World Politics

[BroDeal]

There are a thousand emails - I am sure we will be hearing about them for some time to come but right now I am wondering how this could be taken out of context:

Do you really wonder about this? Really?? Think. Instead of relying on the WSJ to think for you, try thinking for yourself.

The first quote does not even identify which journal they are talking about. I wonder why? It could not possibly be because, as the second quote says, a journal has been taken over by conservative wackos intent on corrupting the scientific process. The researchers are complaining about the very thing you are accusing them of and more, one side taking over a journal for the express purpose of producing bogus peer reviewed papers to buttress their views.

"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

AND

"Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

[Anonymous]

Uh-oh. Someone in flyover country actually read more than a few carefully chosen e-mail. excerpts.

http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6685

But take a deeper look, and it's not at all clear that any of that is going on. The scientists writing the emails routinely talk about double and triple checking their data.

There are examples of discussions on how to correct items they've got wrong, and many, many cases of explanations of why criticisms are not valid.

The writers talk about finding new, more efficient ways to run data, and do call these new methods "tricks." This is a term which has been widely criticized and which does appear throughout the emails. But there's no evidence that they were doing anything tricky with the data itself. In fact, they seem to revere the data.

--
What is really hilarious is that the flat earthers are hanging their hats on cherry picked e-mail statements taken out of context rather than the computer code, which looks to be a kludgy mess.

Yeah, you never, ever should find out the other side of the argument. It will muddle you position every time.

Corruption pointed out on your side simply can't be (by definition). Michaels has been screaming about the shoddy science and lack of tranparency since at least 1992. Now he and others actually have what may be a smoking gun and you are not even a little bit interested.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Do you really wonder about this? Really?? Think. Instead of relying on the WSJ to think for you, try thinking for yourself.

The first quote does not even identify which journal they are talking about. I wonder why? It could not possibly be because, as the second quote says, a journal has been taken over by conservative wackos intent on corrupting the scientific process. The researchers are complaining about the very thing you are accusing them of and more, one side taking over a journal for the express purpose of producing bogus peer reviewed papers to buttress their views.

The first quote is talking about the same journal as the second - "Climate Research"

Here is the full content of this email that is still apparently ambiguous.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Of course this was posted on a blog so should be considered irrelevant at best.

 

[BroDeal]

The first quote is talking about the same journal as the second - "Climate Research"

Here is the full content of this email that is still apparently ambiguous.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Oh, so you are complaining about researchers complaining that denier nutbags took over a journal and they do not think they can get objective peer review anymore so they do not want to continue submitting papers to it? That is your point? Yeah, I guess not many communists submit articles to Reason magazine either.

 

[Anonymous]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/quote-of-the-week-krugmans-lol-on-skeptics/

When I read what Paul Krugman said, I laughed out loud. He’s truly clueless.


Here’s the context:


WILL: Speaking of the marketplace, the biggest industry in the world right now may be fighting climate change. There are billions, trillions of dollars on the table, and when you say, well, they are academics and they are scientists and they talk in funny ways — academics are human beings, and the enormous incentive to get on the bandwagon on global warming, the financial incentive, the market driving this, is huge.

KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.

WILL: Hardly.

KRUGMAN: It’s so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry’s behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.

(CROSSTALK)

WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?

Noel Sheppard writes:

Skeptics get almost equal time in the media? Yeah, that’s why this appears to be the first time ABC addressed this ClimateGate issue.

As for there being more money in being a skeptic than there is in supporting this myth, the facts say otherwise.

The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, “Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.”

By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman “Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.”

See the video and transcript at Newsbusters

UPDATE: Professor Don Easterbrook left this comment on the ABC news site:

I’ve spent 4 decades studying global climate change and as a scientist I am appalled at Krugman’s cavalier shrugging off the Hadley email scandal as ‘just the way scientists talk among themselves.’ That’s like saying it’s alright for politicians to be corrupt because that’s the way they are. Legitimate scientists do not doctor data, delete data they don’t like, hide data they don’t want seen, hijack the peer review process, personally attack other scientists whose views differ from theirs, send fraudulent data to the IPCC that is used to perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history science, provide false data to further legislation on climate change that will result in huge profits for corrupt lobbyists and politicians, and tell outright lies about scientific data.

