| Red State | 0 | |
| Marc Thiessen | John Brennan’s “Republicans knew Abdulmutallab had been Mirandized” lie |
0 |
| NYT | 0 | |
| The Swamp | 0 | |
| Politico | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
About that Guardian story on AEI trying to ‘buy off’ climate scientists re: the IPCC report
The usual suspects are beside themselves with glee over this Guardian report from Friday in which Guardian science correspondent Ian Sample reports that scientists have been offered cash from AEI to take a critical look at the ‘comprehensive’ IPCC report on global warming.
Jonathan Adler, writing at the Volokh Conspiracy, disputes the sensationalistic arguments about what AEI’s agenda is. The comments section of that post is especially interesting, as it involves AEI Resident Fellow and Director of the AEI Liability Project Ted Frank’s defense of AEI and disputing that everyone at AEI ‘thinks the same’, along with other anti-hysterians who are not backing down from the gw alarmists in the thread who don’t agree with Adler’s disputing of the Guardian story.
By the way, did you know this story from the Guardian, which has been presented as new ‘revealing’ news, is not new news at all? AEI put out the solicitation for scientists willing to critically examine the IPCC report – back in July.
Related: Ann Althouse examines the way the media goes the way of emotion-based journalism by using pictures of supposedly helpless polar bears on melting ice caps, which ’shows’ us that ‘global warming’ is even hurting the poor animals(!!).
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
75 Responses to “About that Guardian story on AEI trying to ‘buy off’ climate scientists re: the IPCC report”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
I see things have gotten testy around this post! Bob, put the sharp stick down and stop poking. You meanie!
bob wrote, “kindness to Lorica, even though she’s”
oooh.. oooh.. can I be a she too?
bob wrote, “You seem to me like extremists who really hate liberals”
testy today…. all after a daughter kicking liberal butt joke… What don’t I like? I don’t like liberals’ condescension. Liberal good. Conservative bad. It gets debate nowhere because liberals do not deal with the substance and attack conservatives motives. One more waste of a post…………………… ……………………………..
I am happy to see this phrase: But let me just say that I don’t feel superior to you, and don’t want to act as though I have a monopoly on virtue.
I hope that attitude stays. ALL OF US ARE WELL INTENTIONED AND DON’T YOU FORGET IT.
On your last sentence. I don’t see liberal as enemies but their solutions weaken America and hurt more people than help. Being well intentioned is not the key to having good solutions. We need to try to reason and use common sense and history and facts.
What? Lorica is a dude?
I figure a clever on -line name has to either be a Latin word, or the name of character in a bad Sci-Fi book. Much to my surpise to find that Lorica means body armour! This, the same Lorica chiding Bob for being insulting in thread littered with insults from both sides. Oh the irony!
An irrational emotionally driven response. Most of what you are saying I never implied. However, are you implying that the UN is an organization of integrity and should be trusted?
All I am saying is that the UN can be trusted no more than the oil industry on this topic. I don’t know if GW is occuring, and if it is if it is naturally occuring or caused by man. Honestly, I don’t care.
What I am saying is that I will NOT trust the UN or any of it’s corrupt organizations to inform me one way or another, and that anyone who does is a fool.
oooh.. oooh.. can I be a she too?
You can be both Bak! Hermaphrodites of the world, unite!
Ahhhh Yes, Lorica is very much a Dude. And Yes Lorica is the breastplate armor of a warrior, or in it’s poetic sense means “A Knight’s Service”. – Lorica
Lorica is a dude?! OMG! You’ll pardon my mistaken assumption. I know you’re not corresponding with me anymore, but I will note this important detail in the future. Lorica would actually make a nice name for a gal. But she’d have to be tough . . . and mean! My gesture of kindness still stands, though. Because, no matter what, Lorica, I still can’t stay mad at you.
And Tom, just when I was trying to get a round of “This land is your land . . . this land is my land . . .” going, there you go throwing lighter fluid on the campfire. Now my eyebrows are singed and nobody will sing along with me. Thanks a million!
