Chris makes a very good point (about warmers and left wingers in general) For them, anything can be true. Up is down, wrong is right, Frigid cold is actually warming, The arctic in (continuously dark) winter can look like the Bahamas. Marxism is a solution to a scientific problem. It’s a nether world where imagination runs amok and reality is just an alternative choice. This is commonly known as insanity.
For the rational world, there truly is a right (and wrong) answer, as defined by empirical evidence. Theories must be provable and falsification falsifies. On this issue of CAGW, someone is right and someone is wrong. For those of us not living in the nether world, the answer is largely self evident.
Like CAGW cultists, Jonestown cultists (and heaven’s Gate cultists, etc) were led by a prophet to believe they must destroy themselves to be free, or avoid impending doom.
So CAGW cultists seek to cut off their own supply of energy, the destruction of industrialized society, austere self denial and rationing, rather than plan to adapt or (better) overcome and thrive in the face of a perceived threat.
Most Realists, after tremendous investigation of AGW, have determined the risk is minimal, and stand ready to overcome. If we thought the risk great, we would choose to dominate the problem, not shrink from it. We approach such situations without fear.
We accurately observe the self destructive nature of the CAGW cult, and see that it represents a greater threat to mankind than the “problem” it seems to fear. We are successfully overcoming this threat as well.
wow,
steve the first post I have read from you that is completely at odds with reality, that was more than just a graph or a picture or video.
I am always amazed by people on the right or left who are convinced that those on the other side are one specific caricature. While I doubt you would understand my politics, you would no doubt consider me a left wing marxist.
Still amazed that you consider the national academy of Sciences, AAAS, and virtually every national scientific body to be cultist, that you and the denyblogsphere have completely usurped the truth about climate science.
And then you paint this picture of leftists as idiots with a totally bizarre explanation of their beliefs.
You obviously have no concept of the market forces that actually are dealing with climate change, or any real understanding of how business operates, the idea that the green cultists are trying to destroy America is about as accurate as Obama’s $200 million/day trip to india. There are extreme leftists that think everything from corporate america is evil, just as you obviously think everything from the marxist greeny, Soros, Obama cabal that is trying to destroy the world is evil. Fortunately only about 5% of leftists fit that description, whereas it seems like about 30% of the conservatives fit your brand of ideological fantasy.
First, I didn’t write this.
Second, it looks to me like the author is focused on the CAGW cult. I see one piece of junk science after another coming from that group, all seemingly tied in to left-wing politics.
Please Steve, name me one!
I do know that most of the review team from the Soon and Baliunas paper that WAS published in Climate Research resigned in protest because the review process was rigged to ACCEPT what they considered to be shoddy science. This was independent of East Anglia or Michael mann. Have you read the explanations from any of those involved?
As I have asked in other posts, when are the honest climate scientists going to jump ship? Are ALL of them going to accept bad science forever? If Michaels, Spencer, Lindzen are right (of cousrse they can’t ALL be right because their views conflict).
Michaels has complained about his papers not being published. He should put them online so the honest climate scientists can see he is fraudulently being denied publication. honest climate scientists could see his work and that would be the beginning of the end!
Any climate science that differs from the global warming consensus is shoddy science.
so then there IS a conspiracy and they all are in on it!
TonyD:
Probably only about 1 or 2 percent of any side are extremists. It is just that so many that used to be scientists are in the business of promoting additional research. It is not just climate although Climatologists seem to be promoting a farce that is more evident than some of the other fantasies being promoted as research proposals. There are not as many Chicken Little Fanatics claiming the end of the world over other issues. Of course when your house of cards falls down I will probably pay attention to some of the other fantasies I have seen being researched. One Step At a time.
It is the leaders of the organizations you mentioned that are promoting more research into a non existent problem not the general membership.
I do not separate people into political groups because I have met ignorant people in the multiple political groups. It is not left and right politics is like Medusa and the group that makes the most believable lie wins the race this year. Cut a head of by stop funding an ideology and another head comes out worse than the one before in a better disguise. So your labels mean little. People are individuals but tend to be herd animals that want to blindly follow a messiah that comes along claiming to know how to save the world.
A good majority of skeptics are not herd animals like you appear to be. You actually fit the attributes of a cultist that really believes and wants to save humanity. in the Nazi movement you would have belonged to the Gestapo and in the Communist movement you would have fit right into the KGB. You could have fit right in to Jim Jones’ Happy group as a team leader and you might be one of Brother Al’s servants now.
You are a true believer in a fantasy based on fiction!
This thread fit what you portray to the rest of the world.
Mountain out of a mole hill fits AGW theory nicely!! Except a real mole hill is larger that the virtual mole hill your mountain was created from
Mike, and here I thought Steve would totally fantasize about my politics.
