Climate Change Update

It’s been a while since we’ve had a good, old-fashioned, knock-down, drag-out discussion about the whole topic of climate change.  My own feeling, as many regulars on this blog know, is that the issue of global warming/climate change is one of, if not THE greatest scientific frauds ever foisted on mankind, and now information is becoming public at an increasing rate that backs up that assertion.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-CA) speech on the House floor on December 8th, re-printed at Watts Up With That yesterday, addresses  just about every aspect of the debate covering the last couple decades, including numerous new revelations that cast serious, if not discussion-ending doubt on the whole issue.

I realize this is not a problem that ordinary bloggers are going to solve, but it doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it.

59 thoughts on “Climate Change Update

  1. Cluster December 18, 2011 / 3:32 pm

    I am in agreement with Spook, and believe that AGW/climate change will be a thing of the past in 4 to 5 years, if not sooner, and I will bet that every liberal, including dennis, will never once question the “treasure” spent on this folly. I think the main impetus behind the issue, is the UN’s desire to redistribute money from wealthy nations to undeveloped nations, with their corrupt hands getting in between every transaction.

    From the linked article, I had to read this incredibly clairvoyant quote twice:

    Eisenhower pointed to the danger “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.

    Does this not encapsulate the entire Obama administration?? Does this not have Elizabeth Warren written all over it?? Eisenhower saw this coming, and now it is incumbent on us to change this dynamic in 2012

    • Ricorun December 27, 2011 / 11:33 pm

      Cluster,

      “Treasure”? What treasure? Even now, 3 years into the Obama administration, the subsidies bestowed on the fossil fuels industry as a whole is 5 times that spent on the renewable fuels industry as a whole. Especially considering that subsidies are best spent on developing industries, what sense does that make? Maybe it’s as you say… the power of money? And clairvoyance gravely disregarded?

  2. RetiredSpook December 18, 2011 / 3:47 pm

    The secret to winning this debate is to frame the issue in layman’s terms as Congressman Rohrabacher did. One of the reasons the fraud has been perpetuated as long as it has is that it’s been couched in “science”, and the complicit media has often suggested that scientists would never lie or allow their research to be politicized; so much so, in fact, that much of the non-scientific public was duped into believing that, in fact, there really was a crisis. With the revelation of ClimateGate and ClimateGate 2, the shroud of integrity and legitimacy surrounding the leaders of the climate science community has been shredded, often by their own words.

    • Cluster December 18, 2011 / 4:12 pm

      And the fact that the issue has been “couched” in science, gave the liberals the validation they needed to incessantly emote on and on about the topic without ever questioning the sources or data. It’s what Amazona calls the unexamined liberal

    • 4moreyears December 19, 2011 / 8:15 pm

      “The secret to winning this debate is to frame the issue in layman’s terms as Congressman Rohrabacher did.”

      Hmmm, I didn’t realize that science was a debate. Silly me. Here’s the bottom line, it’s either real or it’s not. That’s it, ok. If it’s true, then time will tell. If it’s not, then time will also tell. If it’s not, then nothing will happen and those who are skeptics will be shown to be correct. If it is, then it may well be the end of civilization as we currently view it. As I said, we shall see, won’t we.

      One thing that is very clear is that a bunch of hammerheads writing on forums aren’t going to make a difference one way or the other.

    • steelhead December 19, 2011 / 11:27 pm

      Spook,
      I don’t know what to believe in regard to human caused global warming. But it seems that if one sees global warming as a threat to individual freedom and lets that be the driver of one’s belief you could then never be convinced of something that challenges that belief regardless of the science. Isn’t that a problem? Are you chaffing at this argument because you find the science objectionable or because you dislike the ramifications of it, if it is actually correct?

      • RetiredSpook December 20, 2011 / 12:00 am

        I find the corruption of science to further an ideological agenda objectionable. And I think there is zero chance that it is correct.

      • steelhead December 20, 2011 / 4:15 pm

        Spook,
        Science has never been perfect. As an example doctors and people working in the medical field regularly make mistakes from which people die. Have you sworn off medical care and come to the same conclusions about that field of science. After all much of the research done in that field is funded by people with agendas. Is that not the case with much of the science? What percentage of the global warming science has been proven to be untrue and can such a small percentage be used to indict the rest of it?

      • RetiredSpook December 20, 2011 / 6:20 pm

        Science has never been perfect.

        Steelhead, I’m not asking for perfection, just honesty. If you can’t understand the difference, then there’s no sense in continuing to address your obtuseness.

