that this has been the case? That nowadays ‘Fox doesn’t work for the GOP, the GOP works for Fox’ (or words to that effect)?
#207,
I will admit that I did almost ask what you considered the reason to be on which we were supposed to be agreeing – as I didn’t find it clear – but decided against on the grounds you would probably interpret that as evasion.
You said you wanted to take it one step at a time.
“So, I’m taking this one step at a time in an effort to avoid long time-wasting detours. Rules exist to prevent politicians from taking anonymous donations.”
I assumed that since the statement immediately followed your request to take a step, that this was what you wanted me to agree with. Which I did.
Now it turns out that you actually meant the earlier bit
“you seem to have accepted that that reason is to give voters the knowledge of the presence of a conflict of interest.”
where you were already under the impression that I had agreed to it. So if you knew I had agreed to it, why were you asking again? Why did you say the reason was to prevent anonymous donations if you really meant it was to inform voters of a conflict of interest? And how was I supposed to know that I was supposed to agree with the bit you said we had already come to an agreement on?
For the sake of clarity, while I think it blindingly obvious that application of the rule will not inform the voters whether there is a conflict of interest, I would agree that some delusion of that sort was probably the intention of the rulemakers. As such I would agree with the statement that this is likely to be ‘the reason’ for the rule. Does that move us on? Or are we about to go on a long detour?
Nullius in Verba @201
And Schneider and Garvey are saying that it is an open question whether Heartland is justified in doing so?
Taken to the extreme yes, it’s an open question – you would need to be seriously deficient in imagination to be unable to cobble together some scenario in which lying about science would be justified. However, looking at the ends to which Heartland are working that opening would very quickly be closed.
trying to argue (or even ask the question) that lies and criminality on the part of climate scientists are justified by the desire to stop Heartland’s entirely legal political free speech.
That is not what is being argued. The question being raised is are there justifications for this one action by Gleick. I think there is little doubt about whether he can continue as a ‘climate scientist’ having taken these steps, I’d be surprised if anyone is arguing that he should. His actions are not compatible with being a scientist and he stepped out of that community when he took these actions. It is not a question about scientific credibility.
Most sensible people, I think, would agree that it’s clearly not
Most sensible people, if they thought about it, would accept that decisions such as these are not clear cut. As I said above, if you frame this as being the actions of a scientist, as part of the scientific endeavour, then his actions are obviously wrong. But if you see it as someone making a difficult, and perhaps desperate, personal choice to act then the ethics are much more nuanced. In particular, most sensible people looking at the patent dishonesty of publications such as the NIPCC report woud recognise that there are viable moral justifications for actions that would otherwise be considered wrong.
@211 OPatrick,
Gleick’s perception of desperation was not based on honesty or truth. the idea that defrauding HI, no matter how wicked they may be, is going to result in a world saving climate changing break through is delusional.
As to your imlication that somehow HI is an evil player in the public square- that is, to put it diplomatically, your opinion.
# 209 – You are lucky enough to have the BBC, a case study in a self-serving and now totally compromised AGW propaganda organ.
It is a combination of Monty Python and the Ministry of Truth. Black’s blogs are hilarious spin and I certainly do miss David Shukman’s Daily AGW Doomsday Report – which have almost disappeared since those Climategate emails that don’t matter came out
So they made Shukman their ‘science’ boss. LOL.
No need to study Fox. And it does not survive on the forced payments of the little people but is extremely popular because people CHOOSE to watch it.
And it is not a ’cause’ of polarization as much as a symptom.
Do those on the consensus side who are cheering on Gleick even stop to wonder why those who oppose them are also cheering him on?
#211,
The principle problem with that view is that it is a matter of controversy whether Heartland are being dishonest, just as it is a matter of controversy whether mainstream climate scientists and activists are.
This is something that the believers seem to have extreme difficulty getting their heads around. The people in Heartland are genuinely as firmly convinced that the CAGWists are the liars as you are convinced that they are.
And yet they also understand that even though they are confident that they are facing liars and criminals bent on diverting the world economy and governance down a dangerous path, that fraud and forgery in the cause of proving it would not be justified, that using dirty tactics would only rebound on their own credibility. Which I think it would.
It wasn’t a difficult and desperate choice – it was someone angry at losing the argument, deluded into thinking there was some grand conspiracy, and whose criminal act to try to obtain evidence to confirm their beliefs revealed nothing of the sort. At which point – and this bit might indeed have been desperation – he relied on a blatant forgery to try to frame his victim.
The US has free speech as a constitutional right. That includes the speech of people who you deeply disagree with, who say things you may be utterly convinced are false. They are allowed to raise money from like-minded people to support them saying it. You are not allowed to stop them doing it by criminal means, just as they are not allowed to stop you. They are allowed to say it. Not even the police can conduct illegal searches. This isn’t even a difficult ethical issue. Not liking what somebody says is not a good excuse to rob them.
And Heartland undoubtedly feel seven sorts of vindicated to find you lot saying that you think it is.
NiV
The principle problem with that view is that it is a matter of controversy whether Heartland are being dishonest
[…]
And yet they also understand that even though they are confident that they are facing liars and criminals bent on diverting the world economy and governance down a dangerous path, that fraud and forgery in the cause of proving it would not be justified, that using dirty tactics would only rebound on their own credibility. Which I think it would.
Interesting. So lying about climate science to children and college students doesn’t count as ‘using dirty tactics’ (see 204)? And so presumably cannot rebound on HI?
Incidentally, how do you know that HI is ‘genuinely‘ and firmly convinced that it is in the right? I only ask as since it fakes so much science it must by now be aware that the vast majority of published work on AGW directly contradicts its position. Surely this would raise some doubts as to the correctness of that position?
#211
most sensible people looking at the patent dishonesty of publications such as the NIPCC report
I lived thru all kinds of ‘patently dishonest’ information campaigns. Communist Party nonsense on my doorstep, Ku Klux Klan nonsense on my doorstep…you name it..
It’s up to me to determine what ‘weight’ I should give to so-called facts given out by such groups.
It’s not up to Dr Gleick to determine what ‘views’ I should be limited to hearing.
We let Roseanne Barr go on TV and give her ‘expert’ advice about how ‘fire doesn’t melt steel’. I’m absolutely certain Roseanne Bar does not know the temperature at which steel becomes malleable.
Some small group of people believes Roseanne Barr’s ‘metallurgical expert’ advice.
So what?
The only way to stop the Roseanne Barr’s of the world spouting nonsense that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of metallurgy could debunk is to have a ‘ministry of truth’.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
@215 NiV,
You have sumed up well the dysfunction the believers are refusing to acknowledge: that their opinion of truth is not a fact.
Theirs would be a child-like faith if it was not accompanied by so many threats and such amoral (and immoral) rationalizations. Look at BBD, still pretending that he has made anything like a convincing case that Heartland Institute was doing anything other than expressing their sincerely held opinion. He confabulates a plan to offer teaching resources that show there is in fact controversy about climate science with lying to children.
That he and his fellow true believers persist in these bald assertions with nothing more than their spittle flecked anger to support them is a sad display af just what this thread is about: Climate Derangement Syndrome.
Nullius in Verba @215
The principle problem with that view is that it is a matter of controversy whether Heartland are being dishonest, just as it is a matter of controversy whether mainstream climate scientists and activists are.
Why is that a problem, except in the sense that all ethical questions are problematic? Of course it’s a matter of controversy, but there is evidence that can, and should, be weighed that allows us to come to reasoned conclusions. The evidence against Heartland is very strong. Anyone looking at the NIPCC report in context would attest to that.
216 “So lying about climate science to children and college students doesn’t count as “˜using dirty tactics’ (see 204)? And so presumably cannot rebound on HI?”
Well we know that that has rebounded back on Gore et al, and on the whole AGW project. Of course, they tell actual lies, like this beauty:
“Laurie David is a children’s author and Gore’s sidekick. She didn’t like that CO2 lagged temperatures in the ice core record, so she simply reversed the relationship in her children’s book.”
http://www.real-science.com/laurie-david
But when your religion is headed by a zealot who screams ‘voodoo science’ when confronted with errors, it becomes standard operating procedure to lie. Because they believe, for a variety of noble to not-noble reasons, that THEIR ends justify any means.
Even showing kiddie shock films as the intro to Copenhagen
is AOK with them. Fearmongering is what they do.
Now what actual “lies” did the HI tell?
EdG @ 220
Now what actual “lies” did the HI tell?
See 204 for a shining example.
Look at BBD, still pretending that he has made anything like a convincing case that Heartland Institute was doing anything other than expressing their sincerely held opinion.
You are giving BBD too much credit. He doesn’t think he has made the case; he doesn’t think he has too. All good sensible people know that HI is lying – by definition. All good sensible people know that CO2 poses an extinction level threat to humanity – science says. All good sensible people know that “bil oil” and “big money” and “entrenched interests” are purposely scheming to destroy the planet – they are rich, hence evil.
No case making required, just the proper worldview.
Reviewing the shining example.
The report found the course under Harris’s direction systematically deviated from the scientific mainstream on climate change, embracing extreme opinion.
Ergo, they must have been lying. Says the truth squad.
This report works under the same assumption as much left-wing claptrap: that the public, or in this case college kids, are just too stupid to think for themselves. Blindly believing whatever this professor tells them with no ability to investigate on their own. Diligently and unquestioningly doing as they are taught by their elders – hence the need to censor the elders.
Which makes 60’s hippies right wing extremests ;-).
kdk33 in one paragraph:
> This is like ad hominem in extremis.
kdk33 in the next:
> At this point, I’m wondering if mental illness is out of the question.
BBD – Due to the recent historical record I will need to see the specifics of that audit to know what, if any, actual “lies” were told there.
Moreover, if there were lies by this guy – simply described as an “associate” of the HI – does that mean that the HI spread them? Did they tell him what to say?
That would be quite the standard. Based on tales of Himalayan or Kilimanjaro glaciers or so many other things, the IPCC would then definitely qualify as a global lie machine, wouldn’t it? Indeed, what group on the AGW Team wouldn’t?
And of course, with an “associate” like Gleick the AGU is like Pinnochio in a white coat, isn’t it?
Black-white is nice and simple but the real world is gray.
Willard,
cute.
@204
And BBD gives yet another manifestation of the Climate Derangement Syndrome: the inability to tell opinion from fact.
Now “deviating from the consensus” is a lie? Tell that to Galileo. Tell that to nearly every scientific breakthrough. CDS clearly reduces the intellignece levels of those infected.
@222 kdk33, It is really magical thinking with these guys. I thought at first that the recent take down of apocalyptic cults being all about domination games was too far. Now, with the true believers here and elsewhere responding so non-rationally and nearly all of them seeking ways to not only blame the victim but to silence any opposition, I am not so sure.
kdk33,
Another one:
> [BDD] doesn’t think he has made the case; he doesn’t think he has too.
There are cuter ones if we go back in the thread.
Speech provides great power.
From great power comes great responsibility.
hunder,
You talked about a syndrome in 228:
> [T]he inability to tell opinion from fact.
Please tell me how you can tell opinion from fact, and how to collectively decide that.
Besides, YesButGalileo.
BBD – From the report which that Guardian story was based on:
“Executive Summary
1. Climate change represents a challenge to current and future civilisation. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Schools and universities have a responsibility to ensure students understand the scientific basis for climate change.
2. We describe a case in which noted climate change deniers have gained access to the Canadian higher education system through a course taught at Carleton University…
3… we identify 142 claims made during the lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that run counter to established scientific opinion”
Which is, for them, “expressed through peer reviewed publication, synthesis reports and scientific bodies such as the Royal Society of Canada, but perhaps most importantly by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)”
Yes. They even use the term deniers. And include guest lecturers. As expected, this analysis is not coming from anything close to an objective source. They re saying that anything that does not parrot the IPCC view should not be taught. No wonder the Guardian likes it.
I would bet that there are no actual “lies” exposed at all. But I can’t be bothered reading anymore of this kind of spin to find out.
But I couldn’t resist taking a quick look and this is the first “lie” I randomly hit:
“Claim 141. “šPrepare for global cooling.”›
RESPONSE: There is no evidence that we are going to enter a phase of global cooling any time soon. Solar activity and orbital forcings, which are primary drivers of the glacial cycle, are fading already, indicating that we should be entering a phase of cooling [106], [121]. Instead, the continued strengthening of anthropogenic forcings, which are the primary drivers of contemporary warming [6], [7], [9], are expected to produce substantial future warming [91].”
OK. If you say so. And the whole thing is backed by no end of Hansen and IPCC pal reviewed papers.
EdG
Moreover, if there were lies by this guy ““ simply described as an “associate” of the HI ““ does that mean that the HI spread them? Did they tell him what to say?
Tom Harris is listed by HI as an ‘expert’. He advises it. It does not tell him what to say. But it is reasonable to assume (since he is retained by HI as an ‘expert’) that it endorses and shares his views.
His other roles are very interesting too:
Executive Director – International Climate Science Coalition (funded by HI)
Former Executive Director – National Resources Stewardship Project (funded by HI)
Former APCO (!) lobbyist (where he represented oil and energy industry clients)
All familiar names.
Off to bed now.
EdG
I would bet that there are no actual “lies” exposed at all. But I can’t be bothered reading anymore of this kind of spin to find out.
Having read the report, I accept your bet.
Following up on my last post, here’s the link to that report. It is a classic. Note that the group that produced has used the same Orwellian trick as skepticalscience to hiode who they really are:
http://scientificskepticism.ca/sites/default/files/pressreleases/CASSREPORTClimateChangeDenialintheClassroom.pdf
OK BBD, provide an example.
232 – More distraction. Back to the point: What lies? Be specific, not evasive. After all, you brought this accusation and report up.
Much ado about nothing. Heartland is a tiny minnow in a sea of lobbyist giant blue whales who create a much greater spin on everything they have an interest in. Greenpeace, NRDC, The Sierra Club, teachers unions, civil service employee unions, Actblue, are busy spinning the fringes of science their way with 1,000,000 times the money and political weight of Heartland.
If we are going fishing, lets go after the big fish first.
#216,
“Interesting. So lying about climate science to children and college students doesn’t count as “˜using dirty tactics’ (see 204)? And so presumably cannot rebound on HI?”
<Sigh> That’s the point you keep missing. They’re not lying.
They’re telling kids what they see as the truth, to counter what they see as your lies.
You know. The one where you tell them the polar bears are all going to die. The one where they’re going to grow up in a devastated world. The one where the seas are going to rise and drown everyone. The one where you tell them the greenhouse effect works like a greenhouse. The lies.
Because I know for a fact that while the teachers telling them might or might not know they’re garbage, the climate scientists definitely do know they’re being taught in schools and that they’re garbage. And they have such contempt for the intelligence of the general public that they just write that off as the sort of simplification you need to use to get ‘the message’ through. They have to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” They won’t criticise for fear of ‘giving the sceptics ammunition’. Oh yes. They know, and all that stuff is deliberate lies to children.
Not that you have the slightest interest in any of that, eh?
Whether Heartland’s science is always right is another matter (I don’t know, I haven’t paid much attention to them previously), but it is at least honestly offered. Again, your unbendable belief that nobody with any intelligence can possibly hold an honest opinion different to yours leads you astray.
@229 Willard, it is very difficult. There for one errs on the side of tolerance and the rejection of calls to put people on lists. And especially one is cautious about calling what someone is presenting as a ‘lie’, unless it actually meets the definition of ‘lie’.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
“The most commonly accepted definition of lying that manages to avoid these problems is the following: “I take a lie to be an assertion, the content of which the speaker believes to be false, which is made with the intention to deceive the hearer with respect to that content” (Williams 2002, 96);”
Your side, as NiV points out in @238 has made a long list of grievous errors and has stuck by them long after those errors have been pointed out.
It is the opinion of a substantial number of scientists who have looked at the evidence that AGW is not an existential threat to Earth or humans; that the risks of AGW have been over stated.
That is largely what HI believes. The reaction believers have to that opinion is not rational. Look to yourself and stop calling names, defrauding honest groups, slandering those with whom you disagree and grow up. And no, we are not going to overthrow democracy for delusional twits like BBD.
@236,
Now you are going to see BBD either tediously restate his conclusions and call you names, or he will claim he is too good to deal with your likes anymore.
hunter,
Sorry for mispelling your name.
Not long ago, you were talking earlier about BDD’s “inability to tell from opinion and fact.”
Now, if I read you properly, it’s “tough” to distinguish fact from opinion.
Please tell me how you reconcile these stances.
***
Besides, I note two different modalities, depending on the side of the fence you’re painting. Here
> It is the opinion of a substantial number of scientists […]
There:
> The reaction believers have to that opinion is not rational.
On one side, the opinion of a substantial number of scientists on one side.
On the other side, believers reacting irrationnally on one side.
I doubt you painted both “sides” the same color there.
Make that:
> On one side, the opinion of a substantial number of scientists. On the other side, believers reacting irrationnally.
Willard,
To further your understanding. BBD says he cannot evaluate his government representatives until he knows who they take money from. This is nothing but argumentum ad homenim. He nakedly places zero value on the content of the legistlation or the votes of his representatives and bases his entire evaluation on who gives whom money.
This is a simple logical fallacy. BBD is evaluating the message based on some characteristic of the messenger. Moreover, he suggest this is a rational way to approach democracy.
Now in my opinion this is lunacy. Hence, based on my evaluation of BBD’s argument, I am speculating on certain characteristics of BBD – specifically, a mental inability to think rationally. It is only my opinion, and you are free to disagree.
But I want to point out to you, because seem to have missed, that the causative arrow points in opposite directions. BBD evaluates the message based on the characteristics of the messenger. I have evaluated the messenger based on the message. It’s rather simple to see that these are exactly opposites.
Now, your comment seems to imply that I have been inconsistent. I simply don’t see how. Perhaps you could clarify.
Hunter,
I think willard is coming to the rescue of BBD. This could be interesting.
It would be more interesting if he would use small words and simple declarative sentences – I completed the 8th grade, but it was a few years back – he confuses me much with all that fancy talk.
240 – I have already enjoyed that experience on a previous topic, and accepted my inability to see The Truth According to BBD.
BBD probably assumes my deficiences are due to some inherited lizard brain and/or Big Oil brainwashing but I think it is actually a result of climate derangement syndrome. It can’t be avoided, apparently.
242
“On one side, the opinion of a substantial number of scientists. On the other side, believers reacting irrationnally.”
Which side is which? Gleick certainly acted irrationally while a substantial number of scientist are now questioning CAGW.
willard,
Don’t worry about spelling- I obviously don’t, lol.
As to the process of sifting, I again point out tolerance as a key tool. I would also suggest that looking for historical references is very valuable.
