Independent Climate Skeptics - Well, Maybe not so Independent After All (With Graphics)

Interesting.

You can always find someone to agree with you.

Not many, though.  Have you been reading my post theads lately?  *G*

Thanks for this - though we both know that the local backers of non-science will never accept a fact-based discussion on this issue.  I look forward to much sciency-flavored rebuttalesque flaming.  But - Keep up the good work! - there are still people out there genuinely interested in sorting this out.

I kept seeing the same names and same organizations being touted, even though the skeptics kept saying that there were so many who disagreed with the consensus.

So I put together this little chart.

David,

Some of these organizations may not be recognized, scientific organizations but sites like CO2 Science, in reality are. The have science references to peer reviewed literature, and they have real scientists on their staff and in their reports. In fact, they are more scientific then the IPCC which has a contrived bureaucratic peer review process by a handful of non climate science board members.

To say that the skeptic scientists are just those few is like saying most science supports AGW. The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City last March proved that there are notable climate scientists, and other related scientists, who don't support the mainstream science organizations overall views. These are the Galileo's of our time. But the media all but ignored that.

If you examine why mainstream scientists organizations support AGW it's due to the board members efforts to get funding, especially from governmint grants. It's only by hyping AGW alarmism that they can obtain grants.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/stimulating-scientists-into-proving-global-warming/

‘Stimulating’ Scientists Into Proving Global Warming

The new bill will spend billions to adjust data to “prove” the fallacy that humans are responsible for global warming.
February 27, 2009 - by Frank J. Tipler

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller23.html

The Trouble With Government Grants
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm will be left without a grant. Speaking for his fellow scientists Pollack writes, "We have evolved into a culture of obedient sycophants, bowing politely to the high priests of orthodoxy."

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/arguments-against-global-warming.htm

Global Warming Greatest Scam In History!

John Coleman argues against global warming

Any person who spends a decade at a university obtaining a PHD in Meteorology and become a research scientist, more likely than not, becomes a part of that single minded culture.

And, there is something else. These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf and their research careers will languish. But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.

You just follow the money trail for the MO! But there are still honest scientists out there and many are of the counter 'consensus'. They are the modern day Galileo's who buck the religious high priests of pseudo science orthodoxy'. among those are the scientists who brave the hype of the consensus that are on your chart. if you look at the promoters of AGW you would find the same kind of link, just like you can draw links between James Hansen and Al Gore.

The AGWer claims are mostly smoke and mirrors based on questionable computer models and paleontology proxie data. It boils down to qualifying for research grants.

And to further the AGW fraud there's this article that can be found on the icecap.us site I call the Gore- ENRON connection:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

May 30, 2009
Larry Solomon: ENRON’S Other Secret

You see David, it's like the Hype with wind energy. Some major energy companies have thrown in the towel and just accepted the government subsidies and tax breaks for the wind farms plants because government subsidization makes it profitable. They also avoid those silly lawsuits brought on by alarmist AGW groups like the Sierra Club and Green Peace. Without those avenues of funding they would drop wind farms and solar PV generation because it is not profitable overall against fossil nor nuclear energy plants. It's the same driving force behind corn ethanol, Industrial-Enviro complex entities that make money off of schemes like Cap & Trade. It's like defense contractors promoting a missile defense against an invasion from Mars. They know that if the main stream media moguls publish enough hype about an invasion from Mars, while suppressing the skeptics claims, it will become accepted by the sheeple as truth. All these special interests groups have to do then is lobby Congressional promoters who find it enhancing to their careers.

Such a cheap shot David!

Keep up the good work David

Excellent article.

I like the chart.

This is just another example of using the word "science" as if it endows the user with magical powers. Science means nothing more that a formal and classified body of knowledge. Thus as we do not know what is happening or where it will lead, to talk of "climate change scientists" is fraudulent.

Certainly the climate is changing,  to assume the change is wholly anthropogenic is very dangerous, more likely it is a natural occurrence exacerbated by human activity. But whatever the cause thanks to the idiocy of those know nothings who claim they are "scientitsts" and speak as if science is some kind of new religion,  the very scientists who for thirty years while environmentalists like myself were screaming "the climate is changing rapidly - we need to act," were stroking their chins and mumbling about the unreliability of anecdotal evidence, dissing Lovelock and doing nothing it is now too late.

If climate change is due to human activity and a I think to a large extent it is, the process kicked off three hundred years ago when the first modern blast furnaces and steam engines kicked off the industrial revolution. After three centuries the process has built up plenty of momentum and like an ocean liner it is not going to be stopped and turned around any time soon, certainly not with the loony toons technologies scientists are talking about.

It's too late. The arctic permafrost in Siberia, northern Canada and Alaska is thawing which means no matter what cuts in emissions the stupid brigade at the G8 agree, even if they can be achieved, the world has passed tipping point. Even if we all styop burning carbon tomorrow the environment will now carry on polluting itself.

So what should we learn? If a poblem needs solving never get scientists involved, they might be clever at equations but they never get anything done.

So are you suggesting we do nothing?

And to clarify, it's not "get scientists involved," it's scientists do science and in some cases, where policy action is necessary, there is a need to get policy-makers involved.

Very interesting article. I do believe that the climate needs our attention. I also think that  big bussuness should be footing the bill and that the government should be more involved.

The House already passed a climate bill, and the Senate is working on one.  We'll see what happens in the fall.

well done David

"to assume the change is wholly anthropogenic is very dangerous, more likely it is a natural occurrence exacerbated by human activity.."  uh huh Ian, and how do you know that; where's your degree in atmospheric science? No, I don't have a degree in atmospheric science- but then again I don't need one, because I am not arguing against the scientists on this one.

I do get a kick (to a point) out of people who are absolutely sure that they know about something they are not trained and/or informed about.  I'm not picking on Ian when I say this, but more the commenting I've just gone through with others who clearly have no concept of why they have no credibility.

It strikes me David, that the fossil fuel establishment and right wing buddies have been OUTRAGED by the cap and trade effort- even though it is basically a baby step that in no way really assures our success in dealing with climate change. If a baby step fails, then how do we ever progress to a deeper commitment to renewable energy, a "Giant" step?

That is the crux of the matter.  Like the anti-gun-control lobby, the fear is that if you do something, you will do everything.  There is a major fear that somehow we'll become a totalitarian state just because we want to actually do something to steward the planet we live on.

That is the new fear being spouted.  " They're gonna take away our rights!  Totalitarianism! Socialism!  etc. etc."  They MUST live in fear and MUST make everyone around them the same way.  Baloney!  Fearful people are easy to control - just keep them preoccupied by their fears.  They wont pay attention to what is really going on around them: bad business and exploitation as usual.  Anything to allow big business and the very rich to not only keep but make more wealth now and to blazes with tomorrow.

fearful ppl...counts me out! can't control me

in depth and interesting to read

Very well stated, Joyce.

The chart is really conclusive.  Case closed.  They are unethical.

It strikes me that most scientists are associated with scientific organizations.  I'm pretty sure that virtually no one at the last scientific conference I presented at was a member of the Heartland Institute or Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Great article David.

Back in the 1960s when people where actually almost taking charge of the government the Corporate world almost had a collective heart attack. They responded by founding and funding a plethora of conservative "think tanks" that generated propaganda which would "prove" that everything was fine and the staus quo should not be challenged. All problems were just a creation of those awful liberals and the liberal controlled media. It worked and that is when 'Corporate America" started buying politians and writing laws which shifted the balance of power overwhelming to the side of big business and the "greed is good society" which resulted in sucking the life blood out of working Americans. The result of the unbridled greed is the financial collapse we are in today. Of course the "Think Tanks" are now busily propagandizing that is all the fault of Obama and the socialists.

Now we have conservative funded "Think Tanks" attacking with their slick propaganda  illegal aleins, homosexuals, Muslims, global warming and on and on and on. They pander to the more perverse aspects of human nature and to the closed mind. Unfortunatley that seems to be 30-35 % of the citizens of our country. We must all work to lower that percentage.

In all fairness, the liberal wing of Congress also barters for whatever they think will get them reelected.

That said, it is very difficult to get through legislation that accomplishes the needed objectives without having the superfluous baggage added to assuage one lobbyist group or another.

Interesting how the term "think tank" has come to mean some partisan propaganda mill.  You would think (pun intended) that think tanks would inspire thinking about how to accomplish policy objectives, not how to keep policy from being made.  There are some non-partisan think tanks, but the fact that most are fairly easily categorized as one partisan or the other is kind of sad.

