Scientists as political activists?

thanks for sharing

As a scientist (by training, if not in practice), I agree with their anti-activism sentiment, but... (there's always a "but," isn't there?)

Evidently, something scientists know better than everyone else threatens everyone. It seems to me, therefore, that for their own lives as well as the lives of the rest of us, they MUST actively work to prevent harm... and thus become "activists."

Thanks for the interesting post.

Sometimes it is a simple as standing up when someone misuses or misrepresents the science.

Actually, David, the scientists are correct. It is their function to seek the facts and compile data for public consumption. They serve an important need in society. They are much more valuable than people give them credit for. They aren't the policy makers. We have leadership and elected representatives for those things. When our leadership has a vested in interest in ignoring the work of scientists, it is the leaders who have let us down, not the scientists.

I have been teaching public speaking to a group of biologists since the middle of February. They are such an intelligent lot of people. They are very interesting to me. So often, however, they don't know how to get an idea across. They write these terrific papers and articles for peer review and get in front of an audience and fail to perceive the knowledge base of their listeners. They figure that they can just give everyone the pie and the public has the necessary skill set to deconstruct the information. People need to be fed a fork full at a time. This has been one of the most difficult concepts for these very intelligent people to comprehend. In so many cases, they are perceived as arrogant when they are just thinking differently than the average person. We have benefited greatly from the hard work and dedication of science. It's time that we recognize that for the new learning to take hold, everyone has to become respectful of the work and stop politicizing the people who are doing the work. They usually have no political agenda. I surveyed my class and only half of them voted. Some don't see the election process as important. I think that that is a shame. Everyone should vote. We would get better leaders if more people voted. So, you see, we need to become more knowledgeable to understand science and there are educated people who need to become more knowledgeable to understand their cultural interaction within the larger society. In short, everyone has to give a little and return to a respect for hard work. That includes the hard work of science.

Hi Joe. Thanks for your insights. I can concur from my own experience that scientists often are not very good at communicating clearly to the public difficult scientific principles. Even, and perhaps especially, those scientists who are considered to be the leaders in their fields and present routinely at scientific conferences. Showing slides with graphs and charts and statistics might work well with other scientists, but not so well with the public.

I think it's more than a bit sad that 1/2 your class didn't vote - voting is a right, and an obligation, of all of us no matter in what profession we work. Scientists are citizens just like everyone else, and our non-science views mirror the rest of society, from far left to far right.

I personally am all for doing a better job of educating the public regarding science. It's a tough thing to do because science can be complicated. On top of that, scientists study small subsets that can be tested and thus sometimes it appears there is contradiction when they really are just talking about different conditions. Which is why any one study is pretty much meaningless unless it is corraborated with other studies. Finally, add in those who purposely misrepresent the science for ideological reasons and the public can find it very difficult to know what is really going on.

Joe... I was fortunate enough in my unergraduate days to have had a professor whose mantra was, "If you cannot tell your peers AND your Father what you know, your knowledge is useless." From those days forward, everything I've ever written, I've written so the Old Man could understand it.

Teach 'em well, Joe. They need to learn that lesson.

Joe you are doing a good thing there with that class.

My perspective on this topic is simple: "No man is an island". On one level, scientists are paid not to formulate policy, but rather to fine tune science. On a deeper level, scientists are NOT separated from the greater society by their scientific truth seeking protocols. Scientists still have the right, and the responsibility to vote. The first amendment still applied to scientists just as much as it applies to anyone else. Scientists still possess the right to have children, and therefore have the responsibility to participate in public policy that will impact the kind of world that those children, grandchildren, and greatgrandchildren will inherit.

Consider the good things that have come from politically active scientists. Linus Pauling and the moratorium on above ground nuclear testing comes to mind. To argue that scientists have no rights in this area would be unconstitutional, unamerican, immoral, and utterly heinous.

"To argue that scientists have no rights in this area would be unconstitutional, unamerican, immoral, and utterly heinous."

But of course you would reserve that statement for ALL scientists, Right Chris? Even the ones who are skeptical of global warming?

Interesting

Many scientists would rather not communicate in public because they could be used as a whipping post for political ideologues. There is a balance between advocating the science and having your reputation damaged by false attacks. On the flip side, there are those scientists who have dropped ethical concerns and have shilled for the tobacco industry, for example, saying that smoking didn't cause cancer when the science showed that it did.

"But of course you would reserve that statement for ALL scientists, Right Chris? Even the ones who are skeptical of global warming?"

Of course, but scientists have to present the science honestly. That seems to be a problem for many skeptics.

David,
There was an excellent discussion about this by marine scientists (coral reef mostly) on NOAA's Coral-list server. I've been meaning to share this with you. There was a lengthy discussion in March with many good posts. It is worth spending the time going through it for an inside look at what marine scientists are saying to each other about their role in this and what they think of it (at least in this public format - but it is an excellent watering hole for exchanging thoughts outside of conferences).

It is heartening to see that almost all of those involved in commenting about it (they include a science journalist and a current student) agree that there is a responsibility to speak up. This topic has come up before with similar conclusions.

There is one commenter, a geologist, who falls into the the 'crank' category by temperament and tone (on past subjects as well as this one) and is essentially the only one who falls into the 'denialist' camp. He truly comes off as one who enjoys being contrary and prickly for the sake of being contrary and prickly... (sounds so familiar, doesn't it?). What is amazing is that the tone and the tiresome comments he makes are so much exactly out of the distractionist/delay palybook rather than having any actual scientific basis, it is impossible to take him seriously. Whereas true/healthy skepticism is an important part of science and scientific discussion, that is not what he has to offer. Imagine, having the opportunity to scientifically discuss the topic and resorting to silliness.... The marine scientific community at the List is rightly tired of that type of behavior.

Here is a link:
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/pipermail/coral-list/2009-March/subject.html
NOAA's Coral-List - March 2009 Subjects
Look for entries that have "climate change" or "global warming" in their subject title.
There is a lot of them, but like I said, it is worth reading over them for an inside view.

[NOAA's Coral-List is a Government-Professional service and does not tolerate shenanigans]



In regards to Chuck L.'s comment, I'd say he expresses a very good thought about this situation and one that I share. When the scientists are on the ship that is going down, they do have an increased incentive to speak up. But it still raises good questions about the role of scientist as advocates in general way in a variety of situations.

What about when there are moral/ethical/legal issues involved, even when they are not 'personally' affected (other than through their field of study/profession)?

Best,
DJE

"One positive note from the current Obama administration is that he has placed scientists in key appointee positions, jobs that too often in the past have gone to political friends whether they know anything about science or not. These scientists as risk managers are "people who are willing and able to weigh up the risks, costs and benefits of various degrees of action."

There have always been scientists as advisors to the President or to the key appointees, I don't think it has ever been about a lack of scientific input.

The discussion's I have read concerning the appointment of scientists to "key positions" is whether they have the political savvy to garner the needed support for suggested policy.

They may have the ability to speak authoritatively but can they coax and wheedle the support needed out of congress.

Since we know that President Obama's policy will contain a Carbon tax of some sort I also am glad that he has seen fit to place into key positions persons who may not be as skilled in getting the needed support.

I throw my Kudos in for Joe as well...

David,

<""But of course you would reserve that statement for ALL scientists, Right Chris? Even the ones who are skeptical of global warming?" - [Dan E.]