I am a bit preoccupied right now with some stuff in the non-blog world, but chew on that a bit. Ask who had to reverse the null hypothesis? Who chose to interfere with the running of science journals? Which side is dealing with Gleickgate and how?
kdk33,
Suppose BDD starts by looking at the scientific output of the Heartland Institute, and finds it dubious.
Suppose also that BDD then looks at the process that created this, and sees a financial dark-gray box, and wants to see inside.
That does not correspond to what your interpretation of BDD’s position at all.
Now, suppose that this is what BDD was saying something like that all along.
Or suppose he’s right in claiming that you’ve built up a strawman and named it “BDD”.
If some of this is true, it will be interesting to return to the content and the basis of all your cognitive attributions so far in the recent threads.
Suppose BDD starts by looking at the scientific output of the Heartland Institute, and finds it dubious.
There is no need to suppose. His comments make this clear. So what?
Suppose also that BDD then looks at the process that created this, and sees a financial dark-gray box, and wants to see inside.
Too bad for BBD. He does not have that priveledge. It is none of his business. HI is free to express their opinion. Anonymously. BBD is free to disagree. Anonymously, if he so chooses. He does not get ot look at the dark-gray box. That would be a restriction on free spech. Unconstitutional in the US. Anti-democractic anywhere.
That does not correspond to what your interpretation of BDD’s position at all.
Really? please do clarify, because I do not see your pont at all.
Now, suppose that this is what BDD was saying something like that all along.
Yes. All along BBD has been insisting that it is his right to know who is daring to offer an opinion different from his. He does not have that right. He cannot be granted that right in a free society that allows free speech.
Or suppose he’s right in claiming that you’ve built up a strawman and named it “BDD”.
He’s not. But I plead the 5th on mispellings, bad grammer, and other typos. I’m not super smart like you guys.
If some of this is true, it will be interesting to return to the content and the basis of all your cognitive attributions so far in the recent threads.
Oh dear. I’m afriad your using those big confusing words and complicated sentence structures again. I really have no idea what this means. My bad, of course.
> There is no need to suppose. His comments make this clear. So what?
The same applies to politicians: BDD sees they make no sense. He wants to know why. And he surmises that following the money would help.
There is no logical fallacy there, as you claim.
I hope this clarifies.
> He cannot be granted that right in a free society that allows free speech.
Yes, But Freedom.
> He’s not.
He would.
> I really have no idea what this means.
That means we could pay due diligence to all your ad hominems in this thread.
The most deranged part of the climate debate that I’ve noticed is the belief in the “denialist machine”, “Big oil” etc.
Even a cursory look at the money available to each side shows the sceptics to be outspent by orders of magnitude, but the motivation put forward for the “denial” is just nonsensical.
“Big Oil” is supposedly spending money to deliberately spread lies and misinformation which will lead to the planet going to hell in a handbasket. Okay, great story for a childless DR Evil in his lair somewhere, but “Big Oil” is people.
There are oil executives supposedly behind all this disinformation etc. Are they all childless? None of them have families and loved ones?
For the disinformation story to be true, then it requires a co-ordinated effort by a largish group of people who are willing to sacrifice their own children and grandchildren for a few dollars. Really? Is that what warmers really believe?
If you want to claim that there is a campaign to knowingly spread untruths then you are saying that those responsible know the truth and are actively lieing. You are saying that those responsible know that they will be causing untold hardship for their children and grandchildren and simply don’t care.
All of the boards and all of the top executives of all of the oil companies hate their children and have no concern for their future. Really?
Nullius in Verba @238
Whether Heartland’s science is always right is another matter (I don’t know, I haven’t paid much attention to them previously), but it is at least honestly offered.
I disagree. The NIPCC report is clearly dishonest. It is just possible that those in Heartland who were responsible for publishing and publicising it were genuinely too scientifically ignorant to recognise this, but I don’t believe so.
JohnB @251
For the disinformation story to be true, then it requires a co-ordinated effort by a largish group of people
No, there doesn’t need to be a co-ordinated effort for the disinformation campaign to be effective. Disinformation does not have a requirement of consistency or coherence. The disinformation is also attractive as it does not require difficult actions from people who believe it.
NiV @ 238
Whether Heartland’s science is always right is another matter (I don’t know, I haven’t paid much attention to them previously), but it is at least honestly offered. Again, your unbendable belief that nobody with any intelligence can possibly hold an honest opinion different to yours leads you astray.
You are not answering the question: how do you know that HI is “˜genuinely”˜ and firmly convinced that it is in the right? How do you know that it is acting ‘honestly’?
How can HI be unaware that the material it produces is contradicted by the scientific consensus? Knowing that, how can HI honestly persist in an untroubled belief that it is correct? Remember that HI is not a scientific research institution. On what basis does HI believe that its complete lack of expertise outweighs the current scientific understanding of AGW? How can such a position be compatible with honesty and logic?
In fact it cannot. Therefore either HI is dishonest or illogical, or both. In either or both cases, your defence of this organisation is ill-founded and thus ill-advised. Perhaps it is you who has been led astray.
EdG @ 235
OK BBD, provide an example.
Good morning Ed.
Claim 8. “šDespite the fact that are so many factors driving climate and we really don’t understand much about very many of them, we keep seeing things like this… “˜Few still debate the primary cause of climate change.’ Except 90% of the scientists in the field.”›
That’s a lie. A deliberate misrepresentation. A knowing attempt to mislead (which should cover it definitionally). 90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming.
willard @ 248
Exactly. And thank you.
#252,
Of course, as is your privilege.
You think Heartland is “clearly dishonest”, I think the mainstream selling of catastrophe by climate scientists is “clearly dishonest”, we each think the other is wrong. But that’s what freedom of belief is about.
The point I’m making is that while I think you are wrong, I don’t believe you are being dishonest. I think you really, genuinely believe it. I don’t always understand why you can’t see what I can, but I know enough about the world to know that people can genuinely believe different things, see it in a different way. One of the things that always puzzles me about the true believers is that they seemingly can’t. There is only one truth, they have it, it’s obvious to all, and therefore anybody who says any different must be deliberately lying. And starting from that deduction, they will then build an entire new reality around themselves.
It was one of the things that gave away Peter Gleick. The memo reads like something out of the supervillain’s lair in a batman comic – as if the person writing it didn’t actually believe in climate scepticism and they were just pushing it as a story. Real climate sceptics don’t think like that.
So given that it is possible for people to believe wrong things while being utterly convinced that they are not only right but have incontrovertible scientific proof of the fact, and this applies even to intelligent and educated people, a thoughtful person will pause to consider whether that might apply to their own beliefs, or those of their entire society. How could you tell?
And that’s the reason we allow free speech – even for things we are convinced are not true. They are allowed to say such things, and it is unethical for us to try to stop them, it is unethical for us to persecute them for saying it, or supporting it, even if we’re absolutely convinced that we’re right and they’re wrong and they must know it. Anybody will happily grant free speech to things they agree with – it only means anything if we grant it to those we oppose. That’s what freedom is about.
Science works the same way, only even more so, which is why I find it so ironic that people can seriously try to censor what they call the unscientific. It’s about as unscientific an attitude as you can get. It is, though, a very human attitude.
NiV
Science works the same way, only even more so, which is why I find it so ironic that people can seriously try to censor what they call the unscientific. It’s about as unscientific an attitude as you can get. It is, though, a very human attitude.
If organisations like HI were engaged in bona fide scientific research and submitting papers to reviewed journals you would have a point. But HI and its ilk are not and do not. So on what basis does their ‘scepticism’ rest? Because it is not a scientific one.
The same applies to politicians: BDD sees they make no sense. He wants to know why. And he surmises that following the money would help.
Yes, BBDs various argument imply money, and the monied, is/are the root of all evil. It is common leftist thinking. It is incorrect.
BBD is free to vote, or not vote, for the politician of his choice. There is no requjirement that politicans make sense. (In fact, it is rare that a politicians positions would align 100% with an individual voter – we generally choose the politican who’s positions are most like ours, using our on personal weighted averaging formula.)
Following the money may indeed help BBD figure out whatever it is that’s bothering him, but that’s not the point. The point is this: if BBD doesn’t like the way his politican votes, he is free to say so. Anonymously. He is free to pool resources with similar minded people to spread the word. Most importantly, he is free to vote for someone else. Those are his rights in a free society. Following the money is not.
As an aside, from a practical matter, politicians are treated differently that institutions, and we could parse those differences, but I’d much prefer we get to your point. Assuming you have one.
There is no logical fallacy there, as you claim.
I never said there was a logical fallacy. I said the things BBD wants are not allowed in a free society and are dangerous ideas to a society that wants to remain free.
I hope this clarifies.
No, not really.
Yes, But Freedom.
Yes. Freedom. Exactly. It matters.
That means we could pay due diligence to all your ad hominems in this thread.
Please re-read my #243. I think it will help you understnad what is ad hom and what is not.
Willard,
Rather than you and I play this game using BBD as proxy (the poor lad has really been bashed about enough, don’t you think), hows about you just man-up and say what’s on your mind. (Using small words and simple declarative sentences that I can follow.)
#255,
Good morning BBD!
That’s a good one. Of course most scientists will debate about whether ACO2 has caused the recent warming. Science is about debate. And the science on this one is far from incontrovertible, as we’ve already discussed. What you’re talking about here is the attribution question, and the mainstream scientific position is that proving it is impossible, the uncertainties cannot be fully accounted for, and it is only a matter of expert judgement (i.e. debate) on which they have come to any (conditional) conclusions.
About 85% of climate scientists have decided that, on balance, a majority of it is likely to be anthropogenic. (That’s a pretty lukewarm statement in itself.) And none of those scientists would consider it beyond debate.
So where did you get this idea that “90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming”? It’s certainly not from the science! It’s not from any survey of scientists. And you know all this because I’ve told you often enough.
Believers say it to try to induce belief in others. They’re in no doubt, so they think it’s a fair representation to say that the scientists aren’t either. It’s a simplification, leaving out all the messy caveats that non-scientists wouldn’t understand and would leap on to claim you wasn’t really sure. The means are justified by the end of getting people to believe, to take it seriously, to take action. And fudging the certainty a little is inevitable whenever you’re presenting science to the general public. It’s the way the world is.
Is doing that sort of thing a lie? Saying things you must know to be untrue to try to induce belief in a statement you truly believe is true? Well, I suppose one could argue that there is no intention to knowingly deceive, so I’d say it was debatable. I will leave that one to the lexicographers and pedants. But when somebody points out the omission, and then you say point blank that there is no doubt or debate, to persuade people not just that it is true but that it is considered certain, that is deception.
Whether deliberate, only you can tell. It’s not a psychology I have any clear insight into yet.
NiV
>as we’ve already discussed
You mis-remembered the crucial paragraph from AR4 on which your argument hinges.
You said:
And recall, the summary statement on attribution is (I paraphrase) that it is very likely (note likelihood, not confidence) that more than 50% of the 1950-2000 warming was anthropogenic. Since the 1950-2000 warming was about 0.6 C, they’re only actually committing themselves to a 0.3 C anthropogenic component, assuming their models and scientific understanding are correct.
*But* from AR4 WG1 SPM (emphasis added):
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.[12] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes and wind patterns (see Figure SPM.4 and Table SPM.2). {9.4, 9.5}
This does not endorse your position here as it did not the first time around. Interesting that you present this brief exchange (which you then abandoned) as going in your favour.
So where did you get this idea that “90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming”?
Show me one single piece of evidence that there is not near-unanimity amongst the relevant expert community (atmospheric physics) that ACO2 is the main cause of modern warming and I will concede the point.
It’s certainly not from the science!
It is. Show otherwise by reference. I think you will find this difficult.
#262,
I didn’t misremember it. I paraphrased it. As I said.
I substituted more than 50% for “most”, and 1950-2000 for “since the mid 20th century”.
I didn’t argue at the time because I didn’t think it was worth it. I found your comment unintelligible, but it didn’t seem germane to the point I was making so I concentrated on other matters. I often do that.
“Show me one single piece of evidence that there is not near-unanimity amongst the relevant expert community (atmospheric physics) that ACO2 is the main cause of modern warming and I will concede the point.”
Heh. You? Concede a point?
We shall see. Here.
But after lecturing me earlier on misrepresentation, I note that you have subtly switched the hypothesis from there being no debate to there being near-unanimous belief – not that ACO2 is “very likely” to be the cause of “most” of the modern warming, but that it “is” the main cause. Entirely different! Not that I mind, of course. You are quite free to go on misrepresenting me.
NiV,
You miss the genuis in BBD’s question
“Show me one single piece of evidence that there is not near-unanimity amongst the relevant expert community (atmospheric physics) that ACO2 is the main cause of modern warming and I will concede the point.”
He can equivocate on “near unanimity” – is that 60%, 85%, 99%. He can equivocate on “main cause”. He can equivocate on “relevant expert community” – most probably defined as those who believe in near-unanimity.
He deserves some credit.
NiV
Actually, I’m really waiting for your responses to 254 and 258.
#264,
Oh, yes, I wasn’t actually expecting BBD not to come up with some weasel way out. But it’s fun to watch.
“100% of the scientists who agree with me say…” Ha.
I was watching Richard Lindzen’s seminar to the British Parliamentarians yesterday, and he said much the same thing. The IPCC does often contain moderately sensible statements, but the activists go way beyond what even the mainstream science says, while claiming to be supported by it. That’s even before we get to the bits that are disputed.
It’s very odd that they’re allowed to get away with it.
And speaking of weasel-talk, have you ever noticed the IPCC’s distinction between likelihood and confidence? I was seriously impressed when I first noticed! Likelihood is used to express the probability of an outcome given that the scientific understanding is correct, while confidence expresses their certainty that the science is correct. You have to multiply the two to get the estimated probability that the statement is actually true. And yet, everyone seeing that “very likely” being translated as “>90%” just assumes. Brilliant!
Heartland has never held itself out to be a scientific research organization. They talk about policies (opinions) and how to communicate them.
The obsession that the believers have with suppressing opinions they do not like is either on or way over the border pathological.
They should get used to this all of this opinionating, because their sleaziness, transparent calls for repression, and inability to tell opinion from fact and increasingly fantasy from reality is annoying more and more people.
#265,
Are you, now? That’s very interesting.
@255,
Note how far BBD has fled from reality. He pulls some number out of his hat, 90% of climate scientists, and says that sense they claim most of the current (mild & trivial) warming may be due to CO2 he can not only reject the point that many things drive climate, but call that claim a lie.
As BBD deconstructs himself (and he is a proxy of sorts for the demented true believers in AGW) it is increasingly clear that he is just a poor parrot, echoing a version of what he thinks he has heard about climate.
This is fascinating. BBD please keep at it. You are amazing.
NiV
WRT the von Storch and Bray survey, I said:
Show me one single piece of evidence that there is not near-unanimity amongst the relevant expert community (atmospheric physics) that ACO2 is the main cause of modern warming and I will concede the point.
This survey does not confine itself to atmospheric physicists. It also references an obsolete survey. But no matter.
Von Storch comments more recently – and most relevantly – on the Klimazwiebel blog (emphasis as original except non-italic bold):
In the recent issue of nature (vol 475 28 July 2011), Jeff Tollefson reported about a pamphlet of the Heartland Institute from 2007. Results from our 2003 survey among climate scientists were used for the statement “The survey clearly shows that the debate over why climate is changing is still underway, with nearly half of the climate scientists disagreeing with what is often claimed to be a “˜consensus view'”. Tollefson goes on to accurately state that “In the survey, nearly 56% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change, 14% were unsure and 30% disagreed”. Tollefson also goes on to state that Bast [founder of the Heartland Institute] “dismisses the findings of a follow up survey by Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.“ – also an accurate interpretation of the survey data. Tollefson spoke to one of us (HvS), and we find his research done well.
[…]
Tollefson’s article talks about “˜dimensions’ of consensus as consensus is not as clear cut as often portrayed. From our surveys we have learned that some “˜dimensions’ of “˜consensus’ have increased, others have decreased. In particular for the two key dimensions manifestation of climate change, that it is happening regardless of what is causing it, as well as attribution to human activities, consensus has increased among climate scientists since the beginning of our surveying.
What has recently decreased is the “legitimation” of the IPCC as representing this consensus, because in recent years an opposition has formed which asserts that the IPCC is underestimating the severity of the change (see Bray, 2010).
I do not concede the point. And it is interesting to see you lining up with Bast in misrepresenting von Storch and Bray (2008). Duly noted.
hunter
gabblegabblegabblegabblegabblegabblegabble
NiV
@ 268
Well… ?
@244 kdk33,
It is notable that the true believers seldom if ever make simple straight forward statements of their belief. It is more like they are parrots, repeating things they think heard. But unable to actually discuss the content. Instead, the ironic comfort of their apocalyptic cult-like dogma simply gives them sustenance as they repeat it over and over and over.
@252, OPatrick
Please list the lies of the NIPCC report.
tia
NiV
I didn’t misremember it. I paraphrased it. As I said.
I substituted more than 50% for “most”
And you go on about weasel words.
Those are his rights in a free society. Following the money is not.
One would be interested in the response if you were to give these 16 people the same advice.
kdk3,
You claim:
> I have evaluated the messenger based on the message.
It was shown that you did evaluate the messenger, but based on caricatures of his position. If that’s true, you did not evaluate the relevant message, but one of your own fabrication. As I see it, you created a strawman and then speculated about its rationality.
To challenge me, you need to provice evidence of this other claim:
> BBD is evaluating the message based on some characteristic of the messenger.
So citation needed.
***
Not only you did “evaluate” the messenger, you used it to question the messenger’s credibility, and then repeated that ringtone ad nauseam. In a rational discussion, I doubt one ever gets the right to “evaluate the messager”, when “evaluate the messenger” means “speculate about the messenger’s mental states with verbal abuses that undermines the messenger’s credibility”.
If that is true, then you committed many ad hominems in the thread, the last one being:
> hows about you just man-up and say what’s on your mind
This appeals to pride. The topic shifts from a specific argument to my character. It presumes I do not show gentleman’s characteristics when I claim that you pepper a strawman with ad homs.
Either your abusive language is used as an ad hominem, or just free insults. In either case, I believe your language is abusive. I would like to know what justifies you to ask anyone to man-up here.
***
Here is what could be taken as the main contention of your overall contribution to this thread:
> I said the things BBD wants are not allowed in a free society and are dangerous ideas to a society that wants to remain free.
Please clarify what BBD wants, why they are not allowed in a free society, and why they would be dangerous.
> [BDD] does not get ot look at the dark-gray box. That would be a restriction on free spech. Unconstitutional in the US. Anti-democractic anywhere.
Please clarify how what *is* unconstitutional *now* in the US is anti-democratic anywhere.
> Yes. Freedom. Exactly. It matters.
The concept of freedom is not “Yes, but freedom”. YesButFreedom is also called the Ace of Club:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php
This game has already been played before. It would be interesting to read back this thread to see which other cards you’ve played so far.