I look at information form many different sources, and I have an ideology that actually changes as new information verifies or negates aspects of it that I had accepted in the past. then I make new assessments.
The only thing I see on this site is people who see EVERY piece of evidence as supporting their belief that ACC is a fantasy, a hoax, a conspiracy, or ANYTHING but a plausible theory that the vast majority of scientists fully support.
Even your guru’s like Spencer, Lindzen, etc accept ACC theory as being plausible, yet you cannot accept that possibility because you cannot accept the idea of being wrong. that sounds much more cultist than my approach.
Some of the ideas presented on those blog are obviously idiotic. i have pointed those out and notice that certain questions or points I make are not answered.
I am not a scientist and don’t have time to find the responses to all of the claims made on this site.
As I repeatedly have asked, when are the honest climate scientists going to come to this site and realize how stupid they have ben and jump ship?
When are these claims of idiocy by the climate science going to be published in peer reviewed journals where actual scientists can respond.
If this is a house of cards it should fall very quickly and pretty fast. I am waiting for a qualified climate scientist who was brainwashed to come to their senses and start publishing all the proof I see here every day
The climategate letters made it abundantly clear that the hockey team is blocking publication of skeptical viewpoints, whenever possible. The peer review process is corrupted.
only 1 or 2% of the right wing think Obama is a muslim, that Saddam Hussein Plotted 9/11, that evolution is a conspiracy (like ACC) that Obamacare is socialist but medicare isn’t? that The president spent $200 million a day on a trip to india. That the islamic center in manhattan is a Victory Mosque, that Katrina was caused by God’s vengance against that sinful city?
Compare that to the number of people who think Bush was setting up concentration camps in preparation for a coup, that Halliburton defrauded the government of millions, that Bush lied about WMD’s and started an illegal war, that he instituted illegal wiretapping, that he started torture practices and set up concentration camps in other countries so people could be tortured off American soil. Wait all except the first are true, and I bet at least 1 0r 2% of the extreme lefties believed that one
“You obviously have no concept of the market forces that actually are dealing with climate change, or any real understanding of how business operates,”
Oh Tony – we only know too well how business operates. Companies that stand to gain subsidies will keep promoting the myth. Meanwhile others will become less + less competitive and business will continue to evaporate away to China etc. This has already been happening for years in the EU.
Govt intervention of this sort simply distorts markets .
I thought it insightful and witty. And spot on with the relative view of the world with shifting absolutes.
I also thought Tony Duncan’s comment hilarious. He blathers about the science world, throws a pejorative towards skeptics, whines about a number attached to an expensive trip and then right out of his posterior, he pulls invented statistics!
Tony, that was perfect. You just made NoMore’s case.
Ahh, much more to say about truth usurping and scientific cultism, and market forces, but I’d be taking away from the moment and the truth you just exposed. I’ll just let this one sink in for everybody.
Suyts,
Yes I blather about the established national and international bodies that guide our understanding of science, that you and most people here call idiots. And I have a pjorative about people who are convinced that they know more and can see reality clearly compared to those idiots. I didn;t whine a bout a number I pointed out how idiots believe garbage because it fits their agenda and don;t care if it is true or not. and I made it quite clear about my % figures as being my observations. those are unscientific, but having been involved in both left and right wing extremist groups, I have a good sense. and just looking at the media and voting patterns I see nothing to contradict my general assessment. Certainly the responses on this site fit my understanding.
And you post is quite reassuring in that regard as well.
Since you obviously have me pegged so easily why don’t you tell me what my political beliefs are? What are my views on abortion, on gun control, on welfare, on state’s rights, on limited government, on healthcare, on government regulation on industry, on religion, on homosexuality, on Obama? GO ahead. if you get ONE right I will be VERY impressed. If you get THREE right I will quit my job and devote myself full time as a research assistant for Steve and only look for news items that fit this agenda!
I stand by my assessment. It is derived from reading thousands of presentations and papers on this topic, many of them from CAGW proponents. It isn’t a conspiracy “theory” created by myself or anyone else. It’s an observation of behavior. I was a physics major in college. No illustrious Phd, but I did graduate valedictorian. I’m no fool, and haven’t been interested in politics until recently….when I realized what is at stake.
I had been reading everything I could find on this issue for 3 years before arriving at this conclusion. Early on, it was clear that so many scientists in so many diverse backgrounds could not possibly collude to create a united front on this topic. Shared politics made some sense, but that didn’t explain it. The draw of notoriety and funding made some sense. But nothing alone was a clear motive for the zeal so many have for this weak theory. Until you observe…..