      • steelhead December 21, 2011 / 1:09 am

        Spook,
        Humans by nature are imperfect,so it is no surprise that a percentage of the research contains imperfection which includes those that would be purposefully dishonest. What is the percentage of those scientists who work in this field who are dishonest as you claim? Or do you know? Is this a matter of taking the outliers and making them the norm so that your argument works? I suspect that you chaff at global warming because of its ramifications. If the theories about man made global warming are correct it would require a community based, possibly globally based solution, something which I assume you find reprehensible. Or am I wrong?

      • RetiredSpook December 21, 2011 / 10:05 am

        I suspect that you chaff at global warming because of its ramifications. If the theories about man made global warming are correct it would require a community based, possibly globally based solution, something which I assume you find reprehensible. Or am I wrong?

        You could not be more wrong, and the evidence is accumulating at an ever increasing rate that nothing man is doing is having a measurable effect on climate and global temperature, and nothing man can do will change what is happening. The ultimate question, one which virtually no one can answer, is, what is the normal temperature of the earth? Would you like to lock it in at what it was in the mid 19th century; in the early 20th century; the mid-20th century; the 70’s; the 90’s? I suspect it is actually you who is “chaffing at this argument” because……..well, to be honest, I can’t read your mind, so why don’t you tell me why you believe what you believe?

        What is the percentage of those scientists who work in this field who are dishonest as you claim?

        Certainly most of the scientists who control the peer review process for starters. Why don’t you read the thousands of emails that have been published from many of the top scientists in the field, and you tell me how many of them you think are dishonest.

        Over the years, I’ve tried to read both sides of the issue, and when I read something, on either side, that raises a red flag, I try to find independent confirmation (or refutation) of it. Your comments, suggest that you only read one side, which is fine; it just reveals an uninquisitive mind, and I really detest having a dialogue with someone like you because all you have are circular arguments and questions about my motives and what’s in my mind, something that, from a few blog posts, you could not possibly know.

        Have a nice day.

      • steelhead December 21, 2011 / 12:44 pm

        Spook,
        I don’t think you have answered my central question that is, What percentage of the global warming science has been proven to be untrue and can such a small percentage be used to indict the rest of it?
        I have difficulty in impugning the life’s work of scientists in this field. I have a degree and license in Civil Engineering and have worked in the field for over 12 years. Despite this I realize how limited my knowledge in my field is. So I find it difficult to come to a clear understanding of such a complex issue as man made global warming. I don’t think I have enough spare time to read enough to change that. Yet I hear people on both sides making such proclamations. For the most part I am very suspect of those who would make such proclamations. All I can do is try to best gauge who is blowing smoke, who is truly knowledgeable, and who is well read but limited because of political predisposition.

        If you are unwilling or unable to answer my question I would have to count you among the latter.

      • RetiredSpook December 21, 2011 / 2:17 pm

        Spook,
        I don’t think you have answered my central question that is, What percentage of the global warming science has been proven to be untrue and can such a small percentage be used to indict the rest of it? — snip — All I can do is try to best gauge who is blowing smoke, who is truly knowledgeable, and who is well read but limited because of political predisposition.

        If you are unwilling or unable to answer my question I would have to count you among the latter.

        Your central question is not a legitimate question, because zero percent of global warming science has been proven to be true. It is entirely based on computer models which have been shown to be unable to predict the past, much less the future. You can’t prove something to be untrue which has never been proven to be true in the first place.

        You may count me among the latter if it makes you feel better. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

        but limited because of political predisposition.

        One last thing: does the fact that the issue has been largely a right/left issue (political predisposition) as opposed to a scientific issue, for over 2 decades, not make it at least a little suspect in your mind, or does your political predisposition preclude that?

      • steelhead December 21, 2011 / 2:58 pm

        Your central question is not a legitimate question, because zero percent of global warming science has been proven to be true.

        In this statement you are claiming omniscience, something that is hard to believe. Without arguing the topic I can see that your argument is flawed.

        Beyond that your premise is wrong. If someone claims that west is north I can pull out a compass and prove otherwise despite the fact that the person making the original argument never proved it true.

        It is entirely based on computer models which have been shown to be unable to predict the past, much less the future.

        The same can be said about modern weather forecasting. Yet most prudent people look at weather reports before planning anything that may be affected by the weather. Please realize that I am not equating weather to climate.

        One last thing: does the fact that the issue has been largely a right/left issue (political predisposition) as opposed to a scientific issue, for over 2 decades, not make it at least a little suspect in your mind, or does your political predisposition preclude that?

        Certainly it has become a political football. This is not a surprise since it has many political implications. I don’t have a predisposition to believe one way or the other. I wish I could say we reasonable certainty which side is right. I think that the polarization of this issue is due largely to the fact that the preponderance of people who argue this issue are predominantly motivated by politics. What is odd to me that with few exceptions, those who oppose this science are from the right. It makes me think that the majority of those people start with a predisposition and never move from that position.

