OT - How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus -- The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know
Joseph Gwinn
paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
action against the EPA.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603724
4.html>
The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
print issue.)
Joe Gwinn
co_f...@yahoo.com
The WSJ reports that article is no longer availble.
Paul
John Martin
Try again.
John Martin
Bill McKee
"pdr...@coinet.com" <co_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5df544b-a900-43bb...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
Paul
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html
You have to watch the link wrap.
co_f...@yahoo.com
> "pdr...@coinet.com" <co_far...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> You have to watch the link wrap.
Yup. caught by the link wrap again!!!!
Paul
Larry Jaques
<joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
Excellent article, Joe.
--
This episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards,
at least in highly political areas such as global warming. Still,
it's remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now
spread. After years of ignored freedom-of-information requests and
stonewalling, all it took was disclosure to change the debate. Even
the most influential scientists must prove their case in the court
of public opinion�a court that, thanks to the Web, is one where
eventually all views get a hearing. --Gordon Crovitz, WSJ 12/9/09
Buerste
"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
> <joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>
>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
>>action against the EPA.
>>
>><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603724
>>4.html>
>>
>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
>>print issue.)
>
> Excellent article, Joe.
>
> --
The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
Wes
I wonder if we will ever learn who we owe a debt of gratitude for obtaining and turning
loose those emails.
Wes
Ed Huntress
"Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
That's not the WSJ. That's an op-ed written by a guy who claims to have been
the "state climatologist" of Virginia, but of whom Virginia says there's no
such thing. The Global Climate Coalition, a carbon-producing industry front
group, pulled back from supporting his claims because their internal review
said that the data doesn't support what he said. That review was obtained
through a court order. In one paper he co-authored, he "proved" that global
warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians. <g>
Before you get too excited, you might want to know more about Pat Michaels.
He's a long-time skeptic, and apparently an honest one, but he's also a
lonely voice. He actually agrees with the projections on human-induced
global warming but he says it will be at the lowest end of the estimates. I
checked his claim about the editorial board and it's apparently misleading;
I have more checking to do.
Anyway, you might want to know who's behind him. Here's a partial list of
the people funding his work, either directly for the "research" or by paying
him to speak:
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
The Western Fuels Association
North Carolina Coal Institute
Pacific Research Institute (an industry front)
Kentucky Coal Operators Association
AMAX Energy Corporation
Consolidation Coal Corporation
Cincinnati Gas and Electric
The National Aerosol Association
Massie Coal Corporation
Indiana Coal Mining Institute
Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
Virginia Petroleum Council
Alabama Electric Power Cooperative
World Coal Conference
American Mining Congress
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
The point is, Michaels is deeply dependent upon industry funding to support
him. That doesn't automatically mean that he's a shill, but if he isn't,
it's smart to be wary about the things he says.
Of course, you know all about this stuff and have the science down pat, so
you know who's right and who's not. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
> news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
> >
> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> > news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
> >> <joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
> >>
> >>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
> >>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
> >>>action against the EPA.
> >>>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html>
> >>>
> >>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
> >>>print issue.)
> >>
> >> Excellent article, Joe.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
No Tom, they do read, but then only fume. But the WSJ is not expecting
to convince the people at Copenhagen.
You forgot to mention that many (most?) of the studies Michaels
mentioned were funded by the American Petroleum Institute as well. This
was acknowledged in the articles, and is no secret.
However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument. It is also self
defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
if history is any guide.
A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
Joe Gwinn
Ed Huntress
"Joseph Gwinn" <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-7B8818...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <4b2cf6af$0$4981$607e...@cv.net>,
> "Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com> wrote in message
>> news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3....@newsfe13.iad...
>> >
>> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
>> >> <joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>> >>
>> >>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
>> >>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
>> >>>action against the EPA.
>> >>>
>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html>
>> >>>
>> >>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18
>> >>>December
>> >>>print issue.)
>> >>
>> >> Excellent article, Joe.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> > The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
>
> No Tom, they do read, but then only fume. But the WSJ is not expecting
> to convince the people at Copenhagen.
The WSJ is not trying to "convince" anyone with their opinion pieces and
op-eds. Their purpose is to give voice to various opinions and to provoke
thought. That is, good ones are. The WSJ often just tries to be provocative
in those pages. That's their legacy from being regarded as a paper too dull
for mass audiences. You can trace it back to the 1950s, if you've worked in
journalism.
