« Danger warning! -- people and dogs sighted in Salem park | Main | NY Times "Election 2012" app is great for political junkies »

December 06, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian, it was your mistake in the first place for praising someone who earned a 'D' and then a 'C+' in his college natural sciences classes.

And that was just Al Gore. It was no less silly to praise Huntsman the high school drop out.

Anything for THE CAUSE though, right?

DJ, you left out an important fact: Jon Huntsman got a GED, enrolled in college, and earned a bachelor's degree in international politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

He's a smart guy who speaks fluent Mandarin Chinese, This makes it all the sadder that he's pretending to not know the science of global warming.

Brian, Huntsman has no scientific background. Linguistics isn't physics and political science isn't climate science.

When a politician with no science smarts changes his view on AGW, that's a political calculation, period. You can't be anti-science when you're scientifically ignorant...but you can figure out which view best lines your pockets. Huntsman can't seem to decide which side lines his pockets best. Credit to Al Gore, he figured that one out long ago.

Here's what I said a month ago about Huntsman:

PS: For your own credibility you might want to stop citing Huntsman as credible on science. As I’ve pointed out on your blog before he holds among the least scientific credentials of the Republican candidates. He’s what Carl Sagan warned about. A spoiled rich kid with family connections who dropped out of high school to join a rock band, had to instead later get his GED, and went on to get a bachelor’s degree in political science. A degree in political science with no scientific understanding means a career of politicized science.

http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/10/republicans-are-seeking-an-unscientific-america-1.html

DJ, I don't understand what you mean by Huntsman having "no science smarts" because he isn't a scientist. The beauty of modern science is that knowledge can be acquired through collective human research, experimentation, and such.

I don't need to have my own particle accelerator to know about the atomic world. I don't need to have my own Hubble telescope to know about deep space. Likewise, no one, including Huntsman, needs to be a climatologist to understand global warming/climate change.

A president, like all of us, needs to be able to make use of expert knowledge. No president has degrees in economics, business, foreign affairs, education, environmental science, sociology, military strategy, etc. etc.

Yet presidents have to make informed decisions in all of these areas, relying on expert knowledge. That's the same as we all do in everyday life. I haven't gone to medical school, but I need to be able to assess what my doctor advises.

So it's disturbing that the current crop of Republican presidential candidates is so anti-science, because this indicates that they'd probably also be anti-experts in other fields: economics, defense, education, and so on. No one can know everything about everything. We have to rely on the knowledge and advice of experts.

Every Republican candidate, not just Huntsman, is guilty of the "career of politicized science" you spoke of. Sure, politics can't be separated from science, but facts are separable from political positions. It's possible to say "global warming is real, and humans are causing it, but I don't think we should do anything about it."

That's intellectually defensible. But denying the reality of human caused global warming isn't.

Brian, good point. Vast strides are being made in subatomic physics and astronomy because they are openly debated and declared wide open for research (aka: real science). String theory is a perfect example. And you’re right, a president can’t be expected to have degrees “in economics, business, foreign affairs, education, environmental science, sociology, military strategy, etc. etc.”

But do you recognize the big difference between climate science, specifically, and the topics above? None of the above has been proclaimed ‘settled.’ Take for example economics, politicized in Washington to the point of gridlock. You’d never find an economist calling to have an opposing economist blacklisted, his credentials pulled, his job ended, or his research and theories censored. Can you imagine the firestorm if Arthur Laffer called for Paul Krugman’s Nobel Prize to be pulled? Laffer doesn’t have to attack another economist…his theories are strong enough to stand on their own merit. Sadly we can’t say the same for the corrupt world of government funded climate research, thus the attacks on skeptic scientists, the FOIA foot dragging, and the calls to end all debate.

No one would ever get away with saying there should be no debate in economics, business, foreign affairs, education, environmental science, sociology, military strategy, etc. The president expects to hear two sides to make informed decisions, just like you said. But if a smart but scientifically ignorant president has been conned into believing climate science is settled, there’ll be just one side to hear and the decisions will already have been made for him. Do you see why, in the case of climate science, that a president be at the very least open-minded? What are the chances of that with a scientifically ignorant president when open-minded climate scientists are made out to be fools by those receiving the bulk of the government grant money?

By the way, one very clear set of statistics PUTS the LIE to your repeated insistence on the anti-science nature of Republican politicians – the relative number of Republican physicians:

- 2010 elections saw a record number of physicians running for congress, a total of 47 doctors. Six candidates ran as Democrats, and 41 ran as Republicans.