Good luck!
kdk3,
You claim:
> I have evaluated the messenger based on the message.
It was shown that you did evaluate the messenger, but based on caricatures of his position.
That is your opinion. I believe I characterized his position accurately. I think we have circled back to some people confusing opinion with fact.
As I see it, you created a strawman and then speculated about its rationality.
You are free to have that opinion. I disagree.
To challenge me, you need to provice evidence of this other claim:
> BBD is evaluating the message based on some characteristic of the messenger.
On contraire dear willard, you need to provide evidence for your position. But, just to play along,
NiV: If you don’t like the tune they’re playing, you know they’re not working for you so don’t vote for them. Why do you need to know anything more than that?
BBD: Because things change. Without knowing who’s pumping money into whom you have insufficient information to “˜like the tune’.
Fair enough?
Not only you did “evaluate” the messenger, you used it to question the messenger’s credibility,
No, I questioned his mental state.
and then repeated that ringtone ad nauseam.
Yes, as did BBD repeat his position – n times, IIRC.
In a rational discussion, I doubt one ever gets the right to “evaluate the messager
No, that is not rational at all.
when “evaluate the messenger” means “speculate about the messenger’s mental states
Thank you for the correction.
with verbal abuses
Was I rude? My bad.
that undermines the messenger’s credibility
No, BBD is doing that all on his own.
If that is true, then you committed many ad hominems in the thread, the last one being:
> hows about you just man-up and say what’s on your mind
This is not Ad hom. I again refer you to my 243
This appeals to pride. The topic shifts from a specific argument to my character.
Yes, it does.
It presumes I do not show gentleman’s characteristics when I claim that you pepper a strawman with ad homs.
No, I challenged you to man up and argue your position and quit arguing about what BBD might have meant versus what you think I might have meantt when replying to your interpretation of BBD’s comments.
I’m ready whenever you are.
Either your abusive language is used as an ad hominem,
These are different, as I’ve stated before.
In either case, I believe your language is abusive.
As I find BBD’s. Do you have a point.
I would like to know what justifies you to ask anyone to man-up here.
Are you ready to argue your postion, or was this all about your needing to call me rude. If you are, you will have answered the challenge. If not, take it as you like. BTW, your calling me rude is not ad hom.
***
Here is what could be taken as the main contention of your overall contribution to this thread:
I said the things BBD wants are not allowed in a free society and are dangerous ideas to a society that wants to remain free.
Correct.
Please clarify what BBD wants, why they are not allowed in a free society, and why they would be dangerous.
You are free to re-read the comments, as is every other reader. We don’t have enough space to start again.
> [BDD] does not get ot look at the dark-gray box. That would be a restriction on free spech. Unconstitutional in the US. Anti-democractic anywhere.
Yes that is correct.
Please clarify how what *is* unconstitutional *now* in the US is anti-democratic anywhere.
Not enough space. Feel free to reread the comments.
> Yes. Freedom. Exactly. It matters.The concept of freedom is not “Yes, but freedom”. YesButFreedom is also called the Ace of Club:
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php
This game has already been played before. It would be interesting to read back this thread to see which other cards you’ve played so far.
You seem to keep repeating this. It is not something I can access given my 8th grade education and lack of proper indoctrination. Perhaps you could clarify using small words and simple sentences.
Good luck!
thank you!
kdk33,
In 256, BBD says of my rephrasing of his position in 248:
> Exactly.
Here’s the only quote from BBD you provided so far:
> Because things change. Without knowing who’s pumping money into whom you have insufficient information to “˜like the tune’.
Now, it’s BBD’s turn.
kdk33,
You have yet to clarify the things that BBD wants, why they are not allowed in a free society, and why they would be dangerous if they were, i.e. why they should not.
Willard,
You are under the very strange impression that I need to justify to you, my argument with BBD. I don’t.
I see that BBD has taken his blathering here, and tries to smear people who understand the topics far better than him. Even demands that certain organisations aren’t allowed to participate in public debate unless …
… som hysterical demands by the loony left first are met (which will be continuosly replaced by new ones)
We’ve heard it all before. The essence is that free speech and assembly is allowed … But only if it doesn’t upsett the any authority …
BTW These concepts have been tried out i n full scale experiments (quite a few still are), with devastating results ..
By the way, I am willing to charcterize you, Willard, based on the content of your message.
You imagine that you appear superior and of great intellect by
1) writing in an obfuscatory style that you imagine sounds educating, but is in fact just confusing
2) commenting upon others argument so as to position yourself as referee, above the fray
3) not offering an opinion of your own, thus not subjecting yourself to potential criticism.
It is an interesting, though readily transparent, ploy. I’ve seen you use it before…
Teddy has alwasy been a favorite of mine. Read below a few times and ponder how youi might not actually appreciate my estimation of BBD’s character.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
kdk33
I have given up responding to you because you do not listen and you are abusive.
I fully endorse willard’s characterisation of my exchange with you (variously; above). I terminated it because it was pointless. I applaud willard for his efforts to bring clarity where I failed.
In my view you mischaracterise willard’s intent at (283) – true to form.
Finally, your choice of quotation from Roosevelt is also typically self-aggrandising.
Jonas N
Thank you for those kind words. May I say how very much I have enjoyed the special thread dedicated to your insights at Deltoid.
I have given up responding to you
Are you serious?
because you do not listen
No BBD, I hear you loud and clear. I do not agree with you. You continue to operate under the illusion that if you, or the scientific consensus, or somebody you consider “good”, says X, then anyone who holds to not-x either isn’t listening or is lieing or has been bribed by “big money”.
Moreover you would like a list of all the people that dare disagree with you. That list-making is anti-democractic and dangerous in a society that wishes to remain free. For reasons that I (and others) have covered time and time again. I’m starting to think that you don’t listen.
And to top it off, you claim you cannot evaluate your politicians choices on the merits of those choices, but instead need to know who is paying whom. Which causes me to question your mental state
and you are abusive.
At times I am. As are you. Care to review the things you have said about me or the people on my side of the dabate? You don’t hold the moral high ground here.
I applaud willard for his efforts to bring clarity where I failed.
Were I you, I would be embarassed.
you mischaracterise willard’s intent at (283)
Wanna bet?
Finally, your choice of quotation from Roosevelt is also typically self-aggrandising.
No, actually I complemented you. But, because I am one of the evil ones and because you are only able to reason by Ad Hom, you lack the mental clarity to know. Sad, really.
Just for your review:
Me to Willard: Read below a few times and ponder how you might not actually appreciate my estimation of BBD’s character.
Carry on, brave warrior.
kdk33
Are you serious?
Yes. [ends]
BBD confuses opinion with fact, considers his opinion immaculate, and takes any disagreement with his immaculate opinion as proof of the other person’s lack of intelligence or deliberate lying.
Like I said, BBD is indistinguishable from a high level autistic on these topics.
@271 BBD,
Yes, I thought you might be reduced to gibberish in a real discussion. Thank you for making that clear.
kdk33,
Have you noticed that many of the true believers seem to be crowding into that special place once populated by UFO abductees and 911 truthers?
kdk33,
You don’t need to justify anything. You’re free to say whatever you fancy, under Keith’s supervision, for I believe this is a private property. As long as you clearly state that you do not wish to clarify the things you claim BBD wants, the reasons why according to you they are not allowed in a free society, and why they should not, we’re clear which kind of discussion is happening.
For my own edification and other people than you, I will note that there are two main types of ad hominem. The most popular one, which you describe by way of message and messenger, is the circumstancial ad hominem. There is also another popular one: the abusive ad hominem. This is a direct attack on the person. This can be read on Wikipedia or any good authority, for instance Douglas Walton. The ad hominem per se is not even fallacious, by the way, contrary to what Nullius said so many times.
I’ll let the readers judge in what ways repeating these abusive ad hominem has the effect of poisening the well. This applies to everyone, including me or BBD.
***
As for my position, I’ll put it succinctly: you are the government; get used to it. Considering the kind of game you’re playing, kdk33, I don’t feel the need to justify it either. Please try to read that Stanford entry on “Liberty” I linked in the other thread.
Thank you for the quote. It sounds a bit like a counterpoint to your BigWord argument, which has merits, so I’ll take it. More importantly, it reminds me of this:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5986919630
Thank you also for this exercise of charity,
w
PS: Lewis, charity (agapè) is one of the three components of love. The other two are éros and philia, at least according to André Comte-Sponville. When it is said that God is Love, it means God is Charity. Your quote wins an Internet.
BBD,
What kdk33 seems to mean, when he says:
> No, actually I complemented you.
Is that he complimented you.
He does not need that quote to complement you.
Nullius in Verba @257
I know enough about the world to know that people can genuinely believe different things, see it in a different way. One of the things that always puzzles me about the true believers is that they seemingly can’t. There is only one truth, they have it, it’s obvious to all, and therefore anybody who says any different must be deliberately lying.
Once again you display a chilling lack of understanding of the positions of those you disagree with. My conclusions about Heartland’s dishonesty are not based on their putting forwards a position I disagree with, it is the calculated way in which they do so. The NIPCC report is objectively dishonest. It is masquerading as something that it is not.
And that’s the reason we allow free speech ““ even for things we are convinced are not true. They are allowed to say such things, and it is unethical for us to try to stop them, it is unethical for us to persecute them for saying it, or supporting it, even if we’re absolutely convinced that we’re right and they’re wrong and they must know it.
Once again it would not take much imagination to envisage a scenario in which it is morally right to stop someone saying something. But of course what is at issue are the methods that are reasonable to take to prevent someone saying something which is dishonest and damaging. If the methods that Heartland uses can be exposed and consequently people who support Heartland can be shamed into withdrawing their support then this would be a positive outcome. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. This isn’t stopping free speech, if anything it is the opposite.
Science works the same way, only even more so, which is why I find it so ironic that people can seriously try to censor what they call the unscientific.
Who is trying to censor Heartland’s output? They should certainly be ridiculed. They should be subject to constant scrutiny by a reflective media. Their dishonesty should be set out clearly for all to see. But that is not the same as censoring them.
Willard,
You don’t need to justify anything.
Thank you.
As long as you clearly state that you do not wish to clarify the things you claim BBD wants,
Really? When did this become a requirement and who made you referee? BTW, I have clearly stated these. Again and again and again. You can easily find them in the comments.
For my own edification and other people than you, I will note that there are two main types of ad hominem.
Please study more, as you’ve yet to appreciate the meaning. The ad hom causative arrow is to invalidate the message by attacking the messenger. I have done quite the opposite, as I have explained to you previously.
This can be read on Wikipedia or any good authority
Yes, why don’t you.
I’ll let the readers judge in what ways repeating these abusive ad hominem has the effect of poisening the well.
I assume you are referring to BBD (and others) repeated assertions that HI are liers and cheaters who need to be exposed.
This applies to everyone, including me or BBD.
or the Heartland Institute
***
As for my position, I’ll put it succinctly: you are the government; get used to it.
Clever. I stand by my assertion that you lack the courage to take a position. That is not ad hom, by the way, I am inferring something about your character based on your message, not the other way round.
You could easily change my mind. Prove me wrong. Take a stand.
I don’t feel the need to justify it
How could you? You don’t have one.
What kdk33 seems to mean… is that he complimented you.
Yes, thank you. That was my meaning.
BBD
Yes, I reckon that you feel more at home among the Deltoid crowd. But you (at least I hope) were smart enough not to engage. (*)
Here however, what you have delivered is at Deltoid bottom level. Sad to see the decline, not even trying to hide it.
But that’s probably the wrong perspective. People don’t change their minds like this in mid life, demanding that others do not speak up about anything public unless those with whom they might disagree approve of them. Or other ridiculous conditions are first met. People who are afraid of the opinions, the voices, the perspectives and even existence of others and their interests ..
.. usually are so for a good reason and have been for a long time. They find diversity threatening, and would rather have only one authority to follow. And not question that one, and that nobody else wouldn’t do so either.
And when that ‘authority’ crumbles, they get very disoriented defensive and even hostile ..
(*) I have a hard time believing that you really enjoyed reading that Deltoid thread. The climate scare groupies there really revealed how shallow their knowledge is and how thin their layer of understanding and even maturity is. Only thing there you possibly could have cheered at are the many insults they tried hurling to compensate for their lack of … almost everything else. At least, I found that amusing. But possibly for different reasons than you. That is if you indeed enjoyed anything there ..
Willard,
“Clarifying what BBD wants”.
From my standpoint it would appear that BBD wants full disclosure related to anyone paying substantial ‘financial incentives’ to those who are exercising their ‘free speech’ rights.
There is no such thing as a movie without ‘political content’ and Hollywood moives clearly has a massive impact on public opinion.
To achieve BBD’s goal of ‘full disclosure’ of those engaging in ‘Free Speech’ we will have to examine the personal finances of every Hollywood Producer, Writer and Director.
We already know that various manufacturers pay ‘inducements’ or provide ‘in kind’ services to Hollywood in exchange for their products appearing in various scenes. We also know that various organizations heavily lobby Hollywood to influence scripts and content.
We clearly don’t know if various script writers have ‘undisclosed’ financial ties to various organizations.
Heartland is well known in the Climate Debate…but who is ‘Centroplis Entertainment.? (Producers of the Climate movie Day After Tomorrow ) Who provided the $125 million production budget?
Was their decision to produce the movie influenced by ‘behind the scenes financiers? Who where the script writers…what were they paid and by who?
Ohh wait…I’m beginning the sound like Joseph McCarthy.
Then let’s wander over to the New York Times bestsellers lists. Popular book’s have a substantial impact on public opinion.
Who are all the writers…who provided the financing…
http://www.nytimes.com/best-sellers-books/overview.html
Then once we’ve chased down and investigated whether people significant public opinion influence is due to improper ‘financial incentives’ we then have to consider whether they are being blackmailed.
We already know from the gossip pages that various politicians seem to frequently place themselves in a position where they could be blackmailed. No money changes hands.
A hooker, hotel room and a camera can end up having a much greater influence on various people of ‘public influence’ then a $25,000 donation and costs a lot less.
So now we have to get into investigations of ‘social contacts’.
I have a simpler solution. I just assume that all speech is probably funded by the most nefarious organization imaginable.
Willard
He does not need that quote to complement you.
Ouch.
kdk33,
Notice how OPatrick still cannot list anything HI has actually done. It is almost as if he is just echoing talking points that he heard someplace. And be sure and notice OP’s bit of Orwellian convolution: ” If the methods that Heartland uses can be exposed and consequently people who support Heartland can be shamed into withdrawing their support then this would be a positive outcome. They should be ashamed of what they are doing. This isn’t stopping free speech, if anything it is the opposite.”
The sufferers of CDS are not going to stop at anything to impose their censorship, it seems. I wonder if instead of defrauding HI, Gleick has fire bombed them in the name of cliamte truth and burned Bast to a crisp if that might give the believers pause? How about if he just introduced a virus into their computers that reformatted all of their data?
And note that OP finally confesses what we have been pointing out (to BBD’s strenuous denials) that the purpose of the listing project is specifically to shame people from giving money as they see fit. So out to the trash, like the rest of their ideas, goes this one. They intend to censor anyone and everyone they care to.
At least UFO abductees are mostly harmless. AGW true believers are real haters.
Jonas N
[BBD] Even demands that certain organisations aren’t allowed to participate in public debate unless “¦
Where do I make this demand? Exactly?
> I stand by my assertion that you lack the courage to take a position.
I did take enough positions already. Not enough space to repeat them. Read again. Perhaps there was too much big words. My bad.
BBD was right about the self-agrandizing comment, btw: if he’s a warrior, you’re a warrior too.
Please learn to read.
I did take enough positions already.
Please. Nice try.
BBD was right about the self-agrandizing comment, btw: if he’s a warrior, you’re a warrior too.
Yes, Willard, I complimented us both and insulted you in the process.
Please learn to read.
Indeed.
kdk33 in 301:
> I complimented us both.
BBD in 284:
> [T]ypically self-aggrandising.
kdk33 in 286:
> No, actually I complemented you. But, because I am one of the evil ones and because you are only able to reason by Ad Hom, you lack the mental clarity to know. Sad, really.
Indeed.
harrywr2,
Thank you for those examples.
Beware of the slippery slope.
I complimented us both.
Yes, I did. And BBD too. And insulted you.
BBD in 284: [T]ypically self-aggrandising.
No, that would be BBD + me aggrandixing.
No, actually I complemented you. But, because I am one of the evil ones and because you are only able to reason by Ad Hom, you lack the mental clarity to know. Sad, really.
Yes, entirely true. BBD fails to see that the distinction I’ve drawn is between you and (me + BBD).
Indeed.
Indeed
BTW, Willard,
You may have the last word. Make it a good one!
> Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out true character flaws or actions that are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Types
255 BBD
“That’s a lie. A deliberate misrepresentation. A knowing attempt to mislead (which should cover it definitionally). 90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming.”
Prove it. Specifically, prove with some actual evidence that “90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming.”
Do not bother with the usual cherry picked surveys. Find a legitimate one or something credible.
Alternatively, disprove the substance of “Claim 8. Despite the fact that are so many factors driving climate and we really don’t understand much about very many of them…”
Good luck. Since you are so sure about this I’m hopeful that you will have this slam dunk evidence at your fingertips.
EdG
Do not bother with the usual cherry picked surveys. Find a legitimate one or something credible.
We’ve looked at von Storch and Bray (2008) above (270) – prompted by no less than NiV. If you believe that von Storch’s work is not legitimate, please take that up with him. He can be contacted here. I’d be very grateful if you report – indeed link – your conversation on this thread.
If you are going to dismiss evidence that strongly suggests that you are wrong, you need to provide some of your own. That you have instead to reappeared with a vile attitude and empty hands doesn’t surprise me at all.
I can’t be bothered with any more of your unpleasantness tonight (in fact I don’t really know why I’m even responding to you after this shit).
I’ve made my case. Make yours, or sling your hook.
308 BBD
You stated that “”90% of atmospheric physicists do not debate that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern warming.”
You just tried to say this somehow supports that:
“We’ve looked at von Storch and Bray Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.“
First, a 2008 survey is irrelevant in 2012. In case you haven’t noticed things have changed… or are you denying change?
Second, that was not a survey of just “atmospheric physicists” as you asserted.
It was a biased sample which included all sorts of ‘scientists’ with a vested interest in maintaining their industry:
“The survey was conducted in 2008 with 379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/
So there was no “lie” from Harris.
P.S. Yes, that “shit” comment I wrote was over the top, so please feel free to dredge it up every time you need a handy distraction from factual argument.
EdG
Second, that was not a survey of just “atmospheric physicists” as you asserted.
Oh FFS. Read the comment at 203:
This survey does not confine itself to atmospheric physicists.