It's hardly a secret. I was suggesting that the entire force behind Michaels
is so uniform in its financial interest that you should be skeptical about
what he writes. That's the flip side of the skeptics' argument about the
funding for academic research that they claim leads to uniformity on the
global warming issue. It cuts both ways.
The fact is that Tom is just blowing smoke, which is what he does about half
the time. He has no idea about how "stupid" people are who don't read the
WSJ. I'm reasonably sure that he doesn't have a clue about the science. It
isn't a matter of who is stupid. It's a matter of who is so overconfident
and full of himself that he thinks he knows enough about global warming to
have an opinion worth the powder to blow it to hell. That's Tom, and Larry,
and the rest of the climatology four-flushers -- as well as many, but not
all, of those who support AGW.
>
> However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
> close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.
No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a controversial
opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither does
99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words, to
see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests who
have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It does
make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.
> It is also self
> defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
> all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
If you believe that, you can believe anything. Your only guidance would be
your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems to
be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
understands the science.
>
> And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
> that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
> entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
> disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and since
all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's your
guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
climatologists?
Don't claim I'm supporting either side. I do not understand enough of the
science to have an opinion. What *I* have to go on is the historical success
of majority views among scientists. That's not enough to form a "belief." It
is enough to place one's bets on red or black, if the wheel is being spun
and you have to make a choice. If you do it enough times you'll come out
ahead.
>
>
> I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
> if history is any guide.
Maybe. I certainly hope so.
>
> A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
> science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
> thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
> these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
>
> Joe Gwinn
I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Buerste
I like the term "Standard scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment"! The
libtards will say or do anything to avoid scrutiny. I call it
"Anti-Science". Unfortunately, the Scientific Method is being redefined by
those that will most benefit and who are politically aligned with them like
blind sheep. Look at the crap excuses they come up with after the plot was
found out. Every real scientist I know in every field feels shame.
Wes
>I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
>at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
>scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
>if history is any guide.
I still can't believe that responsible scientists would destroy the original data.
For a hypothesis to be 'proved', independent researchers have to be able to recreate the
experiment and come up with the same results. Full disclosure is the only way to conduct
research. How can one find errors in a hypothesis unless one has access to the same
information as the original researcher?
I'm getting the idea that 'peer' review in the case of climate is nothing but slick
marketing of a political agenda.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
Umm. The WST is the largest circulation paper in the country:
<http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1004030296>
It's also well known that Al Gore stands to make lots of money on Global
Warming. There has been lots of ink spilled decrying this, but I don't
buy the theory that Al is doing it only for the money. More likely, Al
*believes*, and is placing his bets accordingly.
> > However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
> > close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.
>
> No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a controversial
> opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither does
> 99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words, to
> see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
> cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests who
> have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It does
> make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
> reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.
When one attacks the person, not the theory, it *is* ad hominem, by
definition.
Saying that their funding is evil so their conclusions must be incorrect
is also a non sequitur.
And almost everybody is funded by something or someone.
> > It is also self
> > defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
> > all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
>
> If you believe that, you can believe anything.
Heh. Ad hominem, now directed closer to home. Is there a pattern here?
> Your only guidance would be
> your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems to
> be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
> it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
> understands the science.
Given that we are all biased this way or that, or rather that everybody
is biased except me and thee, the only durable solution has been to get
all the theories and analyses and arguments out on the table and give
them all The Treatment. What survives scathing review by opponents is
what the next generation of theories will be made from, the rest having
been refuted and discarded.
The story of Newton and the achromatic lens is instructive. Newton
convinced himself that achromatic lenses were impossible, and stopped
progress for a generation Newton was by far the most respected
scientist of his age, so he could do this with a word. I also recall
reading that he destroyed the career of at least one person who
disagreed with him, but I don't have the cite at hand yet. But Newton
was wrong, as we now know. For some of the history see
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens>.
> > And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
> > that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
> > entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
> > disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
>
> So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and since
> all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's your
> guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
> climatologists?
I believe in flat-wire brushes wielded in gladiatorial combat.
But my motives are suspect - I'm really trying to increase sales in the
dantean northern brush factory.