Posted by: Don Easterbrook | Nov 29, 2009 1:57:05 PM


All I have to say is I sincerely hope Paul Krugman speaks publically on EVERY available occasion. Please, please keep talking.

 

[Anonymous]

Why aren't more of them out there compiling their own data and using it to make a case? Because it is easier to attack something than it is to produce your own work?

How does one prove something isn't happening?

It's up to the 'scientific' community to prove co2 is causing a problem.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

A few more mis-interpreted emails:

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Those-hacked-climate-emails-and-the-problem-of-government-reliance-on-experts

Also referenced by the WSJ - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

Speaking about that particular email the the editor of Climate Research was quoted in the following exert:

"Hans von Storch, editor at the time of "Climate Research," had his own objections to the paper mentioned by Dr. Mann, and resigned shortly after it was published, citing a breakdown in the peer-review process. But Dr. von Storch, now at the University of Hamburg's Meteorological Institute, said Monday that the behavior outlined in the hacked emails went too far.

"East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html

Another email that must have certainly have been taken out of context was quoted in this same article:


"If they ever hear there is a freedom of information act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send it to anyone."

 

[rhubroma]

All of the past civilizations you mention have certainly created a concept of civilization, but I doubt whether you would truly find them culturally superior if you looked at any of the following concepts:

1) slavery
2) government support for the poor, elderly, unemployed, poor health
3) speaking of health, child survival rates, life expectancy
4) Safety for business interests or travel
5) Communications, exchange of ideas
6) Employment, Education, upward mobility

Go back to ancient Greece, Rome, Charlemagne's Europe, Florentine Italy of the Renaissance - and you would find the same human emotions (including depression and anxiety), the same environmental complaints (try to find a forest close to an ancient city), and the same consumer driven economies (with the exception that very few had the means to buy and the selection was extremely limited).

If you consider civilization to be some romantic ideal you would have been sadly disappointed living in those ancient cultures; none of the stated societies would have had the means to achieve that ideal for any but the elite.

On the other hand our crass, business supported society has enabled the poorest child to obtain an education, employment, FOOD, and the potential to succeed and move into the elite classes economically, socially, and intellectually.

All of the past civilizations you mention have certainly created a concept of civilization, but I doubt whether you would truly find them culturally superior if you looked at any of the following concepts:

1) slavery
2) government support for the poor, elderly, unemployed, poor health
3) speaking of health, child survival rates, life expectancy
4) Safety for business interests or travel
5) Communications, exchange of ideas
6) Employment, Education, upward mobility

Go back to ancient Greece, Rome, Charlemagne's Europe, Florentine Italy of the Renaissance - and you would find the same human emotions (including depression and anxiety), the same environmental complaints (try to find a forest close to an ancient city), and the same consumer driven economies (with the exception that very few had the means to buy and the selection was extremely limited).

If you consider civilization to be some romantic ideal you would have been sadly disappointed living in those ancient cultures; none of the stated societies would have had the means to achieve that ideal for any but the elite.

On the other hand our crass, business supported society has enabled the poorest child to obtain an education, employment, FOOD, and the potential to succeed and move into the elite classes economically, socially, and intellectually.

Perhaps you can tell that I see the romantic view as having a small amount of fact dressed up with massive doses of fictionalized idealism.

Yes and in Republican and Imperial Rome gladitors were slaughtering themselves in the amphitheater and Christians were being fed to lions. And yet, out of such barbary, the basis of the State with its lex and urban based civilization, as we still lived with these things today, was founded.

The history of civilization since then has been a repetition of devestating wars, social injustice and the law of the mighty over the weak. Have you thus enlightened us with anything new?

