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(!!).

75 Responses to "About that Guardian story on AEI trying to ‘buy off’ climate scientists re: the IPCC report"

Baklava says:

February 4, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Don’t deal with the substance! Always attack the messenger and impugn their motives.

See… IPCC is all good. The scientists work for free and do not have an agenda. They are pure. Scientists with opposing points of view (and substance remaining unexamined) are not pure.

AEI was not offering money for somebody to LIE. They were offering money for scientists to do a job. It’s like getting a second opinion from another doctor but the job is complex and requires tons of time – what doctor is going to do that for free as it displaces his/her normal working hours and pay.

On this issue I see more and more failure of perspective and more and more negligence than ever.
Bob says:

February 4, 2007 at 1:08 pm

No matter how you spin it, the AEI buy-off offer and those who attempt to defend it as legitimate truth-seeking is simply intellectually dishonest. The Volokh Conspiracy apology says outright:

I don’t think the letter suggests AEI wanted Professor Schroeder or anyone else to tailor their views to AEI’s agenda. Rather it looks to me like an effort to encourage those who have been critical of climate projections in the past to provide a detailed assessment of the new IPCC report.

In other words, it’s not necessary to “tailor” anyone’s views when the AEI is specifically seeking comments from critics. If the AEI effort were truly a dispassionate search for the truth, they would not be going into it with an ax to grind with the IPCC. But as the AEI letter provided as an example says:

As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports.

It’s a free society, and the AEI is entitled to its opinion that the IPCC is biased and unfair. But let’s not pretend that statements like the one above don’t indicate that the AEI has its own bias, or that its campaign is a fair and dispassionate search for truth. They’re offering money specifically for statements that are critical of the IPCC, just like the Guardian said. They wrote their appeals in a way to try to soften the blatancy of their bias, but it’s still pretty blatant all the same. Anyone on the other side of the debate who conducted themselves with such an air of shameless prejudice would be pilloried, and rightly so.
Norma says:

February 4, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Why is it “buying” to pay for research. Do they think these guys write for free? I wrote an article for Lutheran Libraries years ago and got paid $50. I wrote an article for the Columbus Dispatch once and they paid me.
Bob says:

February 4, 2007 at 2:44 pm

The problem is that the AEI is masquerading their political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate. Like I said, they’re entitled to their own opinion—biased though it may be—but they should be honest and up-front that they are involved in politics, not science. The work that the AEI is soliciting has no scientific review process and doesn’t follow any standards of professional ethics. While the anti-intellectuals who post here like to denigrate real science, the fact is that there are few disciplines in which participants are held to such high ethical standards.

No legitimate scientific funding organization like the National Science Foundation, for example, would ever give money to a scientist to produce a pre-determined result. One of the main objectives of experimental design in the real world of science is to remove bias. So if you want to measure the average temperature of the earth, for example, you sample temperatures around the globe, not just in Las Vegas or the South Pole. The care with which real scientists go about their work seems to be lost on people here. To compare real science with political propagandists who go out specifically looking for pre-determined results is frankly about as ignorant—or as disingenuous—as it gets.
Flopping Aces says:

February 4, 2007 at 3:22 pm

The Global Warming Lies

So this report came out about Global Warming and the media went ape, as they usually do. An interesting aspect to this report is that it was not the report, but the summary. You see they, meaning the IPCC, have…
Sister Toldjah says:

February 4, 2007 at 3:50 pm

You have to understand, Norma. To True gw Believers, any funded contrary research is ‘propaganda’ while any funded research which backs up their claims is ‘unassailable fact.’ We’re to believe that there is no underhanded agenda whatsoever on the part of the doomsday crowd, but that the skeptics are nothing but nefarious and scheming, motivated only by cold hard cash.
Bob says:

February 4, 2007 at 4:30 pm

The issue, Sister, is that one side makes extraordinary efforts to be dispassionate and neutral—letting the chips (i.e. the scientific data)—fall where they will. The other side has no professional ethical standards and no review process, and pays its funding specifically to support its political bias. Like I said, no legitimate scientific funding agency would ever pay to support work that had a pre-determined outcome. However, that’s precisely what the AEI is doing. You can pretend that there’s no difference, but to do so is either ignorant or disingenuous.

If the AEI wants to enter into the legitimate scientific debate, then they can do so through the proper channels: publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Because most of the work that’s been put forth to debunk man-made global warming can’t pass scientific muster, they’ve been forced to try to circumvent the world of legitimate science. What they’re doing instead is PR. Let’s not confuse these very different modes of communication.
Sister Toldjah says:

February 4, 2007 at 4:40 pm

“The issue, Sister, is that one side makes extraordinary efforts to be dispassionate and neutral—letting the chips (i.e. the scientific data)—fall where they will.”

LOL. Yes, I’ve heard the True Believer motivations are only pure and altuistic, while the other side’s are supposedly not motivated by anything but politics, power, and cash, Bob. Try that line on someone else who you might be able to pass it off on, ok? As the old saying goes, I may have been born at night, but not last night. The fact of the matter is that this is NOT just about AEI, but proving that there is NOT a consensus on this issue, contrary to the assertions of the ‘pure and noble’ alarmist crowd, because if there was, we wouldn’t see the widespread disagreements we do today – that is, the disagreements that haven’t been stifled by attempts at silencing skeptics. Gosh, you’d think if the ‘evidence’ ‘spoke for itself’ that alarmists wouldn’t be so hell bent on intimidating those who disagree with them, would you? Yes, alarmists are all for ‘letting the chips fall where they will’ – and I’m Queen Elizabeth.
Scott Allan says:

February 4, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Did you know polar bears can swim for hundreds of miles? I blogged about this the other day. Does this picture convince you about global warming? I’m still waiting for some convincing evidence. I’m keeping an open mind, but really this “science” of showing a few before and after pictures doesn’t win me over.
tom says:

February 4, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Let’s see… Who to believe? 2500 scientific experts from 130 different countries, or the 3 scientists the AEI pays to write an essay (not perform research) to have a “policy-relevant” “discussion” (with who?) in under 10,000 words. Seriously.

