An Epitaph for Global Warming Hysteria

[Beebs52]

This cracks me up. Cal's response to this post is substantially identical to the most "damning" of the e-mails that were stolen. Because scientists were fed up with useless data requests from some people, they said basically the same thing Cal's saying here. Self-referential irony is just the bestest thing ever!

Enlighten me (I need it, always). I'm not sure this is self-referential irony. The emails and data requests were targets of FOIA requests. Something with which I'm familiar. It doesn't matter if they're annoying or piss one off or one thinks they're stupid. You have to answer them truthfully with documents you've actually produced and if you've altered or deleted them, in the absence of records retention guidelines, that's just the way it is. So, I don't understand how what Cal said equates to "scientists" being all too busy or disagreeable about answering FOIA requests. Oh, it's called the Texas Public Information Act here and we get requests all the time. For many years.

I'm not sure that the law is the same in England, which is where this occurred, nor am I sure that the applicable act has no protections against duplicative and harassing requests.

But Cal is claiming that the scientists' attitude (frustration with requests they view as pointless, burdensome, and harassing) is evidence that they are uninterested in the truth if it conflicts with their preconceived conclusions, yet he is evincing precisely the same attitude. Of course, I view one of Cal's posts in this thread as an explicit concession that he's uninterested in the truth if it conflicts with his preconceived notions. --Bob

I appreciate that you realized I wasn't honing in on the actual belief/disbelief part of this whole discussion. Regardless of the nuances of British law, which I'm sure is probably similar to our information acts in essence, that "frustration with requests viewed as pointless, burdensome, etc." has lead to fraud, deception and malfeasance in situations not even related to something like AGW here, but I think it has in certain circumstances in this whole historical discussion. I'm just referencing material that I've read about that stuff was either not produced, or it was altered, etc. because of that certain frustration, etc. One can't do that sort of thing. I may be misremembering, but I don't think I am.

[Bob78164]

I guess life is easier if you don't let reality intrude into what you know has to be the truth.

What a cowardly and shameful position to take.

I appreciate the ad hominem as well as the complete mischaracterization of what I said.

Isn't some of the problem in agreeing that it may not necessarily be AGW? Just GW? In which case, so what?

The questions as I see them are (1) whether global warming is occurring, and (2) if so, what, if anything, can human activities do to reduce it. It seems self-evident that if global warming is in fact anthropogenic, then it is likely that human activities can reduce it (at least until the environment reaches a tipping point, as by releasing vast quantities of the greenhouse gas methane from permafrost).

In any event, as someone with both scientific and legal training, I must say I'm convinced that the attacks I've seen on the evidence for global warming smack of politics, not science. --Bob

[Beebs52]

I appreciate the ad hominem as well as the complete mischaracterization of what I said.

Isn't some of the problem in agreeing that it may not necessarily be AGW? Just GW? In which case, so what?

The questions as I see them are (1) whether global warming is occurring, and (2) if so, what, if anything, can human activities do to reduce it. It seems self-evident that if global warming is in fact anthropogenic, then it is likely that human activities can reduce it (at least until the environment reaches a tipping point, as by releasing vast quantities of the greenhouse gas methane from permafrost).

In any event, as someone with both scientific and legal training, I must say I'm convinced that the attacks I've seen on the evidence for global warming smack of politics, not science. --Bob

And, that is the crux of the disagreement. Many don't believe that, also having scientific and legal training. There seems to be ample information to tilt the argument to either side and there seems to be ample evidence that some proponents of AGW hope to profit from it. Either academically or financially.

[TheCalvinator24]

Of course, I view one of Cal's posts in this thread as an explicit concession that he's uninterested in the truth if it conflicts with his preconceived notions. --Bob

You are also mischaracterizing what I said.

What I actually said is that the corruption I have perceived has caused me to be so skeptical to be be completely jaded on the issue.

That has NOTHING to do with my alleged "preconceived notions." It has to do with misconduct on the part of scientists. AGW may very well be the truth, but the actions of its proponents in the scientific community has disgusted me so much that I have zero trust for them.

[Jeemie]

That has NOTHING to do with my alleged "preconceived notions." It has to do with misconduct on the part of scientists. AGW may very well be the truth, but the actions of its proponents in the scientific community has disgusted me so much that I have zero trust for them.

Most scientists believe the evidence for AGW is well-established.

That is a LOT of climatology scientists...WAY more than those few that were "caught" in this e-mail "sting".

Yet you're damning them all all the basis of the "actions" of a few?

(Yes- all there are in quotes because there is ZERO evidence of "misconduct" on the part of AGW scientists. Plenty of evidence of ego and arrogance, but that is common to many good scientists.)

As has been pointed out, there is no way the "conspiracy to suppress", or even the "unintentional, unconscious efforts to suppress" theories about AGW science can be true. the pool of scientists is too big, and the data is too accessible for such a conspiracy/bias to take hold for very long.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... g_research

[MarleysGh0st]

We can use public opinion polls to determine guilt and innocence, now?

I guess we don't need lawyers any more, then.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

This thread started out about hysteria, not science or crimes.

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

[MarleysGh0st]

This thread started out about hysteria, not science or crimes.