Of course, but scientists have to present the science honestly. That seems to be a problem for many skeptics. " - [David K.]>

... "presenting the science honestly" and in good faith ... that is exactly the crux of it!!!

DJE

"Of course, but scientists have to present the science honestly. That seems to be a problem for many skeptics."

And not for the Scientist's like yourself who support the IPCC doctrine?

From the 2008 Von Storch/Bray survey of climate scientists;

"Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice? 1 = not at all 7 = very much"

"it seems that from the sample of 367 responses 53 scientists lean towards favoring the presentation of extreme scenarios to alert the public at a level of 5 or higher."

I am assuming that these 53 could be considered supporters of the IPCCs doctrine and therefore the concern of mischaracterizing the science is not just a skeptics problem.

But then you are also a prime example yourself.

Thanks David. I'll check out the list serve discussion. These professional list serves actually are a very good way for scientists to communicate among themselves and raise issues for further debate. They often lead to research collaborations in which scientists with different hypotheses test them and see which is more descriptive of reality. They generally tend to be professional, for the obvious reason that only professionals in that field tend to be on the list serve.

I think you'll agree that within the scientific community there is healthy and professional discussion of ideas. Which is how consensus is built.

David,
Yes indeed. There is a lot of good discussion passing through professional list servers. It's a way to tap into various experience and views around the world.

Scientists are indeed people and exhibit a variety of behaviors. As long as the intent of professional discussion is built into the structure of the list it runs very well.

It is truly a thought arena and not an 'echo chamber' for 'favored thoughts' ...

Best,
DJE

"There have always been scientists as advisors to the President or to the key appointees, I don't think it has ever been about a lack of scientific input. The discussion's I have read concerning the appointment of scientists to "key positions" is whether they have the political savvy to garner the needed support for suggested policy."

Certainly you bring up two key points. The problem in recent administrations (partially real and partially perceived) is that political appointees with no science background have been picked to run science-based agencies and departments. One has only to think back to Reagan's first term to see that his choices to run the Department of the Interior and the EPA were there to effectively dismantle those two organizations. When there was public backlash Reagan had to bring back in a former EPA administrator and others to restore credibility. With Bush II, the complaint was that political appointees were making ideological revisions to key agency positions and, in effect, changing the science to support their agenda.

The issue of whether scientists in appointee positions (e.g., Secretary of Energy, EPA Administrator, etc.) have the 'political savvy' to garner the political support for a policy is more complex. One could argue that they are 1) administrators running an agency, not politicians, and 2) scientists ensuring scientific integrity, not salesmen for a particular policy. This gets into the idea that Pielke forwards in his "Honest Broker" book. A good Administrator/Secretary isn't so much pushing a particular policy option as providing input to the President and other advisors (including other Departments and Agencies), who then consider lots of other social, political and logistical issues before advocating for a particular policy.

The other side of that is, of course, would we rather have some political wheeler and dealer running our science agencies, or someone who understands the science of which their agency is responsible? It would seem that we've spent way too much time in recent years focused on the political gamesmanship and not enough on putting the science forward honestly.

"It is truly a thought arena and not an 'echo chamber' for 'favored thoughts' ..."

This is the key (in my opinion). Scientists have always embraced disparate views. Looking at issues from different viewpoints is how we learn. Many people study an issue in different ways, with different experiments, and present their work for peer-review. Those studies that are defensible slowly build our knowledge base. And eventually that knowledge base rises to the level of consensus.

Whether a scientist chooses to be an activist or not it is helpful that we know what their thinking is on these important issues.
Since they are the ones who know the science best they are the ones who can evaluate the issues and filter out the noise created by the media and propaganda producers like Al Gore.
Surveys likeThe Von Storch / Bray survey of climate scientists give us an insight into the thinking of the scientists who are closest to the issue, they understand the research and understand the limitations of the current science in evaluating the problems and solutions.

"Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice? 1 = not at all 7 = very much"

"it seems that from the sample of 367 responses 53 scientists lean towards favoring the presentation of extreme scenarios to alert the public at a level of 5 or higher."

I have already addressed this very question extensively in another thread some time ago...and demonstrated unequivocally that 1) the question itself is specious on its face, and 2) the interpretation you imparted on the results were not supported by the question or its results, even if you were to ignore it's speciousness.

As for your continued touting of the von Storch survey, perhaps you should read the comments I just left on the other thread. For example, the following quote is from von Storch himself chastising folks like yourself who have misused his data:

"On the skeptical side, the survey has often been used to create the impression that most scientists were not in support of anthropogenic causes of ongoing climate change: Specifically, it was noted that 'For example more climate scientists ‘strongly disagree’ than ‘strongly agree’ that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.' This interpretation is certainly biased."

"... "presenting the science honestly" and in good faith ... that is exactly the crux of it!!!"

Exactly.

"and demonstrated unequivocally that "

David,
You offer your opinion and that is all, you do not "demonstrated unequivocally" except in you own mind.
Dennis Bray and Hans Von Storch are very effective in defending their surveys from criticisms like yours in the links that I have posted.

And as for you characterizing my use of his data as misuse.

I have presented the data in a responsible manner, I have never characterized the data to create the impression that "most" scientists were not in support of anthropogenic climate change, as Professor Von Storch states.

Your criticism of the my posts is to mischaracterize my posts.

I have posted the data to effectively show that among the scientists who know the science the best there is no consensus that man made C02 is the cause of climate change.

I have used the Data to show the overwhelming doubt that exists among the climate scientist in the effectiveness of climate models of which the IPCC relies on so heavily to validate their predictions.

Your problem with the surveys is that they show there are any climate scientists at all who doubt the idea that climate change is anthropogenic.

"Your problem with the surveys is that they show there are any climate scientists at all who doubt the idea that climate change is anthropogenic."

Notwithstanding our disagreement on whether you mischaracterize and/or I have equivocally demonstrated, and notwithstanding that no scientist takes the survey seriously,

Survey = Opinion

Opinion = Opinion

Opinion is not science

"Evidently, something scientists know better than everyone else threatens everyone. It seems to me, therefore, that for their own lives as well as the lives of the rest of us, they MUST actively work to prevent harm... and thus become "activists.""

The trick, of course, is how do they do that? Defending the science is one thing, but advocating issues is beyond science. If a scientist is advocating a position he has to be careful not to lose sight over what the science says and does not say. As we've seen, non-scientists like to take science and twist pieces of it to support their predefined views. Scientists who advocate must ensure they don't do the same.

"Some scientists present extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts related to climate change in a popular format with the claim that it is their task to alert the public. How much do you agree with this practice? 1 = not at all 7 = very much"

Where, exactly, does this say (although it certainly intimates) that the "...extreme accounts of catastrophic impacts..." are untrue, or even exaggerations? This is the sort of double-ending survey question that results in questionable survey results.

"As we've seen, non-scientists like to take science and twist pieces of it to support their predefined views. Scientists who advocate must ensure they don't do the same."

Agreed, and they always run the risk of being accused of that if they advocate at all. Sometimes, however...

"Agreed, and they always run the risk of being accused of that if they advocate at all. Sometimes, however... "

It can be a fine line; and many scientists tell me that they don't need the hassle. Why risk damaging reputation at the whim of ideological zealots? But as you say, sometimes you have to stand up for the science.