      • RetiredSpook December 21, 2011 / 3:28 pm

        What is odd to me that with few exceptions, those who oppose this science are from the right. It makes me think that the majority of those people start with a predisposition and never move from that position.

        And the exact opposite is also true, except I don’t find it odd. But in the end, changing one’s position has to be because of one of two dynamics: either an emotional plea or proof. I don’t make decisions based on emotion, and, so far, there is a virtually total absence of proof of the actions of man having a statistically significant effect on earth’s temperature or climate. The only thing we can say for sure is that, since the end of the Industrial Revolution (and the Little Ice Age), the planet has warmed slightly. Over the billions of years that earth has existed, there is ample evidence that changes much more severe than what we’re witnessing have happened thousands of times.

      • RetiredSpook December 21, 2011 / 4:00 pm

        Beyond that your premise is wrong. If someone claims that west is north I can pull out a compass and prove otherwise despite the fact that the person making the original argument never proved it true.

        This is exactly what I was talking about when I referenced circular arguments. First of all, as far as I know, no one has EVER claimed that west was north, so your premise is suspect from the start. More importantly, if someone did claim that west was north, they would be labeled a kook, and no one would pay much attention to them. Well, I guess you COULD get out your compass and prove him wrong, and shout to the world, “hey I just proved that the guy who said west was north is wrong”, but people would label you a kook as well.

      • steelhead December 22, 2011 / 12:28 am

        Spook,
        I work were that exact scenario has happened to me a number of times. For whatever reason the layout of the buildings on our site seem to lead to confusion between north and west. The first time it happened I pulled out a compass from my drawer and showed them otherwise. The last time it happened I pulled out my phone and used an app. No one thought either of us was a kook. Beyond that there was no reason to yell to the world. It was not very earthshaking but it does illustrate that your premise is wrong.

        In the end these arguments are just distractions from my question. Are you going to answer it or are you going to point to the sky and say, “look at the bird”?

        It is looking more and more like you were focusing on the fact that mistakes were made and you never asked the question, how relevant are these mistakes? Are these mistakes indicative of the whole or are they just aberrations?

        Perhaps it is I who have not been clear. Take for example you are making bread and you discover that you put a cup of salt in your bread dough. On the surface it may seem there is nothing that can be done to save bread that is so filled with salt. Yet if one were to reveal that the recipe was for 100 loaves of bread one may come to the exact opposite conclusion that the bread has too little salt. Yet, without that information one could mistakenly conclude otherwise.

        So, one last time I ask how representative of the whole is this portion of work you have called into question? I doubt you have read it all.

        In addition to that are those researchers that have been indicted representative of the whole or are they also aberrations and what is your proof?

      • RetiredSpook December 22, 2011 / 1:17 am

        In the end these arguments are just distractions from my question. Are you going to answer it or are you going to point to the sky and say, “look at the bird”?

        It is looking more and more like you were focusing on the fact that mistakes were made and you never asked the question, how relevant are these mistakes? Are these mistakes indicative of the whole or are they just aberrations?

        OK, lets go back to your original question:

        I don’t think you have answered my central question that is, What percentage of the global warming science has been proven to be untrue and can such a small percentage be used to indict the rest of it?

        What you’re asking is akin to, “when did you stop beating your wife?” You’re asking me to give a percentage which you then qualify in the same sentence is “such a small percentage”, indicating that you believe only a “small percentage” of global warming science has been proven to be untrue, and even that small percentage is based on “mistakes” not deliberate fraud. I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t believe ANY of global warming science has been proved to be true, and that history will show it to be the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated. Do you see the impasse we’re at? I guess I’ll have to answer your question with a question — AGAIN: What element or elements of climate science do you believe have been proved, and on what do you base your claim?

      • RetiredSpook December 22, 2011 / 11:34 am

        Spook,
        I work were (sic) that exact scenario has happened to me a number of times. For whatever reason the layout of the buildings on our site seem to lead to confusion between north and west. The first time it happened I pulled out a compass from my drawer and showed them otherwise. The last time it happened I pulled out my phone and used an app. No one thought either of us was a kook.

        OK, now let’s change the rules as they’ve been changed in the climate change debate. Let’s say that you are directed by local building codes to orient buildings to take maximum advantage of passive solar heat. You submit your plans to the county engineer, and he says that. according to his calculations, your building is facing west instead of south. You ask to see his calculations, and he say’s he doesn’t have to show you his calculations because you’ll only use them to prove him wrong. You chuckle and pull out your compass (or phone ap, LOL) and show him where he’s wrong. He says you don’t understand the 2 basic rules of how a project gets approved: (1) the county engineer is ALWAYS right; (2) if the county engineer is wrong, refer to rule #1. You tell him you’ll go around him and go straight to the county commissioners. He tells you he is the gatekeeper for the county commissioners, and they won’t even meet with you without his approval. Now do you see the difference?