One can make an easy and obvious conclusion why an oil company funded public policy institute might pay to attempt to influence policy, but what “underhanded agenda” can the IPCC possibly have, ST? Let me guess – they want more research money, because we all know they’re getting rich off their research grants and they’d all go hungry if GW was somehow scientifically debunked tomorrow.

The whole purpose of these paid essays are to make it appear as though there is no consensus in the issue.
Severian says:

February 4, 2007 at 5:24 pm

It’s painfully obvious that to Bob, and many like him, AGW is a religion, not a science. They have the same level of fanaticism for it that Islamic fundamentalists do for sawing people’s heads off and stoning women for showing their ankles in public. He, and others of his ilk, will never discuss the science, the uncertainties, anything of substance, they will only lie and dissemble and cast aspersions on the credibility and honesty of people far more honest and competent than they are. Here’s a clue, if all your opponent in a “debate” can do is whine on and on about “consensus” and how unethical and incompetent anyone who disagrees is, you know which side to believe.

Bob is fond of quoting that “study” in Science where a “social scientist” reviewed 928 global warming climatology papers, actually just the abstracts, and said that there was not one paper that disagreed. After this shocking result, another social scientist repeated her work, 13 papers didn’t even have abstracts, and out of the 915 remaining papers, only 13 actually supported the cause of anthropogenic global warming explicitly. What’s shocking is that Science actually participated in this disgrace, which says something not very good about their editorial and review process.

If you look around, there are tons of people pointing out the mistakes, misrepresentations, and outright lies in the AGW and IPCC mantras. Here’s an interesting one:

There is an article today in Science Express by Stefan Rahmstorf, Anny Cazenave, John A. Church, James E. Hansen, Ralph F. Keeling, David E. Parker,Richard C. Somerville entitled “Recent Climate Observations Compared to Projections” which is remarkably blatant about its cherry picking of papers to support their view and in ignoring peer reviewed papers that do not.

They make statements such as

“The global mean surface temperature increase (land and ocean combined) in both the NASA GISS data set and the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit data set is 0.33 ÂºC for the 16 years since 1990, which is in the upper part of the range projected by the IPCC. Given the relatively short 16- year time period considered, it will be difficult to establish the reasons for this relatively rapid warming, although there are only a few likely possibilities. The first candidate reason candidate is climate forcings other than CO2: While the concentration of other greenhouse gases has risen more slowly than assumed in the IPCC scenarios, a smaller aerosol cooling than expected is a possible cause of the extra warming. A third candidate is an underestimation of the climate sensitivity to CO2 (i.e., model error).”

This set of reasoning has conveniently ignored the conclusions of the following peer reviewed papers which document a warm bias in existing global surface land air temperature trend assessments; i.e.

Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32,
No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407. [and as summarized on Climate Science in January 2006]

Hale, R.C., K.P. Gallo, T.W. Owen, and T.R. Loveland, Land use/land cover change effects ontemperature trends at U.S. Climate Normals Stations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, doi:10.1029/2006GL026358, 2006

which were available to the authors of the Science Express paper. Our new paper

Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, J. Angel, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, J. Steinweg-Woods, R. Boyles , S. Fall, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res. accepted.

summarizes these issue, and adds significant new problems with the use of land surface air temperature trends as part of the construction of a global average surface temperature trend as used by Rahmstorf and colleagues.

Thus the reported “warming” reported from the Hadley Centre / Climatic Research Unit data has a warm bias of a significant value (certainly tenths of a degess) in its construction.

Even more egregious was their selection of the

Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales. J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036, doi: 10.1029/2003JC002260

paper to cite (which documents a strong ocean warming in the 1990s), but ignores the more recent paper

Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the
upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033

which reports on significant recent ocean cooling!

The authors cannot be faulted for bolstering the case for their perspective of climate change, but by ignoring peer reviewed literature that provides another perspective, they are grossly misleading the public and policymakers on our actual understanding of the climate system. As a former Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science, the former Chief Editor of the Monthly Review, and Chief Editor of the U.S. National Report to International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics 1991-1994. such a paper would not have been accepted in the form as submitted until they, at the very least, address these other issues.

But, expect Bob and his fellow travelers to get more and more strident in the next year or so, because scientifically the wheels are coming off the AGW bus. Whether or not they will be successful in foisting off this socialist wet dream on the world is open to question, but given the viciousness of their tactics, the lack of educational level of most people, and the stultifying bias of the MSM and our wonderful liberal politicians, I’m not confident that the truth will prevail.
Severian says:

February 4, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Let’s seeâ€¦ Who to believe? 2500 scientific experts from 130 different countries, or the 3 scientists the AEI pays to write an essay

Lindzen, who did an excellent debate on Larry King on CNN, points out:

Lindzen, a past UN IPCC contributor, also explained how only a dozen scientists were involved in writing the 2001(Third Assessment Report) IPCC media hyped Summary For Policymakers that purported to speak for thousands of scientists.”

More lies, more distortions, more BS from the pro-AGW crowd, who have the audacity to impugn other people’s credibility.
Sister Toldjah says:

February 4, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Gosh, tom, it’d be real easy for you guys if all you had to battle were ‘three scientists from AEI’ but it’s not. Since big numbers seem to impress you, I have no doubt you’ll be impressed by these.

“Consensus” on global warming? Think. again.
David @ SP says:

February 4, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that Sister would actually agree with any information that is perceived to come from “the left”, or smacks of “Liberalism”, regardless of whether it might be correct or incorrect.