No doubt there are those on both sides of the ailse who do not act in the best interest of the American people. A good example of that would be spending cuts. Everybody wants to reduce spending but just not spending that affects their district.

Great article, David. And a nice bit of research, explained simply and clearly.

Thanks Wil.  The graphic says it all.

Yes to David.

Has anyone heard of Alan Carlin at the EPA? An article I read says he is part of the National Center for Environmental Economics and has written a report that the his boss has stopped from being made public or even being circulated inside the EPA.

Is the possible and should that be a concern?

It wasn't "suppressed", and no - it should be of no concern.

Carlin is NOT a scientist but an economist.

 

They CANNOT win an argument without resorting to LIES!!!!!!

http://mediamatters.org/research/200906300040

Chris W.,

I want to thank all for the information and comments, this is why I like to be on Gather. Chris W. thank you particularly, I asked a question and you gave me more than I hoped for (a copy of the report in question).

This has triggered three distinct issues for me, the article that Chris provided, Carlin's report, and a realization that I have begun to doubt my understanding the "greenhouse" effect.

 

Chris Mooney's article seems to focus on challenging the author who he identifies as starting this issue of lack of transparency at the EPA. It seems if the report were include in the public record which closed June 23 rd or the report were available prior to June 26 th the data of the offending article then the point would be moot and the article author discredited. Does anyone know if that were the case? I was surprised that Mooney didn't challenge the Email that supposedly was sent to Carlin about suppressing his report and any communications about it. If there was no Email then no "smoking gun."

 

It seems that Carlin raised some interesting questions. I wonder (not be a "Scientist") whether the research technology, availability, and focus have changed toward better gathering of information? If that is the case is it possible that data available over the past few years is better (more accurate, more focused on points in question, more effort in gathering from a broader spectrum) and should it be included in the review by EPA and outside organizations?

Has there been a move away from the belief that changes in the atmospheric temperature will make changes to the catastrophic weather patterns such as hurricanes/cyclones? It seem that at the time of Katrina there were many that were proponents of "global warming" was both intensifying and multiplying the cyclonic storms. Has that in fact changed or was simply some overzealous people concerned about public support of "global warming" and simply trying to instigate emotions so the debate would not be lost?

The worries about the rate melting of land based ice sheets such on Greenland were they based on fully explored thermodynamics or were they predominately and extrapolation of the atmospheric temperature rise? Should that be a concern and could there be influences that would significantly slow the rate of melting?

Does anyone feel that the IPCC may benefit from a review of the information they based their report on? Could they subject to the errors that are suggested in Carlin's report?

Carlin suggests normal temperature cycles of 3-5 years, is that possible? Is the el nino effect fall into that cycle pattern? Have they identified what causes the el ninos?

I have heard the sunspot theory raised an discounted because it has been incorporated, is it of such significant that it deserves a verification on the size of impact that is considered by the EPA? Or should the EPA simply accept the IPCC reports as final and accurate?

The temperature trend charts Carlin offers are on for only up to 12 years (how long has global warming been tracked). I am not sure who CRU is as a source of temperature data though theirs is decidedly warming than the satellite data. The extrapolated IPCC data does show a surprisingly straight upward projection starting in 2000 that has surely missed recent experiences. Carlin does indicate that current ice caps are returning the levels of the 80s & 90s. He offers data that suggests the Greenland glacier has actually slowed over the past 17 years. I apologize for mentioning all this data, I imagine you all have read the report, it is interesting to me. But it does provide some credence to Carlin's concerns.

 

My third point is about understanding of the "greenhouse" effect. My understanding, I am looking for corrections or confirmations please.

This reference to "greenhouse" effect is that CO2 is analogous to the glass enclosed garden area or "greenhouse". The premise is that the glass in a "greenhouse" prevents the heat to escape the structure thus keeping everything warm.  Is this a fair description of the "green house" effect?

David K.,

"But the denialist machine is designed to misrepresent everything they can misrepresent in their favor." Chris W. places a lot of importance on a person's status as a "scientist", I am still don;t know what criteria he uses to determine if someone has acheived that status. You seem to lean toward everyone who is inline on the CO2 causing global warming as a "denialist". And the way both terms are used suggest that anyone being denied status as "scieintist" or being classified as a "denialist" can consider as possibly have the necessary ability to think and raise reasonable questoins about this issue.

I am not sure why only "sceintists" can analyze data. It seems people trained in statistics, such as an economist or even someone that went to the libarya and read up on the topic on their own, could be able to do a fair and accurate evealuation of data. The validity of the data may take a different set of knowledge and skills, but analyzing the data may not take the same level of scientific knowledge.

I have been impress with the thought process I have found in many people who weren't formally trained, and in many that had the formal scientific training. What I found that the thought skills were able effectively applied across many topics. to the point that in some cases those thouhgtful people were able to identify concerns or even approaches that the (my turn to create a class of people) "experts" had not considered or full explored.

The issue of "global warming" and the recommended actions seem so monumental to this lay person that I appreciate continually questioning and answering of concerns, prediction/theories/opinions. I have been invovled in discussions where it was felt the answers were alredy know and yet when a new or slightly different perspective is brought into the discussion there have been new and benifial insights gained.

Be it non-"scientist" or "denier" there is that potential for an acorn of insight that could be extremely valuable.

I am do not deny the atomsphere temperature rise, but it does seem in the past few years many of the claims of catrastrophic climate events related to "global warming" have less emphasis. Are there other hypothosies that will benefit from more data and scrutiny?

Rude D.,

What is your criteria for someone to be considered a "scieintist"? Are "sceintists" the only ones you feel have the ability to think and develop credible views on a subject?

The point about Carlin is that he was not acting as a scientist, but as an ideologue, and that his views were not suppressed at all.  They were just irrelevant.  He provided no data, no contribution to the science.  What he provided was an ideological position.

That point seems to have gotten lost in the discussion.

"Are "sceintists" the only ones you feel have the ability to think and develop credible views on a subject?"

This isn't about developing "views" (i.e., opinions) on a subject.  We're not taking a poll here.  This is about the data.  The data tell us what is going on.

Free market organizations are experts in economics and lobbying Congress.  Scientists are experts on science.

Free market organizations have a mission to keep any policy decisions they feel might adversely effect them from being made, and will do whatever it takes to do so.  Scientists follow wherever the data lead them, with no predetermined conclusion.  If the data don't support the initial hypothesis, new hypotheses are developed and tested.  When the data reach an agreement so overwhelming that the vast majority of scientists agree with the conclusions, then a consensus is reached.

It often takes decades and thousands of peer-reviewed studies to develop a consensus, which is the case for climate change.

Free market groups begin with their preferred conclusion and then cherry pick data and interpret a handful of studies to reflect that predetermined conclusion.

"Free market organizations have a mission to keep any policy decisions they feel might adversely effect them from being made, and will do whatever it takes to do so." You honestly believe this then there is somehting about the free market philosophy you miss.

The companies that are sustainable don;t fight the market they try to anticipate it and lead it rather than block it. Look at GM and Chrysler they fought it and they have had to get governemnt help to survive.

The ones making the windmills are an example of free market philosophy.

If you go bacj twenty or so years you might find very profitable companies already moving away from the fossil fuels and imbedding the sustainability concept into their cultures.

It maybe convinient to discount those that offer alternatives, but there are many free market organizations that build their organzations arounf change and looking to the future. Oh, by the way there are many of thos industry "scientists" that have and do put their work up for peer review both inside and out side to their organizations.

Don't conflate innovative companies with all companies.  The ones who see opportunity in newer technologies are not (necessarily) the same as the ones supporting the free market organization machine.  Though there are some very large firms who are buttering both sides of the bread.  The one side to delay while they get ahead of their competitors, and the other to give them some much needed PR.  It's done to maximize profit, and the corporation with the greatest profit in the world is the key practitioner of this cynical philosophy.

"Oh, by the way there are many of thos industry "scientists" that have and do put their work up for peer review both inside and out side to their organizations."

Of course there are good industry scientists.  I know for a fact that some of the best scientists in the world work for industry.  And they publish in peer-reviewed journals and present in scientific conferences and they are leaders in the scientific fields in which they practice.  They are real scientists and their companies succeed in business because they hold themselves and others to the highest professional and scientific ethics.

Those are not the scientists who are in my chart.

Well this is what you get from the global warmists,

How about the science David?

The planet's temperature has moderated for the last ten years even though the C02 level has risen.