It was religion. Wow. It is spreading via proselytisation, presented as a compassionate care for the environment, and the promise of a new, more fulfilling human experience (The Marxist part). It is irrational in deeper stages, but not for new converts. But the epiphany was the realization that Malthusian ideology, Pantheist ideology, and Marxism were intertwined in this new religion. Marxism was a religion, or the equivalent. Amazing. And then you merely need to observe the parallels with other cultist ideologies, and the strange observation that many communist societies experience genocide via starvation.
I am far from alone in this observation. Notable in (relative) concurrence are Michael Chrichton and Vaclav Klaus. This religion is more dangerous to humanity than anything since the Nazis.
Well, that is a much clearer assessment, and the first two paragraph, and then you succumb to exactly what you think you are observing. Fascinating.
I too studied physics, and have en looking at the issues since the early 80’s, and intently since climategate. I see the religious element of the denyblogosphere so evident in climategate. Here was a group of scientists pissed at people who they felt were ideologically set on distorting any real science to fit an agenda against ACC. They did not keep anything from being published, yet they were described as keeping out any dissenting voices from publication. they did not destroy data, yet they were accused of destroying data. they did not admit that their science was wrong, yet they were accused of doing they. they did NOT hide the decline, yet they were accused of purposefully manipulating data to fit a theory they knew was wrong. there have been a number of investigations that have resulted in NOT ONE scientific paper being shown to be fabricated or any scientist shown to have engaged in any fraud.
And this post and comment are a fantasy of an amalgam of ideologies that are boogy-men to the right wing- Mathus, Pantheism, Marxism- EVIL, therefore it has to be destroyed! What sounds cultist to you.
after physics i studied evolutionary theory and find much the same mindset and rationals among those that see how obvious it is evolution is a fraud, a “RELIGION”. And then i studied social psychology, and especially marxist and communist theory and history, so I am quite familiar with the techniques of propaganda -of using partial truth to support a clearly irrational belief structure. And then I studied childhood development and learning theory, and a number of topics relating neurobiology to self deception. As I have said in previous posts I have definite issues with how science is understood and practiced, but having looked at many of the posts from sites like this and then from those supporting ACC, the posts and comments on these sites are overwhelmingly more consistent with religion than “the other side”.
Just sayin.
Incidentally, Steve,
Thank You. 🙂
Thank you!
I’m tired of people claiming they’ve studied this and that field of science – when they’re happily taking part in what is obviously a debasement of science. It’s no longer sufficient to cite AAAS or APS or even NAS, when it’s become increasingly clear that the executive offices of these organisations have been taken over by activist types (I would call them Pod People). In fact, if you are still ‘unaware’ of these developments, I would say that you’re engaging in some form of self-deception (i.e. it’s likely that you’re a Pod Person yourself).
That’s it! Pod people. That totally explains it. That way the scientific garbage published in Nature, Science, etc, are just random scientific squiggles and science sounding words, and the pod people reviewers, just have an “approve” stamp, because there is a pod people code word on the accepted publications, and all the REAL science happens in Watt Up, and Steve Goddard and cCimate audit.
And THAT is why Moncton has those funny eyes. he can SEE them and separate out the pod people from the true liberators of humanity.
I forgot. Is the Arctic ice free or Manhattan underwater? That is what the experts said.
you still have not supplied any expert scientific documentation of anyone claiming underwater Manhattan or ice free arctic by 2010. I think there are some ice free in summer arctic scenarios by 2040, and the most pessimistic ( and not rigorously supported) estimates of summer ice free arctic by the end of this decade, but there is certainly no consensus. There is something called the IPCC which has all the scientific information summarized in one place. You could look through that and see what the actual predicted parameters are.
Or you could just keep hugging this quote of Hansen’s which he was clearly wrong about, and which was made with no scientific backing whatsoever.
And being as almost no part of Manhattan in less than 2 meters above sea level, I don’t imagine any scenario’s predicting Manhattan underwater in the 21st century, But maybe I am wrong and the IPCC has made alarming predictions about Manhattan. Of course I have not taken post-glacial upwelling into considerations, so all bets are off.
Oh and a minor gramatical error. the singular of expert is “expert”, not “expert(s)”. No need to thank me.
I would say that the Hockey Stick graph is Pod Person Science. I would also say that it owes as least as much to the rules of dramaturgy as those of empirical science. And as I recall, it started life in one of the very journals you mention.
Do you think that CO2 is a control knob for global temperature (as a recent Science article tells us)? Do you think that 2010 is really the hottest year on record? Based on my experience in several places on the globe this year, as well as reports that I’ve read on winter weather conditions in both the northern and southern hemispheres, I would have to ask, “On what planet?” It certainly doesn’t seem to be this one. But that’s what the purveyors of Pod Person Science are telling me at present.
You see, a very interesting natural experiment in social psychology has been going on in our Universities and elsewhere in the developed world during the past 30-40 years (to which I’m applying the Pod Person metaphor). And the AGW hysteria is just one of the outcomes.