Chuck,
As I posted to David,

Professor Von Storch and Dennis Bray handle the criticism of their survey and the questions it contains very well themselves.

"Survey = Opinion, Opinion = Opinion, Opinion is not science"

Agreed....That would of course also apply to your opinion right David?

It does not however discount the value the surveys hold in understanding the opinion of the people who know the science more thoroughly than most including most scientists.

And since your claim of consensus is based upon opinion = not science, the opinion of these scientists who know the science best, which reflects that there is not a consensus among them would suggest that any appearance of a consensus outside of their circle is not valid.

David,
The Von Storch/Bray 2008 survey questions were greatly expanded from the earlier surveys and when the responses to the 2008 survey are released it is going to shine a much greater light on the opinions of climate scientists.

As I have said, Gather is not a scientific forum. It is a forum for exchanging ideas. Which doesn't guarantee that people actually listen.

"As I have said, Gather is not a scientific forum. It is a forum for exchanging ideas. Which doesn't guarantee that people actually listen."

Scientific forum or no, a closed minded scientist is no different than any other closed minded opinionated person even if they happen to be on a scientific forum.

... "presenting the science honestly" and in good faith ... that is exactly the crux of it!!!

But who decides what is "honest" or "in good faith?"

Personally, I don't believe it is "science" to base your "conclusions" upon MODELS that have no empircal validity.

Such models will offer up wildly divergent scenarios, with only the most minor differences in the data fed into them.

This isn't science, it is faith-- faith in the belief you have made no errors whatsoever, in the data being used to produce your model based results.

"This isn't science, it is faith-- faith in the belief you have made no errors whatsoever, in the data being used to produce your model based results."

Correctamundo jJack

"Personally, I don't believe it is "science" to base your "conclusions" upon MODELS that have no empircal validity. Such models will offer up wildly divergent scenarios, with only the most minor differences in the data fed into them."

Models have limitations, no question. Which is why they are tested and compared to data and retested and validated and revalidated. However, to suggest that models result in wildly different scenarios based on minor differences in data is not accurate. Models are run off distributions of values, and rerun thousands and even millions of times. The results of all of those model runs are analyzed statistically to get the results we see.

It isn't faith, it's science. And no one believes that there are no errors. That is why the models are run so many times and why new data are fed back into them constantly to fine tune the accuracy of them.

That's why scientists have trouble communicating the science. It's pretty complicated and people tend not to trust things they don't understand.

"Models have limitations, no question"

Agreed, No Question.

Climate scientists also agree which is reflected in their lack of faith in models to predict future climactic events.

"Climate models can accurately predict climatic conditions of the future."

Strongly agree, less than 1%
Strongly disagree 15%
34% on the agree side and 46% on the disagree side.
18% middle of the road.
total survey respondents 542. (2003)

"who decides what is "honest and in good faith"?" ...
... do you mean who JUDGES what is honest and in good faith?

Honesty and good faith are not things that are 'decided' upon ... they are things that are basics in our human interactions ...

What you are trying to do is essentially at the core of the Distractionist/Delay agenda...

With that comment, you are obfuscating the basis upon which a discussion is being had...

You are acting psychologically, not discoursing scientifically or civilly...

That in fact, is the conclusion, over and over again, that is being made by those who have been involved in this discussion and have been confronted by incessant distraction and looping meaninglessness.

Your statement about models are flatly untrue...
When models are used to predict the layout of fossil fuel resources far beneath the earth, scientists, energy corporations, and capital investors seem content to agree on an acceptable "reliablity" of the models in order to proceed with their plans to search and extract those resources...

Airplanes (passenger) are being designed by computer modeling now...
Do you deny the Government to certify these flying contraptions as safe for mass transportation in this nation and around the world?...
Would you get in such a "model designed" contraption?

Models are tested with the real world for their goodness...
They are not discarded merely because they are models...

The real world is showing very clear signs of the goodness of the models...
In fact, it is showing that the models have been a bit too conservative...


Making this statement (and echoing it) shows you haven't any idea what it's all about:
""This isn't science, it is faith-- faith in the belief you have made no errors whatsoever, in the data being used to produce your model based results."
Correctamundo jJack"

The science actually includes allowances and potential levels of error...

What allowance to you give yourselves for your own possibility of error? Are you 100% sure?

I see no "open mindedness" on your parts in that matter...

I see mind-numbingly endless loops of "logic" and distraction...

Cheers,
DJE

However, to suggest that models result in wildly different scenarios based on minor differences in data is not accurate

Wrong---

What was no longer in doubt was the most important insight produced by the half-century of computer experiments. Under some circumstances a fairly small change in conditions, even something that seemed so slight as an increase of greenhouse gases, could nudge climate into a severely different state.

SOURCE

"What you are trying to do is essentially at the core of the Distractionist/Delay agenda..."

And what you are employing is the common global warmist tactic of dismiss and demean.

"I see no "open mindedness" on your parts in that matter... "your's and the global warmists open mindedness is........Where?

Of course you can see my previous post to get an idea of what the scientists who understand the science best (climate scientists) think of models.

The question is valid.

Models that search for oil deposits, and models that design aircraft, CAN BE PROVEN to be correct, or incorrect. Trial and error is employed, in the traditional scientific method. The computer models for such things can be REPRODUCED and verified.

This simply is NOT true for the climate, or climate predicting computer models.

Hence, faith is required, and science is not present.

right David E and David K.- loops of distraction from jjack and Dan E.

bottom line, the first amendment gives all of us the right to mouth off as we see fit, subject to limitations on advocating armed uprisings. But sceptics, please note that we on the climate science side of the fence are NOT arguing that you need to be stifled. We are not trying to silence you or lock you up, we are merely arguing that your case has weakened alarmingly over the past 20 years, and you need to have the honesty to admit it. If you don't want to admit it fine you have that right. Others have the right to stop listening to you, that would be fine. In fact scientists are not much listening to your arguements. Your arguments are however still resonating quite well with perhaps 20% of the american electorate, who really do not care about the science. Your 20% has the right to ignore science. You have a moral responsibility to take action in the cause of providing a liveable world to their descendants, but sure the Constitution gives you the right to be WRONG, and you are enjoying that right to the fullest apparently.

oh please Jack, 'faith is required, and science is not present'- au contraire science is very much present, and please do not accuse me, who gave up religion at age 12, of acting on faith.

Apparently when some cannot refute facts, they label other people as a "distraction," and dismiss the facts with a wave of the hand, content to wallow in their perceived superiority and cast any opinions that disagree with their own, as ignorant.

*chuckle*

Just because you don't believe in a religion, it doesn't mean you operate your life without faith. *chuckle*

Chris,
You have to be able to prove your points, and that is the biggest lacuna in the global warmists community here on Gather.

You all refuse to even try to support your case with anything but opinion and belief.

That is one of the reasons I continue to entertain myself here on David's threads I want anyone who visits to see the simple fact that I produce information and research and science and facts and the global warmist group does not
You all are the best support that the skeptics have, visitors see the feeble tactics filled fact barren arguing you global warmists do and realize that you have no case.

BTW jJack,

Great reference, have you seen Dr. Roy Spencers site?
Dr. Roy Spencer does a good job of explaining the the limitations of climate modelling

Dan, no I haven't but I'll check it out....

and uh... if you are going to argue with the AIP, well....
comic relief is all that's left, as a reason to interact with one another, eh ???

*chuckle*

jjack, can you communicate without chuckling at those who are inferior to yourself in terms of wisdom?

Dan, www.ipcc.ch.

if you visit that address, you of course will see the dreaded phrase "united nations" which will of course cause you to run away immediately.

Sorry Chris, but no--- as I said, "comic relief is all that's left, as a reason to interact with one another, eh ???

*double chuckle*

Climate Models are very much tested against real world data...
Again, you know not of what you speak...

Also, faith is not a province of religion...
It is a word used often in religious contexts... but also in others having nothing to do with religion...

Of course one must have faith in what one does to feel right about it...

Faith merely means belief...

Belief can be well founded or not well founded...

Belief are the things you accept as a "good fit" to your understanding of the world...

"Acting on good faith" has nothing to do with religion...
(I would think most adults would understand that)

The word "faith" has been corrupted by certain segments (knowingly) as accepting things without having the need to prove them, as in with religion...

It is ironic that those of overly "religious" tendencies would try confusing the meaning of the word, since they base much of their lives on "unproven" foundations.

Look up the word faith in a dictionary... It does not just mean "what is your Religion (Faith)?"

Using such a canard in a discussion about Climate Change and the role of Scientists in Advocacy is "not acting in good faith" ...

Whether you meant to create that confusion on purpose or did it unknowningly can you object to someone not really taking you seriously?

If one sees a clown... is it demeaning to call him a clown?
How does one know that one has seen a clown?

Observation...

I, personally, have faith in my powers of observation...

Cheers,
DJE

"Dan, www.ipcc.ch."

Chris,
Been there....and your point is?

If you're suggesting that there will be proof and evidence found at that website that validates your position I will remind you that the IPCC's science (based on models) failed to predict the last ten years of climate moderation and the recent temperature drop.





Dr. Roy Spencer does a good job of explaining the the limitations of climate modelling

The Von Storch / Bray survey of climate scientists shows the wide spread opinion of climate scientists that our current level of science can not accurately predict future climate.

jJack's link also explains the limitation of models

Dan,
Regarding open mindedness and assessing a percent possibility that you are in error...
I point out that accepting the findings of the Climate Scientists and IPCC work means understanding and accepting the percentage errors they have already put forth in their reports...

I have faith in the work they have done, based on my own understanding and relationship with science and review and understanding of who they are and what they have said...

As part of my own open mindedness, I find that so called "skeptics" (distractionists) are not well founded in their positions. I base this belief on reading what there is available in terms of their "support" or "citations." I have done much looking into it and considering... I do not base my belief on strictly reading your mindless looping 'logic' here and on similar blog sites.

There is healthy skepticism and then there is what you have to offer... In reading what there is out there, I find that most of it is what you have to offer... which is unfortunate...

So again, I ask... What percentage do you give to the possibility of your error? You can provide it whether it is your own assessment or someone else's ...

I await your response...
(I give a high probability that you will not supply a percentage value of your error... which means you think you are absolutely right... which .... I find highly unlikely....)

Cheers,
DJE

David E- one can get bogged down in games of epistemology. open eyes, use eyes.

Dan- it is what it is, argue if you wish. I'm busy.

Using such a canard in a discussion about Climate Change and the role of Scientists in Advocacy is "not acting in good faith" ...

I'm not entirely certain where your diatribe is directed. *chuckle*

It was Chris that equated faith to religiousity, not me. I in fact, corrected him in saying faith is not exclusively applied to religion.

It was a "canard" I didn't use. As you say, faith is a component of daily life, really.

I, personally, have faith in my powers of observation...

Yes yes, I am quite certain you do, just as "most" people would feel much the same way, wouldn't they?

Yet the fact remains, ask any "eye witness" to nearly any event, and the number of "stories" you will hear, will probably come close to matching the number of people asked.

Ironic, yes ???

In fact, most defense lawyers will tell you an "eye witness" someone that merely "observes" what has occurred, is probably the least reliable "evidence" as to what actually transpired.

Climate Models are very much tested against real world data...

Well, I didn't suggest they weren't--- HOWEVER....

Such "tests" have been done, mostly against PAST events, and not future, and for good reason. In order to "predict" the future, AND VERIFY that prediction, a goodly amount of time must pass, for such "predictions" to come to fruition.

Therefore, we have much more available data to "test" the models against KNOWN past patterns.

The simple fact is, these climate change "experts" are attempting to tell us what is going to transpire mutiple DECADES into the future, and as such, a great deal of FAITH is required to BELEIVE their conclusions/predictions.

I simply suggest, what I would have assumed to be a given. Minor variations in the data fed into computer models, will produce wildly different results.

That sounds so simple, I'm not sure how one could disagree......

So again, I ask... What percentage do you give to the possibility of your error?

uhmmmmm..... 100%

Of course I cold be incorrect-- obviously......

How does this admission further your notions ???

You said:

"Hence, faith is required, and science is not present."


Did you say this or not?

What was your intention here?

They are not mutually exclusive...

One can have faith in science....

That faith can be well founded...

You are indeed the one who raised the "unfounded belief" as the definition of faith...

Faith as "unfounded belief" is a province of religion....

Chris followed your lead...

You are playing at a psychological game...

To be devious in a discussion using psychological ploys is to not be "acting in good faith" ...

It is the province of .... con-men...

Cheers,
DJE

Dan,
Do you find it worthwhile to try to 'convince' someone who believes they are 100% correct about something? Is it worth while even discussing anything with them? I'd say, it might be worth discussing the weather with someone like that... but not in this case...

Cheers,
DJE

What was your intention here?

Merely to point out, that which is being labeled "science," really isn't *chuckle*

They are not mutually exclusive

I didn't suggest they were, I merely chided some, not to blur the distinction between the two very different things.

One can have faith in science.... That faith can be well founded...

Yes, perhaps. It can also be UNfounded, and since it IS FAITH and NOT science, such things can be differentiated.

You are indeed the one who raised the "unfounded belief" as the definition of faith...

Really ??? Please highlight my text which proves your misconception to be "true." *chuckle*

Faith as "unfounded belief" is a province of religion....

Hardly, as I've just demonstrated. We have "faith" every day, when we enter our vehicle and drive onto the public roads, that others will obey the laws and all will be safe. As you know, this faith isn't well founded, given the number of DUI arrests, the number of traffic citations issued, on and on and on and on.

Yet, there we are, each and every day, driving our cars, why ???

"Because I have to" is the common lament. "I couldn't get along without a car."

poppycock.... millions upon millions do.....

"faith" is rarely "well founded" or it wouldn't be "faith" any longer.

"Dan,
Do you find it worthwhile to try to 'convince' someone who believes they are 100% correct about something?"

David E,
If that was what I was doing then I would have to admit that it is not worthwhile.

BTW,
Can you explain the climate moderation of the last ten years despite the ever increasing output of man made C02?

Do you believe the things you write???

"Hence, faith is required, and science is not present."

You are contrasting faith and science...

You are saying faith in something other than science is required to accept the results of models...

Faith in what exactly would you be referring to? Did you leave a "blind" out as an understood unsaid word? as in blind faith is required... "faith in the belief that no errors have been made." Blind faith? Blind faith as in .... unfounded belief ... believing because you want to ... not because it is well based, as in with science...