So we have to conclude that C02 is not the big culprit in global warming, and that's what the skeptics are saying.

The graphic clearly shows that the handful of scientists most often cited as "experts" on climate change are actually all associated with free market lobbying organizations.

Any conclusions based on such biased information have zero credibility.  Any actual science will be published in real peer-review journals and discussed in real scientific conferences, which is where science actually happens.

Furthermore, science is based on the preponderance of the evidence, which in this case is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies over a period of three decades or more.  Not blog articles, and not individual papers, and especially not from a handful of scientists who have cross-bred with free market organizations and their front groups.  Consider the credibility of a system of denial and deceit that sets up new front groups when the old ones lose credibility, even though the new front group has essentially the same personnel.

Your post nor the links you provide address the question.

Just as I expected.

"Well this is what you get from the global warmists,"

Who are the "global warmists"? Every major scientific organization in the world, including:

The National Academies of Sciences of every G8 country, plus Mexico, China, India, S. Africa, and Brazil.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science

The American Meteorological Society

The American Geophysical Union

The American Chemical Society

The American Physical Society

The American Medical Society

"Your post nor the links you provide address the question."

It's a fake question.

The graphic clearly shows that the handful of scientists most often cited as "experts" on climate change are actually all associated with free market lobbying organizations.

Any conclusions based on such biased information have zero credibility.  Any actual science will be published in real peer-review journals and discussed in real scientific conferences, which is where science actually happens.

In case there is still confusion, the organizations that Steve has listed above are scientific organizations, with memberships that are made up of scientists.

The organizations listed in my chart above are free market organizations with no scientific mission at all, with memberships that are made up of CEOS, business managers, public relations experts, economists, and other free market proponents.  The scientists in the chart above are the handful of scientists that associate themselves (i.e., hire themselves out) with the free market organizations and their "sciency sounding" front groups.  These organizations and handful of scientists are incestuous, both in linkage and in resulting progeny.

In short, they simply have no scientific standing.

Dan's question is fake, because it has been answered time and again. He just keeps bringing it up, as if it was never addressed. It is fake precisely because the claim of temperature moderation is myopic. It focuses on a few years, in which temperatures have not increased (there have been many such brief periods), and it ignores the wider trend (decades), in which there has been no moderation of temperatures at all.

Nature article on ‘cooling’ confuses media, deniers: Next decade may see rapid warming

Has global warming really stopped?

Thanks Steve.  I always appreciate your tireless work rebutting the silliness and your links to outside sources.

As I mentioned in my comment below in response to Chris, I have decided that Dan E has such low intellectual ethics that I can no longer remain connected to him.  Given that hardly anyone reads his stolen posts, I see no reason to give him access to my Gather feed, nor expose my loyal network to him any further.

Problem with Steve's first source is that they predict a continued moderation of the earth's temperatures, possibly until 2015.

"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming."

Thus, based on our results we don’t expect an increase in the mean temperature of the next decade (2005-2015)."

Steve posted this article in response to my question...the one I like to task you global warmists the one he now calls fake....most likely for the simple reason that he can't answer it...or if he answers it honestly he has to admit I am correct in my statement that the earths temperature has moderated in the last ten years.

Even though his source admits to the moderation of the earth's temperature and the possibility that it will continue we know Steve is not ever going to admit I am right, isn't that right Steve?

Alan Carlin said that in the past 10 years the world has been cooling, well yes and no, my stockbroker uses similar trickery. In 1998, Earth had an extraordinary spike in heat and subsequent years have been cooler, hence the claim of global cooling. Factor in the past 50 years and that 7 of the top 10 warmest years recorded have been in the time frame where Earth is "cooling" you get the idea of trickery afoot.

Somehow I still think you will stay with the trickery that cooling is underway even though those cool years are record highs in the past 50 years.

David has the high ground, Dan. You can  rant about why the scientists are wrong if it floats your boat. He has no need to rant about why they are right. Getting it right is what scientists do, if you give them 20 years and a few billion bucks to conduct the research- which they have had.

As you say Chris, the thousands of studies over 3+ decades of research have led to the scientific consensus, and the consensus stands on its own merits.

Regarding Dan E, I used to think that he was just uninformed, but I have since come to realize that he simply has no intellectual integrity and willfully tries to misrepresent the information.  When he defended outright lying as acceptable I decided that I could no longer put up with such despicable and unethical behavior.

Given these factors and the fact that Dan does not provide any value added to the Gather community (hardly anyone reads the articles he steals/cut-and-pastes from others), I have decided to remove my connection to him.

"...the thousands of studies over 3+ decades of research have led to the scientific consensus, and the consensus stands on its own merits."

SYNTHESIS REPORT Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Copenhagen, 2009 10-12 March

Joint Academies' statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future 11 Jun 2009

Thanks for the links, Steve.  The consensus developed over those decades and through those peer-reviewed studies is finally leading to some policy development.

Chris,

I'm not the one who has been ranting, The resident AlGorians here on Gather are the ones ranting.

Davids article is a perfect example of that ranting He can't argue against the skeptics science/research so he tries to find ways to discredit them.

David doesn't like the message so he is trying to kill the messenger.

Dan, can you explain the chart?  For example:

1) What does it tell us that only a handful of scientists are cited by climate skeptics?  And as a corollary, why is the vast majority of the work of these scientists posted on blogs instead published in the peer-reviewed literature and presented at conferences of real scientific organizations?

2) What does it tell us that most of the skeptic "science" comes from non-scientific organizations whose sole purpose is to promote free markets?

3) What does it tell us that there is so much cross-breeding between the handful of scientists and the free market organizations and their front groups?

4) What does it tell us that the scientists most often cited are associated in the first place with free market lobbying organizations, given that most reputable scientists associate themselves with reputable scientific organizations such as those that Steve B has listed?  As a corollary, why would any reputable scientist associate with a non-scientific organization in the name of adding to the scientific knowledge, when in fact those organizations are mandated by their charters and membership to fight against any policy remedies that might be considered to address the scientific consensus that they wish to inform?

5) And why do they not discredit themselves due to the factors identified in the article and the first 4 questions in this comment?

Please try to provide an actual response to these questions and not simply attempt to evade taking responsibility for your accusations, as is your usual style.

You mean like this?

More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC’s 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other’s work. Of the 44 contributing authors, more than half have co-authored papers with the lead authors or coordinating lead authors of chapter 9. It is no surprise, therefore, that the majority of scientists who are skeptical of a human influence on climate significant enough to be damaging to the planet were unrepresented in the authorship of chapter 9. Many of the IPCC authors were climate modelers - or associated with laboratories committed to modeling - unwilling to admit that their models are neither accurate nor complete. Still less do they recognize or admit that modeling a chaotic object whose initial state and evolutionary processes are not known to a sufficient precision has a validation skill not significantly different from zero. In short, it cannot be done and has long been proven impossible. The modelers say that the “consensus” among their models is significant: but it is an artifact of ex-post-facto tuning to replicate historical temperatures, of repeated intercomparison studies, and of the authors’ shared belief in the unrealistically high estimate of climate sensitivity upon which all of the models assume.
Science and Public Policy

Dan E.,

You are suggesting that the climatic models are are not proven facts and could be considered opinions/theories. 

Yes Duane,

That is one of the things I am suggesting, I am also not alone in my suggesting,

Hans Von Storch and Dennis Bray surveyed climate scientists in 1996 and 2003.

In those surveys Climate scientists showed great doubt in science being able to predict future climatic events.

Question:

Climate models can accurately predict climatic conditions of the future.

Response, 1 = Strongly agree, 7 = Strongly disagree:

1= less than 1% 7=15%

On the agree side 1-3 = 35% Disagree side 5-7 = 46% Don't know, unsure 4=18%.

Question:

"To what degree do you think the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climatic variability of time scales of 10 years?"

Response, 1 = A great degree, 7 = none at all

1= less than 1% 7= 9%, on the great deal side, 32% on the none at all side, 53%, in the middle 4= 15%.

A large number of climate scientists, the scientists who know the science best have doubts about the ability of models to accurately predict climate change.

"You mean like this?"

No, did you miss the part about "Please try to provide an actual response to these questions and not simply attempt to evade taking responsibility for your accusations, as is your usual style."

But, there you go, in your usual style, you completely ignore the questions about the topic of this post and instead cut-and-paste a statement from one of the very organizations that have been shown to be one of the denialist machine.

Please try again to address the questions.