The assumption will be that it is incorrect because it’s a “liberal” idea. It deals with the environment, right? Thus it’s a Liberal issue, therefore is MUST be incorrect. Nefas Ergo Sum
Sister Toldjah says:

February 4, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Would you like to talk about the controversy surrounding the global warming issue itself, “David @ SP”, or do you want to make it personal by making this an ad hominem argument against me, as if this issue were about me? If it’s the former, go for it, but if it’s the latter, save it.
Bob says:

February 4, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Severian, anyone who dismisses the institutions of mainstream science, from which the IPCC draws all of its research, as a “socialist wet dream” has declared themselves to be outside of that mainstream. Let’s see, there’s legitimate science, and then there’s . . . something else. You also apparently don’t have a clue as to what “socialist” is, other than its use as a meaningless pejorative by wingnuts.

Revisiting the Science literature review, I’m not in a position to investigate the counter claims you mention about the 928 papers (you don’t provide a reference for it). Even taking it on face value as you presented it, where a more selective criterion required that the papers “actually supported the cause of anthropogenic global warming explicitly” (because the papers may present data that supported the theory of man-made global warming without saying explicitly that they did), then that leaves us with the following: 13 papers that “explicitly” supported man-made global warming vs. 0 that disputed it. Let’s see—the score is 13-0. That looks like a shut-out for proponents of man-made global warming. We win, you lose.

And this is just typical of the disingenuous BS that you guys keep trying to foist. You and your bogus pseudo-science can’t make the grade to get published and debated within the realm of real science. You’re left bitterly condemning the mainstream scientific establishment while trying to sneak dribs and drabs of gussied-up PR as though it were legitimate research. You nit-pick individual pieces of work here and there as though it countered a plethora of other work, done independently and unimpeachably, that says the same things. It’s just not gonna fly.
sanity says:

February 4, 2007 at 7:48 pm

David @ Sp ridiculously states:

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that Sister would actually agree with any information that is perceived to come from “the left”, or smacks of “Liberalism”, regardless of whether it might be correct or incorrect.

The assumption will be that it is incorrect because it’s a “liberal” idea. It deals with the environment, right? Thus it’s a Liberal issue, therefore is MUST be incorrect. Nefas Ergo Sum

Now see there is the difference between you and ST and the rest of us, we automatically discount any information just because of it comes from a liberal or the left. We will look at it, disect it and talk about it…while and others on the left have this nasty habit of attacking credibility and not the facts that are put in front of you.

You want to talk about the information provided, great, but to attack the host on her view thinking that she is the same as some liberals and lefties out there that attack the person and not the substance of the arguement, you are wrong.

You owe her an apology.

Intelligenti pauca
sanity says:

February 4, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Typing too fast and left the DON’T out of the above phrase:

Now see there is the difference between you and ST and the rest of us, we [DON’T] automatically discount any information just because of it comes from a liberal or the left.
Severian says:

February 4, 2007 at 7:52 pm

The trackback to a post by Flopping Aces, at the top of this thread, gets Severian’s coveted “two thumbs up” award for summarizing the issue, including the fact that the IPCC report actually has reduced both the certainty and the magnitude of the “problem,” in a clear, concise, and easy to understand way.
Baklava says:

February 4, 2007 at 9:59 pm

Bob has credentials (what are they bob) as he is the arbiter of what is legitimate science. He says, “anyone who dismisses the institutions of mainstream science, from which the IPCC draws all of its research, as a “socialist wet dream” has declared themselves to be outside of that mainstream. Let’s see, there’s legitimate science, and then there’s . . . something else.”

Thanks for the judgment now share with us your credentials for making such a statement. Or… put the big government socialist pipe down. Last hit for you.

Norma wrote, “Do they think these guys write for free?You and your bogus pseudo-science can’t make the grade to get published and debated within the realm of real science. . Bob – dismiss and ignore all you want . As I said at the top never deal with the substance. Negligence is easy isn’t it????

I think there is consensus here by the way Bob that you are negligent!! Must be a FACT! Consensus equals FACT right?

Now that we have a consensus let’s take a leftist approach to the problem. Let’s censor your speech. Hey, I’m liking this consensus and subsequent leftist policy stuff. Let’s censor Bob government folks!! We have a consensus that he is negligent.
sanity says:

February 4, 2007 at 10:26 pm

I have reviewed Baklava and find him competent and very knowledgeable.

He has now been ‘peer reviewed’.

[laughs]
Lorica says:

February 4, 2007 at 10:41 pm

At one time leeching was peer reviewed and had a consensus too. I bet the list of stupid things that science peer reviewed and were in agreement with is quite long. But of all the scientific stupidity leeching would top that list. – Lorica
Baklava says:

February 4, 2007 at 11:27 pm

You know what’s funny (or not so funny) Sanity?

There is nobody on our side saying there is a “consensus” that global warming is not man made and additionally nobody on our side is dismissing all of the substance of the IPCC science.

They are all saying hey folks there is additional information that should be considered. It shouldn’t be ignored or dismissed by the negligent bob’s of the world with no credentials.

I love science.
TedintheShed says:

February 4, 2007 at 11:33 pm

Let’s talk about the IPCC, shall we?

The IPCC is an organization created by the WMO and UNEP. This alone is suspect to me, becasue basically it is a United nations Program. The UN isn’t exactly known for their integrity. I find it a bit disturbing that any organization related to the UN is supposed to be looked upon as either being objective or principaled.

First here is an interesting document regarding the IPCC. note that individual governements can contribute to the IPCC. So for example if China is a major contributor, since they are exempt from Kyoto isn’t that a bit suspect? The documnets presented by the IPCC places major preasure on the US to join Kyoto, further weaking our economic reserve.

Second, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, the cheif of the IPCC, participated in consumer boycotts against Exxon Mobile. This seem to me as a political motivation, not exactly “scientificly pure”.

Also Pachauri is exectutive director of TERI- an enviromental organization that has a vested intersted in India. Yes, India is also exempt from the Kyoto accords. Anyways, TERI receives funding from 200 organizations in 43 countries. Anyone want to bet how many of those are from the enviromentalist lobby?
Severian says:

February 4, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Excellent points TedintheShed. IPCC, brought to you by the same people who brought you Oil for Food scandals and kiddie sex rings in Africa. And the people who make up the IPCC are, as you note, far from immune from other influences. Cui bono was a favorite Roman phrase, who profits?