Yours is a terribly arrogant, propagandistic, single-minded and materialist analysis of the past, which is woefully blinded to the devestating effects that our world's disproportionate economic growth of the few has had on the majority living on the planet over the last century. Futhermore, what do you know about those living in the past? Many in the Renaissance were very aware of the culture their artists and intellectuals were generating and highly thrilled to be living in that moment, even despite its wars and hardships. Nor would the Romans living in the II century AD have thought of their world as anthing less than a seculum aureum ("Golden Age") and the tangible realization of felicita temporalis ("happy times") as mentioned by the Greek historian Dio Cassius. We must, therefore, not judge how people felt about their age (having lived in it) based on our preconceptions today conditioned only by our material progress, but seek a more objective understanding by placing ourselves, a best as the historical sources would permit, back in those times.


Well from you're vantage sitting up high on your privledged (economic) seat looking down upon the world past and present, the corporate market based world we live in today seems to be quite the flattering creation that strokes your conservative ego. We live longer (in the developed world), die less from diseases (in the developed world), live confortably in our heated in the winter and cooled in the summer fabricated homes, drive our Suvs to the nearest shopping center (where there used to be apple orchards twenty years or so ago), we live in "peace" at home and feel as if civilization has made tremendous progress. Yet it is a progress based exclusively on the notion of growth at the economic markets. Nothing else counts and certainly not culture. A growth which, however, has devestated the majority of the people on the planet (80%), who own 20% of its wealth, to the same degree that it has made those in the minority (80%) greedily accumulate 80% of the riches while controlling nearly all of the resources. Food is in an overabundant supply in our world, and people are eating away their miserable lives, while in other zones hundreds of millions are litteraly starving to death. At the same time our multi-national corporations rape the natural resources of the thirld world and Middle East, while cynically making deals with whatever criminal despot or religiously zealous regime that will best accomodate their exploitation and profit driven interests to supply us, in the name of that absurd philosophy of eternal growth (of what, one might ask), with all those beautiful material things to buy. This they justify in the best Machiavellian fasion by saying that it is simply the law of the market, even when its law flies directly in the face of every democratic and human rights principle written in our national constitutions, against which it (and they) commit the most atrocious crimes. Millions die every year because of wars faught in the name of the market law that our multinational corporations have create and unconditionally support, to say nothing of those deaths resulting from the world's food and water "shortages," which are in reality no more than the result of the inhumane distribution of these resources which the rich nations' lack of political will can do nothing to rectify. A lack of political will which is caused by the avaricous nature of the developed societies that have been bred on the market's propaganda which makes these issues seem only as if a local problem, which simply exists, and that the best we can do to help these devestated people is to create UN charity divisions that spend more money on their international gatherings to discuss ways of "solving" the problem than they do on actually solving it, because in reality they count for nothing. They are a thoroughly hypocritical facade put up merely to clear the consciences of some who live under the illusion that we in the developed world are actually a pillar of good nature and compassion, even as we continue to live in our obsessive materialism.

At the same time we in the developed world have invested epoch sums in the military, have developed weapons of mass destruction to deter any form of resistance to the unobstructed development of the market which we ruthlessly control and even expect to dictate who among the nations of the world can develop for temselves such weapons, sign non-proliferation treaties while increasing are own. All, of course, in the name of protecting your vision, from up high above, of how a rather considerable global minority (though compared to the past still a mass movement) has through a capitalist market come to enjoy a higher (material I suppose) standard of living than any previous civilization, has eliminated the threat of war in its home soil (why devestating the rest of the world on everybody elses), made rapid progresses in medicine (and yet the costs are prohibitive to millions of the sick), etc.. Ergo we have arrived at something much better than what those living during Charlemagne's time had gone through.

I suppose in the material sense we have, but at the cost of worse poverty and devastation that hundreds of millions of people know today than their ancestors ever knew in the past before the market. But in the final analysis, even our excessive material wealth is a mere illusion in terms of the possitive that our civilization has generated, which seems to me to be summed up in the false happy smiles of the Today's Show commentators and those endless shopping centers - when compared to Brunilleschi' dome, Leonardo's flights of the mind, Delacroix's topless Liberty before the revolutionaries, the encyclopidist Diderot, the vinyards of Chateauneuf du Pape in the Luberon. Call me a romantic, and I'll admit I'm a hopeless romantic (and idealist - though these are not dirty words to me), though I'll take romanticism over materialism any day. Because the materialists have confused, and this their greatest crime against civilization, quantity with quality. Whereas the problem of today is that people don't look at the world with objectivity.