Since you insist, Dan, on demonstrating your absolute lack of understanding of the scientific process by copying a passage from one of the front organizations in the chart above, let me try to educate you.  I realize it's a lost cause because this is ground that has been gone over many times before and you still have no understanding, but I'll give it another shot.  For example, take this piece:

"More than two-thirds of all authors of chapter 9 of the IPCC's 2007 climate-science assessment are part of a clique whose members have co-authored papers with each other and, we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other's work."

Well, duh.  These are climate scientists.  Scientists collaborate on research, especially very expensive research that require data that come from satellites and ocean sensors, etc.  The kind of thing that not every garage scientist can afford to do.  If you look at peer-reviewed papers they are very often co-authored by many authors.  That's because there are many people who contribute to the science that is discussed in those papers.   So finding co-authorship among scientists in the same field is the norm.  It shows they work hard to ensure the robustness of the data and the analysis.

As opposed to the skeptics in the chart above, who often publish alone or in conjunction with personnel from free market organizations. 

And looking at this part specifically, "...we can surmise, very possibly at times acted as peer-reviewers for each other's work."

Peer-review means that proposed papers are reviewed by other experts in the field to ensure that the science is robust. 

Unlike most of what you claim is "science" which comes from non-peer reviewed blogs where the only review is from the free market organizations whose mandate is to fight any potential policy tool that might arise from the science.

You do the math.

Oh, and in case you still don't get it (which clearly you don't), the "authors" of the IPCC report review and consolidate the thousands of studies conducted by thousands of researchers over 3 decades of research.  They merely put the information together, the science is the sum of all of those thousands of studies on which they relied.  And that includes all the peer-reviewed papers published by anyone in the chart above.  It doesn't, however, include non-peer reviewed blogs driven by free market lobbying groups.

"Dan E., You are suggesting that the climatic models are are not proven facts and could be considered opinions/theories."  (Duane)

"Yes Duane, That is one of the things I am suggesting," (Dan E)

Which, of course, would invalidate every single study and blog article that you have provided as "proof" of your contrarian view because they are based on modeling as well.

Good going guys, you just demonstrated your lack of knowledge and your lack of cognitive ability.  And invalidated your own position, to boot.

"No, did you miss the part about"

Nope I totally ignored it,

It was much more effective to show how the scientists of the organization you have so much faith in, is doing the exact thing that you are accusing the skeptical scientists of doing,

"These are climate scientists.  Scientists collaborate on research,"

The Skeptics are climate scientists and they are collaborating, sharing information.

The IPCC claims objectivity. The article shows there is no objectivity in the authors and researchers of chapter 9, the group who has concluded that global warming is caused by man.

From my referenced article;

"Of the two co-coordinating lead authors, Gabriele Hegerl was from Duke University, USA, as were two contributing authors; and Francis Zwiers was from Environment Canada, as were two contributing authors. Lead authors also picked their own. Pascale Brannacot was from the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement in France, as was a contributing author. Joyce Penner was from the University of

Michigan, USA, as were three contributing authors. Two of the listed contributing authors, Wang Minghuai and Xu Li, are PhD students of lead author Joyce Penner, having no discernable direct role. Peter Stott of the Hadley Centre in the UK was in the company of no fewer than eight contributing authors from the same establishment and one more from the University of East Anglia, a close associate of the Hadley Centre. The Hadley Centre deserves special note because not only did it supply nine authors but also 9 of the 62 reviewers of this chapter." Disconcertingly, two of the Hadley Centre’s contributing authors – Jones and Thorne – were among the reviewers of the chapter that they had themselves written. From this and other evidence, it is plain that the IPCC’s documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the generally accepted sense of that term.

Looking beyond chapter 9 for a moment, 37 of the UK's 79 reviewers of the science assessment report were employed by the Hadley Centre for Forecasting. The Hadley Centre’s strong and perhaps undue influence is not unprecedented. In the IPCC’s previous quinquennial science assessment in 2001, chapter 12 (the “attribution” chapter) had 5 of its 36 authors from the Hadley Centre - again the greatest number from a single organization. It is questionable whether a single establishment should have been permitted to exercise so much influence in what holds itself out to be a process involving the global scientific community.

Returning to chapter 9 of the 2007 science assessment, Table 3 shows that the 53 authors of chapter 9 came from just 31 organizations. Putting it another way, 30 authors of that chapter – more than half – had at least one colleague from the same establishment. Was the independence of science compromised by the collective zeitgeist of their establishments or were they deliberately drawn from such a narrow range of organizations that unanimity was effectively guaranteed in advance?"

You'll of course notice from the article that there are not thousands of scientists who have decided that man is responsible for global warming....But only the scientists who worked on Chapter 9, 62 scientists analyzed the information and made that decision. Many from the same origins having worked together on the same projects with the objectives.

"Which, of course, would invalidate every single study and blog article that you have provided as "proof" of your contrarian view because they are based on modeling as well."

Well David I think that is just fine, Surveys show that climate scientists don't have much faith in models and I would not disagree with them.

Except that a lot of what I post from the skeptics is not from modelling, it is a lot of observations, current and historical, it comes from a lot of research concerning forcings of varying atmospheric compounds.

"let me try to educate you"

How could you possibly do that David? In all of our discussions you have brought to the table, nothing but opinion, conjecture and postulation.

You have nothing with to educate another. You lie and deceive here in these threads..."I answered the question" when all you did was evade, claim consensus, then claim again you answered the question.

I love it when someone like Duane comes into our discussions...some one who is really looking for answers to his questions....He may decide he too supports the IPCC's Doctrine but it won't be due to your postings because you do not answer questions, you postulate and opinionize...To someone who is interested in answers consensus is not enough and it's all you got.

But if he decides maybe the IPCC's doctrine is questionable it will because of the information I have posted.

Sorry David once again your opinion, postulation and conjecture looses out to facts and evidence.

"Nope I totally ignored it,"

Well, that is your usual pattern.  Ignore anything that would demonstrate how little you understand about science.

Want to try another shot at explaining why the handful of scientists most often cited are all associated with non-scientific free market lobbying organizations whose mandate is to block any regulation that might be required by the science?

"The IPCC claims objectivity. The article shows there is no objectivity in the authors and researchers of chapter 9, the group who has concluded that global warming is caused by man."

And again, you demonstrate loud and clear that you have absolutely no idea how science works, nor the ability to make a critical analysis of anything you copy and paste.  Or even perhaps understand it.

As has been explained many times, collaboration is how science is done.  Scientific principles must stand the test of scrutiny.  When work is done in a lab it usually involves many researchers.  When work involves the use of satellite data and global-scale models there are many researchers, all with specific expertise, who must collaborate to develop the data.  So peer-reviewed scientific papers in many fields commonly have multiple authors.  Considering that scientific expertise can be pretty specialized, it is guaranteed that there will be collaboration.  That is how science becomes so robust.

Consider the fact that brain surgeons around the world also collaborate on research.  That collaboration with other experts helps them learn about new techniques, problem areas, etc.  The collaboration doesn't suddenly make more people get brain tumors.

Your entire premise, and that of S. Fred Singer and his incestuous cousins in the free market groups, is absolutely laughable.  It has no basis in reality, and in fact, demonstrates unequivocally that you have absolutely no idea how science works.

"You'll of course notice from the article that there are not thousands of scientists who have decided that man is responsible for global warming....But only the scientists who worked on Chapter 9, 62 scientists analyzed the information and made that decision."

No, you will of course notice that you still have no clue.

To begin with, they conveniently forget the hundreds of reviewers who also reviewed and commented on the chapter that the others compiled.

But even that doesn't say it all.   Tell me, how many peer-reviewed scientific papers published by how many thousands of other researchers over how many decades of research are cited in Chapter 9?  I'll help; there are nearly 1000 peer-reviewed scientific papers that were evaluated and whose data were included in the analyses that the chapter authors summarized.

And that is just one of the 11 chapters in only one of the three technical reports.  Add to that the various appendices and you're looking at tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies.  Heck, there's even a few papers that have your idols S. Fred Singer, Dr. Roy Spencer, and John Christy as authors (oops, there was collaboration with other scientists, that isn't allowed).

"In all of our discussions you have brought to the table, nothing but opinion, conjecture and postulation."

Is that bumper sticker from the Skeptics Comic Book or one of your bloggers?

