Classic Letter

http://www.pennlive.com/

At one time there may have been a science called “climate science.” However, the term “climate change science” reeks of politics.

The climate has always changed, and does so for reasons which scientists really don’t understand. Time to wean these folks off their CO2 dummy.

 

 

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Classic Letter

  1. Latitude says:

    That’s just saying that conservatives have a more positive outlook,
    and liberals a more doom and gloom outlook………

    • suyts says:

      Always. We believe mankind can and does rise above the challenges he faces. Liberals believe we are our own doom. They see poverty while we see opportunities for prosperity. They see pestilence while we see a chance for health improvement. They tend to attach blame to problems while we seek solutions to problems. They are afraid of change while we see the hunt!

  2. pwl says:

    They need a villain to vilify so that they can control people by controlling our use of hydrocarbons, as such they have picked upon a key essential nutrient in the carbon based cycle of carbon based life on Earth, CO2. It’s darkly ironic that they believe they are being “green” but in fact being anti-CO2 is being anti-green life for CO2 is an essential green plant life nutrient.

  3. peterhodges says:

    “97% of climate scientists agree…”

    should read

    “97% of otherwise unemployed scientists agree…”

    pretty good letter though for a 22yo. but then i guess at 22 i was writing “Beyond Correspondence: Isomorphic Identity of Truth in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus”

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    “We don’t want to make this into a political issue, we just want you to all roll over and let us rob you blind.”

  5. suyts says:

    Typical 22 y/o. Seems to have good instincts, but still buying the bs. 97% of the people that cared to respond, that fit in a very confined criteria, of which they sent the questionnaire.

    I’m beginning to dislike the framing of the discussion in a conservative vs liberal context. In many ways, it is proper to do so, but there are liberals that don’t agree with the CAGW/CC/CD theory. I consider myself a conservative, but I have many views which would be considered liberal in the classic sense. The argument of CAGW isn’t a political discussion, nor an indictment upon liberalism (there is much to indite) , but rather an indictment of people who’ve identified themselves as liberals while embracing the totalitarian goals of the alarmist movement.

    This young man’s idealism is almost refreshing, except, it isn’t based in reality. His blind acceptance of the poll is a bit disturbing to me. How can 3000 be representative of the climate science community without it being a cabal? Wasn’t the Kyoto IPCC report allegedly written by 2000 climate scientists? But then, I’ve seen figures of tens of thousands being engaged with climate science. Somewhere, they just made up the numbers. But, we’re used to that happening in this discussion.

    Moreover, isn’t it a bit telling that when other scientists and skilled laborers became involved in the science that the conversation shifted? Indeed, many of the assertions made by the alarmists have been debunked and are now subject of ridicule. The “expert climate scientists” can’t even hold their own with a retired geological statistician. Heck, a deaf meteorologist hands them their azz on a daily basis. 97% of stupid is still a lot of stupid. It turns out the old adage is true. “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach.” Or, become climate scientists or both. But in the end, when educated, productive, members of society started paying attention to the drivel being spewed by the alarmists, the alarmists were suddenly shown to be unbelievable. And now, there’s this blog. Positioned quite well to not only discuss CAGW, but also the next bit of lunacy that comes down the pike. (Thanks, Steve!)

    Are colder winters indicative of CAGW or is it hotter winters? Our expert climate scientists assert both? Heck, CAGW is even passe now. We don’t call it that anymore it’s climate disruption!

  6. Sense Seeker says:

    Steve, the writer of the letter never mentioned “climate change science” – you made that up.

    And I don’t understand people who think 97% of climatologists are mistaken and don’t know their own field. How arrogant is that? I wish there was better science education in the US. It would benefit the world.

    And as to political color and climate science: the 22 year-old is right. Politics should play no role. And climate science is part of the physical science, which is about as a-political as it gets. If we were talking social sciences – that’s another story altogether. But the physical sciences is virtually immune to political biases.

    There has to be a distinction between science – which is about establishing facts – and politics – which is about determining what needs to be done. Still, politics needs to be informed of scientific results, and scientists can (and must) make recommendations on how to solve problems they identified.

    The tragedy is that while most scientists stick to that idea and publish papers rather than blogs, there is a whole machinery that ‘translates’ scientific results. Corporate interests fund think tanks, Fox ‘News’ and (dare I say) bloggers to make sure scientific results they don’t like aren’t believed, and to increase the influence of scientific results that support their business interests. If scientists speak out against the misrepresentation of their work they are accused of being ‘politicised’ and ‘biased’.

    To make matter worse, newspapers are short of money and can afford less specialist science editors. The junior editors that take their place (if anybody does at all) can’t very well judge good science from bogus claims, and resort to ‘balanced journalism’: whenever there is controversy, give equal time to each side. Whereas what journalists ought to do (according to professional ethics) is investigate the facts, and confront false claims. Sometimes one party is simply right and the other wrong, and in that case the equal time formula leads to severely biased reporting. That’s frequently the case when it comes to our climate.

    And that explains why many people have the impression that the science is unsound, and that we are being lied to by corrupt scientists out to make easy money off hardworking people. They heard those lies so often that they believe it must be at least partly true.

    • suyts says:

      Sense, are you doing this purposefully or did you not read the article and comments?