On the other hand, it seems to me that your arguments are also a sort of idealism: based on a much more shallow concept of material gain, the propaganda of the corpoarations and a false concept of jutice based on your own self-deception (cynicism?).

 

[Anonymous]

How does one prove something isn't happening?

It's up to the 'scientific' community to prove co2 is causing a problem.

By compiling data and coming up with an plausible counter explanation for the phenomenon. See, just saying "The earth has always gone through cycles" doesn't really take any thought or imagination. They keep saying "Its all because of the sun's activity" Prove it.

Fact is, Krugman is right, all your side does is attack the issue. It isn't in the business of science, it is in the business of skepticism. Also answer his point, why do the majority of scientists (by a WIDE margin) believe there is a link? Please explain your conspiracy in detail. You guys keep claiming there is a MASSIVE one and all you have is a few emails? Come on, I want to see the financial links in detail because the financial links to your side are clear and published.

I just want to see your science...oh wait, your ENGINEERS are too busy devoting their time to attacking to actually produce an alternative that is peer reviewed (you have your own publications) and logical. Sun spots, prove it. Massive conspiracy involving the great majority of scientists studying the subject, prove it. The evil hand of Al Gore manipulating the entire population of the world, prove it.

 

[Anonymous]

WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?

Well, yea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

 

[Anonymous]

Well, yea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

Cato has a corporate sponsor so therefore what?


You really think Koch is dumping more money in preventing 'green' technology than the energy department is promoting it?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Yours is a terribly arrogant, propagandistic, single-minded and materialist analysis of the past, which is woefully blinded to the devestating effects that our world's disproportionate economic growth of the few has had on the majority living on the planet over the last century. Futhermore, what do you know about those living in the past? s and a false concept of jutice based on your own self-deception (cynicism?).

Because of a Greek heritage I started reading Greek literature before middle school - I also read my parents college history book from cover to cover by the time I was ten years old (perhaps that is why I found history interesting enough to get a minor in history along with the degrees in political science and psychology). It is from this knowledge base that I can state with complete confidence that you are completely unaware of the lifestyle of the vast majority in the middle ages and earlier.

 

[Anonymous]

By compiling data and coming up with an plausible counter explanation for the phenomenon. See, just saying "The earth has always gone through cycles" doesn't really take any thought or imagination. They keep saying "Its all because of the sun's activity" Prove it.

Fact is, Krugman is right, all your side does is attack the issue. It isn't in the business of science, it is in the business of skepticism. Also answer his point, why do the majority of scientists (by a WIDE margin) believe there is a link? Please explain your conspiracy in detail. You guys keep claiming there is a MASSIVE one and all you have is a few emails? Come on, I want to see the financial links in detail because the financial links to your side are clear and published.

I just want to see your science...oh wait, your ENGINEERS are too busy devoting their time to attacking to actually produce an alternative that is peer reviewed (you have your own publications) and logical. Sun spots, prove it. Massive conspiracy involving the great majority of scientists studying the subject, prove it. The evil hand of Al Gore manipulating the entire population of the world, prove it.

The point is the other side is arguing there is no 'phenomenon'. There has been a slight increase in global temperature and one side thinks it's man-made, the other does not. Which side needs to prove what?

BTW, the earth has not warmed since 1998. Hmmm, puzzling isn't it?

Massive conspiracy? Really? How about the IPCC and a handful of 'scientists'.

"In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article.

There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."

Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers."

"Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board."

"In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change."

"An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all."


I know, I know, you don't like the source;

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

 

[Bala Verde]

However, for now I find that I have a great deal in common with the political viewpoint of the Cato institute (I will certainly take them over institutions such as Acorn and the IPCC).

First of all, Happy Thanksgiving!

On the Cato institute, I tried to read that 1988 article on gun control published by the Cato Institute, writen by David Koppel (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=975). To be abundantly clear, it is a rag that would not even have gotten an F in high School.

How, for instance, can any self-respecting researcher start with a hypothesis like this:

The gun control debate poses the basic question: Who is more trustworthy, the government or the people?

Good social scientists try to avoid words like 'influence', because they can't be measured very well. Trustworthiness falls in the same category - immeasurable - but on top of that it is a morally laden term. Talking about objectively starting your research...

Secondly, he then fails to define the terms of his research question,

1) what will constitute 'the people' (Illegal aliens? US citizens? Permanent Residents? Only the lawful abiding US citizens, or also the bad US criminals?)
2) what will constitute the government (ie all public officials? Only those with access to guns like the police force. What about the military? The president? Only the laws and regulations? etc)
3) what is 'trustworthiness' and how will it be measured so that it can satisfy a conclusion.

He does not explain to his readers how he is actually going to research the trustworthiness of either group, nor what arguments/elements/factors will convince him unambiguously to favor conclusion A or B or even C. This means that at the end, he can say 'because of factors X, Y, Z' the people need to be trusted, while others could argue the exact opposite, merely because of vague terminology.

In the end, he entitled his paper 'trust the people', but his question was who is more trustworthy, gov or people. One can trust either equally, but he explicitly asks if one can be trusted more.

Thirdly, throughout the article he never intends to scrutinize his own hypothesis 'who ought to be trusted the people or government'. Heck, he doesn't even relate any 'arguments' to his hypothesis, nor does he do anything to challenge his hypothesis. It's a random collection of - sometimes unreferenced - taken out of context facts. Ie. what does the suicide rate involving guns have to do with trusting the government or the people? Or what does the higher 'lawful' kill rate of criminals by armed citizens instead of the police force tell us?

Fourthly, in all it's ridiculousness, the hypothesis is a straw man. Gun control is not about who can be trusted more the 'Government' conveniently posited versus the abstract concept of 'People', just like 'smoking bans' are not about who can be trusted more, the people of the government. Or on abortion, who can be trusted more, pregnant women, or religious zealots? It's about weighing the pros and cons of (easy) access to guns by citizens.

To give one example of his argumentative cherry-picking, the article mentions Switzerland, which has liberal gun laws. The rate of violence in Switzerland is according to the article - without any references to any sources or statistics - low and certainly lower than the US.

The authors thus concludes, that

there is no direct link between the level of citizen gun ownership and the level of gun misuse.

First of all, that's a very hasty generalization. Shouldn't he have concluded instead, based on the comparison between SUI and the US, that only the people in the SUI can be somewhat trusted with guns, while they certainly cannot in the US?

Furthermore, can he draw such a conclusion, based on a comparision between these 2 countries? What if we draw up a comparison between smoking and cancer in 2 countries to deny/support a correlation:

Country A (US), 50% smoking population, of the smoking pop. 50% develops lung cancer.
Country B (SUI), 50% smoking pop, of which 30% develops lung cancer.

Does this lower figure therefore mean the correlation between smoking and lung cancer is absent? That seems preposterous. What if we actually do some research and add another country:

Country C (GER), with 0% smoking population, of which 1% develops lung cancer.

This turns the tables and would almost lead to the conclusion that smoking is correlated with higher levels of lung cancer!

If this article is indicative of Cato's research, then I can't understand you have not accused Koppel, and/or Cato so vehemently as you did with the UK global warming researcher. In this case, using your own intellect, and some basic logic, you can easily pick apart his paper, it's not rocket science. In any case, if this is the (social) science and scientific standard you trust...

It has also made me wonder, when a 'liberal' scientist (physicist, chemist, etc) discovers a certain theorem, a particle, a chemical connection, would you say his 'liberalness' affect/(s)(ed) his research?

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I just want to see your science...