"I love it when someone like Duane comes into our discussions...some one who is really looking for answers to his questions....He may decide he too supports the IPCC's Doctrine"

Sorry, but we all know Duane.  If he was looking for answers to his questions he would do some research on basic concepts.  Besides, he already admitted that his entire basis for "skepticism" is his lack of knowledge and his concern for the costs of any policy decisions.

"But if he decides maybe the IPCC's doctrine is questionable it will because of the information I have posted."

Like everything else you write, this one has no rational basis of credibility.  Not that it matters.

And why doesn't it matter, you ask?  Because the science doesn't depend on what opinion people like Duane, you, Steve, or even me have on the matter.  It depends on the data, which was developed in over thirty years of research, thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies, and research done by thousands of researchers.  The science is the science no matter whether people like you believe it or not.

You see, science isn't an opinion poll.  It doesn't get made up because Duane decides he's for or against climate change.  Climate change is based on science.

But you know all that, because it has been explained to you time and time again.  And yet, you follow your usual pattern of ignoring facts, switching to another one of your inane debunked blogger opinions, then when that one gets called out for the umpteenth time you simply circle back around to the original debunked inanity (cue the von Storch survey, even though you can't seem to get its attribution correct).

"Sorry David once again your opinion, postulation and conjecture looses out to facts and evidence."

Perhaps this helps explain your inability to understand what you cut-and-paste from blogs.  [Hint: So the word is loser, not looser]

"Well, that is your usual pattern.  Ignore anything that would demonstrate how little you understand about science."

Actually David it is because I know you so well and how you think. You can not argue the science so you resort to dismiss and demean. You have nothing to bring to the table except consensus.

All of the current research brought to the table by those you try to dismiss by your article (chart) casts doubt on the IPCC's doctrine, you nor the IPCC can explain away the science, so you have to show somehow that these very well credentialed scientists (and many more outside your chart) should not be listened to.

As you yourself said..."that dog don't hunt"!

Until you can provide the answer to the question all that you post is nothing more than propaganda.

The IPCC's research, their science predicted the earth's temperature would rise as the level of atmospheric C02 increased. they said it was the C02 responsible for the earth's temperature rise, yet in the last ten years the earth's temperature has not risen in response to greater and greater levels of C02.

The reason our country is debating the currently proposed Cap and trade bill is because the global warmists believe what they have been told the C02 is responsible for global warming...our observations of our climate do not show that that is the case.

Got any science, research that counters our observations David?

"Well, that is your usual pattern.  Ignore anything that would demonstrate how little you understand about science."

"Actually David it is because I know you so well and how you think."

Actually, Dan, it's your usual pattern of evasiveness.  It isn't "dismiss and demean" to point out your lack of understanding of science, it is simply acknowledging demonstrable fact.

"All of the current research brought to the table by those you try to dismiss by your article (chart) casts doubt on the IPCC's doctrine, you nor the IPCC can explain away the science, so you have to show somehow that these very well credentialed scientists (and many more outside your chart) should not be listened to."

You mean the research brought to the table by the handful of scientists who are collaborating with free market lobbying groups?

Yes, their credentials speak for themselves.  As do the credentials of all of the scientists who published the thousands of peer-reviewed papers over the last thirty years that led to the consensus.  But it's so easy for you to dismiss and demean all of those published works and authors while taking scientists who associate with free market lobbyists as somehow pure.  Yes, that dog don't definitely don't hunt.

"Until you can provide the answer to the question all that you post is nothing more than propaganda."

Cue the circling around to the old bumper sticker again.  The question of the earth's temperature over the last ten years has been addressed many times and many places.  But you don't care.  You simply shelve it and roll it back out again when whatever line of inanity you are currently floating starts to sink.  But since you like blogs, let's give it an answer one more time.    A little cherry picking is good, right?

"The reason our country is debating the currently proposed Cap and trade bill is because the global warmists believe what they have been told the C02 is responsible for global warming...our observations of our climate do not show that that is the case."

No, the reason you, the free marketers, Senator Inhofe, and others are debating the cap-and-trade bill is because they don't want to have to internalize all the pollution costs they have been externalizing on the tax payers for all these years.  The idea of attacking the science only came up as a ploy AFTER they had decided that they didn't want to be regulated.

"Got any science, research that counters our observations David?"

There are several things that make this hysterical.

1) "Got any science": You still can't tell the difference between blogs and science.

2) "our observations": You have demonstrated repeated that you can't understand even the simplest scientific concepts, or even how science works.  The feature articles here by Sy G provide some remedial training to help get you up to speed.

3) "our observations": "OUR" observations??  You copy bloggers.  You didn't make any observations.  You cut-and-paste, and your only criterion for selection is that you think it supports your predetermined position, which has nothing to do with the science.

4) "David": You might have heard that there has been thousands of peer-reviewed studies (actually, tens of thousands) by thousands of researchers over the last 3 decades.  Here's a summary.  Once you read that, and all the technical reports, and the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles on which it relies, then we can talk science.

Until then, go back to your free market, blogger mentality.  Maybe the other organizations I have listed above will also let you copy their blogs for your own profit.

"It isn't "dismiss and demean" to point out your lack of understanding of science, it is simply acknowledging demonstrable fact."

Well generally speaking that is correct but that is how you use it you use it as an attack to try and belittle your opponent just as you are now in this article trying to dismiss the skeptical scientists by painting them in an unfavorable light.

there is nothing honorable and honest about the way you conduct yourself in these discussions and it all boils down to one thing..You can't argue against the skeptics science and research so you use personal attack against their characters.

"Cue the circling around to the old bumper sticker again."

Quit evading, answer the question David.

"Got any science"

Nope David still doesn't have any science that contests the skeptics.

"You have demonstrated repeated that you can't understand even the simplest scientific concepts, or even how science works."

But of course you do...Don't you David?

You could explain it all to us...Couldn't you David?

But no David doesn't explain it to us We can only assume that the reason is that he doesn't understand it as well as he would have us believe....And that is why his arguments stand at consensus, nothing more.

"Once you read that, and all the technical reports, and the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles on which it relies, then we can talk science."

Which one(s) tell us why the IPCC's predictions are so wrong David?

Which one(s) tell us why the temperature did not rise despite the continued rise of C02 in our atmosphere as predicted by the IPCC?

Which ones David?

"Until then," Until then you got nothing David Just like you have had nothing since we began.

 

"Well generally speaking that is correct but that is how you use it you use it as an attack to try and belittle your opponent just as you are now in this article trying to dismiss the skeptical scientists by painting them in an unfavorable light."

This part is really funny.

For the record, I merely observe that you cut and paste other people's blogs and call it science, then when you try to interpret it you usually get it wrong, and you repeatedly admit you don't care about credibility.

And I am not "dismissing" the skeptics scientists because I'm "painting them in a bad light."  They have painted themselves into that corner by associating with free market organizations whose sole purpose is to attack the science so they won't have to deal with potential regulatory options.  Their own lack of scientific and professional ethics is what has negatively impacted their credibility.  If they had strong professional ethics they would be standing up at scientific conferences instead at Heartland Institute advocacy meetings.

""Cue the circling around to the old bumper sticker again."

Quit evading, answer the question David."

Another good one.  You conveniently ignored the fact that I provided an answer to your question immediately after that comment you extracted.  In fact, I have answered the same question in other threads, and several times in this thread.  With links.   This is why people consider you to be dishonest, because you simply ignore the answers, move on to another of the already answered questions to claim it hasn't been answered (it has), then keep circling around back to the first one.  And all the time just ignoring the answers.  Not trying to refute them even, just ignore them and hope everyone forgets or gets tired of your tactics.

""Got any science""

Since the rest of your comment is the same old drivel that has already been addressed several times in this thread alone, plus many times in previous threads, I'll just let you go back and actually read what has already been written.

Do some homework and learn something instead wasting our time with the same old crap that has been addressed already.

Have some integrity.

well, right you are Steve, it's a fake question. "Congressman Smith, our viewers would like to know why you have not told us the whole truth about your support for this measure"

It assumes that the congressman has not told the truth. What if he has?

Dan's question is also fake because it disguises a political argument as a scientific one. Dan doesn't often provide links without being asked. Why? David's article explains that very well.

Here's another example of the political argument being disguised as a scientific one. On another thread, Dan refers to a "Dr. Roy". Roy who? You have to search a bit to find out he's referring to Dr. Roy Spencer, who seems to have a liking for mr. limpbaugh.

Dr. Spencer also seems to advocate the fake science belief, known as "intelligent design", and he has disavowed the scientific theory of evolution, which he calls, "evolutionism".