An Honest question for Bob, or anyone else who is a believer in GW being largely Man-made…
Let’s consider for a moment the thinking behind the GW controversy. If GW is indeed Man-Made, as Bob and many others believe, what is the resolution? What is the “End-Game”?
Kyoto was and continues to be a joke that not enough people get. With China and India allowed to continue to spew pollutants at an unbelievable rate, and the Rain Forests being burned off in South America nearly without pause, WHY are the U.S. and other nations being asked to shoulder the significant economic burdens to reduce already low emissions, especially when compared to decades past?
Why are not major polluting countries being made to comply with the most basic pollution laws? Why should the U.S. pour money and technology into an unfillable hole that is being emptied from the other side? Because they won’t do it, WE have to cripple our Economy? Now THATS an Inconvenient Truth!
Are you aware that the EPA regulates sawdust as an airborne particulate matter in the U.S.? Sawdust!
Tragically, if one digs deep enough into the mindset of many GW activists, the end game is clear…. the elimination of mankind. The Earth has a virus and we are it, so to speak.
I’ll take a stab at it –
Cost estimates have been made – it is governments around the world spending hundreds of billions of dollars to combat “warming” even if it’s only a .001 – .1 degree shift and whether or not it’s determined that the CO2 increase and degree increase is great for humans and plants isn’t even considered.
So the waste of money takes away from spending priorities of national security, health, education, shelter, etc.
To me it’s about perspective. But we are attacked for having it as a “denier” (connotation being similar to Holocaust denier – thanks bob for the insult).
It’s ok to have a perspective that is off – nobody needs to get offended for hearing their perspective is off. But to continue with the perspective after we have ad naseum explained that the leftist solutions would result in more harm than good is simple negligence at this point…
“Kyoto was and continues to be a joke that not enough people get. With China and India allowed to continue to spew pollutants at an unbelievable rate, and the Rain Forests being burned off in South America nearly without pause, WHY are the U.S. and other nations being asked to shoulder the significant economic burdens to reduce already low emissions, especially when compared to decades past?”
I think that we need to separate the scientific from the political parts of the problem. First we have to establish as best we can the magnitude of the problem. Is global warming a significant enough threat (from a scientific standpoint) that something needs to be done about it? If so, then we proceed to work on political solutions. It seems to me that the GW skeptic side (I changed my terminology just for you, Baklava) wants to use the political difficulties that dealing with the problem would entail as another reason to do nothing. Taking a defeatist attitude that nothing significant can be done achieves the same objective in the end as denying that GW is a problem. People keep saying that taking steps will “cripple” our economy. Where’s the proof for that assumption? Where do these estimates that say taking measures will only change the temperature by .001 – .1 degree shift come from? Giving up so easily just seems a little too convenient.
And as I understand it, TXMarco, the US and the EU are still putting out more greenhouse emissions than China. As the top emitter of all, it doesn’t seem unfair at all to me that the US should be expected to shoulder a significant burden. But the issue you raise does seem like a critical one going forward. Even if China and India are not currently the top emitters, they may soon outpace the US and the EU. And it may be that they won’t be any more willing to hold themselves to emissions caps than the US is. Maybe we are just screwed no matter what. But I’d hate to see defeatism keep us (the entire world) from doing things that may make a significant difference, even if they don’t completely solve the problem.
Bob asked, “Is global warming a significant enough threat (from a scientific standpoint) that something needs to be done about it?”
Respectfully, no. No matter how scientific you get this is opinion based. An earth that is 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago can produce more vegetation right? There might be less deaths from cold spells in Minneapolis, etc.
Bob then wrote, “If so, then we proceed to work on political solutions.”