Provide some evidence. You have nothing, so you are wittering again. Remember that the 90% figure came from Harris – not me:
Claim 8. “šDespite the fact that are so many factors driving climate and we really don’t understand much about very many of them, we keep seeing things like this… “˜Few still debate the primary cause of climate change.’ Except 90% of the scientists in the field.”›
Come on, make your case. Except you can’t, can you? Because 90% of atmospheric physicists (the relevant expert group) are *not* debating that ACO2 is the primary cause of modern climate change.
Your gracious apology for the vile Nazi slur is noted.
You tiresome and I am tired. Talk to your delusions all you like. I’m off to bed.
First, a 2008 survey is irrelevant in 2012. In case you haven’t noticed things have changed”¦ or are you denying change?
No. You are.
#270,
Your inventiveness at wriggling constantly amazes me! You quote a long piece of text that confirms everything I said, and conclude that it shows I misrepresented something! I can’t tell what, since there’s nothing in von Storch’s comments I disagree with, but I don’t suppose it matters.
The one bit I do disagree with is where Tollefson is quoted claiming Bast dismissed the findings – I took the trouble to look up what Bast had said about it and in fact he confirmed the VS&B update as a good study, and supported the results – which so far as I can see are quoted accurately. (And there is another Heartland article that confirms the same points and approvingly cites the Die Klimazwiebel article you quoted.) Tollefson misrepresents Bast, and you (surprise!) line up to join him.
85% is not “near-unanimity”.
#275,
If 51% was, then it would be true to say that “most” was. That’s what “most” means.
I’ve got an impression from what you say that you had interpreted the word some other way, but I suggest to you that it would appear to be wishful thinking.
They have the exact same meaning, but to the extent that numbers give a more precise and immediate understanding of meaning, I’d say using numbers was less ‘weasel words’ than the IPCC’s use of “most”.
#293,
“Once again you display a chilling lack of understanding of the positions of those you disagree with.”
That’s always possible. I would hope in such cases that people would take the time to correct my misunderstandings. In fact, the hope that they will is the main reason I debate with people who disagree with me.
As far as I’m concerned, the conversation has gone as follows:
NiV: Each side thinks the other is being dishonest. You think they’re dishonest. They think you’re dishonest. We have free speech with nobody allowed to prevent anyone saying their piece or persecute them for stating their opinions so that we can decide through watching the debate.
OP: You don’t understand my position. I think they’re dishonest. It’s ethically required to persecute them in order to stop them speaking, while allowing my side to continue, so people cannot get fooled through watching the debate.
Now, as far as I can see, I do understand your position. You’ve just described it as roughly what I said it was. Now possibly I’m misunderstanding something, or you’re seeing some subtle point as more significant, or possibly what you’re objecting to is not my summary of your position, but my putting it in a wider context in which the sides are seen symmetrically.
Bearing in mind that I’m a sceptic, you will surely understand that if I was to see it asymmetrically I’d be inclined to consider it to be your side that was dishonest and in need of suppression. But that’s not how free speech works. I can only claim any justification for my views in debate because opposition to them is not suppressed.
“But of course what is at issue are the methods that are reasonable to take to prevent someone saying something which is dishonest and damaging.”
OK. Let’s consider this. Let’s say I decide that the AGW scare is objectively dishonest and damaging. What methods are reasonable for me to take to prevent you saying it? What are the upper and lower limits to what I can ethically do?
That’s a serious question, by the way. I’d be interested in knowing.
A general ethical rule has to apply generally. At the risk of starting another scripture-citing session, the golden rule is that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you – so given that I’ve decided what you say is dishonest and damaging, how far do you want me to be able to go to stop you saying it?
I suspect it is this symmetrical treatment that you are having such difficulty with. Your rules are designed around an asymmetrical power situation, where your side has all the power and gets to decide. You can’t seem to see it from anyone else’s point of view.
Maybe I’m just not very good at getting the concept across. Have you ever read Mill’s ‘On Liberty’, or Milton’s ‘Areopagitica’?
“As the community of Chardon mourns the loss of three students who were shot as they sat in the Chardon High School cafeteria Monday morning, ribbons in red and black, the school colors, have appeared throughout the community.
The Chardon Healing Fund was established, with initial donations of $100,000 from Chardon company Fairmount Minerals, $25,000 from the Cleveland Foundation, $25,000 from an anonymous donor and about $10,000 from individual donations, said Chardon Schools Superintendent Joe Bergant.”
http://www.cleveland.com/chardon-shooting/index.ssf/2012/02/chardon_is_awash_in_red_and_bl.html
Should this person be able to do this? Is this instance okay?
310 BBD
A 2008 survey that confined itself to “379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes” is not relevant to current or even 2008 reality.
We all know how the Team was suppressing what got published back then and we do not know what the specific expertise of these undefined ‘climate scientists’ was. All we do know for sure is that those employed at “climate research institutes” had a vested interest, and groupthink pressure, to agree with the survey question.
Cutting to the chase here, self-serving opinions aside there is absolutely zero evidence that human activity is the dominant driver of climate change. None.
So to suggest that nobody KNOWS this cannot be a lie.
As I recall, you claim that CO2 does drive climate change when it is warming but doesn’t when it isn’t. So…
@OPatrick 253. You appear to have missed the point that belief in the “Denialist Machine” requires the belief that all oil execs and major shareholders (the people who are supposedly orchestrating the disinformation campaign) have no love for or concern for the future for their own children.
BBD, you have been arguing various totalitarian views and practices here for days …It’s been truly amazing … I don’t even need to find any specific comment …
And you have been making the most peculiar (stupid) claims about HI, science and ‘science’ .. about things you kknow essentially nothing about.
And you have been confusing science, and what answers it possibly can provide, with politics and policies .. and what those can accomplish.
Trust me(!) (if you have no other means of navigation), the politicians will get it wrong every time, and preventing people to comment on politics is as totalitarian as it gets …
haven’t scanned each and every post but has anyone mentioned the old saw about freedom of speech not giving anyone the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre:that freedom of speech does not mean that people are allowed to lie if it endangers the public good. Just askin’…
Nullius in Verba @312
I would hope in such cases that people would take the time to correct my misunderstandings.
I explained why you had mischaracterised how ‘my side’ reach conclusions about the honesty of their opponents.
It would not surprise me if your version is genuinely how you view the conversation.
Seeing the sides symmetrically makes no sense if the sides are not symmetrical.
Let’s say I decide that the AGW scare is objectively dishonest and damaging. What methods are reasonable for me to take to prevent you saying it? What are the upper and lower limits to what I can ethically do?
Persuading me through honest and objective reasoning that you are correct. But to pre-empt the obvious it is not Gleick’s actions directly themselves that I think might lead to ‘the greater good’ but rather the awakening of a lazy media that should have been doing the investigation that would make such actions unnecessary.
To think that there are ethical rules that can be applied, unbendingly, to any situation seems to me a misconception of ethics.
You talk of supression. Ridiculing and exposing Heartland is not supression.
JohnB @315
I don’t believe in a “Denialist Machine”, that was the point. There does not need to be any co-ordination, coherence or consistency for denial to be effective.
NiV
I’m waiting for your responses to 254 and 258.
Jonas N
BBD, you have been arguing various totalitarian views and practices here for days “¦It’s been truly amazing “¦ I don’t even need to find any specific comment “¦
Strike one. You made up a lie, put it in my mouth, got called on it and when unable to back up the lie, responded as above.
You are on notice.
EdG
A 2008 survey that confined itself to “379 climate scientists who had published papers or were employed in climate research institutes” is not relevant to current or even 2008 reality.
So, I provide evidence that the scientific consensus exists and is strengthening. You deny this, and provide nothing except rhetoric and denial.
I repeat: Harris told a deliberate lie. He claimed that there was majority debate (90%) amongst climate scientists about CC when in fact there is majority agreement – converging on near-unanimity in fact. He lied to mislead and confuse students. A disgrace – as is your defence of his behaviour.
Conversation over. It’s the usual waste of time.
NiV
85% is not “near-unanimity”.
Stop playing silly games.
Show me one single piece of evidence that there is not near-unanimity amongst the relevant expert community (atmospheric physics) that ACO2 is the main cause of modern warming and I will concede the point.
NiV
The one bit I do disagree with is where Tollefson is quoted claiming Bast dismissed the findings ““ I took the trouble to look up what Bast had said about it and in fact he confirmed the VS&B update as a good study, and supported the results ““ which so far as I can see are quoted accurately.
Rubbish. Bast:
What does this mean? For two-thirds of the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. There is certainly NO CONSENSUS on the science behind the global warming scare.
Bast misrepresents vS & B. Tollefson was completely correct. Which is why vS writes:
Tollefson also goes on to state that Bast [founder of the Heartland Institute] “dismisses the findings of a follow up survey by Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.” ““ also an accurate interpretation of the survey data. Tollefson spoke to one of us (HvS), and we find his research done well.
Tell me NiV, why else would vS write this? For fun, perhaps? A practical joke on dear old Bast?
By the way, has anyone else noticed NiV’s favoured tactic when on the back foot?
Here it is: lose an argument. Disappear for 24 hours and let it all vanish over the horizon. Reappear and claim black is white and hope no-one notices the trick.
What a character.
Here’s a link to the comment NiV is busily misrepresenting.
BBD I don’t need to lie. And what I said is backed up (just scroll upwards)
You argued exactly what I (and many more) implicated. And not only once … And so illogical, it is hard to even know where to start.
I don’t know if you are knowingly dishonest, or if what you deliver here is what you really believe and what to be correct ..
But you have been asked to substantiate many of your fantasized claims and explain your stance (why you believe totalitarian means are necessary for ‘democracy’) and I have not seen you being able to do so … just to repeat your wishes and beliefs ..
And, remember: I have had some minor discussions about simpler scientific issues (as the UHI effect) and you revealed how very shallow (non existing, that is) your understanding of the issues was.
It is quite comical to see you here making pompous statements about ‘the science’ when you are just cheering from the sideline not even knowing the game, the rules, or what it is about …
I will not call you a liar, because I think that would be rude. But wrong and farcical, you are indeed …
#317,
“the old saw about freedom of speech not giving anyone the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre”
What if you think there’s a fire?
Or to put it another way, does anyone have the right to yell “Global warming!” on a crowded planet?
#318,
“Seeing the sides symmetrically makes no sense if the sides are not symmetrical.”
Thank you. That gives me some insight into the problem.
“rather the awakening of a lazy media that should have been doing the investigation that would make such actions unnecessary”
Investigation of what? Of the science? Of the arguments and evidence? Or of the ad hominem stuff?
Again, if I decide that the AGW scare is objectively dishonest and damaging, which of these should I be investigating with regard to you?
“To think that there are ethical rules that can be applied, unbendingly, to any situation seems to me a misconception of ethics.”
That’s a reasonable position in the abstract. But it’s also what anybody would say if they were intending to bend the ethical rules; not because of the complexity of the situation but in their own interests. Does a person who sees the situation as asymmetric bend the rules one way for their own side, and bend them the other way when attacking the other?
And again, in my treatment of you, how far should I be able to bend the rules, and under what circumstances?
“Ridiculing and exposing Heartland is not supression.”
Agreed. Ridicule them all you like. Expose public and publicly-owned information about them. But they still have a right to a private life, and intruding into that isn’t fair play.
The reason people have given for wanting the ad hominem information is to stop them putting their arguments forward. You yourself said: “But of course what is at issue are the methods that are reasonable to take to prevent someone saying something which is dishonest and damaging.” This does keep shifting – one moment it’s to stop them, the next merely to ridicule and expose them to harassment. And certainly anyone who enters the public square will face a barrage of ridicule and harrassment – something that occasions great outrage when it happens to climate scientists.
I think we’d be a lot better off if both sides stopped trying to shut each other down or drive them out of the arena, and we concentrated on persuading people through honest and objective reasoning. Put the Heartland people on national TV, put your best people up against them, and discuss the science.
#322,
You keep confusing different questions, and interpreting quantifiers strangely.
85% is not ‘a consensus’. It’s not ‘near unanimity’. It’s a majority, certainly, but not an overwhelming one. (And as EdG points out, that’s just of those scientists who managed to make a career in climate science – which we know is harder for sceptics.)
The question of whether there is debate is an entirely different question to whether scientists hold one side of the debate as more likely than the other. A debate between 80% of the scientists and 10% of the scientists is still a debate.
The fact that not all scientists agree is evidence that a debate is scientifically to be expected. The fact that even the IPCC state that uncertainties cannot be accounted for and conclusions can only be drawn with expert judgement means that the issue is debatable, because they clearly debated it. The fact they will only give it a “very likely” means it’s still debatable.
You keep on going on about ‘atmospheric physicists’. But this wasn’t what Harris said, and it wasn’t what I said.
In fact, atmospheric physics is not the most appropriate specialisation. You would be better off with experts in statistics and model verification, but in fact the primitive state of the science here is such that any competent scientist would be able to read and draw an opinion as to whether the question was still debatable.
The fact is there is a debate. A solid majority incline to one side of it, but they still write papers on it, they still argue about it, they still seek evidence to support or challenge one side or the other, there are still disagreements and uncertainties. The lie, which we see repeated over and over again, is to present a debate with a majority on one side as virtually unanimous and immovable certainty. It’s not true. And it’s not a picture of real science. It’s a polemic appeal to authority designed to stampede people into agreeing with your side of the debate.
But as I’ve already noted, the idea of you conceding any point is a joke. It’s just entertaining to see what you’ll come up with next.
Jonas N
BBD I don’t need to lie. And what I said is backed up (just scroll upwards)
You said:
I see that BBD has taken his blathering here, and tries to smear people who understand the topics far better than him. Even demands that certain organisations aren’t allowed to participate in public debate unless “¦
This is a false statement. I have asked you to back it up with actual examples of me doing this. You refused and instead made a second false statement claiming that I advocate totalitarianism:
BBD, you have been arguing various totalitarian views and practices here for days “¦It’s been truly amazing “¦ I don’t even need to find any specific comment “¦
When challenged again, you deny that you are making false statements and again fail to provide any examples of either my ‘demand’ that ‘certain organisations’ be ‘denied’ participation in public debate or my advocacy for totalitarianism. Instead, once again, you repeat the false claim that I am arguing for totalitarianism.
You are aggressively attempting to create a straw man and dishonestly denying this fact when challenged. You have been exposed.
Now, you can:
– apologise and retract your false statements
– persist and make an even bigger prat out of yourself
How dishonest do you wish to make yourself appear in this instance?
NiV
I’m still waiting for your responses to 254 and 258.
You are making overblown claims about the level of uncertainty and debate about the role of ACO2 in modern warming. The exact mirror image of what you claim I am doing.
BBD its all up there .. you’ve been arguing that unless …. [your whimsical demands].. are met, Heartland is undemocratic …
What you are attempting is stupid word-play. Since you did not explicitly write “<b>I demand that ..</b>” .. but you have argued exactly that
And there are many more (stupid) things that you have said. All above … I might take you up on some. But your refusal to answer even polite questions is showing .. and showing badly. So it will probably be in vain …
And unfortunately, you are in no position to call me a lier, a prat, or dishonest. This again is just you troll-tactic.
I don’t believe in a “Denialist Machine”, that was the point. There does not need to be any co-ordination, coherence or consistency for denial to be effective.
OP is saying is that a variety of differnt kinds of people disagree with the CAGW story for a variety of reasons. I think he is on to something.
You talk of supression. Ridiculing and exposing Heartland is not supression.
Ridiculing HI is not supression; it is free speech
Exposing? Hard to know what this is until you clarify exactly what you mean.
Committing fraud is not supression; it is against the law; it is a crime.
“outing” HI donors to “pressure” them into stopping IS supression. It is NOT allowed in a free society.
Among other dangerous ideas…
BBD wants a list. He want to know who dares have an opinion different than his. I believe his words were (and I lack the energy to scroll back through the comments) “the public has a right to know who is lieing to children”.
So let’s assume BBD gets his little list of HI donors. Now what is he going to do with it. The only sane answer is: nothing. In which case, he doesn’t need the list.
BBD’s answer will be: let the public know who is lieing. Why? So their good names can be tarnished, their employment threatened, relationships with freinds and neighbors damaged, their children harrassed at school. And, yes, this is exactly what BBD wants. he wants the donor “outed” so they will be “pressured” to stop donating.
But lets ask ourselves what happens if some donors are persistent – or have enough money to just not give a damn what others think. In that case, BBD (or if not him, Michael Tobis, you can bet your hat, ass, and sunglasses) will reason that since 85% of the public disagrees with the donor, then there is
“near unanimity” that the lies must be stopped. To protect children of course. I mean, it is a democracy after all, and the people have spoken, I have a survey… So, BBD will issue a cease and decists order, in the name of “the people”.
Even then, let’s say a few donors are just ornery and don’t stop. Well, BBD will argue, the “nearly unanimous decision” of the public is that these “deliberate lies and deceptions” are endangering our children – who are easily confused, you see, and lack the ability to think independantly (which explains the 60’s) – more forcefull steps are required. Any donors who deny the cease and decists order will be sent to special prisons in North Dakota (or maybe just sent to North Dakota, which is as good as prision – my apologies if you currently reside there ;-).)
And now, at long last, we will have achieved BBD utopia. Nobody who disagrees with BBD (who is demonstrably of towering inteleect) get’s to have a say.
In americas this might be known as “the tyranny of the majority”. It is the reason we have a government of limited powers (though we seem to have lost our way, of late).
BBD needs to step back a bit and ask himself: does he hold any opinions to which a majority might disagree, now or in the future. Hmmmmm. Food for thought.
NiV
Another thing. Your recent response made absolutely no reference to the majority of my comment at 324. Specifically:
The one bit I do disagree with is where Tollefson is quoted claiming Bast dismissed the findings ““ I took the trouble to look up what Bast had said about it and in fact he confirmed the VS&B update as a good study, and supported the results ““ which so far as I can see are quoted accurately.
Rubbish. Bast:
What does this mean? For two-thirds of the questions asked, scientific opinion is DEEPLY DIVIDED, and in half of those cases, most scientists DISAGREE with positions that are at the foundation of the alarmist case. There is certainly NO CONSENSUS on the science behind the global warming scare.
Bast misrepresents vS & B. Tollefson was completely correct. Which is why vS writes:
Tollefson also goes on to state that Bast [founder of the Heartland Institute] “dismisses the findings of a follow up survey by Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.” ““ also an accurate interpretation of the survey data. Tollefson spoke to one of us (HvS), and we find his research done well.
Tell me NiV, why else would vS write this? For fun, perhaps? A practical joke on dear old Bast?
Nullius,
All your 328 rests on a very strict interpretation of the meaning of “consensus”. Your own assumption that there is never “immovable uncertainty” in science suggests that “consensus” might not mean “immovable uncertainty”. An alternative is to consider consensus describes the result of a process of desicion-making. We usually reach consensus by general agreement, not by engineer-level formal derivation.