Roy Spencer on Intelligent Design

How seriously can you take this guy (or Dan)?

Of course, in Dan's own words,

"The credibility of lack there of, of the source has nothing to do with it, it's the message you can't accept."

"Dr. Spencer also seems to advocate the fake science belief, known as "intelligent design", and he has disavowed the scientific theory of evolution, which he calls, "evolutionism"."

There are lots of reasons to not accept Dr. Roy Spencer as the end-all to climate change, so I suppose adding anti-science to the list isn't unreasonable.

For example, you can ask why his body of work related to climate change seems to revolve around only just 4 papers, two of which are actually only blog articles that are not peer-reviewed.  Certainly a couple of articles will be part of the analysis, but to have them overrule thousands of peer-reviewed research work is not particularly credible science.  Science is the preponderance of the evidence of all valid studies, and one or two studies is never enough to overrule what all the other studies tell us.  At most, one study can point to an area that requires additional research, but it must be persuasive enough to stimulate the development of new studies.

One might also wonder why Dr. Roy Spencer is associated with both the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, neither of which is a scientific organization.  In fact, both are anti-science organizations.  One has to question what Dr. Roy Spencer gains scientifically by hooking up with free market lobbying groups.

[As an aside, why is it that Dr. Roy Spencer seems to always get to be referred to as Dr. Roy Spencer (or just Dr. Roy) but all the other PhD's like Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas don't get the honorific?  Is it some attempt to suggest legitimacy because there is some question about it? I mean, the man has a doctorate so shouldn't need some artificial boost to his credentials any more than all the others with doctorates.]

I can only say I must be quiet effective to become on the receiving end of so many attacks! LOL!

Thank you...Thank you very much! LOL!

OMG!

ROY Spencer also supports the researching of the idea of intelligent design?

Oh that just makes him doubly evil to you libs, and boosts my opinion of him as a free thinking scientist.

Your repeated misuse of the word quiet speak volumes.

All you are left with David is picayune criticisms.

Thank you for looking up the spelling (and meaning) of picayune.  It appropriately reflects your contribution.

"ROY Spencer also supports the researching of the idea of intelligent design?"

You didn't know that, Dan?

"Oh that just makes him doubly evil to you libs, and boosts my opinion of him as a free thinking scientist."

"Evil" is your word. It's not a scientific judgement (as if science meant anything at all to you). It does call into question his scientific judgement, in general, and the fact that "boosts (your) opinion of him as a free thinking scientist"  as a reaction to "libs" speaks volumes about your judgement and political motivation.

"I can only say I must be quiet effective to become on the receiving end of so many attacks! LOL!"

Hell, I wish you would be "quiet". Actually, your effectiveness is only in destroying your credibility.

Thank you...Thank you very much! LOL!

Your welcome, very much.

The "intelligent design" revelation is an interesting one, and as you say, Steve, it calls into question Spencer's scientific judgment.

Intelligent design (or creationism, as it used to be called before they changed the name in an attempt to bypass court rulings outlawing teaching creationism as a science), is unequivocally a religious principle.  It has nothing to do with science.  The issue is not that there is any problem teaching it as a religion.  The issue is the creationists insist that somehow "intelligent design" should be taught in science classes as an "alternative theory" to the "evolution theory."

This sets up an interesting deceptive technique that is reminiscent of the climate change deception.  Let's compare the two theories.

Evolution is based on reams of data and observations, with much credit going to Darwin and Wallace for first observing markers of it in the field.   Evidence has built up over the years since then.  Evidence as diverse as variations in birds and insects adapted to different econiches, development of microbial resistance, direct observation of bacterial evolution, markers such as skeletal transformations and patterns, vestigial organs, and now DNA and genomic evidence.  In short, a vast amount of evidence has been collected and observed to document the historical and continued presence of evolution.  Evidence based analysis leading to a consensus is called science.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is based on one primary concept, which can be summarized as: "The world is really really really complicated, and therefore the variation we see must have been the result of God creating it that way."

Science must be testable.  Evolution is testable because we can collect evidence, evaluate it, even measure it in microbial and some insect species, and reach a conclusion based on evidence.  That is called science.

Intelligent design is not testable.  One must take it entirely on faith because there is no way to determine if God decided one day there needed to be 3500 species of cockroaches.  And frankly, one would wonder why God would bother himself with such trivialities.  But the bottom line is that there is no way to test the theory, you must simply accept it on faith.  That is called religion.

By the way, to emphasize the point, there are also people out there who say that the variation in wildlife we see here on Earth is due to it being brought here by aliens from other galaxies.  At the moment, we will have to leave this "intergalactic theory" as unsupported, though technically it may be possible some day to test it.

But back to the general topic of this post.  The climate denialists use similar sleight-of-hand as the creationists to produce a straw man that they they can wield as a bludgeon.  It doesn't matter that it isn't relevant, isn't logical, or the question has already been answered.  They simply ignore any response and repeat the mantra.  They copy entire passages from ideologically biased blogs and call it "science," then whine incessantly about not answering the "science," much of which isn't science at all.  Which they would know if they actually understood how science works.  But then, if they understood science, they would understand that one study, even a valid one published in the peer-reviewed literature, is not science.  At best one study can point to an area of research that must then be examined by additional studies to determine if it really means anything.

Think of it as throwing one grain of black sand into a desert of white sand.

And of course, all the real science is, in fact, incorporated into the scientific analyses.  But its part of the deception game they play to make believe that somehow their one red ball invalidates the thousand blue balls in the barrel.

David K.,

You seem to be saying that, "The "intelligent design" revelation is an interesting one, and as you say, Steve, it calls into question Spencer's scientific judgment." that anyone who believes in God and his design of any part of the universe should have their sceintific credibility questoined? Would that mean that any scientist that believed in God should have their scieintific work doubted or expunged?

What if the "intelligent design" was setting up the laws of nature so life didn;t need to have a guiding touch at every move and it allow free will to those who decided how they would influence nature. What id "global warming" is a freewill choice and how we handle it is more about testing us rather than guiding us?

Are there things in science today that we didn;t know or couldn;t prove only a genreation or so ago, let alone a hundred years ago? Is science and life only what we can prove today or is it based on what we can learn and understand building on what we know today?

How much of our science do you feel is based on the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and other religions all the way back to the gods on mount olympus.

 

No David ,

It represents how petty you are...(spoken in a whiny snarky voice) You don't use the right word...You don't pronounce it right.

David that's what you are all about...belittling people who you don't agree with you! that's what you do.

"You didn't know that, Dan?"

Nope.

"Actually, your effectiveness is only in destroying your credibility."

Well Steve,

I'll say it again...the same comment that you keep trying to misconstrue..mis-characterize....I don't care of your opinion of my credibility..."The credibility of lack there of, of the source has nothing to do with it, it's the message you can't accept."

Liberals,

A bunch of whiny bitchy little girls!

Unless of course you are girls...then your just whiny and bitchy!

Does this mean you cannot explain the chart, Dan?   Or that you refuse to admit that your skeptics are all driven by free market lobbying firms.

And yes, you've made it quite clear you don't care about credibility.  You're only criterion for accepting information is that it agrees with you.

The rest of your comments speak for themselves.

Duane

See my comment where I explained the difference between science and religion.  In short, intelligent design cannot be tested unless God suddenly appears and takes credit for it; evolution has been tested and demonstrated through evidence, observation, and experiment.

What calls Spencer's scientific judgment into question is that he confuses non-science with science, which suggests he is ideologically motivated in at least some of his positions.

We're talking about science.

"...that anyone who believes in God and his design of any part of the universe should have their sceintific credibility questoined? Would that mean that any scientist that believed in God should have their scieintific work doubted or expunged?"

What a gross distortion of what I said. The issue isn't religion or faith - it's confusing religion and faith with science - and re: the specific issue of climate change, confusing politics with science.

Personally, I believe that there is an intelligent dynamic that is inherent in the universe. But I'm not stupid enough to assert that that is a testable hypothesis.

Steve B.,

The flow of my comments were to David when he used you comment about Spencer view on "intelligent design" and how that could be used to discredit the sciencitifc abilities. It was not about what you said, but how it was used.

Just to be clear, it would be a mistake to draw any conclusions on my beliefs just because I can tell the difference between religion and scientists.  Not everyone of faith falls for the "intelligent design is science" stuff.

And while I'm here, regarding this part of the comment a few comments above:

"How much of our science do you feel is based on the work of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and other religions all the way back to the gods on mount olympus."