Even if I didn’t change the no to yes for the 1st question I would agree in all cases we should be kind to our environment and seek to alter it as least as we can and we have increased CO2 output. Mind you – the solutions should ALWAYS be non-leftist/socialist and should seek to not only improve the environment but not hurt people and businesses. This CAN be done. Every solution that I’ve heard from leftist politicians and even you Bob would hurt more people than it would help. My solutions? They would be:
Just highlighting here how it isn’t Bush’s or any “politicians” fault like the Bob’s of the world like to accuse – it’s the American public and their every increasing appetite for bigger homes and more powerful autos – including the ones with Gore and Kerry bumper stickers. If there is anyone to “blame” it is the people in a capitalistic society. What is capitalism? People choosing who gets what resources – as opposed to socialism which is the government choosing who gets what resources. Does the government know best? Is freedom better? Yes ! Freedom with limits imposed by regulations is what America has chosen. Much of the regulation is overboard though. Don’t assume you know which regulations I’m against or for.
1) Allow the power producers to invest and build nuclear energy plants.
2) Invest funds to seek to find a use for CO2 – carbon is needed in most molecules – oxygen is needed also – is there a process of separation or joining of other elements that would benefit humans and be something an industry would invest in because people would pay for?
3) Limit each movie’s impact on the environment by 80% requiring the savings to pay those in Hollywood who make less than minimum wage double (joking about the last phrase)
4) Insert caps on horsepower and torque for all vehicles between 10 and 6,000 lbs to 20 lbs per horsepower or more and 30 lbs per foot pound of torque or more – after all – what do we need with gobs of power Americans??? –
5) Use highway funds to make new lanes so that there is less congestion/pollution.
Bob wrote, “wants to use the political difficulties that dealing with the problem would entail as another reason to do nothing.”
I am the expert on what I want. Your statement about what I want is incorrect. I do not want leftist solutions which do not understand the economic environment and would hurt more people like Hillary’s plan to TAKE profits from energy producers. If there is not incentive (no profit) why would anyone invest in energy. When you take people’s “profits”, the next year you go for their profits why would there be any? You want to see depression? Buy onto Hillary’s plan.
Bob without reading comprehension wrote, “People keep saying that taking steps will “cripple” our economy.” No. Taking leftist steps.
Bob asks for proof that leftists’ solutions cause harm, “Where’s the proof for that assumption?” There are whole threads devoted to that topic.
Bob wrote, “And as I understand it, TXMarco, the US and the EU are still putting out more greenhouse emissions than China.” That narrow classification indicates irresponsibility by economies that produce so much and where the people have a very high standard of living. But a high level look shows that the EU and U.S. are much more responsible and put out less particulates, carbon monoxide, and other contaminates by far than South America, China or Africa. We do not need to apologize for being more prosperous or using more energy. We do a lot of good with our wealth and feed, shelter and help more people around the globe than any other nation. If the absense of our good – darkness would descend – the world’s security would be nil with evil reigning. Just like banning guns in Washington D.C. made the law abiders suffer because the evil were able to run rampant producing more murders per capita for a long time. Our prosperity provides a need for world security and the world benefits from the security we provide. We do more FOR the environment than most other nations.
TXMarko – if GW is man-made, which it increasingly appears is most likely, IMO the end-game is to determine A) how much it matters, and B) if so, how to slow or reverse our affect on our planet.
The questions you raise are important ones. If the industrialized countries can’t all agree, there is an imbalance created in the Global economy for those countries that refuse to reduce emissions. Obviously China and India would have an advantage- in the short term. They would argue, however, that the US and other countries that have been industrialized for such a longer time have enjoyed the benefits of a carbon-based economy (indeed, we invented it) and therefore these are the countries that can most afford to move toward a low carbon economy. I would agree. As always, we need to lead.
I disagree with you that that a decision to move from a heavily carbon-based economy means that we have to cripple our economy to do so. We just need to do it thoughtfully and rationally. Which leads back to the original posting here by ST. The problem with AEI supported “science” is that it is masquerading a political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate, as Bob states in an earlier post. So kudos to the MSM for reporting on this.