        The arguments you’ve been making in this thread are common ones by Liberals in the GW/CC debate. I’ve carried on a dialogue on this topic with dozens of people like you over the years, both here and on a couple climate/science blogs. When you don’t have facts on your side, you don’t have much choice but to assume your position is correct and argue from the point. At least you didn’t pound the table, which is where most Liberals end up.

        “The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability.”
        (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

        Thanks for a civil discourse. I would hope, if this topic really interests you that you would become better informed by reading up on both sides of the issue before you engage in further discussion.

      • steelhead December 23, 2011 / 3:35 am

        Spook,
        I am going to leave it at that for now. I’ve been busy all day getting ready for Christmas and working on my truck. I’m in the process of replacing the engine in my 1997 F150. I don’t think I’ll go down that rabbit hole again. I think car companies are in the business of planned obsolescence, as are many other businesses. I’m coming to the conclusion that after 10 years it becomes very hard to get parts. And with all the plastic used and the heat of the engine compartment, nothing lasts forever.

        Your most recent points are fair enough. I still feel you are avoiding answering my central question. But I am not familiar with the nuts and bolts of this issue. I feel those details are quite complex and involve extensive research that is well beyond that which I can devote time. So I will be unable to provide proof for which you ask. But I do find it difficult to believe that there is some kind of widespread conspiracy among those who work on this issue.

        I do understand the insanity that the environmental movement can exhibit at times. I am a civil engineer and some of the requirements we are forced to adhere to can be beyond perplexing and I have come to the conclusion that some of it is being done for its own sake.

        At the same time I am very concerned about the affects of chemicals in our environment. Large amounts of uncontrolled substances have been introduced into our ecosystem and we have no idea what that means to us Perhaps global warming is not the issue which it has been made out to be. But, I am convinced that much of what we do to alter the natural chemistry of the planet surely has negative effects. We can not be so arrogant to think that we can do whatever we want without consequence. As an example waste water is treated for many contaminants but nothing is done to filter out the drugs which include things like estrogen. And no one has done the research in this field. Despite a lack of research it gives me pause to think that these materials are finding their way back into our environment.

        In the end global warming is something that I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I don’t think it is possible to resolve here. But I do recall you and rico having quite an in depth discussion about the topic. Despite both of you making you best efforts as I recall it was pretty much a standoff though I think the ball was in your court.

      • RetiredSpook December 23, 2011 / 10:57 am

        Steelhead, I look forward to future discussions. I also share your concern for what chemicals are doing to the environment, but that is a whole other issue. You mention Rico, so I assume you’ve posted here before under a different screen name. I have a feeling I know who you are — not an indictment, just an observation.

        For the first few years I studied the global warming/climate change subject, (and I studied it pretty intensely) I was of the opinion that the forces arguing for catastrophic man-made effects just simply hadn’t proved their case. ClimateGate in November, 2009 showed, however, that at least many of the leaders were involved over the course of a decade in some pretty shady stuff. ClimateGate 2 is exponentially more damning of top climate scientists, particularly the ones who control the IPCC and the peer review process.

        I still have an open mind on this issue, but I’ll have to admit, it’s not nearly as open as it was 5 years ago. Dishonesty and obfuscation has a way of coloring one’s perception.

        Good luck with your truck. Try a Toyota next time. I was a ford guy until 1991 (got tired of the Ford service manager saying, “sorry, that’s just the way Fords are), and have owned nothing but Toyota’s since, including 3 that had over 150,000 miles when I traded them in. I can count the mechanical, non-routine-maintenance type problems on 3 Previas, 2 Camrys and a Highlander, over 20 years, on one hand and have fingers left over.

      • Ricorun December 27, 2011 / 10:54 pm

        Spook: The ultimate question, one which virtually no one can answer, is, what is the normal temperature of the earth?

        No, that’s not the ultimate question. Not even close. I’m very surprised, and rather disappointed, that you would say that, because that’s a statement only someone who hasn’t been paying attention (or at least one who hasn’t been paying attention to all sides) would make. And that’s not you. At least that’s not the you I knew.

        No, the ultimate question is the velocity of the change. The major corollary being whether or not organized society can withstand it without too much disruption.

        But that just has to do with the veracity of the current state of climate science. Personally, I don’t think it matters. Many other economic and national security interests take precedence, as well they should. The problem, as I see it, is that you’re on the wrong side of those interests. See below.

  3. J. R. Babcock December 18, 2011 / 5:53 pm

    I wasn’t here during the “knock-down, drag-out” climate change discussions Retired Spook mentions, and, quite frankly, it’s not a topic that was ever of much interest to me except for the fact that it always seemed to light a fire under liberals. That doesn’t appear to be the case anymore. The MSM still does their part to try to perpetuate the fraud, but it’s been a while since I’ve heard any of my liberal friends and acquaintances mount a spirited defense of a climate crisis caused by the actions of man. The absence of liberal comments in this thread seems to back up my belief that the whole issue really is on the wane in most people’s minds. It’s a crime that so much money, time and effort has been wasted on it.

    • neocon1 December 18, 2011 / 6:28 pm

      100 years people will shake their heads and wonder how we living today could have so duped by the Frauds of AGW and O.

      • neocon1 December 18, 2011 / 6:55 pm

        The beginning of the fraud was when they banned CFC’s

      • neocon1 December 18, 2011 / 7:04 pm

        Was the CFC Scare a Scam?
        • September 28, 2007

        After spending Billions and Billions of Dollars?

        This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.
        The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.
        Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum
        is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.
        “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” …

        So now 20 years after CFC’s have been banned there’s some doubt as to the science that led them to be banned. Now to be honest I was always skeptical of the science behind that because it’s my nature to be so when they use scare tactics to sell their theories.
        Suppose that this research stand up and it turns out that this was all a bunch of whale dung. Who’s responsible for the fraud? The scientists that predicted it? The politicians that jumped on the bandwagon? The international nanny-staters?
        The fact is that the costs of banning CFC’s probably amounted to hundreds of Billions of dollars. (I made the number up). If this research shows that we were misled then those people responsible should be asked to come up with the cash to make it right.

      • klem December 19, 2011 / 9:54 am

        Hundreds of billions wasted on CFCs is actually a small amount in the scheme of things. Remember, the USA and Europes combined GDP is about $35 trillion annually.

        But heres what James Lovelock, the chemist who created the Gaia hypothesis said a couple of years ago comparing the trustworthiness of climate science and CFC science;

        He said “We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

  4. RetiredSpook December 18, 2011 / 7:13 pm

    One of the more interesting aspects of the debate is the fact that Liberals have actually suggested that global warming/climate change “deniers” should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity. History, I think, will show that it should be the other way around.

    • neocon1 December 18, 2011 / 10:07 pm

      liberals love show trials and death.

      • neocon1 December 19, 2011 / 8:21 am

        OT

        Korean Kommie Kommander DEAD

        1 less AGW, CO2 contributor, algore will be smiling

        lil kim assumes room temp, welcomed to Hell by hitler, mao, pot, arafart, kennedydrunk & 2/3 donkrat party.

      • Green Mountain Boy December 19, 2011 / 9:34 am

        I would like to offer my condolenences, heartfelt as they are, to the New York Times, MSNBC, and Barky O’bambam, for the loss of thier ideological hero. It is a sad day for them. 😦

      • Amazona December 19, 2011 / 10:30 am

        And Fidel is circling the drain. Ahhh, it’s a tough time to be a Liberal, and even tougher to be a Psuedo-Liberal, as they don’t even have a belief in dogma to comfort them.

      • J. R. Babcock December 19, 2011 / 1:44 pm

        Loved Rush’s opening line today:

        “Kim Jong Il is now Kim Jong Dead”

      • neocon1 December 19, 2011 / 5:25 pm

        lets not forget hugo soon to be under tires on a yugo

      • steelhead December 21, 2011 / 3:38 am

        Thus concludes the brilliant ravings from the best the right has to offer. Coming up next proclamations that water is wet and its dark at night. Despite having such a firm grasp of the obvious these intellectual giants must rely on straw men to berate liberals. Thank you very much but as a liberal I have never had the least affinity for anyone suffering delusions whether it be the recently deceased Il or brain dead dancers with straw men.

  5. Cluster December 19, 2011 / 8:30 am

    Well it’s obvious that liberals have very little to say on a subject that they were fully vested in just a few short years ago. The reconfirms my opinion that liberals possess zero common sense, and act only on emotion

    • RetiredSpook December 19, 2011 / 9:52 am

      liberals possess zero common sense

      And an attention span to match.

    • Amazona December 19, 2011 / 10:28 am

      The Libs and Pseudo-Libs have shifted to a general accusation that conservatives “reject science”. They keep it nice and vague, complaining that we don’t “believe” in evolution, for example, but they never specify whether they are talking about what Spook calls ‘macro’ evolution, or random development going back to a Big Bang, or ‘micro’ evolution of species created by God. No, if they were to do that, they would too quickly be unmasked as liars, so they keep it nice and broad and nonspecific.