Again, this is reframing the situation into something it isn't.  You have based the question on a premise that is without merit, or even logic.  Your premise is basically this: Some science has been discovered by Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. and therefore somehow religion stimulates science.  But you could also include into that how much science has been discovered by agnostics, hedonists, atheists, Buddhists, Nihilists, Taoists, Dentists, socialists, communists, etc.  The point is that scientists have all sorts of beliefs that span the range of religions, politics, socioeconomics, etc.

Religion is religion, science is science.  They aren't necessarily inconsistent with each other, but one is based purely on faith, the other on observation, experiment, evidence, and data.

"I'll say it again...the same comment that you keep trying to misconstrue..mis-characterize...."

Your words speak for themselves - there is no mischaracterization. It is a direct quote: "The credibility of lack there of, of the source has nothing to do with it, it's the message you can't accept."

"I don't care of your opinion of my credibility..."

Good - you don't have any.

"Liberals,//A bunch of whiny bitchy little girls!//Unless of course you are girls...then your just whiny and bitchy!"

Temper, temper....

Yes, Steve, his words do speak for themselves.  Which is good, because he seems to lose track of what he is saying.

BTW, Dan, in case you forgot, wanna take a crack at this?

"The issue is not that there is any problem teaching it as a religion.  The issue is the creationists insist that somehow 'intelligent design' should be taught in science classes as an 'alternative theory' to the 'evolution theory.'

That is exactly the issue. It has nothing to do with "attacking" people's faith(s). It has everything to do with differentiating science from faith. "Believers" cannot claim equivalency with science, relative to justification by evidence. That is deception, and a surprising deception in that "believers" speak of prohibitions against "false witness".

As well as the contamination of science with religion, another part of the deception is the contamination of science with politics.

How many times have I pointed to "all of the major scientific organizations in the world," and named them - the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society, the American Meteorological Society, etc. - only to have skeptics (1) claim these are essentially political organizations, or (2) to refer to Al Gore is some demeaning fashion.

Absolutely, the whole "MO" of the skeptics is to confuse issues. In industry circles, that was understood.

There does seem to be quite a bit of willful confusion from the "skeptics."

Another thing they do that with is drug studies. 29 doctors say this drug (whichever brand you want to put here) is better for you.

The DON'T mention how many doctors they pooled very often, or the ones that don't agree.

Three classes of lies:

Lies, Damn lies...and then there's statistics.

Statistics can be abused, as the denialists have shown...or misused, as the ideological lackeys that believe the denialists have shown.

Just like the earth has been cooling in the past decade when in fact the highest temps have been in the past decade. It is cooling since 1998 but only because '98 was a record high and other record highs have not bested the '98 high. Seven of the 10 highest temps have been since yr. 2000.

How can idiots play with numbers like that and with a straight face claim cooling?

Their intent is to deceive, and they seem to readily admit that deception is somehow acceptable if it helps them meet their ideological goals.

Sigh. Facts can be presented with different interpretations to 'prove' different theories....pointing that out was the sole intent of my comment about statistics.

 

It all has to do with the desired results. Just as David keeps using the "denialists" as the only ones that use any and all of your levels of lying. It could be suggested that he is "spinning" to make his desired results as the only ones. Yet, I would be bowled over if there weren;t true believers of "global warming" that have shade the data to fit their purpose. It is simply the temptation of people, evne those with good intentions, to become so frustrated that their logic is not readily accepted that they moved into the shades of gray on making their points.

It is even more tempting for those who don;t genrate the data to take a dim view of anyone who makes a case opposite to theirs.

I accept that people will see and present things in the light that best fits their thinking, and we should each be willing to question and think through what is presented even when it supports your own views.

Duane - As the graph clearly shows, the skeptics scientists are all intershared and associated with non-scientist free market lobbying organizations whose sole purpose is to dissuade any attempts to address the policy needs related to climate change.

Can you explain why scientists would be associated so incestuously with free market organizations, or why they would be associated with these organizations at all?

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

Phew. Wasn't sure I would make it to 10 comments.

I am not sure where to put this since I have been away and the remarks that triggered my thoughts were made many comments earlier.

David K.,

"The graphic clearly shows that the handful of scientists most often cited as "experts" on climate change are actually all associated with free market lobbying organizations. Any conclusions based on such biased information have zero credibility." Are you suggesting that there isn't an industry supporting the CO2 caused "global warming" organizations? Do you truly believe that there aren't lobbyists (well paid), and "scientists" (well paid) and other (well paid) actively involved in this that are not benefiting in a personal way?

I have to believe that the people on both sides of the debate are human and have the same needs, desires, and temptations, so simply say that those on one side are the evil greedy prefabricators would deny all of this. If we must attack those working for a profit then what about those who profit from the move away from conventional energy sources such as wind or solar. Are they some different than those who profit from the conventional? How do classify those that profit from both sides like a GE? Are those that work on the conventional Liars and those on the non-conventional altruistic?

If that is the case then I have lived a unique experience, because I have seen the people on either side of an issue use the general good and the particular self interest on the same issue to justify their position.

I believe that people can honestly believe what they are saying, thus not be lying.

If there is no market for windmills and the maker of windmills is a strong supporter of wind power, how would he fit your bias and credibility criteria?

Sorry, your comment is so full of rationalization that it lost any chance of being a defensible argument.

The point here is that the "science" being touted by the skeptics is promoted almost solely by organizations whose sole mission is to reject any science that might result in policy decisions they don't like.

Does it sometimes seem that those that are either tired of the skeptics or don;t have the patiences to address questions disregard all questons that don;t support the prevailing opinion?

Does it sometimes seem that the strategy of skeptics is to ask the same questions over and over again no matter what answers have been given in the past?

Or that the reason there is a prevailing opinion is that the scientific consensus is based on three decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, versus a handful of scientists who associate themselves with free market organizations and communicate mostly through blogs?

Science is based on data.  Free market organizations are not scientific organizations; they are organizations whose mission is to dissuade any science policy that might affect their membership.

What if the skeptic is not getting answers to the questions so they try to asked a similar question in a differetn manner of try to find a new appraoch to the question. THe desire is to address the concern in a thoughtful way?

What if it is to establish a common reference point to discuss the issues from?

AS an example with Carlin's report he offers data on Greenland ice sheet and yet the response is that he isn't a "scientist". The implication is that if he hasn't generated his own data that has gone tthorugh "peer review" then he isn't a "scientist".

As I recall there are theorectical physists and experimental physists. The difference is just what the name implies one group is focused on the review of sceince and the development of theories while the others are fouced on the development of expeiriments to genrate the data based on evaluating the theories. Which one is the "sceintist" or are neither since each does only one part of the work?

AS for "peer review", is that only limited to "scientists"(still no definition) that have develop their own theories and data to demonstrate those theories? Could it be that is review by thoughtful people that have relevant "expertise" that evaluates the theories, analayzes the data, and evn those that test the mehtodology. Wold it be fair to have a statatician be part of the review even though they are not a "scieintist" to evaluate the mehtodology of hwo the methods yuo use to prsent the data? I dought that all raw data is simiply put it on a chart and everythign is made self evident.

Why shold only "scieintist" be the only ones to have to prove their theories/opinions with data and "peer review"? If the EPA developed a policy why shold they be required to develop at least the metrics to measure the performance of the policy and hold that data up for "peer review"? Why couldn;t "scientist" be part of that review even thought it was not a scientific study?

"What if the skeptic is not getting answers to the questions so they try to asked a similar question in a differetn manner of try to find a new appraoch to the question. THe desire is to address the concern in a thoughtful way?"

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.  All of the questions skeptics have asked have been answered by many people in many ways.  They have zero desire to "address the concern in a thoughtful way."  Their entire goal is to muddy the waters.  So they ask a question, then don't listen to the response, then when they think everyone has forgotten they simply raise the same debunked point all over again.  It's their schtick.  They have no interest in the science; all they care about is protecting their members from what they see as unfair regulation. 

"AS an example with Carlin's report he offers data on Greenland ice sheet and yet the response is that he isn't a "scientist". The implication is that if he hasn't generated his own data that has gone tthorugh "peer review" then he isn't a "scientist"."