> Don't claim I'm supporting either side. I do not understand enough of the
> science to have an opinion. What *I* have to go on is the historical success
> of majority views among scientists. That's not enough to form a "belief." It
> is enough to place one's bets on red or black, if the wheel is being spun
> and you have to make a choice. If you do it enough times you'll come out
> ahead.
The crime of Climategate is not that they believed or that they placed
their bets accordingly, it's that they tried and to a great extent
succeeded in corrupting the process by which science finds the truth,
and that they destroyed the careers of those who believed otherwise.
> > I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> > at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> > scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
> > if history is any guide.
>
> Maybe. I certainly hope so.
Now that CRU's ability to control events is ended, nature should take
its course.
> > A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
> > science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
> > thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
> > these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
> >
> > Joe Gwinn
>
> I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
> politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
> constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
> the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
> most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)
I think the key is that politicians representing states and districts
where the backbone of the local economy is heavy industry of some kind
now have the ammunition to slow or stop the rush to carbon restriction.
Before Climategate, it was a close thing, so it takes only a few votes
changing to opposition to stop all motion.
Joe Gwinn
Joseph Gwinn
Wes <clu...@lycos.com> wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> >at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> >scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
> >if history is any guide.
>
> I still can't believe that responsible scientists would destroy the original
> data.
CRU's rationale does seem a bit thin. The standard response is to
discard all analyses based upon missing and thus unexaminable data.
> For a hypothesis to be 'proved', independent researchers have to be able to recreate the
> experiment and come up with the same results.
In climate research, it's pretty hard to "rerun the experiment" (that
is, repeat the weather and climate). although one can often repeat the
measurements of the surviving physical evidence.
> Full disclosure is the only way to conduct
> research. How can one find errors in a hypothesis unless one has access to
> the same information as the original researcher?
This is the key.
> I'm getting the idea that 'peer' review in the case of climate is nothing but
> slick marketing of a political agenda.
As a matter of political strategy, CRU has done their cause considerable
damage. Which is not to say that everything CRU says is wrong.
We all have political agendas. One way to read this sorry episode is as
the overreaching of true believers, versus the machinations of the evil.
It will all play out over the next year or two, so we will then be able
to see how much was overreaching and how much was evil.
Joe Gwinn
Ed Huntress
In 1941, the WSJ's circulation was 50,000. At that time, the NYT's
circulation was 500,000. Both had been around since the mid-to-late 19th
century.
As I said, they made changes in the WSJ in the '50s to boost general
circulation, including souping up the editorial pages. They added other
sections to appeal to the non-financial audience. By 1967, circulation was
up to 1.1 million.
The point I'm making is that this is such a political and financial issue
that you can't point to any individual article and claim that it means
anything substantial. We don't have any way to evaluate them. We don't
understand the science. All you can do is decide whose opinions you like,
either because they fit your political views or they support your financial
interests.
Or, you can do the only rational thing, and evaluate it in terms of how
science usually works. For the most part, when majorities of real scientists
who are involved in the specialty at hand (not the doctors of philosophy and
engineers who sign onto the skeptic's "petitions") agree on a point, the
chances are they're right. Statistically. Over time.
As for the contrarians who break new ground, for every one of those there
are many, many more who are wrong and who sink without a trace. We never
hear about them so they disappear into history.
If this weren't so politically and economically charged, most of the
contrarians would have sunk into oblivion long ago. What keeps them afloat
is the enormous financial interest, particularly from the fossil-fuel
industries, that lavishes money upon them and which provides them with
publishing opportunities.
None of this is conclusive one way or the other. But if you know the history
of science, it's clear where the odds lie.
>
>
>> > However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
>> > close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.
>>
>> No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a
>> controversial
>> opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither
>> does
>> 99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words,
>> to
>> see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
>> cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests
>> who
>> have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It
>> does
>> make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
>> reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.
>
> When one attacks the person, not the theory, it *is* ad hominem, by
> definition.
It's a useless definition in this case. We evaluate the credibility of
advocates all the time. We have no choice in cases like this, where neither
you, me, nor most other people can evaluate the science they're talking
about.
Ad hominem is a logical tool for judging inappropriate use of personal
attacks. This isn't personal attacks; it's looking into the background of a
speaker or writer to judge how likely they are to be accurate or to be
telling the truth. If you automatically dismiss such evaluations, you're a
sucker for every con man who comes down the pike.