      Under this umbrella of claimed “rejection” of (all, I presume) “science” they then manage to slip in passing references to the plight of polar bears, etc., but quickly, kind of hit-and-run comments too fleeting to be addressed but evidently necessary to their desperate need to feel superior, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

      • Ricorun December 27, 2011 / 9:44 pm

        Okay Amazona, just limiting the discussion to the things you explicitly or implicitly mentioned in just your above post, where do you stand on: (1) macro evolution; (2) micro evolution; (3) how the mechanisms differ between (1) and (2); (4) the geologic record that suggests earth is about 3.5 billion years old (as opposed to 10K years); (5) the Big Bang theory; (6) global warming; (7) anthropometric global warming; (8) renewable energy/energy efficiency?

  6. Cluster December 19, 2011 / 8:36 am

    Off Topic – but you know how liberals love to speak of the “democratic revolution” in Egypt which ousted that barbaric dictator Mubarek, and then go further to equate the Arab Spring with the Occupy movement? If not, you will hear this a lot from the Obama reelection team over on MSNBC. Well once again, emotions take the place of common sense with our liberals:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075683/Egypt-violence-Female-protesters-brutally-beaten-metal-poles-vicious-soldiers.html

    • Green Mountain Boy December 19, 2011 / 9:45 am

      The kind “democracy” barky wants to bring here. At least for Egypt, barky can say “mission accomplished”

      • RetiredSpook December 19, 2011 / 9:55 am

        Anyone doubt that this next election is the most important in our lifetimes? If I were the GOP nominee, my slogan would be “nothing less than the soul of America is at stake.”

      • Cluster December 19, 2011 / 11:50 am

        “nothing less than the soul of America is at stake.”

        Wow – I like that!

    • RetiredSpook December 19, 2011 / 10:04 am

      Cluster,

      From your linked article:

      WILL: I have — five years ago when I turned 65, I got my Medicare card. I showed it to my doctor, he said, that’s wonderful, George, now we’ll send your bills to your children. I find that a regressive transfer of wealth, and the welfare state is full of them.

      Would that we’re only sending out bills to OUR CHILDREN. Our government is spending money that generations yet unborn have yet to earn.

  7. co2hound December 19, 2011 / 1:03 pm

    The question for you guys is this, you have trashed climate science so how many other science areas are false as well? Climate science encompasses, biology, geophysics, geography, physics, chemistry, botany and a few others. So basically all these kinds of science are wrong and have been falsified.

    If true, and I’m not saying it is not, then we are in a huge hole with regards to world wide competition for new and better things to do and buy. Our innovation will surely tank big time as all these sciences fudge their numbers to get grants of various kinds. Their discoveries are useless.

    It’s no wonder bright students are staying away from science and engineering schools in droves. Why bother getting beat up in the media when they can go to business school and earn more in their first year than a senior scientist or engineer? These are smart kids … they can follow the money.

    Of course our main competition is graduating 10-15 engineers and scientists to our one every year.

    RE: innovation, pretty soon we will be no competition for anyone which means of course we become poorer as we pay others to make the neat stuff we want … invented and patented by them.

    • RetiredSpook December 19, 2011 / 1:52 pm

      It’s becoming pretty clear that manipulation and falsification of data in the subversion of climate science is primarily about ideology and massive transfers of wealth. I fail to see how similar actions in the fields of biology, geophysics, geography, physics, chemistry and botany could have the same effect. The main reason climate scientists have gotten away with it for as long as they have is that climate science is in it’s infancy compared to the others you mention.

      • Count d'Haricots December 19, 2011 / 2:15 pm

        So basically all these kinds of science are wrong

        Among the many scientists challenging the IPCC orthodoxy are biologists, climatologists, geologists, botanists, geologists, and many others.
        “Science” doesn’t support or deny; scientists do.

  8. co2hound December 19, 2011 / 3:26 pm

    With regard to the ‘other’ sciences … they are included in climate science. Without them there is no climate science so I don’t get your point that these ‘other’ sciences are different or have different areas of investigation. They are applied to the problem of describing the climate now and in the past, looking for trends that might help us now. The science techniques they use are no different that doing physics let’s say in the area of semiconductor research. They use the same principles and the same formula.

    So the problem is when physics is applied to climate science it somehow is faulty but when applied to other areas is OK. This does not add up … it does not pass the ‘smell’ test from my POV.

    If the data are cooked then why only for the climate sciences and not for others who would benefit from publishing seminal papers and becoming famous and getting lots of funding for their institution. It’s a great scam … fudge the data and get money.