I love science too Bak, that’s why I became a scientist, and why I still do what I do. And it disgusts me, and makes me ashamed of my profession, to see what some alleged scientists are doing to stifle debate and push this agenda. Lies do not serve the search for truth well.

And you’re right again Bak, no one on the skeptic side is calling for Nuremburg trials for pro-AGW proponents, or that they be shutup because they aren’t right. You have one side attempting to find the truth by encouraging debate and looking at the issues and data further, and one side stridently trying to silence all doubters. Reminds me more of the Inquisition than anything resembling modern science, but then, AGW has all the hallmarks of a religion and not a science.
Great White Rat says:

February 5, 2007 at 12:15 am

The current issue of Philadelphia Magazine has a timely and relevant article profiling a global warming skeptic.

Here’s his opinion of An Inconvenient Truth:

“The glossy production is replete with inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and appeals to public fear as shamelessly as any other political statement that hopes to unite the public behind a particular ideology.”

Ah, I can already picture Bob and Tom rolling their eyes. Surely another right-wing non-scientist grubbing for money from Exxon.

Well, not exactly.

The subject is Professor Robert Giegengack of the University of Pennsylvania. Some of his credentials:

He got a master’s degree in Colorado, then returned to Yale for a doctorate and focused his research on rocks and climate change. He arrived as a young assistant professor at Penn just about the time the first Earth Day in 1970 was reflecting — and driving — an interest in the environment. Giegengack got the assignment to set up the university’s environmental studies program, which he would run for more than three decades…..In 1958, Robert Giegengack first heard about Global Warming.

Let’s see….doctorate from one elite liberal Ivy League school, specialized in climate change…30 years experience in studying the topic and runnig the program at another elite liberal Ivy League school…and familiar with the concept for almost 50 years. Hmmm…that might be even more than Bob. Funny, it doesn’t sound to me like this is one Bob and Tom can write off so easily. Oh, and then there are two other items. Regarding his thoughts on the Gore movie:

This from a guy who voted for Gore in 2000 and says he’d probably vote for him again.

And guess who he compares Gore to:

Then Gore clicks again to dramatic footage of a collapsing polar ice shelf. “That’s irresponsible” Gieg says. “What he’s doing is no less than the scare tactics used by people like Karl Rove.”

Hoo-boy!! Bob’s going to have a bit of trouble trying to label this one a propaganda tool of the right wing. Seems to me he’s probably in moonbat-land on every issue but this one.

Then there’s this final shot from the professor:

“If you suggest that we’re not going to hell in a handbasket because the rate of global warming is low compared to so many other environmental issues that we’re enduring, then you’re accused of being in the employ of the oil companies and you’re labeled a Republican.”

As Scooby-Doo might say: “Rut Roh!!!” Bob? Tom? In case you missed the point, Doctor Giegengack is talking about YOU.

Here’s the link. Can’t wait to see how the global warming theologists try to trash this one.
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 1:09 am

Yes, it’s all a conspiracy by the evil U.N. oil-for-sex racket, also known as the IPCC, to stifle the comments of brave maverick scientists, whose only concern is for the truth. They’ll be showing up any day in your home town in their black helicopters to impound your SUVs and your guns. Any scientists caught secretly harboring doubts about man-made global warming will be sent off to labor camps to “remediate” sea level rise with buckets and water balloons. Once again, poor honest conservatives are being oppressed by evil elitist intellectuals who drink French wine and hold socialist views. Did I leave out any favorite conservative shibboleths? Sorry, I couldn’t find a way to work Bill Clinton in there. Can you picture my eyeballs rolling? Yes, I think you can.

The rhetoric around here gets pretty ridiculous sometimes. Tell me one scientist who was prevented from expressing views that questioned the theory of man-made global warming. It seems that Dr. Giegengack, for one, is managing to sneak messages out somehow despite the house arrest that the IPCC has him under. While expressing regrets about someone being labeled “a Republican” for holding a skeptical point of view on one hand (I can sympathize with that one, actually—that’s gotta hurt!), which side in this debate is making hysterical insinuations about the IPCC and child sex rings?

Let’s not take ourselves too seriously here. We, the assorted knuckleheads posting here at Sister Toldjah’s site, all have our opinions. But the real debate should be occurring in the scientific community. For my own personal part, I wish that global warming were not a problem. I’d rather not have to worry about it. However, it seems to me that the facts are predominantly on the side of the scientific debate that contends that it is a problem, and that it’s going to continue to get worse. It wish it weren’t so, but I can’t BS myself and pretend that everything’s fine. If a serious body of work were to be gathered that proved the IPCC wrong, and if it were accepted in legitimate scientific circles, I would actually be glad about it. But it hasn’t happened, and doesn’t seem likely to happen. Get back to me if and when it does (rolls eyes).
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 1:26 am

They’ll trash him even harder GWR, nothing irritates a liberal more than someone who’s escaped the plantation and started to think for themselves. It’s the one unforgivable sin for a liberal.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 2:02 am

I was perusing the comments on McIntyre’s blog on climate blog here, comment 60 was particularly illuminating, and speaks to a lot of the dishonesty being put forth:

I think it’s more banal than any of your options, Charles. After many years in science, and seeing how it goes, I have observed that most working scientists just interpret their results in terms of the dominant hypothesis in their field. It takes pretty striking results to clearly refute any given theory, and in the absence of that clarity, experimental or observational results can be interpreted in a number of ways.

This gets to be an especially slippery slope then the governing hypothesis is not particularly rigorous. In such cases, it’s hard to refute the idea because it doesn’t make precise predictions. This is the case with climate theory. It’s very incomplete and doesn’t make precise predictions. That means almost any observation or result can be interpreted in terms of the dominant outlook. And that’s what’s happening. It’s pretty normal, and under ordinary circumstances, climate physics would have slowly iterated its way in obscurity to a more quantitive theory.