Jonas N
What you are attempting is stupid word-play. Since you did not explicitly write “<b>I demand that ..</b>” .. but you have argued exactly that
Where have I argued that (as you claim):
[BBD] demands that certain organisations aren’t allowed to participate in public debate unless “¦
Provide an example or withdraw your false statement.
You have now been unable to substantiate your false statement on three occasions yet you persist in making it. There is no possibility of an innocent mistake.
You are a liar.
[keith – comment in moderation at 330 if you have a minute]
This thread has lost its momentum. The crypto-dictators really really want their lists, their ability to censor and suppress, and are too stupid to realize the implications- or they like where those implications lead (more likely). They are too cowardly to actually respond to questions from their critics. It is probably time to move on.
AGW true believers are more and more occupying that space in public discourse typically held by kooks, conspiracy wack jobs, Illuminati believers, UFO believers (UFOols) and 911 truthers. Those people never openly admit they were dealing in bs and become reasonable. Why should those true believers who post here?
hunter (337)
This thread has gone off the rails, in part thanks to the insultathon that you and others gleefully perpetuate. #337 is a perfect example, Your beef is with one or several commenters and yet you use that in a broad-brush fashion to offensively flame.
Also, you don’t like being called a “denier” right? Yet you have no problem with equating “AGW true believers” with “kooks, conspiracy wack jobs, Illuminati believers, UFO believers, and 911 truthers” I’m a little surprised you didn’t include ID/creationists, anti-vaxxers, and the UN Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists–who are so popular with the Tea Party set. You get the point?
Lastly, anyone who hides behind an anonymous handle shouldn’t be flinging charges of cowardice around.
J: BBD its all up there .. you’ve been arguing that unless “¦. [your whimsical demands].. are met, Heartland is undemocratic “¦
BBD: Provide an example or withdraw your false statement.
BBD, I am genuinely concerned for your mental state…
You have repeatedly – n times, as you say – asked that HI’s donors be made public. Your condition si then this: HI is not allowed to participate in the debate unless it’s donors make themselves publie. Your rational, that you have also repeated n times, is that HI can only be democractic if you know who pays them; and you have extended this reasoning more generally.
Now, seriously, do you deny that you’ve argued these les than n times. Do you deny that these aren’t your conditions.
Lastly, anyone who hides behind an anonymous handle shouldn’t be flinging charges of cowardice around.
Really? Do you want my name on a list? Why? I use the same moniker everywhere I go. You can identify my words with my pseudonym. Does it matter if my name is really Joe, or Bob, or Fred. Will that change the content of my argument? Would you like my mailing address?
Do you consider the federalist papers undemocratic? Cowardly?
Perhaps I work in place where AGW skepticism would not be viewed kindly. I have a family to feed… Am i not allowed to express my opinion without fear of reprisal.
What use, exactly, would you make of my name if you had it?
@341,
Read my comment to Hunter closely. Your faux “I am genuinely concerned for your mental state..” is rich.
In case you or anyone else didn’t get the message, this thread has turned ugly in more ways than one. Enough with the denigration from all of you, or I’ll just put the lot of you on moderation.
You can spit at each other in another sandbox.
#333,
The quote from Bast is accurate. You and Tollefson misrepresent it.
Von Storch was only commenting on Tollafson’s description of his own work, he evidently didn’t check whether his description of Bast’s comments was similarly accurate.
#334,
There are a variety of meanings to ‘consensus’, one reason why more precision would be desirable. There are two common interpretations – that everybody agrees, and that everybody consents even if they don’t agree. People will fudge “everyone”, and I’ll grant you that if it was 99% I wouldn’t argue, and of course there are many decisionmaking rules ranging from plurality through majority to unanimity. If you want to argue that a 40:30:30 split counts as “consensus” by plurality, then I think it would be only fair to say this is what you mean. The impression given by use of the word “consensus” is, in my view, very different.
#335,
All the demands and bluster are not impressing anyone. Everyone can read the policies you have advocated. It is the consensus opinion on this side of the table that they come under the heading of ‘totalitarian’, and very obviously so. It’s not a close call. Your intention is clearly to try to exclude Heartland from public debate because you don’t agree with them and want to prevent the ‘damage’ that widespread belief in these views causes. You’ve proposed various indirect ways of doing it and played with subtleties of phrasing, to get round the general prohibitions on doing this sort of thing, but we’re not fooled.
Heartland get to promote their views, and anybody who wants to can spend their own money supporting them anonymously. The same goes for all the green advocacy groups. People expressing views you disagree with does not justify illegality, dishonesty, or invasion of privacy to try to put pressure on them to stop.
I know you don’t see it as unjustified or extreme, but all the other people throughout history who have gone down this path didn’t either. And they too had all sorts of marvellous arguments and explanations to show that what they were doing was justified in the circumstances and not unreasonable or oppressive. We’ve seen it happen too often before.
Heartland, right or wrong, are free to express their views. Gleick’s tactics against them were not justified. Please, for your own sake, stop trying to argue otherwise.
@342
Did I say any of that. I just said that an anonymous commenter has little standing to be calling someone else cowardly.
Make of it what you will–oh wait, looks like you’ve read a ton into it, already.
From my (obviously poorly enforced) comment policy:
I’m aiming for lively and intelligent debate. I’ll settle for civility.
No ad homs, no slurs, no personal insults, no name calling, no guilt-by association, no nastiness.
BBD as usual you are being utterly ridiculous …
You have at length argued that what Peter Gleick did, should be required anyway (that private information should be revealed, and third party’s financial involvment should be discolsed). And you have argued repeatedly that Heartland should not do what it is doing and publicly stating that it is doing. You said it is wrong and anti-freedom, anti-democratic. You said:
“I’m saying that HI should be widely exposed as a peddler of pseudo-science and disinformation, and its principal funders made public. The public has both a need and a democratic right to know who is trying to cheat the system.”
And still, BBD, I never need to lie in any debate. (I might be wrong occasionally, and if I realize it I will correct my self).
And if you feel that I have grossly misstated your view or misunderstood what you meant, you are of course free to point this out. (But here you have been arguing one thing: That privacy is undemocratic, and that partaking in public debate shouldn’t be allowed unless … [your crank demands are met]
But untruthfullness, misrepresentation, blatant lies, quote mincing, wordplay etc is far mor frequent on your side. As you yourself have amply demonstrated here.
And using your (utterly pathetic) definition of what constitutes ‘a lie’, you have been lying many many times. Fortunately I don’t need to play stupid wordgames like this. I just notice that you write nonsens, falshoods, and occasionaly falshoods that even you should be aware of ..
Without knowing the exact motive!
Here however, you have detailed your ambitions. And yes, they definitively have a totalitarian slant …
Keith,
I will tone back my rhetoric. Your admonishment is appropriate; I confess. My apologies. I do appreciate the tolerant way you host your site. And it is your site.
So, as politely as I can…
Your #345 is unresponsive. You know my name. Anyone who reads my comments knows my name. It is kdk33.
Why do you need to know more than that?
You don’t have to answer, and I won’t comment further on this thread. But perhaps yuu should give it some thought.
Keith,
Sorry, I missed your #343.
#346 – Good. I asked about comment policy previously, and I think you said the practice was a little different from the aspiration. Has this now changed? Or do we wait and see if things can be calmed down?
I don’t know if this is helpful, but I’ve noticed this happening more in the recent longer threads (due to light posting?) on the political end of the debate. Controversial partisan topics generate heat. It may be an unfortunate and unforseen consequence of spending less time on blogging.
@349
Too funny. So because I’m not feeding the blog beast enough food to chew on, the mongrels tear away at each other in hunger?
Click on the ads, if you want to help make it worth my while. Light posting is better than none, in the meantime.
Keith Kloor
Sorry, and I am a little bit guilty too. And btw quite used that sort of language from the climate scare side.
But you have to distinguish between personal ad homs (directed a named or present individual) and the fact that there is much nasty stuff going on in and around this issue. And that some of them correctly should be labelled as eg eco fascist, and others do indeed actively lie to further their agenda. And yet others are in it solely for the money and the lifestyle it provides. And the monies handed out do also and really attract organized crime ..
It is true that bringing these things up, and making broader statements can sometimes be interpreted as also a personal afront or accusation. Wrongfullly so.
But the nastiness of the issue won’t go away just because you don’t mention it. Or point it out.
I agree that debates like this sometimes derail and get nasty. And its true: it is not only the climate scare side that starts with the personal attacks. But very often unfortunately …
#350,
It wasn’t intended as a criticism or complaint; just an observation.
I remember this from when I was a small child, five six years old or so:
When one kid said something that another didn’t agree with, or didn’t like, or just didn’t want to be true, the instinctive response would sometimes be:
‘You are lying, .. liar liar! ‘
As a defence mechanism, and since kids are unable to distinguish between nuances, not used to abstractions, not aware of that their little universe is not the center of everybody elses, and only know their own and quite immedeate needs.
It is somewhat surreal to see this behaviour (so frequent) among supposedly grown ups.
As the details of Fakegate continue to unfold it is clear that Peter Gleick was willing to sacrifice all credibility in the climate debate to achieve his own ends. His ardent defenders now join him in sacrificing their own credibility by association and approval of applying situational ethics above objective science. It seems that the term “denier” has now switched camps.
NiV
The quote from Bast is accurate. You and Tollefson misrepresent it.
Oh come on. I’ve read the link you provided. Here’s some more Bast:
I found pretty much the same thing in an analysis I did of Bray and von Storch’s 2003 survey. Working through allied organizations, The Heartland Institute distributed more than 500,000 copies of that booklet opinion leaders in the U.S. and Canada. I believe it played a major role in shifting informed opinion against the alarmists.
This survey, like the previous one, provides us with a fascinating ANATOMY OF A SCIENTIFIC DELUSION. When asked, majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, yet large majorities of those same scientists say they nevertheless believe in the theory and its predictions. This cognitive dissonance is, I believe, what gives rise to and sustains popular mass delusions.
Here’s von Storch, again:
Tollefson also goes on to state that Bast [founder of the Heartland Institute] “dismisses the findings of a follow up survey by Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.” ““ also an accurate interpretation of the survey data. Tollefson spoke to one of us (HvS), and we find his research done well.
Clearly you are going to have to take this up with HvS. Good luck. Post a link. This I would like to see.
It is the consensus opinion on this side of the table that they come under the heading of “˜totalitarian’, and very obviously so.
Well you’d better come up with a decent explanation of why arguing for transparency of funding to prevent the subversion of democracy by monied special interest is ‘totalitarian’. And quick. Because nobody on this thread has done so yet. All they do is howl: totalitarian. Which is of course both an avoidance tactic and nonsense.
People expressing views you disagree with does not justify illegality, dishonesty, or invasion of privacy to try to put pressure on them to stop.
Where do I say this? Where? Come on – everybody claims this but I’ve *never* said it. It’s a straw man, nothing more. For the nth time, I have argued that transparency permits ‘the people’ to make informed evaluations of the lobbying that takes place, and rational voting decisions flow from that.
It is *not* necessary to silence lobbying groups. It is only necessary to make it obvious who is paying significant sums for influence by *funding* them. This is not an assault on free speech. More straw.
Once again: transparency is necessary for functional democracy. Opacity is the tool of special interests and leads to oppression. How you can argue the inverse is beyond me. And please don’t go off on one of your self-congratulatory tangents about how you can see multiple viewpoints and I can’t. This exchange is ample evidence to the contrary.
And NiV, when are you going to respond to 254 and 258?
Formatting failure. Bast quotes above are:
I found pretty much the same thing in an analysis I did of Bray and von Storch’s 2003 survey. Working through allied organizations, The Heartland Institute distributed more than 500,000 copies of that booklet opinion leaders in the U.S. and Canada. I believe it played a major role in shifting informed opinion against the alarmists.
This survey, like the previous one, provides us with a fascinating ANATOMY OF A SCIENTIFIC DELUSION. When asked, majorities of climate scientists say they do not believe the scientific claims that underlie the theory and predictions of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, yet large majorities of those same scientists say they nevertheless believe in the theory and its predictions. This cognitive dissonance is, I believe, what gives rise to and sustains popular mass delusions.
Jonas N @ 353
I am biting my tongue hard here.
Keith has called for order. Stop poking. Stop *trolling*.
BBD – consistency isn’t your thing. Either …
Does anyone else find it ironic that the title of this Article is “Avoiding Climate Derangement Syndrome”?
Yes!!
Bobito
Yes, I noticed that. And we get a perfect display of derangement here. Inadvertantly of course. But I wonder why Keith introduced the term. It’s almost like begging for …
.. what we eventually got here!
Jonas N.
The title and content of the article became moot after the first several posts. The title could have been “Gleick, Heartland, AGW – GO!” and we would have likely ended up in the same place.
If only the fringe on both sides the AGW debate could see how deranged they appear, to the people that sit in the gray area in between, we might be able to get somewhere with finding reasonable solutions to the AGW issue.
I’d apologize to Keith for jumping off topic, but I think this actually the first on-topic post in a couple days… 😉
Bobito – You just beat me to it. There seems to be a fair display of it throughout the comments from both ends of the spectrum.
On side note, here is another example of another well-educated individual losing his moral compass to further the environmental cause.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-op-rennie-odd-phone-call-20120228-9,0,1127736.column
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-op-rennie-odd-phone-call-20120228-9,0,1127736.column
BobN “losing his moral compass”.
This it he problem, the “derangement” allows people to believe they are being moral. Here’s one on the other side (a bit dated, but first that sprang to mind): God will save us from climate change
Meanwhile, we all masticate minutia as observed global temps have recently fallen back to 1980 levels. How low will they go?
Meanwhile, we all masticate minutia as observed global temps have recently fallen back to 1980 levels. How low will they go?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2012.png
ivp0
Meanwhile, we all masticate minutia as observed global temps have recently fallen back to 1980 levels. How low will they go?
A few things:
– It’s a noisy data-set. Smoothing with annual means makes the actual situation much clearer
– Tropospheric temperatures are now significantly higher on average than during the 1980s
– Tropospheric temperature now is depressed by La Nina conditions (although these may be fading)
– Tropospheric temperatures were lower than the present in 2000, 2004 and 2008
– Note how cool the troposphere got at the maximum of the 2008 La Nina… and look where it went in 2010 during the El Nino
– La Nina conditions appear to be weakening – futher cooling is looking increasingly unlikely
Let’s not get carried away.
It will be interesting to read what the BEST paper says if it get through peer review.
When the Anthony Watts paper made it through peer review, it was entirely unrecognizable from the propaganda he had been peddling (and still does), on his blog and at the Heartland Institute. Curry seems to have such a disconnect as well.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/anthony_watts_contradicted_by.php
Peer review is important. It’s one pass at distinguishing the signal from the noise. It’s obvious why advocacy organizations like HI avoid it.
On consensus, typical percentages are well into the 90’s these days. Nice work, BBB, in finding this piece from von Storch:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2011/08/bray-and-von-storch-on-tollefsons-piece.html
This doesn’t include the Prall study, which also puts the figure at 97%.
Consensus on attribution to human causes has increased. Where consensus has dropped, it’s due to more scientists now believing the IPCC underestimates certain impacts.
If von Storch’s 2008 survey has a flaw, it’s in question wording, which is often ambiguous.
How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
If one interprets “near future” to be just 10 years, confidence would weaken. Still, only 1% answered with a value of “1” (not at all convinced). That would be Lindzen’s answer.
Selection bias might be a minor problem in such surveys. One could speculate that since deniers tend to be very vociferous, and claim their views aren’t taken seriously, that they would have a higher probability of answering a survey like this to let their opinions be known.
What is painfully obvious is that when Heartland Institute’s Bast claims in a letter to donors that most scientists are on his side, he’s either completely delusional, dishonest, or both.
Bobito
I couldn’t speak for (or of) “the fringe on [the saner] side[ of] the AGW debate”, but if seen uniformed people on the climate scare skeptical side too. And occasional unwarranted outbursts.
My contention however is that the scare side is very quick to lose it in any debate. The ones that manage to argue factually and keep a civil tone definitely are the exception.
And, unfortunately, I don’t think that:
“the people that sit in the gray area in between, we might be able to get somewhere with finding reasonable solutions to the AGW issue”
For several reasons. Firstly, there is no real AGW-issue to address or even solve. Regardless if AGW amounts to 0.2 °C or (the more unlikely) 2.5°C in 100 years, there is no feasible way to alter the course of humanity to even measurably affect any of those numbers (regardless of what the answer to the scientific question is).
Secondly, those on the climate scare side who participate in the ‘debate’ have many (and mutually quite different) motives not to debate the real issues, but instead keep the flame burning and make this an issue of division. For instance:
The activists, like Gleick, like Gore, WWF, Friends of Earth, Union of Concerned ‘Scientists’, GreenPeace and other entities and astroturfed organizations are for the most obvious reasons completely uninterested in being reasonable about anything.
Also the scientists (both the larger group are referred to as ‘climate scientists’ and those of them who actually study the A-mechanisms of AGW) have little interest in debating with those who believe the A is at best a small ‘a’. And as we see, almost all ‘climate scientists’ shun debating with other than like minded and alarmists.
Thirdly, as BBD addresses, most debaters on the climate scare side are publicly funded, and many even specifically employed to further the AGW-scare in various ways. Generally they won’t argue that what their jobs are a waste of time and resources. Only very few privately financed/employed are partaking publicly in the debate, and even fewer of them on the scare side. BBD thinks that you hear too much from the remainder, and argues various ways to hinder them even further from participating in the public debate, or addressing policy issues.
And finally, we have the large follower crowd whose primary motivation is to ‘belong to’ the righteous side, and who cannot debate the real issues (neither the science nor policy) but nevertheless feel that their voices, if they raise them, ‘matter’ somehow ..
I cannot see that any of those large groups (generally) has any interest in honest factual debate. And as I’ve said, there are exceptions, but they are very few, they aren’t loud enough to be noticed in the public battle for media attention. And quite frankly, they are often ferociously attacked by the faithers, the hard line followers, the haters and the professional advocates, even on their own side of the issue, for their transgression of legitimating (what they perceive as) ‘the enemy’ ..
We’ve seen that many times.
And I’ve been around long enough to have seen similar behavior on a similar societal issue, and it bot started, rose, peaked, and fell apart in a quite similar way. And the costs involved, and the wounds and scars it inflicted are of similar kind.
But thanks to better ways of communicating among people, the damage albeit humongous, will be less than last time.
Incidentally, the scare&hate-mongers also last time thought it was a huge problem that people got information not only from them, and tried their worst to inhibit free debate and information. And back then, had better means and actually managed exactly that, at least for some decades …
BBD #368
A minor pointer on the technical side.
There is very little noise in the global mean temperature measurements. There might be systematic errors. But noise, no, not really.