- 16 physicians currently serve in the US Senate (2-R) and US House (3-D, 11-R). One of the 11 Republican House physicians is AGW climate change skeptic and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul.

DJ, who said that research into climate change is "settled"? Certainly no climatologist. What's settled are the basic facts of climate change: the Earth is warming rapidly, and humans are responsible.

That's the conclusion of the National Academies. Read the statement. If you think you know more than the National Academy of Sciences and the other academies, whose mission is "Where the Nation Turns for Independent, Expert Advice," then please, write and educate them.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010

Here's an excerpt. You can choose not to agree with the nation's leading scientists, but you need to have a very good reason to do so. If you have one, a Nobel prize could await.
-----------
The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new reports. While noting that there is always more to learn and that the scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate change. The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems," the report concludes.

http://tedxbrussels.eu/2011/speakers/john_shirley.html

A little about the hopelessness of affecting climate change no matter what humans do.

Brian, from now on you can assume any reference I make to “settled science” refers to the anthropogenic part of AGW. I’ve said that ad nauseum on your blog. So on that we agree.

As for the congressionally-chartered NAS, it’s not possible to be both “independent” and “government funded.” From the link you cited: “The reports by the Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, are part of a CONGRESSIONALLY REQUESTED suite of five studies known as America's Climate Choices.”

And from the NAS website: “The NAS, NAE, IOM, and Research Council do not receive direct appropriations from the federal government, although many of our activities are MANDATED and FUNDED by Congress and federal agencies.”

I repeat what I said above, “Do you see why, in the case of climate science, that a president be at the very least open-minded? What are the chances of that with a scientifically ignorant president when open-minded climate scientists are made out to be fools by those receiving the bulk of the government grant money?”

By the way, still waiting for your theory on why there are so few Democratic physicians serving in congress. My theory is that they are largely scientifically ignorant, thus easily duped into believing the “settled science” lie.

Interesting video, Willie R. Kind of depressing about how little time there is to act on global warming before the world falls apart. But I like the guy's kind of paradoxical optimism: things will get so bad, we humans will have to do things differently.

DJ, do you really believe that the National Academies of Sciences are biased, that they are part of the great Al Gore conspiracy to make up untruths about global warming and climate change, along with the IPCC?

If you believe that, you're hugely mistaken. And I really don't have anything more to say to you, because I don't have time to exchange comments with crazy conspiracy theorists. But tell me that you accept the climate change report of the National Academies, and I'll return to having some faith in your rationality.

Newsflash: “Supporter of gov’t-funded research ridicules skeptic of govt-funded research.”

Brian, you couldn’t have illustrated my point any better. Exactly the reaction I describe above. What I wonder now is, am I also being censored? I had assumed TypePad was responsible for the hiccup above but now I have to wonder.

Do you believe Dwight D. Eisenhower was a crazy conspiracy theorist? If you want to label me a crazy conspiracy theorist for questioning a scientific theory that is for all practical purposes exclusively government funded – then I’m in good company. Here’s what Eisenhower warned 50 years ago about government funded scientific research in his farewell address to the nation (aka: military-industrial complex speech):

“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a GOVERNMENT CONTRACT becomes virtually a SUBSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is GRAVELY TO BE REGARDED. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the EQUAL and OPPOSITE DANGER that public policy could itself become the captive of a SCIENTIFIC-TECHNOLOGICAL ELITE.”

A scientific-technological elite holding public policy captive...I didn’t write that, Ike did. Progressives wear Ike’s “military-industrial complex warning” like a badge of honor. Yet – in service to THE CAUSE – they ignore Ike’s “scientific-technological elite” warning as though he never said it.

http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/01/50th-anniversary-of-dwight-eisenhowers.html

DJ, you are a conspiracy theorist if you don't accept the reality of scientific discoveries. The Internet you're using to spread your fantasies about government was developed in large part with government funds. As was, I'm pretty sure, every modern major scientific research effort.

So we're supposed to believe that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been tilting climate change research in Al Gore directions? That somehow the American government also is able to control researchers around the world who have come to the same climate change conclusions?