Dissenting opinions in the science community should be welcomed and debated. And they have been. At some point, however, we need to move on and determine what, if anything to do about GW. A 100% consensus on the science of this will not be attained for a long time. The longer we continue to debate the science, the less time we may have to correct this potential problem. So I say, lets assume it’s true, start acting now, and if we’re wrong, we can all go back to coal and oil.
Tom wrote, “I disagree with you that that a decision to move from a heavily carbon-based economy means that we have to cripple our economy to do so. ”
It would if going with leftist solutions. Sorry for the label but it’s the only way to describe them. “Taking” profits of oil companies is a sure way to cripple or at least negatively affect our economy.
Tom states an opinion that I disagree with, “The problem with AEI supported “science” is that it is masquerading a political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate,” Deal with the substance instead of dismissing the facts they present. You can accuse them of stuff but your accusations are unsupported by facts. So then the accusations become irresponsible.
Tom wrote, “So kudos to the MSM for reporting on this.” It’d be fine if they simply reported. But then they inserted/asserted opinions unsupported by fact. It is simple that all scientists need to live and all scientists need money to spend a year’s worth of time reviewing work that is complex and 1,000’s of pages of research. To ask somebody to be a martyr and penniless as they displace their current work is ridiculous and not reasonable. The IPCC scientists got paid for their work. Are they too guilty of something? Let the debate begin in earnest is what I say. More information is better than less. Accusations don’t help.
Tom wrote, “So I say, lets assume it’s true, start acting now, and if we’re wrong, we can all go back to coal and oil.”
Over the 100 year period we’ve seen 1 degree change. We’ve seen life expectancy in the U.S. increase by 30 years. We have more forest in the U.S. than the 1800’s by large margins. We grow more food. Who is to say the world should roll back temperatures .1 degree by spending 100’s of billions of dollars? Maybe the 100’s of billions of dollars is better spent on medicine, food, shelter for the poor in the countries around the world. Do you consider me “caring” then? Or do you think people like me are uncaring because we simply disagree with those who want solutions that hurt our economy? The steps we should take should be market oriented that keep our nation prosperous.
XMarko – if GW is man-made, which it increasingly appears is most likely,
Actually, it increasingly appears less and less likely. The wheels are falling off the bus, which explains why the pro-AGW proponents are getting ever more strident that it is settled and that anyone who disagrees must be silenced. They realize that their entire house of cards is seriously at risk of collapse.
The latest IPCC report is a prime example. Despite a desire to make this appear catastrophic, and despite what I have to assume are deliberate actions to not accept the most current data about the fact the oceans have been cooling for the past 3 years, and the influence of the suns energy and magnetic field on earth’s temperature, the IPCC has had to scale back their alarmist predictions. Predictions for temperature rise and sea level rise have been reduced by over 1/3rd from the last report, and to get that they have had to manipulate their confidence intervals, going from the statistically significant .99, to the more dubious .95, and now finally to .90. To the lay person, this sounds pretty “confident” but to any statistician or anyone who uses this kind of math regularly, this translates into “no proof at all.” They also have assigned a verbal tag of “more likely than not” for things that are believed to have a probability of coming true of 33-66%. That’s about a 50/50 chance, which no gambler will ever tell you is “more likely than not.”
So, even with ignoring new data, and skewing the “facts” they have, they have been forced to reduce their predictions significantly. Add to that the recent work by Svensmark on solar magnetic field, cosmic rays, and low cloud formation, which by itself shows that this effect can account for well over 2/3 of the observed warming over the past century, and you see that the role of CO2 in climate change and warming keeps being reduced in scope.
But that’s not what the IPCC mouthpieces, the politicians who stand to gain from this, and the media are saying, they keep trumpeting how it’s now “certain,” when in fact CO2 is being proven to be of less and less importance.