The pathological aspect is that climate science has been politicized by environmental NGO’s (eNGOs) and their sympathizing organizations, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. They all pose in the white robes of spiritual purity, and so they only speak the truth. Global warming as a human sin was a huge and unexpected gift to them. When Hansen and Cicerone as modern Cassandras raised the issue back in 1986-88, the eNGOs picked it up and ran with it. Their accusatory drum-beating has poisoned our social atmosphere and has poisoned the usual practice of science.

So, climate science is not in its deserved obscurity. It’s in the glare of sin-and-expiation publicity and there exist scientists who are show-boaters who cannot resist the impulse to present Earth-shaking results. This is true anyway in science, but the entry of the eNGOs into the process has toxicated a minor failing into a real cancer. The actinic glare of publicity plus the emotional seduction of a praised ritual purity, has seduced some scientsts into blindness to the staid reality of proper physics. That reality is if the theory allows only wide uncertainty limits, you can’t make precise claims. This remains true and it’s very obvious to a more objective observer — and one needn’t be a scientist to be that observer — that the climate physics in GCMs allow only very wide uncertainty limits. They can in no way detect the small climate purturbations that are being touted in their name.

Unfortunately, computers produce very compelling images. Their outputs look like physically real climate observational maps. And so, seeing those pretty graphics, the same scientsts become convinced that what they want to be true — that their results are Earth-shattering — really are true. Self-aggrandizing wishful thinking is a pretty wide-spread human failing, but only in science can that failing be relentlessly demonstrated. People are demonstrating it — Lindzen, for example, Christy, Ball, Balling, Gray, M&M, and others. Under ordinary circumstances, this would probably be enough to change the course of the field. But the eNGOs don’t — won’t — allow that to happen. They have created a perverse social milieu that acts on climate scientists in an emotional way. No one wants to be a bad guy, and look how efficiently the eNGOs assassinate the character of those who voice skeptical views about AGW. Even SciAm, when it interviewed Lindzen, pictured him with a scowl and a cigarette. Mann was pictured with his arm companionably around a set of tree-rings.

There is a huge amount of approval to be had by toeing the pseudo-religious line, and a huge amount of opprobrium to be suffered for defying it. During the preparation of the TAR, we all read about the fierce accusations levelled against some scientists who wanted to temper their conclusions in light of the data. That pressure was levelled by other scientists. It’s clear that the scientists applying the pressure were true believers and acting out of emotional, not scientific, committment. We can thank the environmental NGOs for creating the poisonoous climate that justified such noxious behavior.

In that arena, we should truly admire the climate scientists who have both kept their wits about them and who have braved the pressures and slanders to remain true to their professional integrity. I expect them to be honored for that courage alone, one day.

For the rest, it’s all become very pathological, and there is considerable social momentum. It’s going to take a long time before it gets wrung out of the field. Presumably, this will happen if Earth climate cools for a couple of decades — though at least for awhile any cooling will be passed off by the usual suspects as a human-caused aberration (e.g., polluting aerosols). If Earth climate continues to warm, though, expect the orchestrated hysteria to reach literally catastrophic proportions. Also, expect the inevitable cap-and-trade to pass huge amounts of money from the middle class to the rich, and to make the poor poorer. Let’s watch where the eNGOs invest their endowments.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 2:13 am

Another great description of the real problem:

“why so many intelligent scientists buy into AGW”? Insecurity and inferiority. What if your carreer was based on technology that has been a decade away for a couple decades? What do you publish? How do you keep the funding coming, especially for the larger clusters that might eventually get you to the promised land? In order to project the complex, non-linear climate system, you have to produce a tool that in its interactions is also so complex that you can’t understand it. Thus the inferiority (probably unjustified on a human scale). But the insecurity, leads to a false bravado. You huddle together with “peers” in newly formed “peer reviewed” journals, enjoy the luxury of having computer models that are papers mills, where each result that can be interpretted as progress, is ooohed and aaahed by others in your community. Your models are so complex and expensive to run, that diagnostic reports of errors such as Roesch (2006) come along at inconvenient times. You are already 6 months into producing an ensemble that has another year left to complete. It would be inconvenient to put in the fix and start over again. Besides, other bugs and errors will be found again and you would never get done. More inferiority, more bravado and more denial. Knowing the errors in your model, you put your faith in meta-ensembles of models hoping others errors will cancel yours out. When papers such as Roesch come along showing correlated errors of 2.7 to 3.8W/m^2, that won’t go away when you huddle together, you engage in joint denial. Your models are still useful despite those errors and the even an order of magnitude larger errors in cloud parameterizations.

Forget for the decade, that in order to be useful in attribution of global warming, your models have to be able apportion a mere 0.5 to 0.8W/m^2 of net energy imbalance to the various competing sources. This requires models accurate to at least 0.1W/m^2 globally and annually averaged. You are still at least a decade away. How do you tell funding agencies, that it won’t be until the computer system after the one you are requesting funding for now, that you will have a tool that is actually useful for attribution and projection?

Now the climate modelers are in a world that has bought their bravado and denial hook line and sinker, they can’t turn back now. What is in it for the world, beyond divertering resources from disease, poverty and the existential threat of Near Earth Objects? They can engage in a new age, politically correct, progressive, post-modern, anti-american, anti-capitalist bacchanalia of “consensus”. The climate modelers are now riding a whirlwind. Why is it that the older scientists have not succumbed? They are the old guard modernists, whose faith in reason and science lead them to hone the critical thinking skills and towering humility so central to really good science. They question assumptions and can see that the emperor has no clothes.