>
> Saying that their funding is evil so their conclusions must be incorrect
> is also a non sequitur.
What is this, Latin Appreciation Day? <g> Don't do the Aristotelian schtick,
Joe, when the questions are whether this guy is telling it straight, whether
he knows what he's talking about, and whether he's in somebody's pocket.
>
> And almost everybody is funded by something or someone.
Yeah. So be skeptical about everybody, then.
>
>
>> > It is also self
>> > defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
>> > all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
>>
>> If you believe that, you can believe anything.
>
> Heh. Ad hominem, now directed closer to home. Is there a pattern here?
Yes. The pattern is that you're digging up some Latin terms for logic to
hide behind, in an attempt to dodge some things that are simple and obvious.
d8-)
>
>
>> Your only guidance would be
>> your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems
>> to
>> be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
>> it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
>> understands the science.
>
> Given that we are all biased this way or that, or rather that everybody
> is biased except me and thee, the only durable solution has been to get
> all the theories and analyses and arguments out on the table and give
> them all The Treatment. What survives scathing review by opponents is
> what the next generation of theories will be made from, the rest having
> been refuted and discarded.
The opponents may be assholes. How will you know? Will you be able to
evaluate the science?
>
> The story of Newton and the achromatic lens is instructive. Newton
> convinced himself that achromatic lenses were impossible, and stopped
> progress for a generation Newton was by far the most respected
> scientist of his age, so he could do this with a word. I also recall
> reading that he destroyed the career of at least one person who
> disagreed with him, but I don't have the cite at hand yet. But Newton
> was wrong, as we now know. For some of the history see
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens>.
I don't think Pat Michaels is another Newton. d8-)
>
>
>> > And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
>> > that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to
>> > those
>> > entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
>> > disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
>>
>> So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and
>> since
>> all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's
>> your
>> guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
>> climatologists?
>
> I believe in flat-wire brushes wielded in gladiatorial combat.
I'd prefer a .45.
>
> But my motives are suspect - I'm really trying to increase sales in the
> dantean northern brush factory.
>
>
>> Don't claim I'm supporting either side. I do not understand enough of the
>> science to have an opinion. What *I* have to go on is the historical
>> success
>> of majority views among scientists. That's not enough to form a "belief."
>> It
>> is enough to place one's bets on red or black, if the wheel is being spun
>> and you have to make a choice. If you do it enough times you'll come out
>> ahead.
>
> The crime of Climategate is not that they believed or that they placed
> their bets accordingly, it's that they tried and to a great extent
> succeeded in corrupting the process by which science finds the truth,
> and that they destroyed the careers of those who believed otherwise.
I think the truth is more likely to be what the AP said:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9319400
And what US News said:
http://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2009/12/12/climate-gate-beyond-the-embarrassment.html
And what The Australian said:
And what The Examiner said:
And what ScienceNews said:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/50707/title/Climate-gate_Beyond_the_embarrassment
And what the Times of London said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6948008.ece
What they said is that it's a lousy mess, but it doesn't appear to throw the
global warming evidence into question.
When the smoke clears, that's where we're likely to land. Or some people
will. Where the politics will land is an open questions.
>
>
>> > I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
>> > at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
>> > scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few
>> > years,
>> > if history is any guide.
>>
>> Maybe. I certainly hope so.
>
> Now that CRU's ability to control events is ended, nature should take
> its course.
We'll see.
>
>
>> > A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't
>> > understand
>> > science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
>> > thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
>> > these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
>> >
>> > Joe Gwinn
>>
>> I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
>> politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
>> constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
>> the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
>> most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)
>
> I think the key is that politicians representing states and districts
> where the backbone of the local economy is heavy industry of some kind
> now have the ammunition to slow or stop the rush to carbon restriction.
Right. That's what they're looking for: ammunition, not the truth. The truth
could be very inconvenient, as they say, when your income depends upon your
not "understanding" it.
> Before Climategate, it was a close thing, so it takes only a few votes
> changing to opposition to stop all motion.
Yup. We can bugger up anything if the financial incentive is strong enough.
Who cares what the truth is, anyway?
--
Ed Huntress
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
You're just lucky I wasn't drinking coffee right at the moment I read
that, sir.
Larry Jaques
<clu...@lycos.com> scrawled the following:
>Joseph Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
>>at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
>>scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
>>if history is any guide.