So... you are saying you did NOT bring up the definition of faith as being "unfounded belief" ???

Really???

Best of luck to you...
Cheers,
DJE

Dan,
Can you explain why the tide goes out when a giant wave is about to crash into the shore?


Is that really the basis of your belief?

Can you truly say we are in a period of climate "moderation" ???

You are contrasting faith and science...

No I'm not, how silly. Just because YOU interpret something in a self serving manner, doesn't change my motivation. *chuckle*

You are saying faith in something other than science is required to accept the results of models...

No, I'm saying your faith in science, what you call science, computer models and such, require faith to be "believed," because there is no science available to validate your conjecture.

So... you are saying you did NOT bring up the definition of faith as being "unfounded belief" ???

Yes, that's what I am saying, I did not bring up that "canard."

So. All we need to do is get rid of the ideolouges, and the science will sort itself out?

This is nutty...

So now, when you were originally saying:
"Hence, faith is required, and science is not present."

We (or I) were to understand that you meant: "our faith in science (or rather what we call science)" when you said: "faith"

and when you said "science is not present" we (or I) were to understand that you meant "your science" and not "what we call science" ... ???

Well... you've got me there... I certainly didn't 'interpret' your motivation in that jewel of a statement...

but you must understand, just because you have your 'motivation' (real or imagined or re-assigned) doesn't mean that is what you actually write...


Do your bells jingle when you shake your head???

Cheers,
DJE

what a rube *ROFL* you've actually gotten too ridiculous, to even be amusing any longer

Indeed... untangling the strands of a con-man's web can be very ridiculous...

Cheers,
DJE

David E.,

The global warmists here on gather do not post any research to validate their own positions nor to contradict the skeptics.

I see that you are no different.

"indeed" *ROFL* how POMPOSS *ROFL*

wallow in your self perceived notions of "truth," it suits your limited intellect.

....
A touch injured... are we?

;)
Cheers,
DJE

Interesting article in today's New York Times, "Among Climate Scientists, a Dispute over Tipping Points."

As policymakers try to address the risks facing the planet from a warming climate, some experts worry that focusing on tipping points and thresholds will perpetuate paralyzing debates over specifics — and obscure the reality that decisions need to be made, even in the face of uncertainty.

“It would be far better to spend less time musing over tipping points,” said Christopher Green, an economist who studies energy and climate at McGill University.

“Whether the probability is high, medium, or low, I think the response is the same: climate cannot be stabilized without an energy technology revolution,” he said. “One way or the other, we just need to get busy.”

Global Warming Denialists - The Art of Deception

Apparently, OCD and stalking behavior also are symptomatic.

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

Hans von Storch - Testimony to Congress.

See all the other articles. Every single one of these contrarian points have been addressed multiple times, and yet apparently there is a belief that if you ignore everyone and just keep repeating the same gibberish it somehow magically changes from gibberish to science.

The goal now has become to pollute my science articles with drivel in an attempt to bore away real commenters.

See: Repetition

See: Stalking behavior

"As policymakers try to address the risks facing the planet from a warming climate, some experts worry that focusing on tipping points and thresholds will perpetuate paralyzing debates over specifics — and obscure the reality that decisions need to be made, even in the face of uncertainty."

This is why many scientists "don't want the hassle" of having to deal with those whose job is obfuscation rather than futhering the science.

Davie boy, are you trying to confess to being a stalker ??? *chuckle*

Who the hell is "Hans" and why should I care what he has to say ??? Talk about "obfuscation."

and hey, did I get my "David" (s) mixed up, just above, a few posts ???

INDEED *ROFL* oooooooooooops

David,
Hans Von Storch is apparently a scientist committed to the facts and he is not threatened by the fact that other climate scientists believe that global warming is NOT anthropogenic.

Despite his position on climate change being anthropogenic he defends his survey from the undeserved criticisms of the radical global warmists.

Dorothy,

"So. All we need to do is get rid of the ideolouges, and the science will sort itself out?"

The science is sorting itself out now. What we are doing here has nothing to do with the science itself. We are commenting on it and discussing it (when we can). We are not even conducting peer reviews of the science.

What we are doing is discussing what the nation as a people are thinking (will think) about and want to do with the science as a nation.

That's why the inclusion of scientists themselves in this discussion is important. And from what the marine scientists at NOAA's Coral List are saying, they think so too.

It is very difficult when there are those with more energy available to direct at annoyance and distraction than to pay attention and to discuss valid points. But they, scientists, are in fact catching on to the "public speaking" thing.

Best,
DJE

"Who the hell is "Hans" and why should I care what he has to say ??? Talk about "obfuscation."" (jjack)

You really shouldn't care what Hans has to say.

"Who the hell is "Hans""

jJack,

That was directed at me.

The logic of the global warmists is interesting, David is not the first to imply that the position of "Hans" some how discounts results of the same survey that he developed and circulated. (see my links above)

"That's why the inclusion of scientists themselves in this discussion is important. And from what the marine scientists at NOAA's Coral List are saying, they think so too."

This is also my feeling. Scientists cannot allow non-scientists to intentionally distort and misrepresent the science. We saw that with the smoking lobby and we have been seeing it with the "free-market" lobby.

Luckily, science is based on evidence, so eventually it holds sway on public opinion as the anti-science houses of cards fall down. But why waste so much time letting others define an alternative reality?

"It is very difficult when there are those with more energy available to direct at annoyance and distraction than to pay attention and to discuss valid points."

Valid points?
You mean like how it is that the IPCC's models predicted X amount of warming by now due to the increase of C02 in the atmosphere from man made C02 and it has not happened?

I think you meant to say inconvenient points you would rather avoid.

~Thanks for sharing with WFYB!~

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!

You guys are STILL at it?

David and David- I personally think that Prima Donna had a point there with her argument that focusing on a tipping point is ultimately silly. How indeed do we know that we have not passed a tipping point already? Answer: we don't know that.

But even if we have passed a tipping point and every bit of ice on Greenland and Antarctica will melt in a century or two, it does not change the fact that the only constructive way to deal with climate change is to stop making it worse, as soon as possible.

"But even if we have passed a tipping point and every bit of ice on Greenland and Antarctica will melt in a century or two, it does not change the fact that the only constructive way to deal with climate change is to stop making it worse, as soon as possible."

I agree.

Wow,
Sad to watch a good discussion disintegrate in to . . . .

Joe had excellent comments, I wanted to add, that some Scientists, who do communicate fabulously with the general sometimes blounder badly anyway. Carl Sagan and when after acheiving grand popularity, slipped and dissed the religious.

Shockley won a Nobel Prize, then dismayed us with his racist beliefs.

And so on.

I don't hold it against the scientists for not being skilled at communicating to the unschooled,
but it is lovely when one is eloquent and willing to take a public stand.
(unless I disagree with him of course)

Chris, I see the sense in that.

It's possible that there are any number of tipping points as well. It's like dropping handfuls of hay onto a camel and trying to figure out which straw broke the camels back. When actually it's a matter of the camel's ability keep itself together (the camel being the stable state of the current climatic system). We know it's going to break at some point at this rate.

But acknowledging the existence of tipping points brings the reality home in a more immediate sense... The only way it seems that people get motivated enough to act.

David: "So the organizers of the Copenhagen conference hoped that they can encourage scientists to take a more active role and speak not as scientists but as concerned citizens."