Roesch A. (2006), Evaluation of surface albedo and snow cover in AR4 coupled climate models, J. Geophys. Res., 111,D15111, doi:10.1029/2005JD006473.
Great White Rat says:

February 5, 2007 at 8:06 am

The rhetoric around here gets pretty ridiculous sometimes.

And you gave us a beautiful example of it to start that comment.

Without resorting to overblown fantasies, tell us, Bob: which side in this debate is the one that has proposed decertifying anyone who disagrees with them? It’s a straightforward, calm, question, and you know the answer as well as I.

But the real debate should be occurring in the scientific community.

Agreed. Then why is it that your side wants to shut off that debate?

Science is about asking questions. The scientist looks at some natural phenomenon and asks “Why?”. The moment someone decides that no one may ask that question, they have moved the subject from the domain of science to the domain of something religious, for lack of a better word.

Only one side in the debate has done that, Bob. That’s your side. If you really want scientific debate, get out of the pew and go back to the lab.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:29 am

I think I’ve been forced to come to the conclusion that Bob isn’t really a human being. He is just too repetitive and ignores the facts too much. So, I’ve been forced to determine that he’s a not very well coded Turing Machine.
PCD says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:37 am

The GW acolytes are imposing an inquisition to rival the Great Inquisition of the middle ages or the “trial” of Taylor by the Ape Tribunal in the Original “Planet of the Apes”. (Sorry hard to type with frozen fingers out here in the frozen tundra.)

Not all scientists forsake real science for consensus.
PCD says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:38 am

Sev, that is an insult to Alan Turing and his machines.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 10:07 am

PCD! You violated Ape Law!
joe-6-pack says:

February 5, 2007 at 10:28 am

[If I missed this point earlier in the comments, please forgive.]

Didn’t James Hansen receive a six-figure honorarium from the Heinz Foundation? Was it $200,00 or $250,000?

Some of us skeptics are driven by a desire for Good Science, not because we have a political (or fund-driven) agenda.
PCD says:

February 5, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Sev, I thought you were going to call me a big ape.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 2:09 pm

I never met an ape I didn’t like…
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 2:25 pm

As Severian personally demonstrates, people who deny man-made global warming try to make up in quantity of opinion what they lack in published data. The extensive quotes that you presented, Severian, are fine, but they’re just opinion pieces. But it does show how silly the claims are that somehow global warming deniers are being hushed up or “de-certified.” The internet seems to be awash in opinions from the global warming denial lobby. Such opinions are being actively solicited by outfits like the American Enterprise Institute, who, as we discussed at the top of this thread, will pay anyone handsomely for submitting such opinions. Severian, you must be bucking to get on the AEI’s list—heck, $10,000 would buy you a nice new hot tub (please, just get one of the more energy-efficient ones if you don’t mind).

Too much opinion, too little data. That’s the problem you guys face for now. Like I said, if that situation ever changes, be sure to let me know. I’m all ears!
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 2:49 pm

No Bob, you’re all some part of the human anatomy, but ears are not what comes to mind. You are basically a perfect caricature of a liberal, closed minded, overly impressed by consensus, and willing to let your “betters” tell you what to believe, ignorant and damned proud of the fact, just like the good little sheeple your masters want you to be. If you ever have an original thought on this, or are willing to show that you’ve ever read any of the links and attempted to understand the science instead of frantically googling to try and find a reason not to have to think or have your assumptions challenged, let us know, send up a flare, something. It’s bound to be a moment of pure epiphany for you, and we’d like to share. There’s plenty of peer reviewed science in all the links, and viewpoints expressed by competent, non-ideologically blinded scientists. When you can refute one single solitary fact, let us know, until then your character assassination attempts are just tiresome noise.

And you’re once again attacking the alleged immorality of money, rather than the data these people present. If you ever, ever get smart enough to understand 1/10th of this, your opinion might be worth something. As it is, you’re just another deluded fool who enjoys being led around by the ring in your nose.

But at least you aren’t violating Ape Law!
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Any discussion with you seems to quickly degenerate into a name-calling, attitude-copping farce, Severian. Go ahead, call me names. It’s only evidence of your own limited rhetorical skills. Maybe you should stick to attempts to brow-beat people through extensive cut-and-paste excerpts from JunkScience.com. At least it doesn’t reflect quite so badly on your character.
TXMarko says:

February 5, 2007 at 4:18 pm

GW fanatics keep insisting that anyone who disagrees with their “findings” simply MUST be in the pocket of Big Oil.

Enter Al Gore, cheerleader for the GW crowd. Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management, a London based investment firm which has been set up to tap growing demand for an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on other factors such as social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance. Hmmm.

Al is quoted on the website saying “Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense”.

David Blood, the managing partner with Gore (yes, yes, “Blood & Gore, how appropriate) had a quite telling article published here.

Simply put, Gore is an agitprop for his own investment company which makes its money on….. GW!

Follow The Money, indeed!
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Very good find TXMarko! Cui Bono indeed. Al “I wuz robbed” Gore has at least three major benefits from his tireless campaigning to attempt to save us all from manbearpig, the monetary benefits from his own investment company, the ego strokes he so obviously needs and lives for from the other deluded moonbats and the “international” community (he wants that Peace Prize), and the potential of leveraging this into a renewed and revitalized political career.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 5:38 pm

Well Bob, I’ll take that as a compliment, coming from someone who has presented such a stultifying boring and monotonous diatribe of unoriginality and group-think devoid of substance like your entire history of posts here. You’re a legend in your own mind though apparently. But, as Heinlein so aptly noted, delusions are not always a bad thing, your delusions of adequacy obviously keeps you from opening your wrists out of sheer desperation.