I think that, for the true “greenies” who are radical environmentalists, this is a dream come true, the CO2 story. Face it, most greenies are anti-growth, anti-capitalist, and anti-humankind in many ways. They thought that stringent, in many cases overly stringent, regulations on traditional pollutants would be enough to cripple capitalism and industry, but technology and capitalist development has responded and now most industries, at least in the West, are cleaner and cleaner with every passing year. Obviously, trying to suppress economic growth thru regulating pollution was no longer working, so a new idea was needed. Fixate on CO2, which is an unavoidable byproduct of all combustion on which so much industry and energy are based. It’s not a pollutant, and it does not have much of an effect on anything, but it suddenly allows them to squash otherwise clean industries by claiming that CO2 is a huge problem. Add to this the near total ban many support on nuclear, and you see a pattern. Ban CO2, ban nuclear, and what’s left to support industrialization? The perfect storm for the greens.
So true. In my searches for enlightenment on this subject today, I found plenty of material on the Greens.
So Kyoto is just a baby step! Wow. The link above is worth a read. In their opinion, “However, careful analysis shows that implementing the Kyoto protocol is not only affordable, but highly profitable.”
Somehow, I fail to see their logic.
Honestly, great discussions here, everyone!
Bob – Turn off your PC to use less energy. Throwing all this data around and having people read it is using more CO2 than people in non-industrialized nations. They are only breathing. We have a much better standard of living and throw ideas around all day. We should stop…
Despite what skeptics might tell you, the IPCC and it’s processes are based on sound science.
This from a grist.org article:
That’s 4 reputable American organizations involved in the GW debate endorsing the IPCC results! What skeptical GW study or paper has gone through this scrutiny or has even attained such endorsements? “None” is the answer. You can try to label the IPCC as biased and “leftist/socialist”, these empty pejoratives are exptected here at ST, but they don’t make convincing arguments for those of us that can seperate politics from science.
This same article addresses some of the points Severian makes in a recent post regarding AR4 supposedly scaling back their “alarmist predictions”, including whether humans are causing GW.
For those of you that don’t understand the importance of peer review in science, visit this site.
Tom. Don’t dismiss peer reviewed work and call scientists “deniers” who disagree with IPCC and we’ll not call you a hypocrate.
Also, it gets down to what politicians and the Tom’s of the world want to do with this information. What are your solutions? Are they punitive of prosperity and success? Are your solutions based on liberalism (solutions that punish success and move the country from free market to big government even more)?
Nobody here is opposed to the environment or doing things that are not punitive towards success and hard work and prosperity. If you are trying to convince us to adopt those ideas you are using too much energy (CO2) trying to convince us when it is you who should be convinced of our ideas because our ideas help more people and the environment better.
Taxation of Oil companies (leftist) solution?
If only taking profits was a good thing we should do it to all sectors of the economy and see what communism brings us economically…
Reality check for Bob by Newsweek.
There is plenty of perspective in the above article. Tons of great points. Samuelson writes solutions that I as a conservative talked about saying:
Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming
In trying to prove that the Bush administration is throttling research into global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists rolled out some breathtakingly bad science.
The group unveiled a supposedly scientific survey of more than 1,600 federal climate scientists as evidence that the administration was engaged in “wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming.”
“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic” Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, said in a press release. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”
Grifo obviously doesn’t’ appreciate the irony when he trots out a poll that is so flawed that it is manifest evidence of exaggeration, incompetence or dishonesty on his group’s part.
More Lies from the Religion of Global Warming
Good find PCD. Also, I noticed that I couldn’t find any thing specifying that the “interference” these respondents claimed to have seen or experienced were specifically pro-global warming views allegedly being repressed. I’d be willing to state that a whole lot more AGW skeptics are interfered with and threatened than the reverse.
To be truthful, a friend by the name of “GD” sent that to me.
I find that the Libs are the censors in the world. We mustn’t talk about Oil-for-Food bribes or threatened government subsidies for GW acolytes. As the UN punk, Jan Egeland of Norway says, “The US is Stingy.”