    But to the more troubling point … science is being bashed and trashed in the media. Why would anyone want to get involved with it? Beats me … work hard to get trashed and not make as much as a new bond trader gets in bonus his first Christmas.

    You just are not going to get the newest batch of bright kids involved in science and engineering. They want to make money and business is the place to be.

    BTW guys, Merry Christmas to all and Happy New Year.

    • RetiredSpook December 19, 2011 / 3:56 pm

      So the problem is when physics is applied to climate science it somehow is faulty but when applied to other areas is OK. This does not add up … it does not pass the ‘smell’ test from my POV.

      And you’re certainly entitled to you POV, CO2hound. I’ve read literally thousands of pages of articles and reports about global warming and climate change, both pro and con, over the last decade, and I can’t recall anyone ever expressing your particular POV before. No one is accusing climate scientists of distorting or subverting basic principles of physics — or biology — or geology — or botany, only of distorting and manipulating data as well as subverting the peer review process. Heck, they aren’t just being accused; they’ve admitted it in their own emails. Perhaps this happens in other scientific venues. I’ve never seen it reported if it does. Climate science is, IMO, unique in the way it can be subverted to further an ideological agenda. If you have proof to the contrary, I’d be interested in seeing it.

      But to the more troubling point … science is being bashed and trashed in the media. Why would anyone want to get involved with it? Beats me … work hard to get trashed and not make as much as a new bond trader gets in bonus his first Christmas.

      Science isn’t being bashed; dishonest scientists are being exposed. Big difference.

    • neocon1 December 19, 2011 / 5:29 pm

      BS and more BS

      But to the more troubling point … science is being bashed and trashed in the media. Why would anyone want to get involved with it? Beats me

      sounds like you have already been BEAT with a stupid stick.

  9. co2hound December 19, 2011 / 8:04 pm

    Neocon1 … we don’t do ad hominem arguments. Everyone has our respect.

    • neocon1 December 19, 2011 / 8:25 pm

      homana homana homana

      define “WE”

  10. steelhead December 22, 2011 / 12:26 am

    Spook,
    I work were that exact scenario has happened to me a number of times. For whatever reason the layout of the buildings on our site seem to lead to confusion between north and west. The first time it happened I pulled out a compass from my drawer and showed them otherwise. The last time it happened I pulled out my phone and used an app. No one thought either of us was a kook. Beyond that there was no reason to yell to the world. It was not very earthshaking but it does illustrate that your premise is wrong.

    In the end these arguments are just distractions from my question. Are you going to answer it or are you going to point to the sky and say, “look at the bird”?

    It is looking more and more like you were focusing on the fact that mistakes were made and you never asked the question, how relevant are these mistakes? Are these mistakes indicative of the whole or are they just aberrations?

    Perhaps it is I who have not been clear. Take for example you are making bread and you discover that you put a cup of salt in your bread dough. On the surface it may seem there is nothing that can be done to save bread that is so filled with salt. Yet if one were to reveal that the recipe was for 100 loaves of bread one may come to the exact opposite conclusion that the bread has too little salt. Yet, without that information one could mistakenly conclude otherwise.

    So, one last time I ask how representative of the whole is this portion of work you have called into question? I doubt you have read it all.

    In addition to that are those researchers that have been indicted representative of the whole or are they also aberrations and what is your proof.

  11. Ricorun December 27, 2011 / 1:28 pm

    Hi guys! Rico here. I had some time so I thought I’d stop in. And what do I see? Mark Noonan is gone — and my old buddy and fellow debater, RetiredSpook, is writing his own articles now! And as it happens, he wrote this one, on the subject of Climate Change — I even get an honorable mention in the comment thread as being a lively participant on said topic in the past. Yay for me.

    Then again, I doubt I changed anyone’s mind. Not on this site, anyway. But that’s not why I left. I left because, well, I have other things to do. I have three grandchildren now, my wife and I started another business, and I seem to be getting sucked into more and more projects. So much for retirement, lol!

    But you may recall that my main argument at the time I departed was that in order for someone to adopt a “Do Nothing” attitude about renewable energy/energy conservation one had to: (1) reject not only climate science, but also; (2) reject the measurable changes in climate that are occurring regardless of what the models say; (3) believe that fossil fuels will never run out (or at least won’t run out anytime soon); (4) believe that the fact that too many of them come from countries that aren’t particularly friendly to our domestic security and economic interests is of little concern; (5) believe that no other alternative could ever be as good; (7) believe that fossil fuels will always stay cheaper, and finally; (8) even if (3), (4), (5), (6) and/or (7) might not be entirely accurate, believe incentives provided for the development of alternative energy sources and/or energy conservation are a fool’s errand. Because, you see, those various things (1- 7) answer the question of WHY one might be interested in renewable energy/energy conservation very differently, but they hardly impact the question of WHAT at all — or even WHEN, if you think about it hard enough.