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_warming_oops_6apJWztQL4oQlDNSJAJs2J

Actually a comment from the global warming community.

 

[Anonymous]

Cato has a corporate sponsor so therefore what?


You really think Koch is dumping more money in preventing 'green' technology than the energy department is promoting it?

You quoted Mr Will asking if what could equal the money the EPA is giving for green energy, and I gave you and Mr Will an answer.

 

[Anonymous]

The point is the other side is arguing there is no 'phenomenon'. There has been a slight increase in global temperature and one side thinks it's man-made, the other does not. Which side needs to prove what?

Well, then there are all of the associated problems like glacial melting, massive polar ice cap reduction, etc that suggest that there is indeed a phenomenon.

BTW, the earth has not warmed since 1998. Hmmm, puzzling isn't it?

Not if you read the actual science. Many of the scientists have said for years that overall temp could very well fluctuate because of the variables involved with melting glaciers, etc. If you read what they were saying instead of only looking at things that attack their hypothesis.

Massive conspiracy? Really? How about the IPCC and a handful of 'scientists'.

Then explain the thousands of others studying the phenomenon that believe there is a link with CO2. Because, I again point out, most of the scientists (and there are thousands) who are actually acquiring data, assessing it, and testing, believe there is a link. ALL of them have to be in on it I guess. The minority of scientists (well, some engineers parading themselves as scientists too) you have at Cato are the only ones who understand it huh. Show me their research. Oh wait...

"In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article.

There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

For that report. Also note that in doing "science," those 52 have numerous scientists working for them. Also note that there are THOUSANDS of scientists studying the phenomenon, and they are not done. They never said they were. Again, all they said is the in studying it, there appears to be a link, and that it needs to be studied further, but if that link is in fact there, we need to do something now, now wait until they have the proof that will convince creationists.

Also note that that website set up a few years ago where scientists could sign on to go against the idea of climate change...yea, I am on that list. I wish I could remember the name I used. I am pretty sure it was German sounding. It was 2 or 3 years ago that I signed up...just to prove a point.
"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."

Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers."

"Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a "consensus" global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board."

"In addition, a September 26, 2007 report from the international group Institute of Physics' finds no "consensus" on global warming. Here is an excerpt: "As world leaders gathered in New York for a high-level UN meeting on climate change, a new report by some of the world's most renowned scientists urges policymakers to keep their eyes on the "science grapevine", arguing that their understanding of global warming is still far from complete." The Institute of Physics is also urging world leaders "to remain alert to the latest scientific thought on climate change."

"An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion."

The new study found that very few scientists are actively involved in the UN's peer-review process. The report contained devastating revelations to the central IPCC assertion that 'it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years."

The analysis by McLean states: "The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all."

I know, I know, you don't like the source;

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

If your goal is to take any hypothesis and attack it as the data is being compiled and examined (because, I assure you that is still going on in thousands of places), then you have an easy task. ANY hypothesis can be treated that way. The people at Cato know that. Look, Cato would support paving the entire country if there was money in it and people didn't care. Sorry if I don't find anything they write to be persuasive. They believe in theory that government should stay completely out of business (a theory that has not data to back it up.) They couldn't care less if there was a link.

Again, you have suggested that most scientists don't believe in the link by quoting people who are not involved in the study of the phenomenon. I find that suspect. Show me a large number of scientists who are actually involved in compiling and studying the data that believe there is no link. Not a few who are only attacking the data, and not actually testing anything.

 

[Anonymous]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_warming_oops_6apJWztQL4oQlDNSJAJs2J

Actually a comment from the global warming community.

There were scientists years ago saying there very well could be fluctuation in raw temp data over the course of the phenomenon. That is why they were calling it climate change and not global warming. See, if you listened to them then, they would have said precisely that the phenomenon could very well not be linear in terms of raw temp data.

 

[Cobblestones]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/quote-of-the-week-krugmans-lol-on-skeptics/

The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, “Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion.”

By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman “Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics.”

I just wanted to comment on this.

I don't know whose quote this is, but this is an outrageous distortion of numbers. What's 'climate change industry'? Can anybody tell me? I would bet that most of the $79 billion subsidizes stuff like 'clean' coal, nuclear power, car manufacturers (hybrid technology), possibly natural gas exploration and a whole lot of other things which have absolutely nothing to do with climate science. Can you tell me how much of the $79 billion goes to grants to fund actual climate science at US universities? And how much of that will actually end up in the pockets of the scientists as salary? And it's not that they don't have to work hard for it. Ironically, I would guess that some part of $79 billion (likely more than $23 million) ends up in the pockets of Exxon Mobile for whatever projects they have cobbled together to not pass up on subsidies.

Now, contrast this to the $23 millions of this one company's lobbying effort. The guys they pay don't need to produce anything of scientific merit. They only need access to politicians and media to spew their nonsense.

I think Krugman is probably correct. If you're a scientist, there's likely more money to be made being one of the skeptics. In particular, if you look at money/effort.

 

[Bala Verde]

I read this interesting article the other day in the NYT, a clear sign of bipartisanship?

Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice

 

[Anonymous]

Well, then there are all of the associated problems like glacial melting, massive polar ice cap reduction, etc that suggest that there is indeed a phenomenon.


Not if you read the actual science. Many of the scientists have said for years that overall temp could very well fluctuate because of the variables involved with melting glaciers, etc. If you read what they were saying instead of only looking at things that attack their hypothesis.



Then explain the thousands of others studying the phenomenon that believe there is a link with CO2. Because, I again point out, most of the scientists (and there are thousands) who are actually acquiring data, assessing it, and testing, believe there is a link. ALL of them have to be in on it I guess. The minority of scientists (well, some engineers parading themselves as scientists too) you have at Cato are the only ones who understand it huh. Show me their research. Oh wait...



For that report. Also note that in doing "science," those 52 have numerous scientists working for them. Also note that there are THOUSANDS of scientists studying the phenomenon, and they are not done. They never said they were. Again, all they said is the in studying it, there appears to be a link, and that it needs to be studied further, but if that link is in fact there, we need to do something now, now wait until they have the proof that will convince creationists.

Also note that that website set up a few years ago where scientists could sign on to go against the idea of climate change...yea, I am on that list. I wish I could remember the name I used. I am pretty sure it was German sounding. It was 2 or 3 years ago that I signed up...just to prove a point.
"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."



If your goal is to take any hypothesis and attack it as the data is being compiled and examined (because, I assure you that is still going on in thousands of places), then you have an easy task. ANY hypothesis can be treated that way. The people at Cato know that. Look, Cato would support paving the entire country if there was money in it and people didn't care. Sorry if I don't find anything they write to be persuasive. They believe in theory that government should stay completely out of business (a theory that has not data to back it up.) They couldn't care less if there was a link.

Again, you have suggested that most scientists don't believe in the link by quoting people who are not involved in the study of the phenomenon. I find that suspect. Show me a large number of scientists who are actually involved in compiling and studying the data that believe there is no link. Not a few who are only attacking the data, and not actually testing anything.[/

Well, these guys think differently;

"According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_articles1.pdf



There are thousands of 'scientists' who think the 'climate change, co2' theory is rubbish. Are they all wrong?

Again, proving a negative is not what needs to happen. If the "science is in", then why some much dissention?

Do we wreck the economy's of developed nations because the UN/IPCC says it needs to be done to 'save' civilization? That's really the question.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

I read this interesting article the other day in the NYT, a clear sign of bipartisanship?

Right and Left Join Forces on Criminal Justice

Most of the laws that they are complaining about were voted on in a bi-partisan manner I suspect that this bi-partisanship would fall apart at the point of deciding which laws to take off the books.

 

[Bala Verde]

Again, proving a negative is not what needs to happen. If the "science is in", then why some much dissention?

Is there so much 'dissension'? How much is much?

What is dissension, and between whom? Politicians, or scientists? How does this dissension manifest itself? In science, journals, scientific articles, or in magazines, or 'snopes rumor has it' websites?

Do we wreck the economy's of developed nations because the UN/IPCC says it needs to be done to 'save' civilization? That's really the question.

If that is really the question then do 'we' indeed wreck the economies of developed nations? Define 'wreck', a 'wrecked economy' and demonstrate how a transition towards another 'type of economy' (desire: less fossil fuel intensive? more resource neutral, less exploitative?) is going to 'wreck' the 'economy'. Is it a temporal or chronic 'wrecking' of the economy? Is it an irreparable 'wrecking' of the economy, or will it be equal or even better when the transitionary move has taken root?

If 'scaring' is one of the tactics allegedly used by the UN/scientists, then this must also be leveled against those who claim and predict 'disaster' regarding the economy, right?

 

[Anonymous]

Well, these guys think differently;

"According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.
"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.
But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_articles1.pdf



There are thousands of 'scientists' who think the 'climate change, co2' theory is rubbish. Are they all wrong?

Again, proving a negative is not what needs to happen. If the "science is in", then why some much dissention?

Do we wreck the economy's of developed nations because the UN/IPCC says it needs to be done to 'save' civilization? That's really the question.

I don't have a problem with the challenging of the the data. The problem is that you are quoting people that claim CONCLUSIVELY that the link does not exist. You can't prove a negative...how convenient for them. Problem is that I and the scientists studying climate change are still not willing to proclaim the absolute fact that there is a causal relationship between CO2 and climate change. See, they are still studying it and the data is not conclusive. Climate is a complex thing taking much more study than how to put a plane for sale on ebay. It isn't a black or white thing, and if you read what the scientists are saying, you would see that they will tell you that. However Rush Limbaugh and the Cato have already told all of you that it is a hoax, so that is what you believe. It is the difference between people who believe in the scientific method, and those who think anyone threatening profit must be wrong.

Again, I am also one of those thousands of scientists that believe it doesn't exist. See, I signed that online petition 2 or 3 years ago. I think my name was Prof. Hans Ludwig or something. I was never contacted for my research or credentials. They just took me at face value.

 

[Anonymous]

Is there so much 'dissension'? How much is much?

What is dissension, and between whom? Politicians, or scientists? How does this dissension manifest itself? In science, journals, scientific articles, or in magazines, or 'snopes rumor has it' websites?



If that is really the question then do 'we' indeed wreck the economies of developed nations? Define 'wreck', a 'wrecked economy' and demonstrate how a transition towards another 'type of economy' (desire: less fossil fuel intensive? more resource neutral, less exploitative?) is going to 'wreck' the 'economy'. Is it a temporal or chronic 'wrecking' of the economy? Is it an irreparable 'wrecking' of the economy, or will it be equal or even better when the transitionary move has taken root?

If 'scaring' is one of the tactics allegedly used by the UN/scientists, then this must also be leveled against those who claim and predict 'disaster' regarding the economy, right?

You might want to read the last 20 or so pages of this thread.

Wreck? High prices for everything in the US, particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor. Net after 'green job creation' estimates of 2.4 to 2.7 million jobs lost (as in forever). Slow GDP growth at a time when this country's debt service is approaching one trillion dollars per year AND new trillion dollar entitlement programs being championed...

Dissention between scientists and other scientists brought to the public discussion by a Senator and scientists among others. The dissention manifests itself in non-normal ways due to the alledged closed nature of the IPCC and CRU. Hard to get peer reviewed work under those circumstances...

Transitioning economy? Transition to what, one with serious restrictions on the use of energy? No nuclear, no drilling, no clean coal, no wind if it's within eyesight of real estate owned by the Kennedy's... and then complain about the lack of energy independence...

Liberal solutions? Paint every building roof top white, outlaw dark paint on cars, natural gas (no distribution network), solar, wind (only in fly over states) with no adequate excess generation storage system, tax into oblivion any business that produces co2...

I suppose one could be scared over the loss of a few million jobs and much more expensive energy costs for every man, woman and child in this nation to combat something that has not been proven to exist. It's a reasonable reaction in my view.