Still waiting for you to post one single intelligent thing about the science though, one single little bitty thing that shows you actually read and tried to understand anything. But, I’m not holding my breath, green may be your color, but blue just isn’t mine.
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 7:34 pm

“If you ever have an original thought on this, or are willing to show that you’ve ever read any of the links . . . blah, blah, blah”
–Severian

“Well Bob, I’ll take that as a compliment, coming from someone who has presented such a stultifying boring and monotonous diatribe of unoriginality and group-think devoid of substance like your entire history of posts here.”
–Severian

Well, gee, Severian, I didn’t know we were being graded on originality. I thought intellectual honesty was the most important criterion for the purposes of this discussion. But since you raised the issue, I thought it would make a fun little test of how well you live up to criteria you apply in criticizing other people. Let’s take the volume of direct quotes from other people as a measure of originality. Measuring the number of column-centimeters of blockquotes for you and me, I get the following:

Quotes from other sources presented by Bob: 6.5 column-centimeters.

Quotes from other sources presented by Severian: 161 column-centimeters.

So, based on this completely valid indicator of originality, apparently you are 24.77 times less original than me. For the purposes of this work, we’ll call this number the hypocrisy ratio.

I thought you were just cutting and pasting from JunkScience.com. But if I overlooked any original research or theoretical concepts that you personally contributed to the science of climatology, please share. Bear in mind, whatever I’ve been doing here, I never claimed to be original. But you apparently can’t even win contests that you dream up yourself.
Lorica says:

February 5, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Bob you truly a piece of work. You accuse Sev and others of attacking you, then you play the martyr about how horrible we all are. Let’s go back and look at some of your genius posts. Here is alittle item from your 2nd post Bob.

While the anti-intellectuals who post here like to denigrate real science, the fact is that there are few disciplines in which participants are held to such high ethical standards.

Nope, you didn’t intend to be insulting with terms like anti-intellectuals. At this point in time not a single post is directed to you, but yet you feel the need to be insulting.

Let’s look abit deeper tho. From Your 3rd post:

You can pretend that there’s no difference, but to do so is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Geeee Bob, calling someone ignorant is such a high compliment. Why so defensive Bob?? But to call our fabulous Web Hostess ignorant, is just flat out wrong.

In your 4th post, we read this:

other than its use as a meaningless pejorative by wingnuts.

Wingnuts, yes yet another term of endearment from you Bob. Your constant superior attitude and snide remarks towards the folks that post here are just revolting. I won’t be replying to you, so say what you want, I don’t really care, but between you and me, Bak and Sev are easily your intellectual superiors, and you are nothing more than a parrot squawking the latest BS from the GW fools, and it grows tiresome. – Lorica
Baklava says:

February 5, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Bob’s 1:09 AM comment misses the point ENTIRELY and it’s either on purpose or due to his continued negligence. Nobody is talking about conspiracy or black helicopters. We are saying YOU bob dismiss and ignore the substance. You act like the arbiter of what is true.

It is negligence on your part to do so.

Plus there is a long line of people who HAVE called for nuremberg type trials for “deniers” and pulling credentials from those who question the opinion of man-made global warming. As much as you want to ridicule with your black helicopter scenario painting it is YOU and people LIKE YOU who are doing the disservice of dismissing facts that aren’t convenient for your side of the debate. And again, it is our side that is looking at all the facts and weighing the evidence that there is brighter sun and weighing the cost of Kyoto as 95-0 Senators have done.

Perspective is the key. Gain it some day and you’ll gain discussion.
Severian says:

February 5, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Hmmmm…sounds like this blogger has met Bob before:

Sadly, some may never be able to benefit from the best available science and health information because they can’t bring themselves to move past the belief that the source of information is what matters.

As discussed earlier this week, the source is irrelevant; the publication is irrelevant; its popularity is irrelevant; what matters is the soundness of the science. But in order to move past those beliefs, which are really fears, requires us to take the time and learn to think critically. That’s the scientific process.

In the same regard, some will dismiss out of hand any information that comes from anyone who isn’t working for free or that is published in a source they distrust. They, too, will never be able to benefit from information that could most help them. I don’t know many people who can live on air and don’t need to make a living. It is inevitable that scientific work needs funding and writers need to be published, before anyone can benefit. The sad thing is that those doing some of the strongest, most needed work have the most difficulty staying afloat. As one scientist and writer told me:

Honest and accurate analysis starves while hype and easily debunked PC dogma are awash in funding from ideologically driven foundations and patrons….The old adage â€˜Fear Sells’ has never been more sadly true.
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Being serious for a moment, Lorica, I’m really not a mean-spirited person. I realize that when we debate (argue) issues here, sometimes we get a little heated, but I do make an effort not to be the first one to start insulting others. And I try to refrain from name-calling even when others are doing so liberally against me. I don’t think I’ve complained about it, because it’s not like my feelings are hurt, but I do note it sometimes when other peoples’ comments seem excessively personal or mean-spirited.

And come on. I tried to be respectful with Severian when we first started debating these global warming issues a week or two ago. But I ended up being called stupid, a sheep, a sardine for chrissake (what the hell does that mean?), a deluded fool, and lately, “stultifying boring and unoriginal.” And after all of that, he accuses me of “character assassination.” He said something that I thought was exceedingly mean-spirited recently, which was, “your delusions of adequacy obviously keeps you from opening your wrists out of sheer desperation.” My gosh, what a hateful thing to say. You haven’t been particularly respectful either, Lorica, although you’ve certainly never gone that far.

As I’ve said before, it’s not like your guys’ mockery hurts my feelings. I can take it, and when I’ve taken enough of it, then I start dishing some of it back just so y’all can know how it feels. That’s why I’m giving Severian a bit of a hard time. But really, I’m teasing, and I hope that it doesn’t come across as seriously rancorous. In a way, I’m trying to defuse the enmity, because my goal is to have a respectful dialog where we can all have our say and have fun teasing (and sometimes gently mocking) each other. But if things have gotten nasty, I don’t believe I’m the one who started it.

But I’ll probably keep posting here for the time being, just because I do find it stimulating and fun. I appreciate Sister Toldjah providing this forum, and you all for posting here. It’s much more fun than preaching to the choir. I’m probably just as stubborn and doctrinaire as any of you are, but I do read what you say and think about it—if only for a moment before I shoot it down.