Not only do I believe that it should be possible to speak both as scientist and as concerned citizen, I in fact believe it's imperative to do so. Note that there are two issues here:

1. There's the issue of manipulation of science by politicians, where politicians demand that scientists support their specific political views. That is obviously bad and should be strongly rejected by scientists as by everyone else. Sadly, few scientists seem to bother about this, there's little or no research into the extent of how science is being manipulated by politicians.

2. Secondly, there's the issue of scientists engaging in politics. Note that the above point has given scientists in general such a bad name and disadvantage that it's hard if not impossible for a scientist to be successful as a politician. Give a silly-looking guy a labcoat, spectacles and a headband with light, and make him shout weird noises in front of test-tubes and beakers, and you've got the cliche scientist that seeks to destroy the world. This sad stereotype makes that politicians don't feel challenged by scientists, instead, politicians feel more challenged by taxi drivers and car sellers. In other words, politicians complaining about statements by scientists should be regarded as highly suspicious.

What's extremely sad is that so few scientists are engaging in research of the comparative effectiveness of the various policy instruments, precisely because too many politicians seek to suppress this specific area of science and seek to silence scientists who do this type of research. The very reason why there's so little research into this is that politicians fear that scientific research into their politicians statements would expose these politicians as deceptive charlatans. Thus, this constitutes political manipulation of science by politicians, rather than scientists engaging in politics.

There should not be separation between scientists and concerned citizens. I have long advocated a pledge for scientists similar to the Hippocratic Oath in medicine, urging scientists to speak out when they come across research findings that are important for the public to hear about. Such a pledge can prevent the military, large corporations and other organizations from making scientists sign contracts that would force scientists into secrecy.

Opponents of such a pledge often argue that there should be no intervention by politicians in science, as if such a pledge constituted manipulation of science by politicians. But as we all know, most scientists work in education, health care and in the military, three areas that receive huge amounts of funding by government. The suggestion that government wasn't currently exercising control over these areas (and by default over science) is ludicrous. It is a deliberate political decision to fund specific medical research, in preference of research into the effectiveness of, say, cap-and-trade versus other policies. At Google's Epistemology group alone, which gets well over 10,000 views weekly, I've posted about a thousand messages, many of them on this topic. It's much like the global warming deniers, who seek to drown a simple and straightforward conclusion by surrounding it with numerous nonsense messages.

Mind you, I do see a case for intervention by politics into science, such as in situations where there is genuine risk of public safety, e.g. in cases of experimentation with nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass murder. But rather than proposing to censor scientists and supervise their research, I'm convinced that more openness is the key. More openness will lead to the global commitment we need to stop producing such weapons. Openness will lead to further openness, allowing the press to verify what's going on in laboratories and to expose those who seek to impose their will upon society by resorting to terror and the threat of mass murder.

We're now at a stage where we shouldn't need further awareness raising. We shouldn't need to be convinced by further research that there's something to be concerned about. Now is the time to decide what is the best plan of action. We should demand more scientific research, but what is most desperately needed now is research and discussion into what constitute the most effective policies. As you know, I believe that FeeBates are most effective in many cases and I would welcome more research and discussion into the issue. Stop giving the global warming deniers further credibility by responding to their nonsense. Let's focus on the task at hand!

I find it to be amazing that so many ' scientists ' somehow manage to break away from their busy professional schedules long enough to post comments on a social networking site such as Gather.

Something tells me that if these ' scientists ' were posting comments on an article about the economy, then they would be suddenly become ' economists ' ..or if they were posting comments on a political thread, then they would suddenly become ' former political advisers for a former U.S. President' ..and most likely under an alter ego.

For anyone reading these posts, there is no way in hades that any of these posters can prove that they are ' scientists ' online. No freaking way.

Thank you for your very insightful comments Sam.

"Let's focus on the task at hand!"

Agreed.

"Carl Sagan and when after achieving grand popularity, slipped and dissed the religious."

Of course, that is the rub. Quite often people who have exercised their minds in the scientific realm have views that don't align with the perceived majority view. I remember when he made those remarks. Of course, I agreed with Carl Sagan. He could have expressed his thoughts in a way that might have kept the dignity of the religious intact. Scientists communicate superbly in what I jokingly call their "native habitat." They often don't recognize when they are speaking to people with a very different perspective on life.

We haven't even established a "task" is at hand, and people want to "do" something about it, even though they have no idea what should be done.

*chuckle*

Very amusing stuff.....

Honest fact about the reality we all are part of.

I was outside of my own head when my head then was broken after
a traffic crash, then 6 cracks in my head made blood leak in to my brain.

I am all-free informing about this fact to as many I feel I correct can inform about this honest fact about the reality, and my web site always also inform honest fact about my own good part of life.

My name is: Stefan.Lennart. Hedbom

Because my nickname is: Dennis, is why I have my own web-site at: http://www.dennisinthereality.nu/

So my e-mail is just: info@dennisinthereality.nu

"As you know, I believe that FeeBates are most effective in many cases and I would welcome more research and discussion into the issue."

Yes, a more contructive focus on solutions is a better use of all our time.

Amen, David.

sing it to the choir brother *ROFL*

Thanks for the support, David.

Obama has just announced a Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, with the group's first meeting set in Washington in April, followed by a summit in Italy in July. Obama has invited the leaders of 16 major economies, as well as the secretary general of the United Nations, to participate in the forum.

As the Washington Post reports, the White House said in a statement that the forum was designed to help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the U.N. climate change negotiations to take place in Copenhagen in December, as well as explore concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Now is the time to discuss what the most appropriate and effective policies are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gases that we are aiming to achieve. A further issue that should be discussed is geoengineering. We have only a short window of time left to have these discussions, before politicians will take things behind the doors of the negotiations in Copenhagen later this year.

Politicians who have taken positions should explain why they have done so. All proposed policies should be on the table now, to be openly discussed and assessed for their merits. We need more of the openness that is so characteristic for scientists who are engaged in research and who welcome anyone who can point out something new or something that may be lacking in their work. We need less of the secret deals and second agendas that have so often characterized climate change politics in the past. I'm convinced that Obama is sincere about change and Obama should get the best advice from all the scientists who can help him, particularly in this area of policy development.

Sam,
Can you explain the last ten years of temperature moderation despite the millions of tons of C02 added daily to the atmosphere by we humans every day?

David, I see you are still living in a dream world of completely objective scientists coldly observing the data and reaching objective conclusions. Your visions of these rational machines coldly analyzing only the facts in their analyses assumes they are inhuman.

I can assure you they are not.

I have met a few of them as they attacked people for their religious beliefs at a leading technical university because of a disagreement over the theory of evolution. I have heard professors at this same university accuse others of "hating the earth" because of their views on the theory of global warming.

The truth is that most scientists are very human. Most make a real effort to keep the biases they recognize from influencing their work but some do not. And none of us are capable of recognizing all of our biases all of the time.

And then there is the corrupting influence of grant funding ... but, that is a subject for another time.

Randy- it is too much to expect for scientists to become "inhuman" computers with bodies. Perhaps we should not wish that. After all, in order to take climate change seriously you do need to make one assumption: that human survival matters. On that basis, it is okay for scientists to have emotions.
On a strictly objective, computers-with-bodies basis, we could conclude that human survival really does not matter. I'll accept a bit of subjectivity on this topic, as long as it is not out of control.

and what if they are "wrong"? the costs are massive and the evidence is not enough by any means to convince even most climate scientists.

the two groups convinced are the media and government bureaucrats and that should be scary enough to cause many people to think twice...