And I guess PolitiFact, a 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner, also is being controlled by government. Three times PolitiFact has affirmed the truth that global warming is happening, and humans are causing it. See:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-more-and-more-scientists-are-quest/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/14/tim-pawlenty/do-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming/

http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2011/aug/31/kevin-coughlin/gop-senate-candidate-kevin-coughlin-says-theres-no/

You're free to ignore reality. Just as I'm free to point out that you are trapped in a fantasy world, along with so many others who deny the very scientific truths that they use to spread their fantasies on the Internet.

Brian said: “The Internet you're using to spread your fantasies about government was developed in large part with government funds. As was, I'm pretty sure, every modern major scientific research effort.”

Answer: Apples and oranges. As I pointed out above, “But do you recognize the big difference between climate science, specifically, and the topics above? None of the above has been proclaimed ‘settled.’” Nor do I remember the invention of the internet ever becoming highly debated politicized science.

Brian said: “So we're supposed to believe that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been tilting climate change research in Al Gore directions? That somehow the American government also is able to control researchers around the world who have come to the same climate change conclusions?”

Answer: The I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental. No, America doesn’t drive the IPCC. The IPCC drives its members. They come right out and say so on their home page: “By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the AUTHORITY of their scientific content.” In other words, all for one, one for all. Cult-like indeed.

While clearly the more skeptical of the two parties, the Republican party is hardly without examples of either the scientifically confused (i.e.: Huntsman, Gingrich, Romney, etc. all of whom flip-flopped for purely political reasons) or even of AGW true-believers (Chris Christie for example). So it’s no surprise with such scientific laziness in both parties that the side to which bias is most tilted (and which aligns with IPCC) would be the policy bias that drives research appropriations.

Brian: said: “You're free to ignore reality. Just as I'm free to point out that you are trapped in a fantasy world, along with so many others who deny the very scientific truths that they use to spread their fantasies on the Internet. “

Answer: I’m in good company. Aside from Eisenhower, here’s an updated US Senate Minority Report that details the biographies and views of 1,000 skeptical climate and earth scientists. I do not claim to have read all of this 321 page document. A casual review squashes any notion that, as you put it Brian, “What's settled are the basic facts of climate change: the Earth is warming rapidly, and humans are responsible.”

Have a look. Most of those profiled are former IPCC contributors, and former (or even brave current) government or university researchers, etc. For reporting findings that contradicted man-made global warming, many have either have been or still fear being on the receiving end of funding cuts, terminated or stunted careers, blocking from journals, or victimization by personal attacks.

A few eye-opening examples starting on page 69:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…. As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ―among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don‟t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

And here’s one specifically for Brian, from a fellow at the National Academy of Sciences: “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=ff8643e62b4e0e282a4367b613c24a2d&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&expiration=1323460340&hwt=8bc6389f897e5b57a534a07fcc0c8c11

So, Brian, it’s come down to censorship? Few things demonstrate the power of an argument better than the other side’s failed ability to respond.

By censoring my comment from 48+ hours ago (and that of numerous skeptic scientists who have made contributions to climate science) you’ve accomplished two things:

- You’ve saved face with your readers for the sake of your own pride and that of THE CAUSE. Congratulations.

- You’ve admitted to me in a way no words could your own doubt about the “settled science” lie, and your inability to defend it in light of what the greater climate science community really believes. For that, I again congratulate you, even if you’re not yet willing to admit it to anyone other than the two of us.

Of course – as blog host – you still have the ability to re-write blog post history by printing my comment and then ripping me a new one with some good old-fashioned ridicule worthy of the scientific-technological elite. To censor or to print…neither option is a good one for you…but your choice will speak volumes to me.
*****************************

Brian said: “The Internet you're using to spread your fantasies about government was developed in large part with government funds. As was, I'm pretty sure, every modern major scientific research effort.”

Answer: Apples and oranges. As I pointed out above, “But do you recognize the big difference between climate science, specifically, and the topics above? None of the above has been proclaimed ‘settled.’” Nor do I remember the invention of the internet ever becoming highly debated politicized science.

Brian said: “So we're supposed to believe that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been tilting climate change research in Al Gore directions? That somehow the American government also is able to control researchers around the world who have come to the same climate change conclusions?”

Answer: The I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental. No, America doesn’t drive the IPCC. The IPCC drives its members. They come right out and say so on their home page: “By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the AUTHORITY of their scientific content.” In other words, all for one, one for all. Cult-like indeed.