      No, the writer never specifically stated, “climate change science”, but he did say, “climatologists”……….that would be people engaged in studying the science of climate……..in spite of labels, we all agree that it changes.

      Before you jump to the “I don’t understand…..blather…” Why don’t you define climatologists for us/me. Then, (and this is important, so please follow if you’re going to respond) consider, we don’t argue with astrophysicists.(Well, I have, but only for fun, and not out of practice.) Care to venture why? It turns out, that our science education is easily more than adept at refuting tripe. Is our science education lacking? Yes, probably, but more than enough to see through the cold= warming and warming is proof of our assertions.

      There wouldn’t be a group of people happier if climatology was removed from the political process. Sadly, from the IPCC to Hansen to Jones and the rest, they’ve interjected into the politics. I join you in an effort to root them out.

      No, scientists must not make recommendations. Facts are all we require. Their recommendations are truly the politicization of science. The requirements of reporting facts and then offering recommendations are too burdensome. There is absolutely no way one should be expected to garner all knowledge necessary and then understand the ramifications of actions. Think about it. What you proposed, suggested thousands of polymaths in one discipline. Half of those dolts can’t figure out the logarithmic curve of CO2. Yeh, they’re going to be just as good at being economists as they are scientists. God help them with social issues.

      Your paragraph that starts…..”The tragedy is that…..” Sense, if you don’t see the irony, you’re never going to see any. Perhaps you missed a prior posting of mine, but here’s your “corporate interests”. BTW, I’m sorry to be the one to disillusion you, I hope you don’t hold it against me. Go here,

      http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/enron-and-bp-invented-the-global-warming-industry/#comment-22371

      Your next paragraph is entirely wrong. According to the journalism classes I took, it isn’t for a journalist to make a judgment. They present information. Readers and listeners make the judgments. Here’s the thing, people are smarter than you give them credit. Most have really good BS detectors. Your position seems to be that people are too dumb to understand anything and that climatologists combined with the media are suppose to educate people, or rather show them where they are in error and get them to move along like the sheep they are suppose to be. Well, that almost worked in Europe. It will never work here unless its the truth. The thing about climatology is that it combines many disciplines. Physics, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, ecology, archeology, statistics,……..and it goes on. If there is a significant body of scientists from each field that says, wait! That’s not the proper way to interpret these findings, then one should pause and consider. And then when some climatologists that have been climatologists for decades say, no that isn’t correct, and then when some say, oops, we could have been mistaken…..well, the game is over.

      Sense, as to your corrupt scientists, go to my link. There are 2 links there. Go to the second one. There are your shills for the global corporate world.

      “United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

    • peterhodges says:

      you are missing the major factor that politics is about money

      that is why ‘climate science’ has been politicised…some folks anticipate making a butt load of money off of carbon trade and tax.

    • Ian says:

      If you had bothered to follow the link given in the post, “Sense Seeker”, you would have discovered that it was either the author of the letter, or the newspaper that published it, that gave it the headline “Climate change science shouldn’t be political issue”. Steve reported this accurately and you owe him an apology for accusing him of dishonestly making it up. (I guess this is another indication of how lax you are at checking facts.)

    • Ian says:

      To save me time, I hope that a commenter on the letter on the newspaper’s site, who calls himself njcons, won’t mind me quoting him/her regarding the infamous “97% of climate scientists” claim:

      “Real science has NEVER been conducted by “survey”. A hypothesis is either able to be advanced or it is not.

      “And this Univ of Ill “survey” was long ago de-bunked. This consensus was no consensus at all.

      “Did you know that the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists and fewer than 1/3 even bothered to respond?

      “Did you know that only 150 of those that bothered to respond identified themselves as climate scientists?

      “Did you know that of the meteorologists who responded, nearly half disagreed that humans have anything to do with any warming that is taking place?

      “Did you know that in order to get to the 97% figure, the “study” needed to disregard nearly half of the responses from climatologists?

      “Did you know that the 97% figure represents 77 of 79 climatologists who met a certain publication criteria. In other words, in a survey that went to 10,000 scientists the “consensus” was based carefully selected sub-set of less than 1%

      “You are a young man…don’t get duped into believing everything you read coming from a university or an alleged “scientific” publication. The Climategate e-mails tell us how untrustworthy the “climate science community” has become.”

  7. “… no science is immune to the infection of politics and the corruption of power …. The time has come to consider how we might bring about a separation, as complete as possible, between Science and Government in all countries. I call this the disestablishment of science, in the same sense in which the churches have been disestablished and have become independent of the state.”
    Dr Jacob Bronowski (1908 – 1974) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bronowski

    Wise words from a very noted and wise man. One also who knew what totalitarianism is all about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mIfatdNqBA

  8. Frederick Davies says:

    “Let’s review the facts of climate science. Multiple surveys and reports by climatologists… In a 2009 study, researchers from the University of Illinois surveyed 3,000 scientists…”

    Surveys and reports are NOT “the facts of climate science;” experimental results are.

  9. T G Watkins says:

    Twp is a Welsh slang word for ‘stupid’! (address)

  10. Andy Weiss says:

    Does Twp stand for “Twerp”? We have the Twerps playing for the University of Maryland! Well, at least last year when they were 2-10.

  11. Ian says:

    If climate didn’t change, there would be no point in a climate science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *