House Energy Committee Commissions Political Propaganda Attacking Global Warming Science
House Energy Committee Commissions Political Propaganda Attacking Global Warming Science
On Friday, House Energy Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX) released an impressive-looking “report” attacking a 1998 study by Dr. Michael Mann which suggested that recent global warming is unprecedented over the last several centuries. The Energy Committee report was quickly seized on by the Wall Street Journal editorial page as proof that scientific consensus about global warming is “more like group-think.”
The House Energy Committee report isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Here’s why:
1. The report rehashes criticisms that have already been discredited. The House Energy Committee report, which it commissioned from Edward J. Wegman, is not original work. Rather, it seeks to “verify” the criticisms that Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (an energy consultant and an economist) made about the Mann study three years ago. These claims have been discredited in peer-reviewed journals. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticisms were considered by a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences – the organization created by Congress to evaluate scientific research — which concluded that the Mann study is “supported by an array of evidence.”
2. The report did not involve any climate scientists. Wegman and his co-authors are statisticians with no apparent expertise in climate science.
3. The report was not peer-reviewed. In fact, Wegman attacks the concept of peer-review, claiming the Mann study had “too much reliance on peer review, which seemed not to be sufficiently independent.” Wegman has no basis to claim that the peer review of the Mann study was not independent because peer-reviewers are anonymous. Rigorous peer review is a core principle of legitimate scientific inquiry.
Even if the Energy Committee report were accurate, it wouldn’t impact our basic understanding about climate change. The National Academy of Sciences explained “large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years are not the primary evidence for the widely accepted views that global warming is occurring, that human activities are contributing, at least in part, to this warming.”
House Energy Committee will hold a hearing tomorrow to discuss the wide-ranging implications of their report.
UPDATE: Chris Mooney has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
86 Responses to “House Energy Committee Commissions Political Propaganda Attacking Global Warming Science”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
And the debate continues...
Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate environment committee who has called global warming “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.â€
“At the end of the day, it will all be revealed as a bad joke,†said Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:21 amAnd the ARTIFICIAL debate continues between politicians and people who know nothing about science.
Meanwhile the real scientists are left ignored as always.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:25 amIts funny too that the argument of a "hoax" doesn't even make logical sense. WHY would a majority of scientists do such a thing? There is NO incentive for perpetrating a hoax. Maybe, just MAYBE scientists actually know what they're talking about. I know, crazy idea...
July 18th, 2006 at 10:28 amDon't forget, we regular American's live in a "reality based" society, the guys in the Bush junta live in a "belief based" society. They make their own facts up to fit whatever they believe. Remember the alleged uranium from Niger?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:34 amThe attack of the peer review process coupled with charges of group-think is an experiment in deep ignorance. Not the ignorance of Wegman or the House Energy Committee but whoever bites at it this argument. The important aspect of this story is to hold accountable those legislators and those in the media that afford this argument any credibility.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:34 amGlobal warming is real, but the Bush Regime, and the Israeli government, will probably kill us all off in a nuclear war, before environmental problems wipe out the world's population?!
July 18th, 2006 at 10:37 amThe scientists have pepurtrated the global warming hoax because they all have stock in wind generator and solar cell companies. They have taken a lesson from the neo-cons who own stock in war machine companies and use hoaxes to promote death and destruction. Those scientists, always looking for ways to turn a profit on peoples fears. Oooo...hot weather, melting glaciers.....oooo....rising seas.
/sarcasm off
July 18th, 2006 at 10:38 amthe truth shall set us free... apparently, some gov't agencies don't want that for us...
July 18th, 2006 at 10:38 amPretty much only the kool-aid drinkers believe there is any real debate about the general premise of global warming. I guarantee that the WSJ editorial board knows better, but they are cynical elitists who would stoop to just about anything to push their ideological beliefs (which tells them that short term profit is the most important thing in life, and that the magic of free markets will save us all anyway).
July 18th, 2006 at 10:40 amTrying to discredit science is like pissing into the wind. I wonder when the wingnuts will figure this out.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:42 amOh I am sorry, I thought maybe the chairman of the Senate environment committee and a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (AKA MIT...) might know what they where talking about... You guys don't want a debate because you are afraid you are wrong... Mann's "hockey stick" has been disproven and it is the center for your argument... It was warmer here a thousand years ago than it is today, must have been all those horses on the street... PS... Mars is also warming, and the vehicles there are battery powered...
July 18th, 2006 at 10:44 amYeah, wingnut, Joe Barton knows a lot about science.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:45 amLindzen has thoroughly discredited himself with his wacko conspiracy theory in which thousands of scientists are out to get him. Science just doesn't work that way. It couldn't. But wacko numbskulls (the kind of idiots who cite Joe Barton as a scientific authority) don't understand that, it seems. Absolutely pathetic.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:48 amAnd the report is 8 years old, written way before the Bush Presidency started to super heat the earth with their weird CO2 policies, and before the innovation of using supercomputer modeling to chart temperatures world wide every 10 minutes for the last 100 years.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:55 amLet's see here , do we believe the experts , or do we believe these guys that have done nothing but lie to us . Scientist have nothing to gain by hoaxing us , but I do see how the oil companies can gain by denying global warming . I'm guessing about 36% of people polled don't believe in global warming , mabey that'll change a bit when the west looks like death valley . I'm no expert but I do know the west is drying up , fast .
July 18th, 2006 at 11:03 amThe NAS report said this in their summary - "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is nprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward."
Having spent some time going back and forth on this issue with a dedicated denier of global warming at another blog it is apparent to me that they are not persuaded by science.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:04 amSenators are not scientists. Say it with me...
Oh, and they got ONE real scientist to "keep the argument alive". Who do I believe, the THOUSANDS of scientists all over the world with NO political affiliation who say that global warming is real... or ONE scientists with very definite political affiliations who diagrees? Hm, I dunno let me think...
At the end of the day, I trust reason and logic above all else. Sure its nice to appeal to authority, and point out the absolute landslide majority of scientists who agree with me. But I don't like to think of myself as one who blindly follows any majority.
Global warming is simple, PROVEN science. Let me explain it simply for you...
1) It is a FACT that increasing the density of a gas in a closed environment will increase that system's ability to absorb energy. This is something that is easily proven in a laboratory, and is in fact one of the laws of gases. This is not open to interpretation, it simply IS.
2) The density of CO2 in our atmosphere is increasing. This is a FACT. It has been measured reliably since the 60s.
3) Measurements of CO2 concentrations in ice core drilling shows a DIRECT relationship between the amount of CO2 and the temperature of the earth. Yes, the Earth's climate varies naturally. But this time the CO2 concentration is not being driven by natural causes, it is being driven by people - and the concentration of CO2 CONTINUES to skyrocket.
4) The Earth has been heating up at the EXACT SAME TIME that our levels of CO2 are increasing. This is a FACT.
It seems to me that a rational person would accept the logical conclusion. But I guess you'd have to first have an open mind and a respect for science.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:15 amDid none of you watch the Discovery channel's feature with Tom Brokaw on global warming Sunday night? Fascinating. Apparently, small minded, God-fearin' folks are unable to accept the fact that we tiny humans, which now number around 6.5 billion people worldwide, have become a force of nature unto ourselves, quite capable of destroying the environment, among other thins.
July 18th, 2006 at 11:20 amHow hot does the country have to be before these assholes stop lying to us?
July 18th, 2006 at 11:33 am#19 - Five of Diamonds,
July 18th, 2006 at 11:44 amOver 74 degrees, at least that's where I have the AC set.
The Earth has been heating up at the EXACT SAME TIME that our levels of CO2 are increasing. This is a FACT.
There is a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, but that does not prove causation... Even the scientist on your side do not pretend to fully understand the interaction of earths atmoshpere...
The earth is getting warmer, just as it was a thousand years ago... This is a good thing... Plants are now able to spread to previously cold and hostile regions while animals now have new habitat... Why do you hate the plants and animals... It is good for life, it is not man made it is part of the earths cycle...
The last warming period led to the enlightened age... All the dark age baboons where screaming about global warming I am sure...
July 18th, 2006 at 11:55 amWow! How Orwellian. Peer review is really just a group think. I have published in peer reviewed scientific journals and believe me, you can really get raked through the coals if your data and methodology don't stand up. But then, peer review prejudice is the same shtick the "intelligent design" crowd whine about. Birds of a feather.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:00 pmTake your own advice here! You proclaim to know more about atmospheric science then scientists themselves! Seems to me you have to bend over backwards to deny the science here, which is exactly what you're doing. In order for me to "prove" causation to you the Earth would have to heat up to the point where people are reduced to small colonies at the poles... and yet you still would probably attribute the warming to "other natural" causes.
Ever heard of occam's razor? Given a set of circumstances, the simplest answer tends to be right.
So what's the truth here?
We see our levels of CO2 rising, and we also see global temperatures rising AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. Is it more logical to assume that this is a complete cooincidence, or that there is a very real relationship between the two?
We also see that this has happened in the past through natural causes, but ALSO due to increasing levels of CO2.
Global warming is the simplest and most straight-forward answer to the question. It also just so happens to be backed up by all the data coming in.
What we have to offer are concrete ideas, based on logic and existing science and backed up by real world data. What you have to offer are denials and vague theories about "other causes".
Talk to me again next year when we see record breaking temperatures again, and then the year after that, and the next year and the next...
July 18th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#21: I'm sure you have peer-reviewed scientific counterevidence against the 928 climate change studies published between 1993 and 2003, NONE of which challenge the hypothesis that recent trends in global warming are caused by human activities. (This comes from a 2004 study of the literature on climate change.)
And I'm sure you can offer a scientific rebuttal to the NAS's assessment that "action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
It sounds to me that you think James Inhofe, a Republican Senator, knows more about science than the National Academy of Sciences, the International Panel on Climate Change, the National Research Council, and numerous other scientific bodies. Perhaps you can explain Senator Inhofe's credentials and provide links to the peer-reviewed scientific studies he's done on climate change.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:27 pmHate to be the one to point it out, but I will.
There is no sensical debate to have on this subject.
No matter how much the wingnuts, freepers and bible thumpers try to dispute and distort them, the facts are clear and undisputable.
It is only the ignorant people that believe otherwise.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:32 pmBetter yet, why don't you explain to us your personal theory about why the Earth is getting hotter? Lets hear some details, not just some vague idea that "something else" is causing it.
Also while you're at it please explain to me exactly why scientists all over the world would want to perpetrate a "hoax" on all of us.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#25: No matter how much the wingnuts, freepers and bible thumpers try to dispute and distort them, the facts are clear and undisputable.
You're only partly right. There are aspects of climate change that are not well understood by the scientific community. For example, there is still some debate about the extent to which global warming increases the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.
What is important to note is that the reports by the IPCC, NAS, and royal academies of the G8 nations all agree on this point: "a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This is a critical point because people can always claim that there are certain variables that are unknown. This, however, is not a legitimate excuse for inaction.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:37 pmThe same thing happened when people first started saying the Earth was round.
The church and religious movements in power would LITERALLY burn people at the stake for saying that the Sun was at the center of our solar system. For centuries upon centuries people denied it, and laughed at those who would claim otherwise. Yet, centuries later we see that the scientests were right. Time and time again science has brought us the clear truth, although many times the solution is too complicated for many to understand right away.
Its easier to look at the horizon and say "you know, the Earth just LOOKS flat... it must be! How could it be round?"
July 18th, 2006 at 12:40 pmYou’re only partly right. There are aspects of climate change that are not well understood by the scientific community.
Comment by Jim — July 18, 2006 @ 12:37 pm
The quantum mechanics is also an incomplete field of study and that hasn't prevented the world potences (specially the USA) make atomic bombs.
And we don't know all about chemistry yet, but we have a great chemical industry all around the world.
And we don't know all about biology and that hasn't refrained the USA to force the EU to buy his genetically modified products.
Again, what prevent us for advancing Global Warming science and solutions?
July 18th, 2006 at 12:43 pmChase should change his name to 'firestarter' cause he's always bailing out of threads and when he's dogged.
C'mon, I mean your posting RIGHT NOW on another TP thread...
July 18th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#13: Not only has Richard Lindzen discredited himself with wacky conspiracy theories, but he also made $2500 a day during the 1990's working as a "consultant" for the oil and gas industries. His frequent TV appearances and op-ed pieces use all sorts of illogical argumentation: ad hominem attacks, nonsequiturs, etc. Although he is a reputable scientist, he doesn't use much actual science to support his global warming "skepticism."
July 18th, 2006 at 12:47 pmMaybe if enough Americans reject science, the US economy will stall reducing CO2 emissions. In the meantime, the rest of us can get on with the business of developing and rolling out home power generation, ethanol, wind, wave, solar and eventually fusion solutions without sparing with an American economy fighting change.
US red state extreme cristo fascisim ignorance could actually be a force for good:-)
Thinkin' positive.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:49 pmThe bible thumpers also believe the earth was created in 6 days, that there is no such thing as geological time, and that the dinosaurs lived right along side Jesus himself. What a bunch of shit.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:50 pm#29: Again, what prevent us for advancing Global Warming science and solutions?
Politics. Specifically, the influence of the oil, gas, and mining industries on Republican politicians. Chase's sainted Senator Inhofe receives more campaign contributions from ExxonMobil than any other Senator, and with good reason. They're getting something for their money.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:51 pmThanks Jim, you are right. My post written as it is assumes too much.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:52 pm#35: Thanks Jim, you are right. My post written as it is assumes too much.
My pleasure. Just keeping it real.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:54 pmHow long before the Bush administration flips sides, and claims ownership of the global warming theory by blaming terrorist organizations? You, know just like when Bush said in the SOTU address that we're addicted to oil (something he stole from Jimmy Carter who originally said it back in the 70's).
July 18th, 2006 at 12:58 pm#37: Not sure how they would blame global warming on terrorists.
But I don't think the Bush administration will acknowledge the anthropogenic causes of global warming before Bush leaves office. They're still in full-on obfuscation mode. And remember: even if they do admit that global warming is caused by people, their next line of defense will be to claim that it's somehow beneficial to natural ecosystems. (See Post #21.)
We have a long, long way to go. My hope, of course, is that the public begins to recognize that the Republican talking points on climate change are pure lunacy.
July 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pmWhat's going to be interesting what the GOP will do when global warming starts having a strong negative impact on businesses--e.g., wiping out the California wine industry. I suspect then they will stop bringing up pseudo-science....
July 18th, 2006 at 2:14 pm#39 They will blame Clinton or Davis for the problem.
July 18th, 2006 at 2:40 pmMann et al are up to business as usual for fringe scientists. Speaking from the perspective of a professional physicist, its painfully obvious this guy doesnt understand his own computer models or statistical techniques, and is building his career almost entirely on CNN appearances, not serious academic work.
Anyone who thinks climate scientists have no incentive to make extreme claims is hopelessly naive.
Anyone who thinks Richard Lindzen is a crank, could you please explain why he is was a lead author of the IPCC 2001 report, why he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and how he became a tenured professor at MIT?
Anyone who thinks basing any predictions on scenarios derived from a computer model, could you please share what other serious scientific fields use similar techniques?
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
July 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pmhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Anyone who thinks basing any predictions on scenarios derived from a computer model, could you please share what other serious scientific fields use similar techniques?
Genetic engineering? Aircraft design? Car manufacturers?
People actually rely on this stuff to be so correct, they build stuff with it. LOL:-)
Real Scientist indeed.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:19 pmAnyone who thinks climate scientists have no incentive to make extreme claims is hopelessly naive.
Never say never, but the other side will loose an entire globe spanning industry. I know who I trust, and at the end of the day all most of us can do is make as informed a decision as possible. Who do we consider more reliable, Scientists or the Oil Industry? Hmmmm thats a tough one!!!!
Real Scientist indeed ....
July 18th, 2006 at 3:23 pmAnyone who thinks Richard Lindzen is a crank, could you please explain why he is was a lead author of the IPCC 2001 report, why he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and how he became a tenured professor at MIT?
As you noted, it would be naive to consider all scientists utterly pure and without nefarious motives. Certainly in the case of Richard, we do appear to have evidence that he is someone that has comprised themselves rather completely.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a global warming skeptic.
Read the rest below, depressing to see a scientist prostitute themselves like that:-(
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen
That cover it for you ... Real Scientist? Indeed!!!
July 18th, 2006 at 3:28 pmhttp://www.crichton-official.com/ speeches/ speeches_quote04.html
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Comment by Real Scientist — July 18, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Wow are those the most UNBIASED links I have ever seen Also, to your stupid computer model question--Just about every field of science and engineering. Run a computer model on "Doofus".
July 18th, 2006 at 3:30 pmAmazing how quickly a discussion of climate science pulls in screeching about bush-israel-iraq-capitalism. It reveals how many climate alarmists are simply promoting the theology of collectivism, and it has nothing to do with science or the environment.
Anthropogenic Climate Change (formerly, incautiously known as Global Cooling, then Global Warming) is the holy grail theory for the scurrying little rodents who want to control other peoples lives by coercion. 300 years ago you were called puritans. 100 years ago you were called marxists. 75 years ago you were called fascists (who, of course, cited 'consensus science' for all their wacked-out policies). 25 years ago you were a paul erlich disciple, screaming about how hundreds of millions of people were going to starve in the 1980s unless the government took control of everything.
Mann is a joke. His work is based entirely on applying increasingly complex computer programs that he doesnt even understand to other peoples data. The head of the American Statistical Society and a few prominent colleagues have weighed in, and called BS.
"repent repent, free will is evil. capitalism is evil. humankind is evil. we must control. we must regulate. we must call our enemies heretics. we must declare all debates over. bow down to central authority and ye will have salvation."
July 18th, 2006 at 3:33 pm“repent repent, free will is evil. capitalism is evil. humankind is evil. we must control. we must regulate. we must call our enemies heretics. we must declare all debates over. bow down to central authority and ye will have salvation.â€
Think you are on the wrong board pal, shouldn't this be occurring on the "kill all the muslims" freeper thread?
July 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pm“repent repent, free will is evil. capitalism is evil. humankind is evil. we must control. we must regulate. we must call our enemies heretics. we must declare all debates over. bow down to central authority and ye will have salvation.â€
On a serious note though. Governments regulate. They prevent people from killing each other for example. They provide collective security. They prevent people from running naked down the street. The identify and prevent gangs of people, organised crime, from running businesses like prostitution or child porn, or illegal drugs.
They also regulate companies that kill people in subtler ways, through pollution for example. Or indeed wrecking the global climate.
You appear to be looking for some wild "every man is a nation" world. Good luck with that, the rest us will continue to live in an interdependent society, where we argue, knock heads and eventually legislate. Thats what democracy is. I'm sorry you happen to be drifting into the minority now, but you've had a good run and really, no case to speak of. Count yer blessin's 'eh?
July 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pm#41: Anyone who thinks Richard Lindzen is a crank, could you please explain why he is was a lead author of the IPCC 2001 report, why he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and how he became a tenured professor at MIT?
As I said before (see Post #31), Richard Lindzen is a reputable scientist; his credentials are solid. But when he writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal, often his arguments are illogical and unscientific. The reasons for this are fairly easy to understand: he makes a ton of money shilling for the oil and gas industries and for the Cato Institute. He knows he can't support much of what he's saying with science, so he resorts to personal attacks and nonsequiturs.
From the 2001 report that Lindzen co-authored: "The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities."
Anyone who thinks climate scientists have no incentive to make extreme claims is hopelessly naive.
I agree. That's why the peer review process is so crucial. The peer-reviewed scientific research on global warming is unanimous in finding that global warming is in part caused by human activities. There are no peer-reviewed studies that challenge this finding. Richard Lindzen's bloviating about climate change being a "bad joke" is not supported by peer-reviewed science.
Mann et al are up to business as usual for fringe scientists. Speaking from the perspective of a professional physicist, its painfully obvious this guy doesnt understand his own computer models or statistical techniques...
I see: Lindzen=global warming skeptic=good scientist. Mann=research supports global warming consensus=fringe scientist.
Mann's "hockey stick" graph and his methodology have been largely affirmed by the NAS. This article has a decent summary: http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060626/full/4411032a.html
July 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmInteresting - does being a "global warming skeptic" automatically make someone a "scientist prostitute". In most scientific fields, including physics, being a "skeptic" is part of the job.
As for auto and aircraft designers, those are engineers, not scientists. The science their computer models simulate was understood decades before anyone in those fields were using computer models. As for genetic engineers, there is a difference between using computers to catalog data and building a computer model.
As for trusting the oil industry, do you trust BP's $200 million ad campaign promoting alternative fuels? My own opinion is they are far to busy trying to make money to come up with some global conspiracy to supress science. I can assure, BP, exxon, et al will do just fine if we restrict exploration and start handing out mass subsidies for alternative fuels.
July 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pmInteresting - does being a “global warming skeptic†automatically make someone a “scientist prostituteâ€. In most scientific fields, including physics, being a “skeptic†is part of the job.
Do read the rest of it, it clears up a lot. Certainly all scientists should be skeptical, most of us know what a “global warming skeptic†actually is. It has of course nothing to do with being skeptical as such, and far more to do with financial reward. Luckily it's appallingly overt and easy to spot, as in this case. Now you've been enlightened:-)
Thanks Jim.
Mann’s “hockey stick†graph and his methodology have been largely affirmed by the NAS. This article has a decent summary: http://www.nature.com/ news/ 2006/ 060626/ full/ 4411032a.html
Comment by Jim — July 18, 2006 @ 3:44 pm
July 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pmI can assure, BP, exxon, et al will do just fine if we restrict exploration and start handing out mass subsidies for alternative fuels.
Oooooh I wouldn't be so sure about Exxon. European energy companies have been repositioning themselves, and thats welcome. Simply serves to reinforce the point really, if even they get it. Thanks for bringing that up:-)
July 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pmAs for genetic engineers, there is a difference between using computers to catalog data and building a computer model.
Now you are just doing that old "redefinition dance". Not pretty.
My own opinion ...
Yes, that is the problem right there really isn't it?
July 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm#50: does being a “global warming skeptic†automatically make someone a “scientist prostituteâ€.
No. Using illogical arguments and personal attacks, all while being paid thousands of dollars by the oil, gas, and coal industries, however, may make one a "scientist prostitute."
My own opinion is they are far to busy trying to make money to come up with some global conspiracy to supress science. I can assure, BP, exxon, et al will do just fine if we restrict exploration and start handing out mass subsidies for alternative fuels.
I agree with your basic premise: that an even moderately creative energy executive could find a way to keep making money off alternative fuels and technologies. The oil and gas industries, however, have become incredibly lazy, relying on fat government subsidies and disinformation campaigns, led by their bought-off politicians, to make record profits. This method has worked extremely well for them; why would they change?
July 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pmMann’s “hockey stick†graph and his methodology have been largely affirmed by the NAS. This article has a decent summary: http://www.nature.com/ news/ 2006/ 060626/ full/ 4411032a.html
Besides this is a storm in a teacup, the study is what? Eight years old? We've had shed loads of additional supporting evidence since then, and the models are hundreds of times more powerful.
You are sounding like more of a Reel Scientist .... with every post:-)
July 18th, 2006 at 4:08 pmRead this real scientist ... http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1.html
July 18th, 2006 at 4:12 pmReal Scientist?
You sure don't sound like a scientist. You sound more like a faker.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pmOK... so please enlighten me what incentive to climate scientists have to say that we're destroying ourselves?
Anyone who thinks oil companies are "far too busy" to promote a disinformation campaign about global warming is hopelessly naive :^) I guess cigarette companies were far too busy to promote a disinformation campaign about the harmful effects of smoking too eh? Oh, wait...
July 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pmThe biggest business in the world is the business of government. Scientists make a lot more dough from government grants than they do by "shilling" for industry. As we are seeing now, scientists of all fields who raise basic, modest questions about the methods of the climate alarmist are quickly identified as "totally discredited."
And if you are a government bureaucrat looking for some reason to raise taxes, increase regulation, and otherwise expand your power, climate alarmism is the ultimate trump. It can never be questioned since the predictions are so long term. Any tornado, hurricane, rat infestation, cold wave, heat wave, or any other 'anomalous' event can be identified as confirming evidence. Scientists who are "skeptics" will be quickly branded "shills" or "prostitutes". Computer "scenarios" can be designated "predictions." NAS reports using terms like "likely" or "possible" can be designated "confirming" and "ending debate".
July 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pmWow. Wow. It took Judd 4 days to come up with this completely dishonest and completely misleading post? Wow. Judd, you're at the bottom of the barrel scraping away.
Let me just tear right through this completely BS post...
1. This is just so dishonest I don't even know where to start. Judd takes "supported by an array of evidence" completely out of context. Anyone can read the report which shows that it criticizes the methods used by Mann and that even with the supporting evidence, Mann's claims only merited a "plausible" rating for the contention about the last 1000 years. Judd puts up "peer-reviewed" articles, which the Wegman report says are misleading because these studies are all using the same set of data and a tightly knit group are doing all the "reviewing". The Wegman report is an extension of the NAS report, both of which criticize Mann's work. Judd, dishonesty is thy name.
2. No shit! The report is about the statistical aspects of Mann's work! Hello??? You have statisticians look at statistics. Wegman is a renowned authory in his field, the head of the NAS statistics field.
3. He attacks the concept of peer-view? Bullshit! He attacks the way in which Mann's work has been peer-reviewed, not the concept all together. What a complete crock of shit Judd. He pointed out that the peer review was not sufficiently independent, and then Judd tries to claim he is attacking peer-review altogether. Dishonesty in full view folks.
Judd took 4 days to try and come up with some kind of attack on Wegman's report, and this is all he can come up with? Jesus. Then:
"Even if the Energy Committee report were accurate, it wouldn’t impact our basic understanding about climate change."
No, of course not, because nothing would! This is the mind of a conspiracy theorist. Once one of their theories have been disproven, they pretend it never mattered and move right on to the next one.
This is pathetic for even you, Judd.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:32 pmThis science stuff is all very complicated I think we should all just do what ever al gore tells us to do.
After all he is:
- Divinity school dropout, law school dropout
- below average english cum government major
- former army journalist, a particularly challenging assignment his senator daddy landed for him (certainly a lot harder than being an F104 jet pilot in the air national guard).
- former congressman who won his first election unopposed and has spent his entire professional life in government. maybe he was inspired by his noble dixicrat daddy.
- World Wide Authority on scientific issues that urgently demand massive behavior and public policy changes that will cost trillions of dollars.
And if you don't trust al gore, maybe robert redford or barbara streisand will suffice. They sure are smart.
But definitely ignore all those evil business people who employ people, provide goods and services, and are involved in dirty profit making activities for their evil pension fund shareholders. Also avoid professional statisticians, who are probably shills for the aforementioned. Israel too, they're bad.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pmThis is pathetic for even you, Judd.
Comment by Seixon — July 18, 2006 @ 5:32 pm
Well Norway Bob I guessed you loved todays WSJ lead(Left column) on Greenland. The reindeer love it and soon Greenland and Norway will be the new place to go in the winter to warm up.
July 18th, 2006 at 5:58 pmWell, I certainly wouldn't mind if it was a bit warmer here in Norway, that's for sure. It's supposed to be about 75 degrees later this week. Good thing too since it's been raining like crazy lately.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:46 pmOkay, a lot of confusion has come up on this board lately, so let me explain a few things:
1) Global Warming is Science. Science is no place for discussion or debate. Science is about creating a majority and moving on. Members of the field who raise "questions" or are "skeptics" are dangerous and must be excluded. Science is about making fantastic claims to get on TV and win research grants. If a scientist like Mann cannot explain his own work thats because it is so complicated and brilliant. Stupid non-Scientists, or members of other fields (like stupid mathematicians) who ask questions are unqualified or taking money from someone besides the government.
2) America is a Democracy. Democracy is about shutting up and listening to what movie stars, former elected officials, disgraced former TV anchors, UN bureaucrats, and foreign officials tell you to do. If that means entering into legally binding international treaties that the other side has no intention of upholding, do it. If that means supporting policies that would radically change our economy and shift trillions in resources at the whim of some bureaucrat somewhere, do it.
3) If you disagree with any of this you are either very stupid or are accepting bribes from the big oil, big tobacco, or israel. Don't lie to yourself, you know deep down its true. Come on, check your mailbox - there is probably another check from exxon just waiting for you.
I hope clarifies a few things. Shut up and do what you are told. I hereby declare this debate over.
July 18th, 2006 at 6:55 pmThere are scientists who are agree that some global warming is due to anthropogenic sources (chiefly manmade CO2) but that the effect is much less than the assumptions of the predictive computer models. We can have science and reason. Remember the modeling crowd is assuming logarithmic increases in CO2, whereas others argue it should be considered linear. The CO2 is the problem crowd have some 'splaining to do, specifically the recent cooling during rising CO2 levels and the less than predicted warming trend during even higher CO2 levels. Too often the explanations are insufficient. Also note that many of these studies aren't legitimately peer reviewed (as in blindly assigned to peers) but rather farmed out to like-minded scientists. There is big money in climate change science, most of it going to the "sky is falling" crowd. Egad! Money and politics involved in science? Surely I must be joking. Do your own research and see what is known and what is predicted. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/avery061006.htm http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
July 18th, 2006 at 8:17 pmUm, excuse me Mr Robusto (if that is your real name, which I doubt), but did I not declare the debate over climate change officially over?
If you are confused, rest assured that several more beautiful, rich, and important people have issued their orders. I advise you to fall in line:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46512
As far as your "peer review" comments are concerned, understand the following. Peers must be friends, and we cannot have people disagreeing, can we? The purpose of peer review in climate science is to increase the verisimilitude of various terrifying scenarios. Otherwise the unwashed masses wouldnt listen, would they? And that is a problem since we rely on their taxes for our funding. Let me put it simply: Recursive Peer Review = Auto-Verification = Reality = Terror Amongst the Masses for Their Own Good = More Funding.
If you refuse you are simply confirming my obvious suspicion that you are in the pay of israelo-texan petrol based cigarette makers.
July 18th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThe Earth is flat. Well, right where I'm standing anyways... ;)
July 18th, 2006 at 9:43 pmWell, I certainly wouldn’t mind if it was a bit warmer here in Norway, that’s for sure. It’s supposed to be about 75 degrees later this week. Good thing too since it’s been raining like crazy lately.
Comment by Seixon — July 18, 2006 @ 6:46 pm
Norway Bob, You have completely ignored the WSJ article. Your problem is that you have made a non scientific opion of reality. Can't you get off the parseing of the scientific evidence? This what I deduce-You hate Al Gore, WTF why you can disagree but, why the hate? All you do is parse the data. Why do you hate Al Gore? Let's start from that. Some child hood prevert played with your tally wacker or something?? Your a enigma. Love the dear leader, kiss neocon assess, have no self respect and claim they have friends--so sick. join MA the big fat sweaty loser--you retards are something else. Not a one of you is noble, brave, courages. honorable, descent, fair, loveing, kind, or in any respect a HUMAN. Norway Bob you "Suck" you are a digital brown shirt. Have a nice day. BYT, Ryan N.e.a.t is so much smarter than you I find you on the bottom of my shoe. really hope I have not pissed you off, I like you retards.
July 18th, 2006 at 9:45 pmPost to all, Norway Bob will not come back. Never has and never will. Seixon is a loser like MA. He has all night and will not fight back. The cowards never do. It is like turning the light switch on at night and seening the coach roaches run. I can insult seixon as much as I like but, he will not fight back. I will try again-- your bull $hit post on global warming appears to be posted by a moron. I guess that means I think you are a moron. So Norway Bob , would you like to debate something else?? Black holes, Were the polar bears on Noahs arch? did the devil place dinosurs bones in the strata or were they on the arch?? Is O'lielly Christ? or is it Ann Coulter? Maybe Rush, it is hard to decide they are all so Christ like. So , what do you say?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:05 pmNorway Bob-(Seixon) You are a fool. You are too much with your self. Let me count the ways....All you do is repeat rethug talking points. If you had any self respect( no rethugs do) it would be interesting/should I say fun to debate you. You claim that is all you want to do but, you always regress to O'Lielly shit. Do you have one origanal thought in your brain?? Not likely, just like Giacomo. There you are Like--Why are they picking on me? Because your a dip $HIT. If you could ever display some since of an indepent mind--come back. That is highly unlikley because your a digatal brown shirt. Have a nice day.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pm#71 - Joefriday,
July 18th, 2006 at 10:39 pmThere is no 'r' in shit.
#71 - Joefriday,
There is no ‘r’ in shit.