The temperature measurements pretty much give you the actual (global mean) temperature spot on.
You might want to argue, that some of the (very real) temperature variations, are of a kind (and cause) that have zero mean value, and as you suggest, that this also cancels out when averaged over one year.
But then, this is the statement you are making. Not about ‘getting rid of moise’. And if you want to argue that you know the mechanism of the variations, its mean value and over what time it should be considered representative, then that is what you need to argue.
But just using a one-year-smoothing and claiming that this reveals a deeper ‘truth’ than the actual measurements, that would be nonsense!
Unfortunately, this line of ‘argument’ is not uncommon among those who really want to believe in a climate scare … (And neither is the total incomprehension, when the above is pointed out to them)
Jonas N
Can I check that I have understood you @ 372?
You are suggesting that there are multiple but unknown forcings causing the monthly variability in GAT. You imply that in sum these forcings are responsible for long-term climate behaviour. You are arguing – presumably – that radiative forcing from CO2 is not a significant component of the sum of forcings determining monthly variation in GAT.
So you can say:
But just using a one-year-smoothing and claiming that this reveals a deeper “˜truth’ than the actual measurements, that would be nonsense!
Is that about right?
Jonas, the issue with arguing “noise” is the natural variation. All of the modern warming can be attributed to natural causes because ice core data going back 100’s of thousands of years shows this type of warming over and over again.
This “noise” is a primary cause of the controversy. One can invoke Occam’s Razor and say “the simplest explanation is that it’s natural variations because we have proof that no other explanation is required”.
I don’t subscribe to this, I feel that ACO2 does cause warming. But it’s just very difficult to attribute how much. The warming over the last century could be natural, but it’s actually more likely that global temperatures should have fallen over that time frame since we are headed towards the next ice age. The temperature path to the ice age isn’t a straight one, so we could be going up naturally, but we should be spending most of the time between now and the ice age going down.
The noise isn’t the issue, the temperature isn’t the issue, it’s how much ACO2 is affecting the temperature. In actuality, the temperature could drop annually for the next thousand years and it wouldn’t disprove that ACO2 warms the earth. And, the temperature could go up for the same period without proving the ACO2 does cause warming.
Bobito (and BBD)
My point was that noise is ‘error’ in measurement. And that the noise in measuring temperatures is essentially zero.
I was not going into any of the ‘what causes the variations’-stuff. I was pointing out a quite basic error often made when people filter their only data, talk about trends and want to argue that the filtering itself provides any additional information.
It doesn’t!
374 – That is a very rational post, and I essentially agree with the whole thing.
There are still too many known and unknown unknowns for the certainty some imagine about the role of CO2.
I see there’s a new paper out about cosmic ray effects. Will it be substantiated with more research? Don’t know. But I do know that this information was not available when The Consensus started claiming that the ‘science’ was settled.’
I also see there’s a new paper about about solar effects. Will it be substantiated by more research? Again, don’t know but it is new information not available when the debate supposedly ended.
Rushing to simplistic conclusions about something as complex as global climate is just plain foolish, particularly when the Vostok graphs show that this is yet another little blip.
I personally see this recent warming as primarily the natural ending of the Little Ice Age and doubt very much if CO2 will make much difference in this cycle. And I have yet to see any evidence – real evidence – to the contrary.
BBD #373
I meant exactly what I wrote. And I wrote what this implies.
I didn’t mention ‘forcings’ nor if those where additive, or if CO2 was significant. Or anything about long term behavior. Or what would constitute ‘long term’ ..
I said, that the (average) temperatures that are reported are pretty much it.
If ‘forcings’ is your general explanation, you need to have ‘forcings’ causing these observed and virtually true, exact variations.
But I know you aren’t a science guy (no offense) although you quite often pretend to be able to read and even distinguish between what constitutes good, poor, pseudo and even fake science. You can’t! And when you do, you posture (offense).
But what I wrote, was more high school level. Basic stuff.
Jonas N
I was not going into any of the “˜what causes the variations’-stuff. I was pointing out a quite basic error often made when people filter their only data, talk about trends and want to argue that the filtering itself provides any additional information.
So you are saying that applying a simple averaging – be it annual or greater – to a monthly temperature time-series is sufficient to render further inference from that series invalid – including fitting multi-decadal trends?
@376 – Right back atcha. Certainly agree with most of your post as well. I’d just like to see a long downward trend before I will be convinced that AGW is a non-issue; unfortunately, my carbon may be sequestered under ground before that happens. 😉
As long as everyone’s oppinions can remain malleable as the science and data mature we can keep ahead of the potential problem while not implementing “solutions” that will be more damaging to the residents of earth than the problems AGW could possibly cause.
Jonas N
My point was that noise is “˜error’ in measurement. And that the noise in measuring temperatures is essentially zero.
I think I should have picked up on this earlier. ‘Noise’ is not restricted to measurement error. When I referred to noise in GAT time-series I meant monthly variation. I sense confusion.
Jonas: My point was that noise is “˜error’ in measurement.
That’s one of many definitions of “noise”.
It’s also used in science in various forms, such as (the following from Kirtman)
““ Ensemble mean defines “climate signal”
““ Deviation about ensemble mean defines
Noise
Specifically, “noise” can refer to the ENSO fluctuations.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/the_global_warming_signal_minu.html
One Webster’s definition is:
loud, confused, or senseless shouting or outcry
which appears to apply to most of the posts from Jonas, including the latest exercise in profound obtusity.
BBD
I am saying something very different. Please go back to my first comment on the topic #372
BBD #380
Yes, you did call ‘monthly variation’ noise … And yes, that is confusion.
I see Singer is still creating misleading graphs with polynomials.
Funny that those that get all bent out of shape about “hockey sticks” never seem to complain about that.
@Jonas N
> Yes, you did call “˜monthly variation’ noise “¦ And yes, that is confusion.
The only confusion here is that you are under the false impression that it is not.
Dave H and NewYorkJ, you are good examples of what I meant in #372
Jonas N
I’m still trying to work out what you did mean in 372.
@BBD
What Jonas means in 372 is that he does not know what noise means in relation to global temperatures, but that to admit it would require backing down, so it is better to keep on insisting that it means only what he thinks it means, and that *everybody else in the entire world* is wrong.
BBD, I can repeat what you seem to be missing:
You might want to argue, that some of the (very real) temperature variations, are of a kind (and cause) that have zero mean value, and as you suggest, that this also cancels out when averaged over one year.
But then, this is the statement you are making. Not about “˜getting rid of noise’. And if you want to argue that you know the mechanism of the variations, its mean value and over what time it should be considered representative, then that is what you need to argue.
Dave H (and BBD), here is a set (series) of data points:
12.3, 11.0, 11.5. 12.1, 12.1, 11.7, 11.1, 12,7. 12.0, 11.4, 12.2. 12.5
Can you tell me what is noise and what is signal? Do you think that anybody can? Why? Or why not?
@384
“Funny that those that get all bent out of shape about “hockey sticks” never seem to complain about that.”
Can you send me a link to the IPCC report in which Mr. Singer’s graph is prominently featured?
Ah. So mystery forcings it is 🙂
BBD, don’t know what you are trying to infer. You want to use ‘forcing’ as explanation.
As I told you (many times) now: The measured variations are real, not noise. And they represent physical heat content. Something caused those changes. If you want to argue that you can ignore (filter) them over a period of one year, you need a physical rational for that. Which of course you can’t provide if you want to say they are caused by some unknown ‘mystery forcings’.
Jonas N
If you want to argue that you can ignore (filter) them over a period of one year, you need a physical rational for that.
Averaging is inclusive. Filtering is exclusive. I sense confusion.
One of my favorite ‘Far Side’ cartoon shows a student in a classroom asking to be able to leave because his brain is full.
On that tangent, for such students, I regret to post new information relevant to the debate that is over because somebody thought they knew everything before they knew much at all:
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/02/emphatic-blow-to-co2-warmists-new-study-shows-a-clear-millennial-solar-impact-throughout-holocene/
BBD .. confusion there is plenty. And possibly obfuscation. Your last comment has no bearing whatsoever on the topic. Not even as word play …
BBD,
It seems you had a long discussion about ethics without the ‘expert’ on ethics himself! Me! Now that I call unethical!
No one has ever asked people to be perfect (though I do remember people saying how ‘unethical’ it was to quote those ‘stolen’ CRU emails? Did you ever say that? I mean, if I look back, will I find out you’re hypocrite? No!), one asks them to be consistent, to say what they mean and mean what they say. When that is meaningless, then so is everything else!
Jonas N
Averaging uses all the data.
Filtering selects part of the data.
You are filtering.
BBD, as so often, you have no point.
Have you decided what is noise and what is signal in the sequence of data points in #390?
@368
Sorry BBD, work sometimes gets in the way of climate discussions. So let me be clear, you are suggesting that you know where global temps are headed over the next year? 5 years? 10 years?
I suspect you haven’t a clue but please enlighten all of us with your BBD global temp climate forecast. Feel free to cite peer reviewed literature to support your conclusions. This should be interesting.
@400 ivp0
BBD is likely done for the night, I will do my best to reply on his behalf and in his style:
*Ahem*
The most compelling evidence is that climate sensitivity is likely to be at least 3.0 deg C per doubling as per Hansen and Sato 2011. This should be evident to anyone who isn’t insane or willfully stupid.
Menth,
Thanks! I need that refresher! Now where’s my koolaid?
I’m definitely not drinking the +3C Koolaid but you go right ahead Menth. Enjoy!
@403, 402
Keep in mind I was not reflecting my own beliefs but what I believe BBD’s are to the best of my knowledge.
Understood, Menth, and only ‘Joshuaing’ you. I’m just wondering when the extra 2.8C is going to happen?
2.2C, sorry! My maths ( as we say in England ). (3-0.8)
Good discussion on ‘noise’! I generally agree – I’ll just add my slightly different perspective.
The term ‘noise’ contrasted with ‘signal’ comes from detection theory, a branch of statistics. The basis of this is to devise a statistical model of the observations that depends on some parameters of interest (the signal) and others that are not of interest (the noise). The distinction between them is therefore both subjective (it depends on what you’re interested in) and model-dependent (if your model of the physics is completely wrong, the distinction drawn may be entirely meaningless).
The intuition behind moving average filters is based on a model of the physics in which the signal consists only of low frequencies, while the noise is either high frequency or broadband. The moving average filter simply attenuates high frequencies – and as the noise is stronger than the signal here (with this model), it therefore attenuates the noise and reduces the error in the estimation of the signal. In general, you zero out any parts of the spectrum where the noise is stronger than the signal; you’ll lose some of the signal, and retain some of the noise, but you’ll improve the ratio of the two as much as you may.
Note, the validity of this procedure is entirely reliant on you knowing in advance the frequency spectrum of the signal you’re looking for.
The other question relates to using the data for further statistical estimation after you’ve filtered it. The best advice here is to only do this if you really know what you’re doing, and moreover have a complete understanding of the characteristics of signal and noise. The problem is that the filtering process can affect the errors in unexpected ways. Your filter will have cut off parts of the signal, and changed the shape of the noise, and these may conflict with the assumptions your subsequent calculations depend on.
In particular, the ordinary least-squares linear trend calculation, that some people seem to slap on any chart almost automatically, assumes identical independent zero-mean Gaussian errors – which has a ‘white noise’ flat spectrum. But you’ve just filtered the data, haven’t you? So the spectrum of the remaining noise is no longer flat.
In the current case, the disagreement is really subjective: is the signal you’re interested in the weather/climate, or is it the global warming signal? If you’re talking about weather/climate, then the signal has both low frequency and high frequency components, things like ENSO, the AMO/PDO cycles, and the natural chaotic day-to-day variations of clouds and storms and weather systems are part of the weather, and therefore part of the signal. Filtering them out distorts the signal and increases the error. Removing ENSO because it helps your argument, but not AMO/PDO because that doesn’t, compounds the problem. By chopping out everything that doesn’t fit your hypothesis, and keeping in everything that does, it is little surprise to find the result confirms your expectations. Trying to draw conclusions from the output of such manipulation is a dangerous game.
But for BBD, the only signal of interest is the component due to increasing CO2, which he already knows is of low frequency, and that ENSO is not included in it. He has implicitly constructed a statistical model around his hypothesis, and performs his manipulations to emphasise it, removing that pesky ‘weather’ noise. He’s not interested in what the actual weather/climate is doing, only the global warming bit. This is the ‘signal’. The weather going on outside the window is just noise.
This is also the reasoning behind the belief that the global temperature is still going up, even when the measured temperature is not. The temperature they’re talking about is the AGW component, their ‘signal’, not the actual weather which to them is just noise.
If their model of the physics is wrong – if there is significant low-frequency non-AGW climate change going on – the results they get will be nonsense. That’s just as you would expect if you reason from false premises. But if you already know in advance that the physical model is correct, then it’s much less unreasonable. But it’s important to understand just how much of the resulting graph is actually the prior assumptions and not the observed data.
Anyway, good discussion. A lot more pleasant!
NiV
So this isn’t this and that 0.5C of anthropogenic warming since the 1970s is an artefact of the signal processing.
Phew! Panic over. And how silly of those incompetent climate scientists to have missed all this. We are indeed fortunate to have NiV to stet everyone straight.
Now, when are you going to respond to 254 and 258?
ivp0
Sorry BBD, work sometimes gets in the way of climate discussions. So let me be clear, you are suggesting that you know where global temps are headed over the next year? 5 years? 10 years? I suspect you haven’t a clue but please enlighten all of us with your BBD global temp climate forecast.
So it’s okay for you to speculate on future temperature, but not for me?
Meanwhile, we all masticate minutia [sic] as observed global temps have recently fallen back to 1980 levels. How low will they go?
Snarky and inconsistent. Double points for you.
For a rational look at the current temperature and likely forthcoming increase over 2012, please see my response to you at 368. It is at least backed by reason.
Keith,
One thing that would help society avoid CDS would be for alamists to point out all the lies in news reports such as this one http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers?newsfeed=true
This is packed with more significant lies per paragraph than anything I’ve read in a while. You want to avoid making people really hot? Expose crap like this for the worthless propaganda and libel that it is.
The fact that the BS is being spouted by the most recognizable climate “scientist” on the planet doesn’t do alarmists any favors in the realm of credibility. Using lying slandermongers as the public face of the movement isn’t likely to be helpful to the cause.
NiV
This is also the reasoning behind the belief that the global temperature is still going up, even when the measured temperature is not.
You might find this interesting. You can get the draft here (pdf).
BBD #408
Tell me please: How exactly do you go about when looking at observed data points, not only to decide what part should be considered ‘noise’ and what is ‘signal’, but also to decide what actually caused the signal you believe to have detected?
I have asked you a (simpler) related question several times before: What is signal and what is noise in this data series:
12.3, 11.0, 11.5. 12.1, 12.1, 11.7, 11.1, 12,7. 12.0, 11.4, 12.2. 12.5
Jonas N,
Are you suggesting this looks like a random walk?
Jonas N
Tell me please: what is the problem with averaging monthly means in a temperature time-series to smooth the curve for improved clarity?
Stop being obtuse.
NiV
Re # 411 I was being absolutely serious with no point-scoring intent. I’m fairly sure you will find that paper interesting and I would be interested to hear your thoughts as and when (I do not mean tonight, just when it’s next relevant).
NiV
Removing ENSO because it helps your argument, but not AMO/PDO because that doesn’t, compounds the problem. By chopping out everything that doesn’t fit your hypothesis, and keeping in everything that does, it is little surprise to find the result confirms your expectations. Trying to draw conclusions from the output of such manipulation is a dangerous game.
[…]
But for BBD, the only signal of interest is the component due to increasing CO2, which he already knows is of low frequency, and that ENSO is not included in it. He has implicitly constructed a statistical model around his hypothesis, and performs his manipulations to emphasise it, removing that pesky “˜weather’ noise. He’s not interested in what the actual weather/climate is doing, only the global warming bit. This is the “˜signal’. The weather going on outside the window is just noise.
I see we are talking about Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) again. And you are making mistaken assumptions. Foster has discussed the AMO and PDO etc. Please see here and here.
Discussion of F&R11 here including link to full paper.
#412,
He’s suggesting that without a prior statistical model of the observations it is impossible to separate signal (however you want to define it) from noise. The data might be all noise, or all signal, or a weighted sum, or even some weird non-linear combination. You can’t just look at data shorn of all physical context and figure out from it what’s going on.
#415,
Well, my first thought was “What did I just say about calculating linear trends?” but that struck me as uncharitable, the paper is kind of interesting.
Some random thoughts:
1. I don’t consider the past 10-15 years a problem for the AGW hypothesis, for the same reason I don’t consider the previous 20 years to be confirmation of it. Unless you understand the characteristics of natural variation – and Foster notwithstanding I don’t believe we do – you can’t separate them. It’s good that researchers are trying to figure out what caused it, a pity they had to put in the obligatory nod to the orthodoxy in a paper that sheds no light on the question.
2. It seemed noteworthy that the cooling they observed is in precisely the place the AGW hypothesis predicts the strongest warming.
3. Some of the bars in the figures are filled in, to indicate statistical significance – which requires some model of the noise. I haven’t read the entire paper very carefully, but I didn’t notice them mention what model they used. I suspect it’s a default, and therefore not very meaningful.
4. They have identified particular regions that showed cooling trends, and proposed that consideration of mechanisms take that into account. But the locations that happened to cool might be random chance. The weather happened to go one place rather than some other. It’s like looking at a long series of coin tosses to show that the coin is biased – if the difference from 1/2 is larger in the second half of the run, does that mean it was getting more biased as time passed? There’s a risk we’re staring at chicken entrails, here.
5. The adjustments people have applied to recover the global warming signal have involved things like removing ENSO. Has ENSO had a big cooling effect in Northern Europe and Siberia, and not anywhere else? This would seem to suggest that ENSO is not the issue, and it’s removal was motivated more by curve-fitting to the hypothesis than actual knowledge. That said, I’d not put too much weight on this study either, so no conclusions yet.
6. The map looks rather sparsely populated. I know CRUTEM is sparse in the early years prior to about 1940, but I’m fairly sure they’ve got better coverage than that. It also looks a bit too smooth to me. Roughly 1/3 of stations are cooling and 2/3 are warming, and at a local level the situation is noisy. I wouldn’t expect big blocks of colour like that. Maybe it’s the gridcell averaging and trend extraction that’s doing it, but I’d want to look more closely at how those trends were calculated, and what adjustments were done. I suspect there’s some additional homogenisation going on – and that would affect the stats.
7. It’s fairly well known that the number of temperature stations being fed into the algorithms varies quite a lot – known as ‘the great dying of the thermometers’ – and I have a vague recollection that Siberia was one of the places particularly affected. I’d be interested in looking at that, and similar adjustment issues, to see if there was any relationship. That’s something that could go either way, of course. It’s probable that the earlier data is more reliable.