Have a good one, Lorica. I just can’t stay mad at you. And Jesus, Severian, another quote? Are you compulsive or something?
Baklava says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Bob wrote, “then I start dishing some of it back just so y’all can know how it feels.”

You’ve been doing it from square one. You’ve been questioning people’s “motives” and whether or not they “care” about the environment and dismissing stuff without dealing with the substance due to the funding (how does it feel when we do the same with the U.N. based organization?) You’ve been hurling accusations against conservatives from day one and you act like you JUST STARTED????

Grow up and look at the mirror!! Hey – You can hardly offend me. I use the mirror thing all day long with you liberals trying to wake you up because I once was a liberal over 16 years ago. You do not have a lock on being well intentioned. If you stuck to the substance entirely these discussions would go WAYYYY different but you DON’T. We wish for that kind of discussion.

I keep asking you not to dismiss and ignore and so does Sev.

Bob wrote, “if only for a moment before I shoot it down. ”

You wish. You don’t even deal with the substance !!! Our point that we keep repeating.

Going to my daughter’s karate class. One day they’ll kick liberals’ butts.
Bob says:

February 5, 2007 at 9:58 pm

Thanks, Baklava, for pointing out how any gesture of conciliation is ignored, any attempt at self-deprecating humor ( “. . . if only for a moment before I shoot it down.”) is taken literally and immediately used to attack me, and anything that you’ve never done (seriously considering the substance of my comments) is used as the principal complaint against me. You make a fuss about my attitude, while ignoring and apparently condoning comments that suggested that I should slit my wrists.

At least I tried to be a sport with you guys at various points, and I meant it. At least I made some gestures of kindness to Lorica, even though she’s never said a single kind thing to me. Where’s the respect or conciliation in your own attitude? You end your post saying your daughters will “kick liberals’ butts.” To be honest, I don’t think that you guys are garden-variety conservatives. You seem to me like extremists who really hate liberals. I hope it’s not true, but so far I have little else to go on.

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 have my own opinions, and I try to be ethical, but I don’t think that makes me better than anybody else. Sorry if you think I have to agree with you to respect you, but that’s not the way I see it. Anyway, I don’t have a bone to pick with any of you. I think it’s interesting to perhaps get beyond the political posturing—which is what we all spend probably too much of our time doing—and get to have a frank exchange like this one. We’re all human beings, after all, and should not see each other as enemies.
tom says:

February 5, 2007 at 10:29 pm

I see things have gotten testy around this post! Bob, put the sharp stick down and stop poking. You meanie!
Baklava says:

February 5, 2007 at 11:08 pm

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.
tom says:

February 5, 2007 at 11:28 pm

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!
TedintheShed says:

February 5, 2007 at 11:34 pm

“Yes, it’s all a conspiracy by the evil U.N. oil-for-sex racket, also known as the IPCC, to stifle the comments of brave maverick scientists, whose only concern is for the truth. They’ll be showing up any day in your home town in their black helicopters to impound your SUVs and your guns. Any scientists caught secretly harboring doubts about man-made global warming will be sent off to labor camps to “remediate” sea level rise with buckets and water balloons. Once again, poor honest conservatives are being oppressed by evil elitist intellectuals who drink French wine and hold socialist views. Did I leave out any favorite conservative shibboleths? Sorry, I couldn’t find a way to work Bill Clinton in there. Can you picture my eyeballs rolling? Yes, I think you can.”

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.
Severian says:

February 6, 2007 at 7:50 am

oooh.. oooh.. can I be a she too?

You can be both Bak! Hermaphrodites of the world, unite!
Lorica says:

February 6, 2007 at 12:29 pm

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
Bob says:

February 6, 2007 at 1:46 pm

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!
TXMarko says:

February 6, 2007 at 1:49 pm

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.
Baklava says:

February 6, 2007 at 2:02 pm

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…
Bob says:

February 6, 2007 at 2:39 pm

“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.
Baklava says:

February 6, 2007 at 3:36 pm

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:
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??? – 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.
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.
tom says:

February 6, 2007 at 3:51 pm

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.
Baklava says:

February 6, 2007 at 4:17 pm

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.
Severian says:

February 6, 2007 at 4:39 pm

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.
Severian says:

February 6, 2007 at 4:44 pm

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.
TXMarko says:

February 6, 2007 at 6:05 pm

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.

The Kyoto Protocol, although perhaps the most significant global agreement ever to come into force, is actually only a first baby step. Based on the world’s most comprehensive scientific analysis, as represented by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels just to stabilize today’s already elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

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!
Baklava says:

February 6, 2007 at 6:06 pm

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…
tom says:

February 7, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Despite what skeptics might tell you, the IPCC and it’s processes are based on sound science.
This from a grist.org article:

The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The immense credibility of the IPCC’s reports arises from the credible process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate scientists who were not authors of the report.

The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, then went through review by a blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its findings. The conclusions of the IPCC reports have also been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others.

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.

Are humans causing climate change?
Over time, the IPCC’s statements about the contribution of humans to our present-day warming have become much stronger.

1990: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability”

1995: “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate”

2001: “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”

And now … drum roll, please … 2007: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This 2007 statement increases our certainty that humans are the dominant influence on the climate from “likely” (66%) to “very likely” (90%). The statement continues the trend of the IPCC to make ever-stronger statements — a result of ever-stronger underlying science.

For those of you that don’t understand the importance of peer review in science, visit this site.
Baklava says:

February 7, 2007 at 12:35 pm

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.
Baklava says:

February 7, 2007 at 1:46 pm

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…
Baklava says:

February 7, 2007 at 2:04 pm

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:

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of CO2.
PCD says:

February 7, 2007 at 2:10 pm

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
Severian says:

February 7, 2007 at 2:21 pm

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.
PCD says:

February 7, 2007 at 2:26 pm

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.”

Comments are closed.