While clearly the more skeptical of the two parties, the Republican party is hardly without examples of either the scientifically confused (i.e.: Huntsman, Gingrich, Romney, etc. all of whom flip-flopped for purely political reasons) or even of AGW true-believers (Chris Christie for example). So it’s no surprise with such scientific laziness in both parties that the side to which bias is most tilted (and which aligns with IPCC) would be the policy bias that drives research appropriations.

Brian: said: “You're free to ignore reality. Just as I'm free to point out that you are trapped in a fantasy world, along with so many others who deny the very scientific truths that they use to spread their fantasies on the Internet. “

Answer: I’m in good company. Aside from Eisenhower, here’s an updated US Senate Minority Report that details the biographies and views of 1,000 skeptical climate and earth scientists. I do not claim to have read all of this 321 page document. A casual review squashes any notion that, as you put it Brian, “What's settled are the basic facts of climate change: the Earth is warming rapidly, and humans are responsible.”

Have a look. Most of those profiled are former IPCC contributors, and former (or even brave current) government or university researchers, etc. For reporting findings that contradicted man-made global warming, many have either have been or still fear being on the receiving end of funding cuts, terminated or stunted careers, blocking from journals, or victimization by personal attacks.

A few eye-opening examples starting on page 69:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…. As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ―among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don‟t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

And here’s one specifically for Brian, from a fellow at the National Academy of Sciences: “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=ff8643e62b4e0e282a4367b613c24a2d&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&expiration=1323460340&hwt=8bc6389f897e5b57a534a07fcc0c8c11
Posted by: DJ | Dec 9, 2011 12:07:56 PM

[Note: DJ is wrong. Those December comments were put in the "spam" section by TypePad. Now that I've discovered this, they've been published. As I recall, this happened before with some DJ comments. It's rare that regular comments get chunked into the spam filter, so I don't check the spam section very often. So, yes, I still stand by what I said. I don't refuse to post on topic comments, just spam and irrelevant comments. DJ, it's best to check to make sure that what you're claiming is true before accusing me, or anybody else, of something. Facts are a wonderful thing. You should respect them more. --Blogger Brian]

Brian, you twice refused to post a comment of mine under this post on 12/09/11 and 12/11/11. It was on topic and wasn’t spam. Does that mean you no longer stand by your words below from Nov. 2010?

Brian said: “I filter comments for spam, which I get a lot of, not for content -- so long as the comment is related to the theme of the post. If someone is trying to sell something, their comment doesn't get published. Many newspaper web sites/blogs moderate comments, so this is nothing unusual.” http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/oregons_state_c.html

[DJ, to repeat... the comment below starting with "The Internet..." went in the spam section and was just published after I discovered it. -- Blogger Brian]

Wrong, Brian...the comment was never published...but I did save it. Here it is for a third time with the original two time stamps included:

Brian said: “The Internet you're using to spread your fantasies about government was developed in large part with government funds. As was, I'm pretty sure, every modern major scientific research effort.”

Answer: Apples and oranges. As I pointed out above, “But do you recognize the big difference between climate science, specifically, and the topics above? None of the above has been proclaimed ‘settled.’” Nor do I remember the invention of the internet ever becoming highly debated politicized science.

Brian said: “So we're supposed to believe that both Republican and Democratic administrations have been tilting climate change research in Al Gore directions? That somehow the American government also is able to control researchers around the world who have come to the same climate change conclusions?”

Answer: The I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental. No, America doesn’t drive the IPCC. The IPCC drives its members. They come right out and say so on their home page: “By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the AUTHORITY of their scientific content.” In other words, all for one, one for all. Cult-like indeed.

While clearly the more skeptical of the two parties, the Republican party is hardly without examples of either the scientifically confused (i.e.: Huntsman, Gingrich, Romney, etc. all of whom flip-flopped for purely political reasons) or even of AGW true-believers (Chris Christie for example). So it’s no surprise with such scientific laziness in both parties that the side to which bias is most tilted (and which aligns with IPCC) would be the policy bias that drives research appropriations.

Brian: said: “You're free to ignore reality. Just as I'm free to point out that you are trapped in a fantasy world, along with so many others who deny the very scientific truths that they use to spread their fantasies on the Internet. “

Answer: I’m in good company. Aside from Eisenhower, here’s an updated US Senate Minority Report that details the biographies and views of 1,000 skeptical climate and earth scientists. I do not claim to have read all of this 321 page document. A casual review squashes any notion that, as you put it Brian, “What's settled are the basic facts of climate change: the Earth is warming rapidly, and humans are responsible.”