"I have met a few of them as they attacked people for their religious beliefs at a leading technical university because of a disagreement over the theory of evolution. I have heard professors at this same university accuse others of "hating the earth" because of their views on the theory of global warming."

But these two examples appear to be scientists making it clear that religion is not science. How else could you interpret it?

Here is a question:

Should the economists and financial cats who knew and saw what was going on with our economy and knew the implication and possible consequences of what was going on (i.e., building a house of cards out beyond the precipice), should they have more actively spoken up and help people understand the dangerous things certain sectors of our society were doing?

Did they have a responsibility to speak up? Should they have been keeping an eye on the tipping points?

Of course, part of what was going on in that whole mess (this whole mess) was the playing down of the risks to the public and playing up the frenzy of investment as part of grease to keep the whole mad machine going...

But wasn't there some obligation, morally, ethically, self-preservationistically ... to more vocally talk about the impending dangers and implications.... to get discussion going about what to do... which direction we should go in...

hmmmm....

If Scientists were to make policy, the would loose objectivity and credibility.

Poliwponk...
I think the distinction is: scientists advising on policy... not making policy...

"I think the distinction is: scientists advising on policy... not making policy..."

Agreed, that is an important distinction.

But what of the appointment of scientists as heads of science-based agencies (e.g., perhaps, Chu at Energy or Lubchenco at NOAA)? Are they then scientists or policy-makers? Or both? Does it matter?

"If Scientists were to make policy, the would loose objectivity and credibility."

While this is possible, I don't necessarily think it is a given. Don't you need objectivity and credibility to make good policy? Not every policy is ideologically driven.

Heads of science based agencies... That is a good question...

They are not actively working on projects as scientists... They are working as managers, right?

They are using their inside knowledge of the science and the process of scientific work (and network communities of scientists -- i.e., connections) to aid in management of an organization...

The problem there is having management skill... It doesn't always translate... (I know from personal experience!)

I would say objectivity (if not credibility, unfortunately) is more often compromised by financial mindsets and 'temptations' ...

Should heads of big banks be appointed to top positions in government?

Greenspan himself was overtaken by his "preferred view of the world" rather than reality (by his own words of admission to congress)...

If any of you skeptics need ammunition in your battel against the global warmists I've posted a directory of skeptics resources.

Skeptics resource directory

"Heads of science based agencies... That is a good question...They are not actively working on projects as scientists... They are working as managers, right?"

Which actually makes me think - they are managers, not necessarily policy-makers. Certainly their scientific insights help keep the focus on science-based decision-making, but besides their managerial role over their agencies, they really are only advisors to those who actually make policy - which are Presidents and Congress.

Does that sound right?

Based on your readership, Dan, it appears no one cares about global warming articles. This thread is about scientists as political activists.

*chuckle*

I was thinking the same thing...
There might be some institutional policy set by heads of agencies, but the primary driving policy is set by the president and congress

I would think that the Department Heads and the Agency Heads spend more time managing the bureaucracies of their organizations than setting policy. But at the same time I would think that all of the cabinet, the agency heads, and the key advisors are always talking about various needs and options (at least I hope they are all talking to each other).

12 views so far David,
That's twelve more people who are arming themselves against the empty rhetoric of you global warmists.

Actually, it isn't. But it's not surprising that you tell yourself that.

Actually it is David,

14 now! *chuckle* (thanks jJack)

But it's not suprising that you deny it. Remember it's only your opinion nothing more.

Following is an excerpt from the Coral List I mentioned above. It is from a Science Journalist. It exemplifies the challenges that scientists are up against when they speak. He is talking about a presentation he gave, with an 'opponent' presenting the "skeptics" positions. It was given to an entrepreneur's club of 30-50 year old folks.

Part of his difficulty likely came from the mindset of the audience and their background.

It is also becoming clear (has been clear) that it is not really an appropriate "face off" situation. Apples are not presenting their flavor to be compared with other apples... rather, the properties of apples are being presented against those of oranges...

The "opposition" is not using the tenets and the understanding of science in its presentation. That is: The science being presented is not being challenged on the basis of the science with scientific skepticism.

The science is being put up for consideration against social ideas and propositions (the science is challenged on psychological and social grounds).

(e.g., "climate models are not 'real science'" or "scientists are doing it for the funding")

Psychological and social behavior is older and more 'hard wired' in humans than is scientific behavior and decisions are more quickly based on them. Of course, sensory and survival behavior is more deeply rooted than the others and usually overrides them in the end.

The appropriate face off would be a scientific presentation challenged by the appropriate scientific grounds, similar to a peer review process... But the problem with that is that there are no (major) credible scientific challenges to present... But it would still be helpful for the public to see that process. But since the "opposition" wants to be heard and 'win', they do not use scientific means to challenge the scientists position... they use psychological and social challenges instead...

Speaking scientifically and being confronted with psychological and social attacks indeed scrambles, confuses, and frustrates scientists...

They are used to having conversations based on good faith and mutual desire to understand and resolve the topic, even when they disagree...

Childish tactics are pervasive among "skeptics"...
But scientists are speaking up more and more and being heard...

here is the excerpt:
They still seemed to think that there was legitimate scientific debate about the role of humans in our present climate change, and that it all came down to whom you chose
to believe and where your political leanings were.

Of course, it does not, as all of you know. Science magazines will no longer even entertain queries about skeptical arguments, and with good justification. Even though I presented IPCC graphs and other well-honed, peer-reviewed conclusions that showed that climate models back-predicted the 20th century and that you cannot explain the last few decades of climate without manmade factors, my opponent would, just a minute later, continue to insist that climate models were all garbage and based on illegitimate science and throw up a graph from Co2science.org or some other non-peer reviewed site of questionable funding and act like this countered 25 years of thoroughly argued, thoroughly documented science.

And these smart entrepreneurs left our 2-hr talk thinking that it all seemed to come down to your “religious” beliefs and there was something to be said for both sides....

see the whole thing at:
http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/pipermail/coral-list/2009-March/038641.html

"But it's not suprising that you deny it. Remember it's only your opinion nothing more."

Actually, it's not "only my opinion nothing more," which anyone who thinks could tell you without, well, thinking.

Here's your statement: "That's twelve more people who are arming themselves against the empty rhetoric of you global warmists." [We'll add in the two new ones for 14]

1) 14 views means someone viewed your link 14 times. How many times have you viewed your own link? Well, deduct those from the 14.

2) Now how many of those that aren't you are jjack and others who already have formed their opinion and have seen your same half dozen points a million times? Clearly any of these will stay unarmed.

3) Now, how many are people who clicked over from your link on my article (now that you finally learned how to do a hot link), then saw the gibberish and went away.

4) Now, how many are people who clicked over just to see whether you could say anything new?

5) Now, based on that calculus, what support do you have for "That's twelve more people who are arming themselves against the empty rhetoric of you global warmists" given that only you think that science is "empty rhetoric" while blogs are real?

Yes, thanks jjack *chuckle*

David Evans - Thank you for reminding me what intelligent discourse is all about.

How many people will pass those links on to others?

But what the heck does that have to do activist scientists?