8. Local warming != Global warming.
Nevertheless, the non-point-scoring is appreciated, and in that spirit I’ll say thanks. I don’t think we can draw any conclusions from it yet, but it is something to bear in mind when people propose explanations for the recent levelling off of actual temperatures.
#416,
Actually, I was referring to #381 NewYorkJ citing Thompson.
Yes, I know about Foster’s thoughts. His saying that the AMO is caused by global warming makes no sense (how can an oscillation be identical to a rising trend?), and his point about periodicity is a straw man. We can just as easily say that ENSO is caused by global warming, and is not perfectly regular. He notes that they’re measured by looking at temperature, so he’s correct to say it’s no surprise that they’re correlated, but the actual argument is that if the AMO is an oscillation then it must be caused by something else, and therefore so is that component of global warming.
Foster may be claiming here that it isn’t in fact an oscillation, and is just mis-named, but he isn’t clear on that.
The posts, especially the second one, seemed to me a lot of bluster that talked around the issue to give the impression of having answered it without actually giving an answer. Yes, we know climate scientists know about the AMO/PDO. In fact, I think it might have been Michael Mann that first noted them. But the point was that AMO/PDO/ENSO are all part of the climate (and likely closely related to one another) – removing some as ‘noise’ and leaving others as ‘signal’ is cherry-picking, and every additional layer of complexity added post-hoc into the statistical model further reduces the confidence.
Foster says yes they know about them and yes they’re correlated, but he didn’t give any clear reason why we should remove one and not the other.
But in this case I can quite see why you’d think so. No blame to you on this one.
The other question relates to using the data for further statistical estimation after you’ve filtered it. The best advice here is to only do this if you really know what you’re doing,
Briggs has a thought on this. I believe it can be summarized as: never.
NiV
With the flag of truce still flying, some random responses:
Bob Tisdale illustrates the illusion of the 60-year PDO oscillation.
1. You disagree with F&S but don’t detail the exact flaws in the methodology. I don’t think there’s been a reply to this paper either, but I may be wrong – do you know of one?
2. It seemed noteworthy that the cooling they observed is in precisely the place the AGW hypothesis predicts the strongest warming.
Indeed. I thought the seasonal and spatial analysis in Cohen et al. (2012) was fascinating. Still mulling it over. It’s why I thought you might find this an interesting paper. In a non-point-scoring way. I think it deserves a wide audience.
I did not mean to burden you on a Saturday night – I don’t want to respond to 3 – 7. As you say, you haven’t had time to look at the paper properly and I really didn’t expect you to. My only comment is that I’m a bit disheartened by the various digs at the reliability of the observational and model data provided.
Foster says yes they know about them and yes they’re correlated, but he didn’t give any clear reason why we should remove one and not the other.
As per your (1) I think you are mistaken and the AMO post at OM is worth another look, even if it means clenched teeth.
The second post was less convincing, I agree.
419 “I’m a bit disheartened by the various digs at the reliability of the observational and model data provided.”
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/01/data-tamperin-giss-caught-red-handed-manipulaing-data-to-produce-arctic-climate-history-revision/
If anyone is interested on what Cohen is on about, there’s this Dot Earth article.
#419,
I’m curious, with the Bob Tisdale post, how it is that half a dozen reconstructions of the same thing can look so completely different?
Had they all been the same but clearly non-periodic, I’d have seen your point. But my immediate reaction to that graph is to not believe the proxies. The MacDonald one seems to show peaks at kinda regular intervals, but not all at the same level. I’d guess that’s where the claims of an oscillation come from. But if the proxy is dubious, so is the conclusion. I shall have to think about that.
I had seen articles saying effects of the oscillations had been traced further back (I remember one talking about the periodic migrations of Pacific Salmon and plankton to follow water temperature, but I forget where), but those were with one proxy, not a range. Thanks. That’s useful.
The reliability of the observational data used is important, and I wasn’t consciously ‘digging’ at it. It was what I thought. If you’ll note, several of them could be interpreted to mean the recent flattening of the trend could be an artifact of poor data. Uncertainty cuts both ways.
EdG
Cohen does not use GISTEMP.
As for the underlying assumption of fakery, we have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe that ‘they’ are faking the temperature records. Can we leave it at that?
NiV
Well, either we can say ‘that’s proxies for you’ or we could argue that there’s no periodicity. Or not, etc. Fair enough (shelve for now?).
If you’ll note, several of them could be interpreted to mean the recent flattening of the trend could be an artifact of poor data. Uncertainty cuts both ways.
You say poor data, but I’m not sure why. Which data sets do you think Cohen should have used? Or do you suggest that none are sufficiently reliable?
NiV
I have to say this. I never had you down as a ‘kinda’ sort of a guy. My bad.
423 “I don’t believe that “˜they’ are faking the temperature records.”
Well, BBD, that is because you refuse to look outside your box at the evidence that shows that they are.
In the meantime, avoid any analysis or conclusion based on GISS data because it is now just convenient fiction.
By the way, there is now quite the discussion about that “lies” paper we discussed earlier at WUWT.
#424,
Problems with datasets are generic. BEST may address some of the issues, but some are inherent to the measurement process, the accidents of history – or even characteristics of the weather. Data is messy. There isn’t always a solution.
But in that particular point I was thinking of the problem where the number of stations in GHCN dropped precipitately around 1980, and then again in the early 2000s. If the trends for the stations kept/dropped are different, the result may be affected too. You need to know a lot about the internals of datasets to know what you can safely use them for. In this case it would tend to suggest the earlier data was the more reliable.
I don’t know if it is; it was just a random thought.
#425,
🙂
EdG
You don’t need to rely on GISTEMP or any other temperature record to prove that there has been warming. There’s the widely documented thaw of Arctic permafrost and the ongoing diminution of the Arctic ice cap. And much more…
If ‘they’ are faking the temperature data, they have got everywhere, including into Roy Spencer’s brain 😉
Here’s UAH, HADCRUT, GISTEMP and RSS. The purple bit at the end is the satellite record.
NiV
Problems with datasets are generic. BEST may address some of the issues, but some are inherent to the measurement process, the accidents of history ““ or even characteristics of the weather. Data is messy. There isn’t always a solution.
Of course. I can only suggest that the records and reconstructions we do have are compared. Gross errors should be immediately apparent.
Nullius @427
Surface apples to surface apples: CRUTEM3 and BEST.
BEST has more stations, so presumably…
Nullius,
If what is suggested with this sequence of numbers is that
> [W]ithout a prior statistical model of the observations it is impossible to separate signal (however you want to define it) from noise. […] You can’t just look at data shorn of all physical context and figure out from it what’s going on.
then the question is rhetorical: data only makes within a theory.
> data only makes sense within a theory.
Nullius in Verba @327
Thank you. That gives me some insight into the problem.
Were you in any way unclear that I didn’t think the two ‘sides’ of the debate were symmetrical? That you are trying to claim symmetry is in itself an illustration of the fundamental asymmetry. For those whose aim is to increase doubt and delay having the debate perceived as symmetrical is a win, whilst those who are trying to increase confidence and coherence and stimulate action that perception is a loss.
But the asymmetry is apparent in many ways, not just in the goals; in the quantity and quality of science, in the quality of comments, in the exaggeration of mistakes and inconsistencies.
Investigation of what? Of the science? Of the arguments and evidence? Or of the ad hominem stuff?
Heartland’s support of poor and obviously biased science should be exposed and the media ought to be able to make judgments on the quality of that science, the problems are not so obscure that it needs experts in these fields to identify them. What ad hominem stuff are you referring to? Also anyone spending significant amounts of money influencing political debate should be prepared to have their financial contributions openly available. The same is true for any ‘side’ of the debate.
You yourself said: “But of course what is at issue are the methods that are reasonable to take to prevent someone saying something which is dishonest and damaging.”
In case it was not clear from the context what I meant was that Heartland should not be given a public platform to spread their dishonesty unchallenged. The media should be demonstrating the flaws in their work and so preventing people from being taken in by what might appear superficially credible. I think that is the job of a good media.
Put the Heartland people on national TV, put your best people up against them, and discuss the science.
Again, the asymmetry of the debate makes what might appear a fair contest unfair in reality. When one ‘side’ is content to raise questions and increase doubt they are at an advantage over those who want to answer questions and increase confidence. It takes a moment to ask a question, and many more questions can be asked before even the first is answered.
I’d be interested in seeing public debates on these issues, but only if strict guidelines are adhered to; that all sources referenced are declared well in advance, that there is a requirement to stick to one point until it is addressed, or conceded, that responses do not always have to be given off the cuff.
Alternatively we could look at the peer-reviewed science, which is as good a system as we have to make judgements on the validity of the science.
OPatrick
IMO the only kind of debate worth having with sceptics is a written one. Rhetoric always triumphs on the telly, natural home of the Gish Gallop. Written debate is subject to review and fact-checking, which catches the fake science peddlers out every time.
BBD, I tend to agree, but that excludes a lot of people from the audience. It should be possible to have a televised debate with a strict moderator who enforces a fair debate, ensures that contributors don’t Gish Gallop and that references are validated.
OPatrick
Can I apply for the job of moderator? 😉
Joking aside, to go with the TV format I think it would be difficult to have a live real-time debate. The whole thing would have to be moderated – with obligatory corrections inserted where misrepresentation or incorrect evidence is presented by either side. The result would be more of a documentary of a debate than the usual 30-minute BS-a-thon. And vastly more balanced and informative as a result.
BBD, exactly – yes. A real-time debate will always be open to being gamed. A really interesting debate would need to take place over hours or, better, days, with time for contributors to assess and respoond to arguments.
#434,
“Were you in any way unclear that I didn’t think the two “˜sides’ of the debate were symmetrical?”
No. I knew you considered it asymmetrical, and I speculated that the problem was that you couldn’t see it symmetrically, but I didn’t know. Your comment confirmed that this was likely the main difficulty.
I know you consider it to be asymmetrical. I consider it to be asymmetrical too, except that I consider the sceptical position to be more correct and the orthodoxy to be poor and biased science. But I can’t guarantee always being able to force my views onto the rest of society, and I know that other people see things differently. In order to design a common process within which we can all debate and agree (or not), we have to look at disagreements from an abstract, symmetrical point of view, and design the process so that we don’t mind which role we take, because at some point or another we will find ourselves in each role. When you are in charge, you have to limit yourself to doing things that you wouldn’t mind being done to you if the other guys were in charge. Because sooner or later they will be.
While I do not consider the situation to be symmetrical – I treat it as symmetrical for the purposes of devising ethical limits.
“Heartland’s support of poor and obviously biased science should be exposed and the media ought to be able to make judgments on the quality of that science, the problems are not so obscure that it needs experts in these fields to identify them.”
That’s absolutely fine. All you need to do is present the arguments and evidence that shows that you’re right and they’re wrong, just as they are trying to do to you. That’s a debate.
“What ad hominem stuff are you referring to?”
The stuff in your very next sentence. Exposing the errors in the science is fine. Exposing the funders is not – being as it is wanted for two stated purposes: to use in fallacious ad hominem arguments, and to persecute/pressure the funders and hence cut funding off. Heartland used to publish their list of funders – unlike most of the green groups – but they stopped when those people kept getting harassed. That’s not arguing the science and letting the best evidence win, that’s a competition to see whose supporters are nastier.
“In case it was not clear from the context what I meant was that Heartland should not be given a public platform to spread their dishonesty unchallenged.”
That’s agreed. You are welcome to challenge them, and lots of people do. If you’re discussing science and replicable evidence and openly accessible data, that’s no problem at all.
And we get to challenge you too, right?
“The media should be demonstrating the flaws in their work and so preventing people from being taken in by what might appear superficially credible. I think that is the job of a good media.”
Again, that’s good, and just what they should be doing. Again, based on the science and evidence, which the scientists need to provide them with.
Heartland would say exactly the same – it’s the media’s job to expose the flaws in the CAGW consensus and prevent people being taken in by the superficially credible “greenhouse doom” story.
May the best evidence win.
“When one “˜side’ is content to raise questions and increase doubt they are at an advantage over those who want to answer questions and increase confidence.”
Actually, it works both ways. It takes a moment to make an unfounded claim, and minutes or hours to pick it apart completely. It took just a moment for viewers to absorb the message of the Hockeystick graph, it took years for us to pick apart complex datasets and statistical algorithms and background knowledge to be able to answer it. It takes a moment to claim that the latest weather disasters are caused by global warming, hours of patient explanation to be able to show that it is at best unknowable, and very likely not true. And so on. It takes a moment to scare people with tales of dying polar bears and sinking islands, far longer to explain why the fears are unfounded.
And while we’re picking one apart, your side has generated a veritable ‘Gish Gallop’ of hockeysticks and weather-is-climate stories, all similarly flawed, that you can put in their place. We know the feeling.
Yes, it’s not going to be settled with one half-hour TV special. I agree, a series of debates and documentaries would be even better.
Incidentally, it would be possible to record part of the debate, then chase up all the references, and then record the next part of the debate to follow up all the issues raised. With web transcripts you can put in links and commentary. There are many ways to do this better, and avoid rhetorical debating tricks having too much sway. Exploring that seems like a productive thing to do.
NiV
May the best evidence win.
😉
The evidence is the orthodox science. The stuff you are referring to is the fringe of weak papers that do not withstand scrutiny and the deliberate misrepresentations by the likes of HI.
The best evidence has already ‘won’. That you can still argue otherwise is testament to your determination ‘not to be fooled’ but not to your commitment to objectivity.
BTW on what basis does your scepticism rest? I don’t think you’ve ever said (to me) and I am genuinely curious.
I treat it as symmetrical for the purposes of devising ethical limits
But if it is not symmetrical then you have devised asymmetrical ethical limits.
All you need to do is present the arguments and evidence that shows that you’re right and they’re wrong, just as they are trying to do to you. That’s a debate.
And yet the media have not been doing this. As Heartland are in the news there is an opportunity to make this happen.
Exposing the errors in the science is fine. Exposing the funders is not
I disagree. The funders of Heartland are seeking to influence public debate either for ideological reasons or possibly to protect their financial interests. They should be ashamed of their actions, and publicly shamed through demonstrating their connections to dishonest science. That is not harassment. Is there any evidence of genuine harassment? However, for me this is a minor detail, the big issue is the shoddy pastiches of science that are being used in political debate, the reports like the NIPCC one. The science is so obviously biased that reporting on this is really a political story rather than a scientific one.
it’s the media’s job to expose the flaws in the CAGW consensus
Which is happening with the exaggerated abandon of false balance.
It took just a moment for viewers to absorb the message of the Hockeystick graph
The graph that was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Hardly a moment’s work.
It takes a moment to claim that the latest weather disasters are caused by global warming
If this does get said, and it’s certainly rare if it does, then this is an example of Schneider’s dilemma. Trying to balance the details of the science with communication of the consequences of that science’s findings.
it’s the media’s job to expose
The FCC recinded the ‘fairness’ doctrine in 1987
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm
The current rule applicable only to FCC Licensed ‘Media’.
http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587538
The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news
In the US no one has the ‘legal obligation’ to be ‘finders of fact’ outside of judges. The standards judges apply to determine what is a ‘scientific fact’ would barely conclude that the ‘earth is round’.
NiV
Incidentally, it would be possible to record part of the debate, then chase up all the references, and then record the next part of the debate to follow up all the issues raised. With web transcripts you can put in links and commentary. There are many ways to do this better, and avoid rhetorical debating tricks having too much sway. Exploring that seems like a productive thing to do.
We’re in agreement again. Goodness me.
But seriously – this is what is needed. A documentary of the debate, impartially moderated, rigorously fact-checked and impartially edited.
With a wide audience – but that might be even harder than resolving the vexed issue of who does the moderation and the editing 😉
BBBBD #414
It seems that you don’t even understand the question, much less the issue (prompting the question). Albeit NiV has tried to help you much more than I have. I still wonder:
How do you distinguish between what’s signal and noise from a series of data points (regardless of your home baked definitions), and when you think you’ve done that. How do you establish the cause for the part you believe is signal?
I have asked you some four times now. Is your ‘answer’ really only hollow wordplay and mouthing off and back? Or are you stalling because you realize that you on thin ice … ?
If you can’t answer #412, just say so.
And remember, my questions are a direct consequence of the claims you’ve made. Which you now seem to shun .. (your counter questions, are merely attempts at distraction. About things not even relevant before you know what you meant. If you meant anything .. )
Sorry .. didn’t mean to misspell your (anonymous) signature, of which we know nothing, neither about his agenda, nor who is paying for him. And even less about the agenda of those who are financing him.
It struck me that almost all the climate alarmism proponents are publicly funded (ie through coercion), and that many of them even have as their daytime job to further promote the scare.
It is a bit surreal, and more than just a little rich, to hear them questioning the ‘funding’ of those few who on the public scene say that they are not convinced by the poor arguments and quite shoddy science put forward by the alarmist side, but who do not do this on tab of the actually working part of the population.
Hypocrisy is almost too mild a word for those …
429 BBD
I have never disputed the simple fact that the world has warmed. That is what happens when (Little) Ice Ages end, and their is plenty of tangential evidence to support that.
What I do laugh at is the supposed accuracy of the amount of warming, and thus the supposedly exact numbers fed into and out of the CO2 models (which I also laugh at in general).
Here’s but one example:
“The yellow area had no known temperature records in the HadCRUT database in January, 1874.
The fact that there was less than 10% land coverage didn’t stop Phil Jones from publishing a global temperature (-0.026) with precision of 0.001 degrees.”
http://www.real-science.com/calculating-global-temperature-data
If you can look at this map and still tell me, with a straight face, that this could produce anything even slightly accurate then you must have remarkable face control.
And this same lack of real data – without even getting into the relative accuracy of the stations (and readings) that did exist – impacts ALL of the data sets, including the conveniently named BEST.
Jonas N
How do you distinguish between what’s signal and noise from a series of data points (regardless of your home baked definitions), and when you think you’ve done that. How do you establish the cause for the part you believe is signal?
Energy is accumulating in the climate system. GAT is rising gradually with interruptions as natural* variation, aerosols and deep ocean mixing overprint the (exhaustively investigated and unfalsified) CO2 forcing.
The GAT time series can be viewed with or without smoothing and the increase in GAT is clear and mutually consistent.
Are you proposing that:
– the current understanding of the quantified RF from CO2 is incorrect
– warming is caused by a mystery forcing or forcings (but where did the CO2 forcing go?)
– Both (but where did the currently unfalsified computation of RF from CO2 go?)
– it’s internal variability (but where’s the energy coming from? And where did the CO2 forcing go?)
– Misinterpretation of data through incorrect analysis of temperature time-series (sod the CO2, they can’t even read a graph)
On what basis?
*Or is it? Keith’s spam filter will grab the double link, so I will post it separately.