Have a look. Most of those profiled are former IPCC contributors, and former (or even brave current) government or university researchers, etc. For reporting findings that contradicted man-made global warming, many have either have been or still fear being on the receiving end of funding cuts, terminated or stunted careers, blocking from journals, or victimization by personal attacks.

A few eye-opening examples starting on page 69:
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…. As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man's release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called ―among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don‟t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

And here’s one specifically for Brian, from a fellow at the National Academy of Sciences: “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=ff8643e62b4e0e282a4367b613c24a2d&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&expiration=1323460340&hwt=8bc6389f897e5b57a534a07fcc0c8c11

Posted by: DJ | Dec 9, 2011 12:07:56 PM
Posted by: DJ | Dec 11, 2011 2:57:19 PM

Brian, thanks for belatedly posting my comments.

You're right, this has happened before. But I did follow up with a second attempt at the post - not sure what else you wanted from me.

Still my fault though, huh? ...even though I'm not the host and didn't have access to the Typepad "spam section" for the past month. Go figure.

DJ, I didn't expect anything more from you regarding the comments themselves. You didn't do anything wrong; TypePad simply misjudged your comments as spam.

But since this had happened before, I do hold you accountable for jumping to an erroneous conclusion about me censoring comments I don't agree with.

I'm not saying that I don't do that myself -- believe in something that isn't true. But with age, and a little bit of wisdom, I do my best to distinguish between facts and my interpretation of them.

Like... It's a fact that person X hasn't responded to the email I sent them two weeks ago. But that's all I know. Maybe they never got the email. Maybe they trashed it by mistake. Maybe they're sick, or on a vacation without Internet access. I shouldn't jump to the conclusion, "They're ignoring me."

This is a big part of what irks me about global warming deniers. They ignore facts, and jump to conclusions. Like "It's all a big plot by Al Gore and his buddies to have a One World government." Facts are wonderful things. Opinions are something else. Fantasies -- they're WAY something else.

Brian, the last time I had a comment disappear I totally gave you the benefit of the doubt...even though you said you'd 'check more closely later' and then said nothing more. Both that time and this the blog was active...you weren't 'sick or on vacation.' See your last comment here:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/10/three-strikes-against-republicans-this-week.html

Furthermore, what did you think I was talking about when I said the following on 12/13/11:

"And at risk of being censored by Brian for submitting expert rebuttal (as he did when I submitted rebuttal commentary by 1,000+ skeptical climate and earth scientists which was never posted to the “Sadly, Jon Huntsman…” piece), here is a rebuttal by Philosopher Peter van Inwagen."
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/12/science-supports-progressive-political-views.html

So, did I jump to an erroneous conclusion this time or did I detect a pattern like any reasonable person would? Luckily I saved a copy of my post this time or we might not ever know.

I'll be kind and extend you the benefit of the doubt yet again. Please do keep an eye on that spam filter, OK?

DJ, you remind me of a song from the '60s. The lyrics went something like, "Paranoia runs deep; into your life it will creep."

The truth has been told. You just refuse to accept it, because you prefer to put yourself in the center of some grand blogger conspiracy theory.

I've told you before, and I'm telling you again, that your comments were sent by TypePad to the spam section, where I don't see them unless I sort through the many genuine spam comments that are submitted every day to my blog (and, I assume, most other blogs).

When you pointed out that some comments of yours were missing, I went looking for them. I found them in the spam section. I published them. End of story. You can choose to accept the facts, or you can choose to engage in your personal fantasies about me censoring your comments.

Also, I always am amazed when people frequent a blog, or other web site, run by someone who not only puts a lot of personal time into the site, but pays for the privilege of making exactly zero money from it. Then blog visitors who read the posts complain about this, that, and whatever, like "what happened to my comment?"

Understand, that's a reasonable question. I'm just saying that after an answer is received, the proper response is "Thanks. Much appreciated." That's the courteous thing to do. Not continue on with "No, I don't believe you." To me, this is a reflection of a pervasive lack of respect for civilized discourse in this country, for which right-wingers are largely to blame.

Facts aren't facts anymore. The simplest truth is used in a "spin doctor" fashion to make a political point. Untruths aren't distinguished from truths, because everybody is entitled to their own reality.

Well, I don't believe that. So I'm not letting you get away with speaking untruth. Your comments went into a spam section, as described above. That's the truth. Take it or leave it. But you can't change it.