    Anyway, I hope you all had a Merry Christmas, and will have a Happy New Year!

    • Ricorun December 27, 2011 / 6:36 pm

      Just in case the point in my last comment escapes anyone, it is this: one has to do ALL 8 of the things I mentioned in order to accept a “Do Nothing” policy. And if you don’t, then you have to be in favor of the renewable energy/energy conservation revolution to one degree or another.

      It might also be worth mentioning that the US solar industry is now a net exporter of products — even to China. Solar PV is rapidly attaining grid parity in price with traditional forms of energy production (e.g., coal). That is likely to accelerate in light of the fact that Google has decided to shift its portfolio from solar development to deployment. Deployment is where the money is these days, and it’s rapidly becoming the case that economies of scale are starting to kick in. In Brazil, competitive contracts for new power generation have become dominated by wind (to the tune of 80%!), because they’re cheaper than anything else — without incentives. And worldwide, investments in new renewable power plants not only reached record levels in 2011 (despite the continued economic sluggishness), but for the first time surpassed investments in fossil fuel plants. These statistics, especially occurring as they are in a time continued, widespread, economic hardship, has put the lie in the idea that renewable energy is an “economy killer”. If that were the case the trends would be very much in the reverse direction.

      Consequently, I think it’s time to stop concentrating on the issue of global warming science — or at least to stop equating whether or not you believe in anthropometric global warming with your support for renewable energy/energy efficiency. That’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The evidence is undeniable, and rapidly growing, that renewable energy/energy efficiency is the wave of the future. And because essentially all of the renewable energy/energy efficiency options take advantage of relatively (or very) local resources, they can’t help but improve our national security and economic interests, as well as our trade imbalance. Also, many renewable energy solutions can be effectively deployed in a distributed manner, i.e., on much smaller scales — from small regions, to individual communities, to individual households. And if you were affected by the hurricane on the east coast (that knocked out power in some places for over a week), or the freak snow storm in New England (that knocked out power in some places for over a week), or the freak Santa Ana winds in California (that knocked out power in some places for over a week), that’s gotta sound pretty good to you.

  12. co2hound December 29, 2011 / 11:29 pm

    Gees what you guys need is to sit down and read the science papers, download the data and crunch it yourselves. That’s the only way you can be sure that the data is being crunched properly. There are several data sets available if you are so inclined. Read the science … if you can.

    Most of the stuff on this site is science opinion … but scientific opinions are worth nothing unless science backs them up. Science is the best way mankind has discovered to find out about the world. We call those discoveries knowledge. Now if anyone on this site wants to discover a better way of finding out about the world then be my guest. But for now, Science is all we have. It is imperfect but as I said it sure beats what is in second place.

    You have a real problem in anyone taking the conspiracy theories expressed here as serious business. It really does not matter what your opinion is … they are worth nothing.

    Of course when one branch of science is attacked like some have done on this site, ALL science is attacked because they all have the same assumptions and use more or less the same methods. I resent the attack on science expressed here by know-nothings because the attack on science is a step closer to the dark ages where opinion ruled … and the most powerful people’s opinion was deemed to be the truth. There was no method of inquiry and no mathematics to check the results … just opinions.

    Science is the most anti-authoritarian activity humans can engage in, because it generates ideas that do not depend on the politics of the day for their validity. That is why during many totalitarian systems including those in Maoist China and Stalinist USSR scientists were purged (killed or sent to death camps) because of their scientific views were deemed to be politically incorrect. Not all scientists went to the death camps … just those whose discoveries were not politically correct. They had committed ‘thought crimes’ like those in the book, “1984”.

    You people … you know nothings … hanging around this site are like empty drums … beating away with nothing important to say. You let others do the years and years of hard work to uncover that most valuable product of human endeavor … knowledge … and then you know nothings turn around and call them fools.

    You know nothings are just one step away from Mao and Stalin … rejecting science and the people who do it for political purposes.

    You are dangerous people in a liberal democracy because you are free to do your worst. And since there is no such thing as a conservative democracy, we have no place to go politically that gives us the freedoms we have today.

    Of course the know nothings will swarm this entry … but history is history; scientists suffer when totalitarianism arises in a country. Already in the USA there are calls for persecution of scientists and death threats. One can make an argument that the USA is rotting from the inside out and moving into fascism … just looking at the threats against scientists as a measure. If anyone on this site has served to protect their country from threats foreign and domestic, then the persecution of scientists should be a huge RED FLAG. The persecution is the thin edge of the wedge that will split us apart and eventually plunge us all into chaos …

Comments are closed.