*This is interesting. Perhaps it’s not natural variation.
Cohen et al. (2012)
Abstract:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050582.shtml
Draft paper (pdf)
http://web.mit.edu/jlcohen/www/papers/Cohenetal_GRL12.pdf
Jonas N
Sorry .. didn’t mean to misspell your (anonymous) signature, of which we know nothing, neither about his agenda, nor who is paying for him. And even less about the agenda of those who are financing him.
There is a quantitative difference between BBD blog debate and what HI and the rest do. Think money and the influence purchased on policy makers’ world-view. I don’t count. You don’t count. Networks of opaquely-funded lobbying/disinformation organisations do count.
BBD #447
Now, you told me your beliefs about what is going on. (Those I/we knew already). But you specifically claimed that one-year averaging got ‘rid of noise’ and thus added ‘clarity’ to what you believe to be a tru signal. Further, you claimed to know what the cause of that signal was, with almost certainty.
Repeating what you believe is which, and that you have those beliefs is not even addressing my question. On the contrary, it indicates that you are unaware even of why it is important to know.
So far you are mostly talking about corve-fitting. And curve fitting is not science. It may be (one) part of good science, but then you have have present that science together with your argument.
I think I have told you this several times. Starting from the outset in #372. You cannot simply smooth, filter, average, fit trendlines to a data set, and claim that the results are confirmation of your beliefs …
The GAT time series can be viewed with or without smoothing and the increase in GAT is clear and mutually consistent.
An interesting graph. Like all the other temperature series, the “warming” seems to have “paused” for the last 10-12 years. That doesn’t prove or disprove anything, really. What’s interesting is how hard some folks work to pretendd that it hasn’t “paused”.
What is that green line? is that a 10 year running average? (just guessing from the legend). That would be just about right to “hide” the recent “pause”. I suppose it is their to help guide the readers eye…
BTW, with what exactly, is the temperature record “mutually consistent”. Is the temperature record “mutually inconsistent” with other theories. Could you give examples and say why?
Jonas N
1. wrt curve fittiing – I don’t agree with you and nor does almost anyone else. You are creating a kind of straw man here (2) denying the effects of RF from CO2 and insisting that caveats that apply to the examination of short temperature time-series also apply to multi-decadal ones. It’s muddling, obfuscatory, irritating, contrarian nonsense.
2. You have latched on to a narrow misinterpretation of a perfectly reasonable statement: that monthly variation may be averaged to produce an annual mean curve which is clearer as a consequence of this smoothing. This is uncontentious and I am not going to discuss it further with you as there is no point in doing so.
3. Repeating what you believe is which, and that you have those beliefs is not even addressing my question. On the contrary, it indicates that you are unaware even of why it is important to know.
If you have a point, then make it. Repetition without explanation is going nowhere. However, I can save you some trouble by referring you to the standard reference work on radiative forcing by GHGs, the earth’s energy balance, climate sensitivity etc. I’m not going to ‘debate’ this with you either because if you are arguing it then it means you have not understood it or are simply in denial. In either case, I have no interest in sorting out the mess. You need to deal with that yourself.
3. It’s interesting that you are entirely unresponsive to # 447. Problems reconciling belief systems with logic perhaps?
kdk33.
What is that green line? is that a 10 year running average? (just guessing from the legend). That would be just about right to “hide” the recent “pause”. I suppose it is their to help guide the readers eye”¦
# 448 RTFL. Unlike you, I value honesty and openness.
BTW, with what exactly, is the temperature record “mutually consistent”. Is the temperature record “mutually inconsistent” with other theories. Could you give examples and say why?
You haven’t understood the point. The decadal average and the monthly means are mutually consistent. A daft argument was being made that smoothing distorts the data to the extent that artefactual false signals emerge etc. This is a simple example that conclusively demonstrates that the argument is bollocks.
BBD #450
“There is a quantitative difference between BBD blog debate and what HI and the rest do”
Really? How many individuals are enrolled in promoting that what IPCC/Gore etc tells you is not all there is, and not necessarily the truth either? Corresponding to about 2 persons, full time? Total?
And you are comparing that to exactly what? In terms of monies?
And no, I don’t know who pays you, how much, or for what. But there are infinitely many of your kind, doing what you do, on paid time. Notably, not to well versed in the issues, or understanding the science. Mosty only repeating rehearsed talkning points, or trollling and disrupting.
How many times have you even heard from anybody who is supported by Heartland?
These bogeyman stories are really peculiar .. and we hear them all the time. Apparently Peter Gleick too belived in them so much that he sacrificed his career (and probably his family’s future) for it ..
What is it with those faithers?
BBD #453
“A daft argument was being made that smoothing distorts the data to the extent that artefactual false signals emerge etc”
You really have not understood anything have you? You still seem to believe, that you can take the data, and decide what part you call signal, and what you call noise!? Even ignoring the physics …
Only in post normal ‘science’, you do this .. But it has nothing to do with real science.
Go back to #372, read it carefully, and stop filling the holes of your understanding with your wishful beliefs ..
Jonas
See 447 and 452. I think you are a loon. This conversation is over.
RTFL.
The key to using profanity is to use it sparingly and boldly for emphasis. Acronymic cursing – FFS, RTFL, etc – are unimpressive
Unlike you, I value honesty and openness.
The key to snark is to embed it properly. Ideally you want to deliver your coupe in a snarky way – win the argument and get extra style points for snark. Direct insults are a meaner, lesser snark-form.
You haven’t understood the point.
Really? These are the words preceeding your link: The GAT time series can be viewed with or without smoothing and the increase in GAT is clear. But the graph you link hides that the temperature has not increased much in the last dozen years or so, by using a decedal average.
The decadal average and the monthly means are mutually consistent.
Tautaulogy. But they are not the same. Averaging destroys information.
A daft argument was being made
Insert obvious snark here.
that smoothing distorts the data to the extent that artefactual false signals emerge etc.
Yes it does.
This is a simple example that conclusively demonstrates that the argument is bollocks.
Actually, it conclusively demonstrates that averaging does not provide complete information. For example, the decadal averaging does not reveal the the temperature has not increased in the last dozen or so year.
There is a quantitative difference between BBD blog debate and what HI and the rest do.
No there is not. You are expressing your opinion in a public forum; same as HI
Think money and the influence purchased on policy makers’ world-view.
Socialist clap-trap. Covered ad nauseum previously
I don’t count. You don’t count.
On the countrary, I vote. If you vote, then you similarly count. HI has no vote.
Networks of opaquely-funded lobbying/disinformation organisations do count.
No they don’t. They can’t vote. All they can do is communicate their opinion. And that is their right. Right, wrong, honest, devious, smart, dumb, it doesn’t matter.
————————————————————————–
Funnily BBD, you have amply illustrated the fallacy in your own political arguments. Numerous comentator on this blog have shown you the error of your politics and the gaps in your knowledge of the physics, yet you haven’t changed your mind. You seem very familiar with HI’s message, but you haven’t changed your mind.
Do you have some peculiar immunity to evil propoganda? What characteristics do you possess that allows you to recognize lies and distortions so effectively? To worry about HI you must assume that everyone else lacks these unique skills. Why do you think that?
BBD, we all know that you navigate in this debate by just guessing and hoping … and of course guessing that your guesses happen to coincide with any reality. And you may arrive at the conclusion that your guesses are consistent with your beliefs .. and feel that this mutually confirms them.
At least that’s what you have argued here.
Its funny that you BBD who have made so many rally gross mistakes and completely misunderstood even simpler aspects of the issue, are telling me what ‘everybody else also thinks’.
And it’s funny that you still don’t know what the issue is/was. Of course you can average whatever data series you have, the result will be the averaged version of the same data. That’s so obvious, I really wonder why you time and time again bring up trivialities?
The issue is an entirely different one, and I told you from the start:
You cannot just smooth the data, and say that what you get is the true signal, you were speculating about. . You cannot look at a data set, and say:
‘I don’t like these variations, I get rid of them! Now, what is left is what I said was to be found in the data. Thus the data confirms my (my hypthesis)’
That’s utter bunk. But as I said already early on is that those trend-clingers, really want to cling to the trend, when the data isn’t there. First you claimed (falsely!) that monthy variation were noise. And then you claimed that the smoothing gave you a ‘clearer picture’.
Again, you cannot decide wich part of the data, you want to label ‘clear’ and what you want to dismiss as ‘noise’
And there was nothing in #447 that even touches on what you really(?) seem totally unaware of. It is a repitition of your Al-Gore-level understanding (the hypothesis, you want to believe in) and that it indeed has been fitted to (older!) data.
We all know that this is your (side’s) best ‘argument:
‘We postulate that the increase GHG should give us a corresponding increase in GAT, a fairly straight line. An the data is not at all a straight line, so we fit a trend to it instead. And alas, there is the straight line. The deviation from this, we call ‘noise’ .. And now we see that trend and hypthesis are consistent’
That’s curve fitting, so far. And pretty much the argument from the alarmists’ side.
And I am surprised that you, after many years following the disussion, believe (claim?) that it is the RF-properties of CO2 that har controversial! Did you really believe that?
No, it is the high and claimed positive feedbacks that are questioned, and for which there is no solid support at all. At best, the kind iof curvefitting you describe above (and claim it is ‘the science’). And you really should know that, since you earlier claimed that the water content difference between winter and summer provided that large feedback confirmation.
(And yes, you grudgingly corrected this most obvious nonsense. But stuck with the other)
And BBD, it never was a conversation. You need to learn quite a lot very very basic things about how real science works and is carried out. From what I’ve seen, many people have courteously tried to help you understand where you get it wrong. At least the simpler things. Such as: You can’t decide which part of the data you dislike, and therefor call it ‘noise’ and get rid of it.
That’s kindergarten or Al-Gore science …
BBD contd
“If you have a point, then make it. Repetition without explanation is going nowhere”
I have made the point. And explained why. Even given you a little simple example (some data points) to demonstrate why you aren’t allowed to select what data you like/dislike. And I have repeated it. Several times. Because repitition is key to helping people to learn something new. Especially if they are unwilling to learn ..
My initial point, repeated in #389, is still what you need to wrap your braincell around …
Jonas N
You cannot just smooth the data, and say that what you get is the true signal, you were speculating about. . You cannot look at a data set, and say:
“˜I don’t like these variations, I get rid of them! Now, what is left is what I said was to be found in the data. Thus the data confirms my (my hypthesis)’
I didn’t argue this at all – strawman. See # 452.
“˜We postulate that the increase GHG should give us a corresponding increase in GAT, a fairly straight line.
Wrong-o. You need to back this with references. When you look for them, you will not find any. Then – whoops! – your ‘argument’ collapses. This is hopeless.
No, it is the high and claimed positive feedbacks that are questioned, and for which there is no solid support at all.
Wrong again! Where are your references? Or are you just gabbling away (well, obviously you are, but come on, play the game, back it up).
You need to learn quite a lot very very basic things about how real science works and is carried out. From what I’ve seen, many people have courteously tried to help you understand where you get it wrong.
Wrong and bollocks, in that order.
I have made the point. And explained why. Even given you a little simple example (some data points) to demonstrate why you aren’t allowed to select what data you like/dislike.
Strawman or a failure on you part to understand that *only you* think that simple averaging of monthly means for clarity is problematic.
This is hopeless. Byee.
BBD .. its good that you so clearly demonstrate that you are in denial …
Even that large positive feedbacks are the crux of the matter, you seem to want to deny.
Your:
“strawman or a failure on you part to understand that *only you* think that simple averaging of monthly means for clarity is problematic.”
is once more a strawman. I even wrote the opposite in the post you quoted:
“Of course you can average whatever data series you have, the result will be the averaged version of the same data. That’s so obvious, I really wonder why you time and time again bring up trivialities?”
You are tha one claiming that this procedure adds som kind of ‘clarity’. You say and have said that from the start. “Clarity”
Do you even have a clue what you (yourself) believe is clearified or ellucidated by that (your) ‘clarity’?
Sorry kid, you still need to start over. And still, my #389 is good place to start.
PS Your many ‘objections’ are merely wordplay (as before). Quite stupid, and completely wrong ones too for that matter. But I reckon, this is the best you can manage
You are talking to yourself here Jonas. You haven’t convinced me of anything except your own confusion and bias. Which, to be honest, I was already well aware of.
Now, off and troll some other blog. Your work here is done.
BBD, more of your wishful thinking again?
It is probably true that I haven’t convinced you of anything. When I tried to explain what the issue was with the UHI effect, you also first started blathering nonsense (about ‘energetically insignificant ..’) where after you went into full scale denial. Same thing, when I read what a paper you linked actually did and could claim. First total nonsense, then complete ignorance of what the work contained, and finally denial and futile attempts at dismissal ..
Here, your start claiming that you can determine what is ‘noise’ and what signal you really want to find with clarity .. and once more are seemingly completely unaware how physical phenomena are measured, and what that entails. You don’t even understand what the issue is.
Look, kid, I don’t blame you for everything you don’t know. But insulting those who know more, for trying to help you, at least with the basic concepts, will not make you look smarter ..
And neither will your troll tactics.
Good though, that you finally acknowledge that your wish is that voices you don’t like, would just go away .. We’ve heard that before many times. Always under some pretext of ‘for the better of society/community ..’
Jonas
I’m not even going to repeat myself. Just cut’n’paste:
“˜We postulate that the increase GHG should give us a corresponding increase in GAT, a fairly straight line.
Wrong-o. You need to back this with references. When you look for them, you will not find any. Then ““ whoops! ““ your “˜argument’ collapses. This is hopeless.
No, it is the high and claimed positive feedbacks that are questioned, and for which there is no solid support at all.
Wrong again! Where are your references? Or are you just gabbling away (well, obviously you are, but come on, play the game, back it up).
BBD, you are making words ..
The claim is that the CO2 content constitutes a forcing. The CO2-content increases monotonically, thus the alleged resulting forcing increases monotonically. Pretty much along a straight line …
I don’t need to back that up anywhere. It’s that line you (and others) want to find … through various data mangling techniques. Saying that whatever you can’t explain should be considered noise (which it isn’t)
Also, the controversy is about the alleged positive and large feedbacks. I don’t need to back that up either. Only a indoctrinated moron would not be aware of that …
Essentially all (not quite, but almost) support for that hypothesis comes from computer model simulations with those feed backs built in. Again, this is not confirmation, it is not solid support. I’d say it is hardly science. It is however curve fitting ..
BTW: HAve you figured out what it is you want to show ‘with clarity’ … which is what you have been going on about from the start?
What it is you want to display clearer?
So no references for you incorrect claims on which your pseudo-sceptic ‘argument’ rests.
No references. Just stuff you made up to suit your position.
What it is you want to display clearer?
Centennial change in GAT.
Perhaps one should consider a centennial average – that might bring clarity.
kdk33
Not a good idea if you are looking at nonlinear change. That’s why fitting an OLS trend through the curve would be misleading. Smoothing by simple average is crude, but less so than that.
kdk33 … another method is to just adjust (‘homogenize’, ‘improve’, ‘value-add’ ‘delete’ etc) the temperature records so that the picture becomes really clear(!) and unequivocal.
This can be done first with the raw data, and afterwards various ‘smoothing techniques’ may be applied to further improve the message … sorry, the scientific results and observations, I mean ..
BBD – regardless for how much you wish for it, you will not be any authority interpreting neither published alarmist science, non-alarmist science, or arguments from either side. Despite how hard you try …
What you are telling me is that you are even unaware of where the real controversy lies today.
That tired old ‘you must provide a reference’-meme is what usually uninformed keyboard warriors of the Skeptical-Science kind try. They have read there ‘What the Science says’ .. and manage to repeat what they think they read there. Without knowing, without having read, and without the ability to understand what the science acutally said. It’s all very tiresome
May I ask, is this where you collect your many memes, BBD?
(I have only followed one link from you, and read it thoroughly. It was disastrous for you … and your reading skills)
No references = no argument Jonas.
You are just making stuff up, and we both know it.
Jonas N
“”Everybody knows HI has been peddling pseudo-science and disinformation for years”
Indeed they do
“*public* that has the right to know who is trying to bamboozle the political class by funding fake science”
It does
“Spencer, Lindzen and Pielke Snr have produced *nothing* that convincingly backs up their claims. Nothing. It’s all been dissected and found wanting by others. There is no evidence for a low CS. No evidence that ACO2 emissions are not the major driver of recent warming. “
Fact
amazingly followed by this own goal:
“The difference between you and I is that I am not such a colossal prat as to think that I know better than the experts. I don’t try and second-guess “¦”
Eh? Own goal how?
“he GWPF is another denialist lobbying organisation masquerading as a “˜think tank’ and ““ appallingly ““ claiming tax-exempt status to boot.”
Fact
“I always used to avoid the d- word. Unfortunately, it is the correct term for certain types of systematic evidence rejection. “
Fact
“I did hint at the likelihood of the parsimonious explanation being correct (“˜Occam’s razor and all that’). Did you not understand that bit?”
What’s wrong with this? Kdk33 was being obtuse. As usual.
“Since when is arguing for transparent funding as an instrument of open democracy a “˜totalitarian solution’?”
Well, since when is arguing for transparent funding as an instrument of open democracy totalitarian, Jonas?
Apparently you also wrote:
“Wrong. Paying fake experts to emit a miasma of pseudo-science and disinformation aimed at politicians and children is anti-democratic and anti-freedom.”
Which it is
“I’m saying that HI should be widely exposed as a peddler of pseudo-science and disinformation, and its principal funders made public. The public has both a need and a democratic right to know who is trying to cheat the system.”
Absolutely correct.
You haven’t provided the evidence required to back up your rubbish about me at all Jonas.
This goes far beyond some ignorant activist not understanding or agreeing with what is said in a debate. It is what one would expect from a lefty loon demanding that only his version (“˜understanding’) should be allowed in public .. And on top of that, one that hardly understands his “˜own side’s’ arguments.
I understand this debate well enough. You joined late, mouthed off and got called on it. Now you look a bit more of a prat than you did 24 hours ago. Nice one.
And the things you said about voices you don’t understand(agree with?) were just horrendous ..
Oh please. Really.
in your belief system, I am certain all this is true. But only there … reality is far more than that, BBD
For starters: Heartland doesn’t sponsor science at all, let alone any ‘fake science’. But really, everything you tried is on the same ignorant level ..
Or you pretending to be more knowledgeable than Lindzen or Spencer. Don’t make yourself a worse farce than you already are ..
And you say you understand the issues? Gimme a break, kid. Most likely, you are just one more publicly paid activist hack who doesn’t give a damn about the truth …
But admittedly, there I am only speculating.
Kdk33 was being obtuse. As usual.
BBD, you really must work on your snark. The direct insult is cheap and easy, no up to the high standards of CaS. Try to be creative, it’s more entertaining that way.