You get a big ego boost when you think you've proven somone else wrong don't you David. LOL!

David, It's unfortunate that it should be difficult to be free of un-intelligent discourse...
It's a shame that we shouldn't just expect intelligent discourse (respectful at the least)
I appreciate your posts...

I think that the counter does not count the person who posted it (or maybe just once) and it only counts people who visit it just once (at least within a given period of time).
Still, the number of people who "blah blah blah (what ever it was that he claimed)" is likely non existent... Just my thoughts on that...

David - The counters do have limits (so you can't count yourself a million times), but they do count yourself. Either way, it's irrelevant, as is that ongoing waste of my time.

I appreciate your input as well, and I'll try to improve my articles to warrant your continued involvement.

Speaking scientifically and being confronted with psychological and social attacks indeed scrambles, confuses, and frustrates scientists...

They are used to having conversations based on good faith and mutual desire to understand and resolve the topic, even when they disagree...

Childish tactics are pervasive among "skeptics"...
But scientists are speaking up more and more and being heard...

(all above from David Evans comment)

Yes, it is a difficult situation when one side is used to discussions based on the merits of supportable positions but is faced with an opposing side tossing out falsehood and irrationality as if it was meaningful. This is one of the reasons scientists like scientific conferences. They can have intelligent discussions (some quite heated) and then go have a beer together afterward. They each know they are putting good faith arguments into the discussion. But real life doesn't play by the same professional rules.

David - I read the Coral List article. Fascinating. In fact, I liked it so much I've hot linked it

Speaking of confusion over global warming

"They [scientists] are used to having conversations based on good faith and mutual desire to understand and resolve the topic, even when they disagree..."

The above quote from the comments cannot be overstated. Scientists are not accustomed to ridiculous discussions of right and wrong. For many scientists, their conversations revolve around observations and professional data compilation. It is the rare scientist who has an opinion on anything. They are part of a subculture that doesn't have much room for nonsense. We are all part and parcel of various subcultures in life. Our family of origin is a subculture. The families we create are a subculture. Our work environment is another subculture. I find that I often have to remind myself that there is more to life than the world of education. Scientists are no different. The person who devotes himself to religious studies is part of a subculture. There are political ideologues that run throughout these various subcultures, to be sure. For most people, the natural thing to do is stay with what becomes familiar. Scientists are often not familiar with the "voodoo" activities of people within various religious subcultures. So, when it appears that a scientist is against religion to you, it just might be that they are not accustomed to your form of ideology. It's important to remember that no one can be judged unless you have walked a mile in their shoes.

Global warming is fast becoming the result of observation and experimentation. It is not a belief system. It is the result of hard work. I find it amazing that there are so many dismissive people who don't respect hard work in this country. It is one of the changes in our cultural environment that I don't like. There was a time when a person might have disagreed, but always respected the effort and energy that went into the work of science. It's not the same as criticizing someone who attempts to intimidate you with their notion of what "God" wants. Criticizing someone who has produced results is lunacy. Facts tend to hold up to time regardless of those who have an agenda to promote.

yes, Joe, facts become known and accepted. But it takes time, and the scientists on the cutting edge tend to be laughed until after they are dead. In 1600, Galileo was put under house arrest for picking on a religious hierarchy that insisted that the sun orbits the Earth. I imagine Dan and Jack, had they been living at the time, sneering at the notion that the Earth could actually orbit the Sun, *chuckle*, LOL. Take a survey of theologians and barber surgeons, they are all going to rant that Galileo is a crazy man who needs to be locked up, right? Of course, because none of them has ever picked up a telescope. And don't get me started about the guy who insisted that physicians were actually responsible for most of the deaths of mothers in the 1700s. The women who avoided having their baby in the hospital were the women who survived, because the doctors would examine sick women and then attend a childbirth with unwashed, infected hands. They exiled that guy from the practice of medicine, but he was proven right, after hundreds of thousands of women were dead.

Some things don't change. The notion that humans are driving climate change by emitting vast quantities of CO2 and methane is a recent idea, only around 30 years old. Provincial people can't accept it yet, sadly. While quite logical, and well supported by data, it bothers their world view and so they reject it. Seven billion humans have the ability to affect weather patterns? Absurd, LOL, *chuckle*.

I like the Galileo analogy, Chris. The Roman Catholic Church only recently admitted that they were wrong. (They are a little slow when it comes to dealing with facts.)

Thank you so much Joe and Chris for your insights. Joe, I especially like how you described the thought basis of scientists.

"Still, the number of people who "blah blah blah (what ever it was that he claimed)" is likely non existent... Just my thoughts on that..."

Well David E,

If it's O.K for you to "blah blah blah" Why can't everyone? Are you 'special'?

"In 1600, Galileo was put under house arrest for picking on a religious hierarchy that insisted that the sun orbits the Earth. I imagine Dan and Jack, had they been living at the time, sneering at the notion that the Earth could actually orbit the Sun, *chuckle*, LOL."

Actually Chris the Galileo anology is better suited to reflect the skeptics position of being in the minority, of having a greater concern for finding the truth rather than following the popular dogma of the IPCC doctrine.

You yourself claim the discussion is over, the question is answered, David K. has not gone quiet so far in making that same claim but I think we can tell by his comments his opinion is not that removed from your own.
Your thinking is not reflective of the 'uncovering of the truth' thinking of Galileo, it is more reflective of the same thinking that got Galileo placed on house arrest.

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
Galileo Galilei

Galileo's thinking on "the consensus".

Thanks Chris,

Galileo is such an inspiration to the skeptics, His example shows us that we must persevere, to continue the search for the truth despite those who would accept corrupted science for expediency sake.

The Galileo example is, not surprisingly, misconstrued by many to support their positions when it, in fact, ridicules it. Galileo was saying that "the authority of the thousand" (i.e., the Pope and the reigning theocratic domination of thought at the time) did not discount the "reasoning of a single individual" (i.e., the rational and reasoned thought of an individual who through intelligent observation and testing provided scientific evidence of phenomena).

As such, Chris' use of the Galileo analogy is the more accurate by far. Galileo's meaning is, of course, quite clear. He was railing against the inhibition of scientific pursuit by the institution most threatened by rational thought, in this case the Holy See. The Pope and the theocratic/despotic governing forces at the time did not want science to demonstrate that the Pope's views were incorrect, since that would adversely diminish the power they held over the populace (or at least, this was their concern). In short, heliocentrism was a threat to the geocentric view of the universe, which in turn threatened the basic theological principle of "man is special." In the 1600s there was hell to pay for doing anything that might dispute the literal reading of the scriptures (pun intended).

Thus, it's not surprising that the church castigated Galileo, forced him to recant a scientific principle that is so obvious today, and kept him under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

Science can be very threatening to reactionaries.

"As such, Chris' use of the Galileo analogy is the more accurate by far."

Actually it is not David,

The belief in the theory of man made climate change today is much more reflective of the ideals of the religious of the day who incarcerated Galileo.

The continued ridicule and personal attacks that skeptics have to endure even here in these threads is evident of that type of thinking, the lack of science and research in responding to the skeptics science, the attempts to reason away the science to dismiss and demean the skeptics and research that shows the IPCC's doctrine to be lacking with out offering any contradicting research, your claim that the IPCC has taken it all into account is much more reflective of the incarcerators of Galileo than of Galileo himself.