Comment by WaltTheMan — July 18, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
Amen brother! He is a digital brown shi ( ) t. Hows that? In addition a coward, a liar, a fraud, not nobel, incapable of being heroic, all the things he would love to beleive he is--not so. just a brown shi( )t worm. Hides behind parsed data, can not take an independent stand on anything. Ja, I am talking about you. you do have a serious problem. when the world adds 2 plus 2 and gets 4 and you get 5 seek help. Of course 10,000 French men can't be wrong, is that your lame come back? I kind of like that myself.
July 19th, 2006 at 1:02 amSo why did my comments here get deleted? I posted comments related to the science with supporting material. It didn't agree with the author of this blog, however it was factual and on topic.
What's the deal here?
Jim
July 19th, 2006 at 3:49 amYou guys need to urgently face up to the fact that Michael Mann has been caught red handed cooking the books - not once but twice! Mann's fear icon, the now infamous Hockey Stick, is a STATISTICAL MODEL. That model was first called into question by M&M and the NAS committee DID NOT find against them. Now Wegman after a careful study has found unequivocally in their favour and against Mann.
Wegman is a serious heavyweight statistician. His credentials are beyond repute http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.resume2.htm
July 19th, 2006 at 6:55 am"beyond repute"
Heh.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 pmPEOPLE HERE WHO BELIEVE THERE IS NO DEBATE about anthropogenic climate warming (ACW) would do well to expose themselves to actual workingclimatologists.
For example, there is the celebrated hurricane predictor William Gray - no right-winger (with no tainted funding) - who has recently thrown his scientific weight behind the ACW skeptics.
http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-06-29/news/feature.html
Consistgent with Michael Crichton, Gray says government funding of his research was crowded out by the ACW stampeed, amounting to $29 billion between 2001-6.
More systematic evidence comes from the most recent in a periodic survey of over 500 climatologists in 2003, which found a definite leaning towards ACW, but no "consensus" about the subject.
http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
My own graduate environmental science instructors at the University of London's Imperial College (UK's MIT) are somewhat inclined to the theory that solar output predominates above any man-made climate forcings. Thus, sunspot activity tells us that current earth warming will peak in 6 years, followed by declines bottoming out in 2020-22.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm?list3134
In fact, what's most discrediting here on this thread is the complete lack of skepticism of the self-interest of government funded federal lab climate scientists to keep finding ACW - somehow what's good for the goose (skepticism of private industry funding) need not a be good for the gander (government funding)? This double-standard is self-indicting.
SO MUCH for any climate "consensus."
July 21st, 2006 at 7:24 amThough some seem to see the latest (Wegman) report into the ‘hockey stick’ report on climate change as contradicting it, I don't interpret it that way. For example the last line of the report – I quote it below in full:
“The most conclusive finding is that the 20th century is the most anomalous interval in the entire period of analysis, including significant positive extremes in the proxy records.â€
Let me interpret that:
More 'anomolous' [Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule] than the 'significant positive extremes in the proxy records' [i.e. the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age period].
My reading of that is: a) There is Climate Change and b) It is more significant than the other unusually significant climate changes that we have seen before over the past thousand years of civilisation.
If anything I see that statement as backing the central notion that global warming/climate change is occurring. ie. Global Warming/Climate Change is not a hoax as some claim.
And much other evidence produced by the scientific community supports the claim that the earth’s climate is changing.
The report doesn’t resolve the arguments as to:
1) The causes of the warming: a) CO2 emissions? vs b) Increased solar heating?
In other words ‘how significant is the influence of human activity?’
From what I’ve seen of this intense debate there is little chance that the main climatologist protagonists will agree on this. (It may even be a combination of CO2 emissions and solar activity.)
2) How prolonged or severe the period of global warming/climate change will be?
(But forecasting the future is notoriously fraught.)
But that wasn’t in the Wegman report’s remit.
But climate change is likely to have a significant impact on human society. That’s the only conclusion I can come to from reading that line. It needs publicising.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:46 am[...] House Energy Committee Commissions Political Propaganda Attacking …Think Progress, DC - 1 hour ago… looking “report†attacking a 1998 study by Dr. Michael Mann which suggested that recent global warming is unprecedented over the last several centuries. … Global Warming: House Hearing to Provide Some Balance Manufacturers’ Blogall 2 related [...]
July 24th, 2006 at 12:46 pmHostile Work Environment Legal Advice In California
Please keep these excellent posts coming.
March 21st, 2008 at 4:57 amdeep cycle battery
Good post. I am looking into these issues on my blog.
March 21st, 2008 at 3:11 pmEric
I found you while searching google today. You'll be happy toknowyour site was at the top of the results. Anyway. I added you to my Digg bookmarks. Good stuff!
March 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pmNaked Girls Naked Black Men Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pmNaked Girls Naked Young Girl Naked Teen Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 27th, 2008 at 6:48 amCash Advance
Quickest program supplying online cash advance before payday.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:43 amFree Porn Free Cartoon Pokemon Porn 100 Free Porn
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pmKds Bbs Pics Underage Porn Kid Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pm