No, this thread started out, like so many threads you've started, with links to anecdotal stories meant to take pot shots at the theory of AGW.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

This thread started out about hysteria, not science or crimes.

No, this thread started out, like so many threads you've started, with links to anecdotal stories meant to take pot shots at the theory of AGW.

Of course it was a potshot at AGW, but it was indeed about hysteria,

[minimetoo26]

This pretty much sums up half the threads in this joint...

[Bob Juch]

We can use public opinion polls to determine guilt and innocence, now?

I guess we don't need lawyers any more, then.

Fine with me!

[frogman042]

This thread started out about hysteria, not science or crimes.

No, this thread started out, like so many threads you've started, with links to anecdotal stories meant to take pot shots at the theory of AGW.

Of course it was a potshot at AGW, but it was indeed about hysteria,

Maybe if you quit smoking the pot before making the shot you might have a chance of even getting close to the general vicinity of your target. And yes, you are doing a good job of showing the hysteria of the anti-AGW folks. The sad part is that the latest story you posted is showing that the FUD these think-tank folks (aka: corporate stooges) are producing is having its intended effect.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Did you really say "corporate stooges" on a discussion board like this?

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

A rant against corporate stooges by Vice President Gore

“When you go and talk to any audience about climate, you hear them washing back at you the same crap over and over and over again,” he continued. “There’s no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate even though the very existence of our civilization is threatened. People have no idea! … It’s no longer acceptable in mixed company, meaning bipartisan company, to use the goddamn word climate. It is not acceptable. They have polluted it to the point where we cannot possibly come to an agreement on it.”

http://coloradoindependent.com/95450/al ... -polluters

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/ ... CMP=twt_gu

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis
Seth D. Baum,1 Jacob D. Haqq-Misra,2 & Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman3
1. Department of Geography, Pennsylvania State University.
2. Department of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University
3. NASA Planetary Science Division

Acta Astronautica, 2011, 68(11-12): 2114-2129

[mrkelley23]

I have trouble following your logic sometimes, tmitsss. Is it that the Guardian took a piece of a rather fanciful article in a non-refereed, admittedly pop-science journal and spun it as a global warming piece? If so, yeah, it's pretty silly. But quoting idiocy by scientifically mass media is a pretty easy target. It wouldn't take much to find hundreds of examples of idiocy the other way. Shoot, there is a certain ex-governor walking around right now spouting off about climatology, a subject he knows even less about than animal science (his onetime college major) and multiple sources are carrying his remarks verbatim as straight news.


BTW, didja like how I turned your interminable thread in to a political thread? Now it will truly never die....

[TheCalvinator24]

I have trouble following your logic sometimes, tmitsss. Is it that the Guardian took a piece of a rather fanciful article in a non-refereed, admittedly pop-science journal and spun it as a global warming piece? If so, yeah, it's pretty silly. But quoting idiocy by scientifically mass media is a pretty easy target. It wouldn't take much to find hundreds of examples of idiocy the other way. Shoot, there is a certain ex-governor walking around right now spouting off about climatology, a subject he knows even less about than animal science (his onetime college major) and multiple sources are carrying his remarks verbatim as straight news.


BTW, didja like how I turned your interminable thread in to a political thread? Now it will truly never die....

I didn't know Jon Huntsman was out there spouting off about climatology.

I mean, I assume you're talking about Huntsman since he's the only ex-Governor in the Republican field.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

For a delusion like CAGW to die ridicule is part of the process. At some point I'm sure the Dutch started making tulip jokes.

[mrkelley23]

I have trouble following your logic sometimes, tmitsss. Is it that the Guardian took a piece of a rather fanciful article in a non-refereed, admittedly pop-science journal and spun it as a global warming piece? If so, yeah, it's pretty silly. But quoting idiocy by scientifically mass media is a pretty easy target. It wouldn't take much to find hundreds of examples of idiocy the other way. Shoot, there is a certain ex-governor walking around right now spouting off about climatology, a subject he knows even less about than animal science (his onetime college major) and multiple sources are carrying his remarks verbatim as straight news.


BTW, didja like how I turned your interminable thread in to a political thread? Now it will truly never die....

I didn't know Jon Huntsman was out there spouting off about climatology.

I mean, I assume you're talking about Huntsman since he's the only ex-Governor in the Republican field.

Oh, that's right, he waited just long enough so that he wouldn't have to resign first, didn't he? According to his own moral compass, I mean.

Huntsman did spout off, but kinda in the other direction, and only in response to being asked about Gov. Goodhair.....

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I'm in the room with Gov. Goodhair right now.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19 ... obs&st=cse

Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.

The weatherization program was initially delayed for seven months while the federal Department of Labor determined prevailing wage standards for the industry. Even after that issue was resolved, the program never really caught on as homeowners balked at the upfront costs.

“Companies and public policy officials really overestimated how much consumers care about energy efficiency,” said Sheeraz Haji, chief executive of the Cleantech Group, a market research firm. “People care about their wallet and the comfort of their home, but it’s not a sexy thing."

Job training programs intended for the clean economy have also failed to generate big numbers. The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

update on the Aliens will smite us story

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/ ... ews-story/

[silvercamaro]

update on the Aliens will smite us story

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/ ... ews-story/

The aliens are among us.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11 ... eresy.html



An eloquent epitaph