Brian, you’re overreacting. I’ve complimented you on your blog on more than one occasion. I’ve already acknowledged I see this episode from your perspective. That’s what “thank you” and “benefit of the doubt” mean.

Did you really expect more from someone you routinely insult (SOP for the Green Elite)? Get over yourself.

DJ, how am I supposed to get over myself? Please advise.

I wasn't the one who staged a comment freak-out over two oh-so-important science-denying messages being put in a spam filter. You were.

Like I said, blog visitors should be appreciative of the opportunity to get a free Internet-communication ride on the back of those who pay for this ability. Such as me.

Blog visitors also should be respectful of facts, and not jump to conclusions about the motives of the blogger. Which you also did.

I appreciate your comments, DJ, because mostly I inhabit a social world where people are attuned to scientific and factual reality. It's interesting to get a glimpse into the mind of those, like you, who look upon reality through conspiracy-theory shaded lenses.

I can't understand how it is so appealing to deny reality. But if it works for you, great. Just be cautious about demanding that others share your viewpoint, because reality is better than illusion.

Brian, with blog enemies like me you don’t need friends. Some time ago BlueOregon asked readers to reply naming their favorite lefty blog…and I said mine was HinesSight.

But, since you asked how to get over yourself, first of all – drop the self-indulgence. Your need for appreciation is a bit over the top given that you’re the guy who wrote, “Police don’t deserve special thanks.” http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2010/06/police-dont-deserve-special-thanks.html

Second, fix the problem, not the blame. Since you don’t check the spam filter, this very same thing could happen again tomorrow with someone else. Why not just post a notice to readers “drop me a short comment to check the spam filter if your original comment isn’t published in XX hours.” For example, you could put it at the end of the “comments are moderated” notice, assuming you have the ability to edit that line.

Third, get back to the topic at hand. Explain in logical terms how you can continue calling me a conspiracy theorist for being skeptical, and how you can call AGW climate change theory “consensus science” after reading some of the views of the 1,000 skeptical climate and earth scientists that I posted above. By doing so you’re calling each of these 1,000 scientists a conspiracy theorist.
Read the views of the experts I noted above, then tell your readers specifically what you disagree with (and why you’re qualified to) regarding each:

Dr. Joanne Simpson, PhD

Dr. Kiminori Itoh, PhD

Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia, PhD

Dr. Pal Brekke, PhD

Stanley B. Goldenberg, U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist with the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA

Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ

Dr. Will Happer, PhD Physicist at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

DJ, I've added "check blog spam filters" to my weekly to-do list on Wunderlist (my favorite to-do manager, if anybody is looking for a simple, reliable, free one). So hopefully I won't be missing genuine blog post comments for long any more.

On the climate change front...

It's always possible to find scientists who disagree with the consensus in any area, especially if non-specialists in that area (such as climatology) are included. When tens of thousands of scientists are doing research on something, even a small percentage of skeptics about the consensus position will amount to a large absolute number.

With human-caused climate change, the consensus is clear: virtually every peer-reviewed published paper affirms this is happening. It's estimated that 95 to 98 percent of climatologists agree with this conclusion, as does, I'm pretty sure, every major national institute of science in the developed countries. See:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/klaus-martin-schulte-consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

As noted before, I read every issue of New Scientist, a British science magazine for general readers which is published weekly. It leans toward the sensational on some issues, a characteristic that I've criticized the editors about when New Scientist sends me a survey and wants some feedback.

But their editorial position, and also the news stories about climate change, are universally supportive of the human-caused global warming consensus position. I urge you to daily browse through the Climate Progress posts, which are free to read (New Scientist is rather spendy).

There aren't just words in those lengthy, scientific posts. There are graphs, maps, statistics about how the Earth's climate is changing. It's scary stuff, because there's a good chance we're reaching some tipping points where it won't be possible to avoid catastrophic climate changes.

Global warming is real. We've got to do something about it. Everybody. I drove our Nissan Leaf into town this evening. It feels good every time I do this. Zero carbon emissions from the car. Very low carbon emissions from our electricity provider, compared to burning gasoline for fuel. Every little bit of carbon reduction helps.

Brian, kudos on the to-do list item.

Regarding climate… So you’re going to dismiss the views of 1,000 skeptic scientists noted above just because not all are specialists in climatology? Question: Why don’t you hold Warmists to the same standard?

For example…

- The 2500 member peer group called the IPCC is comprised of only about 20% climate scientists. This according to IPCC contributor Dr. William H. Schlesinger (NOT a climate scientist) at the 3:35 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac .

- The head of the IPCC himself, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, is NOT a climate scientist.

- Skepticalscience.com credits just one man (Dr. Jan Dash) for writing the argument responses you frequently link to. He is NOT a climate scientist. His expertise is finance and he lobbies for climate dollars on behalf of a UN nonprofit/NGO. http://www.trunity.net/CoNGOSD/articles/view/162736/

Clearly you’re scrutinizing skeptics for something you give Warmists a pass on. Doing so probably “feels good” like driving your Nissan Leaf. Never mind the lifecycle carbon footprint (mine/manufacture/recycle) of the Leaf’s lithium-ion battery. And never mind the lifecycle carbon footprint of the back-up car that many or most electric car owners will possess out of necessity. Zero emissions not. Feel good environmentalism indeed.

But, not to worry, Brian. Correlation isn’t causation and theory isn’t proof, so CO2 doesn’t matter. You said you like graphs. Here’s the 10 year 30,000 station global surface temperature trend from the Met Office and East Anglia CRU (HadCUT3 data). Given the climb in atmospheric CO2 over the same period, I’m sure it has those folks pulling their hair out. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

That’s a temperature downtrend. Read it and weep, while the rest of us who care more about the planet than politics smile.

Global warming-denying lies can't overcome the truth. Not in the long run, no matter how much Rupert Murdoch and the fossil fuel industries try. See:

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/29/413961/panic-attack-murdoch-wall-street-journal-finds-16-scientists-long-debunked-climate-lies/

I read the WSJ piece the day it came out and found it underwhelming (as in, ‘nothing new here’). Then I read Joe Romm’s rebuttal the day it came out and had the same reaction, ‘nothing new here either.’

Brian, you say you like graphs and data – but do you really know what you’re looking at? Joe Romm’s Climate Progress rebuttal makes a glaringly obvious reach for fuzzy math right from the start.

The top line in his ‘Global Temp Change Decade Averages’ graph reads: “2000s even warmer. Every year warmer than 1990s average.” That statement is meaningless, since at the end of ANY decadal uptrend, the last ten years that end the trend will still obviously all be above the AVERAGE of the prior decade. What his graph doesn’t tell you is that both the 1980’s and 1990’s each show an independent uptrend when analyzed as a stand-alone set of temperature data – while the 2000’s show an independent downtrend as I pointed out when I linked this graph: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/trend

Go ahead, click the link and change the start/end dates to analyze the difference between the decades yourself. Notice that unlike the prior two decades, the 2000’s have shifted to down. Also notice that 1997 is hotter than any of the 2000’s. Joe won’t be able to get away with using his graph to launch his warmist narrative much longer.

There's the truth, and then there's denial of the truth. No matter how many times anti-science types deny the reality of global warming, the truth remains. That's the wonderful thing about reality: you can't wish it away.

See response to Wall Street Journal B.S. by ACTUAL climate experts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/check-with-climate-scientists-for-views-on-climate.html

Here's their letter:
----------------------------
Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations.

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science.

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend.

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases.

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D.

Distinguished Senior Scientist

Climate Analysis Section National Center for Atmospheric Research

La Jolla, Calif.

Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington

Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior's Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

How unfortunate for Kevin Trenberth. He asserts that only specialists in a given field can make judgments in that field. Unfortunate because the example he uses – dentists and cardiologists – actually proves the opposite is true and that he probably hasn’t been getting regular dental cleanings.

It is well understood by the AMA and the ADA that oral hygiene and heart health are closely linked. Dentists are the first line of defense for many patients at risk for non-dental diseases, so dentists today routinely screen via the mouth for multiple diseases (i.e.: hypertension/cardiovascular disease/diabetes/hepatitis/HIV) for referral consultation with a physician.

Likewise, a scientist doesn’t have to be a climate scientist per se to understand when a given data set or computer model is being misused or misrepresented. That scientist, like the dentist, is by all means qualified to raise a red flag when CO2-temperature correlation is masqueraded as climate causation.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/dental-checkup-may-reveal-heart-health-issues/1150609
http://jada.ada.org/content/141/1/52.abstract
http://www.wellnessresources.com/studies/the_link_between_oral_hygiene_and_heart_disease/

Ready to start doing your own thinking, Brian? Have you yet checked the data yourself? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/to:2012/trend

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight


  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
Blog powered by Typepad
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...