Again, that dog don't hunt.  You have reframed the situation to suit your needs.  The Carlin episode isn't really about whether he is a scientist or not, though that is a factor.  It's about the fact that he wrote an ideologically motivated manifesto that provided no data and no insight, then ran whining to the denialist bloggers that his report was being "suppressed."  It wasn't suppressed, it simply provided nothing of value related to the science.  This is a common tactic of the denialist industry, to try to pass off something as science that cannot pass the test of scientific peer-review, then claim that the "science" is being ignored (or even better, "suppressed").  The ploy is about as genuine as someone complaining that no one listens to them when they stand on the street corner with a sandwich board saying "the end is near."  No one takes it seriously because it isn't serious.

Real science is peer-reveiwed and presented at scientific conferences.  Non-scientists are welcome to publish and present, but they have to meet the same standards of veracity as do the scientists.

"AS for "peer review", is that only limited to "scientists"(still no definition) that have develop their own theories and data to demonstrate those theories?"

If you don't understand the concept of peer review, try reading the featured articles here.

"Why shold only "scieintist" be the only ones to have to prove their theories/opinions with data and "peer review"? "

If I can understand your question, everyone who proclaims that something is science has to prove their theories with data and peer-review.  All science has to be demonstrated with data and peer-review.  All of it. 

But again, you completely miss the point.  This is not really about whether someone is a scientist or not.  It's about whether the information they present can meet the standards to be called science.  The reason that it was pointed out that Carlin is not a scientist is not to demean him, but to emphasize that he did not present scientific findings that meet the standards of science.  He provided an ideologically motivated report that provided no scientifically defensible data, then complained when it was rejected as science.  The bottom line is that something isn't science because the author says it is science, it is science because it meets the standards of peer-review, repeatability, etc.  That is true no matter what scientific paper is being evaluated.

"Sorry, but that dog don't hunt.  All of the questions skeptics have asked have been answered by many people in many ways."

Not in these threads they haven't been, especially not by you David!

The above explanation is about the extent of David's responses...he claims consensus...then claims all the questions have been answered.

Can you not interpret the chart?

Can you answer the question?

See my other comments.

And I've even helped you interpret the chart, since you seem unwilling to admit that there is no reason for scientists to hook up with free market lobbying groups.

"See my other comments."

None of your other comments answer the question, you again claim consensus then claim the question is answered.

I've even provided the question here again in this thread to which you do not respond.

The difference between us, is that you assume I can not interpret the chart where you have shown us countless times that you can not answer the question.

As I have said in other comments (more than once), your question has been answered, many times.  Should we try again or are you simply going to make believe it hasn't been answered?

"The planet's temperature has moderated for the last ten years even though the C02 level has risen.  So we have to conclude that C02 is not the big culprit in global warming, and that's what the skeptics are saying."

But since you like blogs, let's give it an answer one more time.    A little cherry picking is good, right?

"The difference between us, is that you assume I can not interpret the chart where you have shown us countless times that you can not answer the question."

No, the difference is you refuse to acknowledge the clear message of the chart AND I have answered your question countless times.

After a while people wonder if you are just playing dumb.  I think it's a combination of natural talent and low intellectual integrity.

By the way, all of your other "questions" have been answered also.

Well David, I don't remember you referencing this source as often as you are suggesting...But at least it is some facts!

But wait a minute?

You contradict the IPCC who admits the temperature moderation of our planet.

You contradict the source that Steve posted that verifies the temperature moderation of our planet.

You contradict the Climate scientists over at Real Climate who verifies that the temperature of our planet has moderated.

"Over at Real Climate they are busy giving climate skeptics reason to cheer:

We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020."

Seems that the temperature moderation has gone on long enough that even global warmists can no longer deny it, I of course exclude Gather global warmists in that category, Gather global warmists are holding fast to the faith, denying any moderation has taken place.

"Well David, I don't remember you referencing this source as often as you are suggesting...But at least it is some facts!"

That's convenient.  Just like you conveniently ignore all the evidence.

"But wait a minute? You contradict...."

Actually, based on your history of comprehension issues, I'd say that you couldn't tell a contradiction from a blogger.

Still waiting for you to even make an attempt at addressing the specific questions related to this post, which you conveniently seem to ignore.  It would be really fun to see you explain why it would be legitimate for scientists to associate themselves with free market lobbying organizations whose entire charter is to fight the very science the scientists claim to be informing.

Yep, still waiting for that answer.

"Still waiting"
Me too David!
I'm still waiting for you to answer the question.

Yep still waiting for that answer.

What is really embarrassing for you is that you do exactly what has been predicted you would do. Despite the fact that I have answered your specific question many times on this post, you come back around with a comment suggesting that it hasn't been answered. As has been pointed out many times, you simply ignore answers when they demonstrate you have lied and/or have no understanding, go off on another topic that has also been debunked a hundred times, and when that one is answered yet again, you simply circle back around to the first debunked question and make believe it was never answered.

That is dishonest. And is why I deleted my connection with you. Your lack of integrity is unbecoming.

Here's just one of the times that your question was answered, and this one was about three comments above:

As I have said in other comments (more than once), your question has been answered, many times. Should we try again or are you simply going to make believe it hasn't been answered?

"The planet's temperature has moderated for the last ten years even though the C02 level has risen. So we have to conclude that C02 is not the big culprit in global warming, and that's what the skeptics are saying."

But since you like blogs, let's give it an answer one more time. A little cherry picking is good, right?

"The difference between us, is that you assume I can not interpret the chart where you have shown us countless times that you can not answer the question."

No, the difference is you refuse to acknowledge the clear message of the chart AND I have answered your question countless times.

After a while people wonder if you are just playing dumb. I think it's a combination of natural talent and low intellectual integrity.

By the way, all of your other "questions" have been answered also.

If the links don't carry you can scroll up a few comments and go to all of the links for answers.

By the way, here is why it is clear you have no integrity. Right after I provided that comment and its multiple links, you added the comment:

"Well David, I don't remember you referencing this source as often as you are suggesting...But at least it is some facts!"

So here you admit that I have answered your question, and done so multiple times. But alas, I responded again, thereby covering up what you thought was a clever comment that would hide your admission that I answered your question, so you leave another comment suggesting I never answered the question you just admitted I answered several times.

Which proves that not only are you dishonest, but have a very fragile ego. What else would explain your continued return to this post.

it is what it is Duane. At a certain point, second guessing becomes pointless. We passed that point a while back. Exxon makes money one way, and GE makes money another way.

But bottom line, the human race cannot survive forever on our current trajectory.

Consider that three quarters of the world are in poverty and thus do not create the huge per capita carbon emissions as we do in the US, or even that of Europe.  China and India are just now ramping up their resource use.  Meanwhile, population levels continue to explode in many other regions (and has increased again in the US), all of which will result in increased carbon emissions unless we can come up with a way to change our technology.

I guess what I am saying is: if renewable energy does not quite fit the mold of traditional economics, we are going to need to rejigger traditional economics.

Duane,

What Chris means to say is that if the purveyors of traditional energy lie than they are evil and should be banned from the face of earth....but if the purveyors of alternative energy, like Al Gore, lie it can be over looked.

Right Chris?

No, what Chris is saying is that "if renewable energy does not quite fit the mold of traditional economics, we are going to need to rejigger traditional economics."

But since you are unwilling or incapable of answering my questions above, I will repost them here to give you a chance to offer some sort of contribution.

"What Chris means to say is that if the purveyors of traditional energy lie than they are evil and should be banned from the face of earth...."

My, my - and you accuse me of mischaracterization!!!

"No, what Chris is saying is that 'if renewable energy does not quite fit the mold of traditional economics, we are going to need to rejigger traditional economics.'"

Yes - a direct quote. Chris speaks for himself. Words speak for themselves. Direct quotes are what they are.

Chris W.,

"

I guess what I am saying is: if renewable energy does not quite fit the mold of traditional economics, we are going to need to rejigger traditional economics."

Help me understand how does new energy sources not fit "traditional economics"?

It's very simple Dan. Irrespective of money in and money out, fossil fuels spell the downfall of the human race through climate damage and the enrichment of the wallets of petrodespots such as Putin, Chavez, the Warlords of Nigeria and Sudan, & Co.

Al Gore lied? He just reported on what the scientists said. oh right, your contention is that the scientists don't know anything about science. got it. I have said it a dozen times and the climate denial squad has never gotten the message- IT IS NOT ABOUT AL GORE. Al Gore is history. Never utter his word again, and I will be okay with that.

Do the purveyors of traditional energy lie and are they evil? Well, insofar as their personal wealth is not identical to the future prospects of the human race, yeah, I suppose they do at times lie and I suppose that they are at times evil. They will tell you, good god man forget about renewable energy because it is not affordable. Their kind