>
>I still can't believe that responsible scientists would destroy the original data.
Oh, c'mon, Wes. We're talking "Hockey Stick Mann" and his cronies
here. Who's still saying they're responsible scientists?
Buerste
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:30:28 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
> <bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>
>>
>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
>>> <joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>>>
>>>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
>>>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
>>>>action against the EPA.
>>>>
>>>><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603724
>>>>4.html>
>>>>
>>>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
>>>>print issue.)
>>>
>>> Excellent article, Joe.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
>
> You're just lucky I wasn't drinking coffee right at the moment I read
> that, sir.
>
> --
Sometime I wish I could bald-face lie like libtards. If I was a libtard, I
just think of all the other things I could do. How do they do it? Are they
born with no morals and no conscience or are they a product of their
environment?
Jim Wilkins
>
> Sometime I wish I could bald-face lie like libtards. If I was a libtard, I
> just think of all the other things I could do. How do they do it? Are they
> born with no morals and no conscience or are they a product of their
I've seen an explanation in terms of the oldest and younger children.
The author wrote that the oldest tends to view the world as basically
just and fair with absolute moral values, the younger ones as
inherently unjust and out to get them. Morality is irrelevant if no
one else obeys it, survival of the fittest. I don't know how good that
is as a general behavior model. Some people here argue quite logically
on both sides, others answer any dissent with hate speech.
Another version is that conservatives believe they can manage their
own lives, liberals think evil forces block them. "The Three-Penny
Opera" is an eloquent expression of this view, especially the "Song of
the Insufficiency of Human Struggling". I couldn't find a free link to
the copyrighted lyrics; do as I say, not as I do, The play asks
whether bankers or thieves are the worse criminals.
I'm not taking too hard a position here. There are things we can and
others we can't do for ourselves, and we can make the effort to learn
or blame fate, but even doctors can't operate on themselves.
For me the practical application is arguing for or against the
petitioned warrant articles at Town Meetings. It's hard to guess
whether logic or self-interest will decide an issue. At least we have
the chance to debate and vote on them.
Larry Jaques
<bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:argri511gru85iaoa...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:30:28 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
>> <bue...@wowway.com> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>
>>>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
>>>> <joeg...@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>>>>
>>>>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
>>>>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
>>>>>action against the EPA.
>>>>>
>>>>><http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870439830457459823042603724
>>>>>4.html>
>>>>>
>>>>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
>>>>>print issue.)
>>>>
>>>> Excellent article, Joe.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>>The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
>>
>> You're just lucky I wasn't drinking coffee right at the moment I read
>> that, sir.
>
>Sometime I wish I could bald-face lie like libtards. If I was a libtard, I
>just think of all the other things I could do. How do they do it? Are they
>born with no morals and no conscience or are they a product of their
>environment?
They're simply "evil incarnate", Tawm. No conscience, no ethics, and
twisted morals. God makes 'em into Parakeets and such; living examples
of what NOT to do with your life, and why. Very instructive, but very
destructive, too. <sigh>
Joseph Gwinn
"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
But if they're so dull, how come they're so rich? WSJ - ~2 million
subscribers; USA Today - ~1.9 million, and NYT - ~0.9 million.
All true enough. What we civilians can do is to ensure that the debate
remains open and fair, and let the partisans duke it out. The problem
is that one side was caught with their thumb on the scale.
> If this weren't so politically and economically charged, most of the
> contrarians would have sunk into oblivion long ago. What keeps them afloat
> is the enormous financial interest, particularly from the fossil-fuel
> industries, that lavishes money upon them and which provides them with
> publishing opportunities.
All important questions have serious money behind all sides. So, one
makes sure that the Queensbury Rules are followed, to the extent
possible, so no one side can gain unfair advantage, and lets nature take
its course. It's messy to be sure, but no better way has ever been
found.
> None of this is conclusive one way or the other. But if you know the history
> of science, it's clear where the odds lie.
The history is that the fewer constraints on the debate, the faster it
comes to a conclusion.
> >> > However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
> >> > close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a
> >> controversial
> >> opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither
> >> does
> >> 99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words,
> >> to
> >> see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
> >> cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests
> >> who
> >> have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It
> >> does
> >> make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
> >> reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.
> >
> > When one attacks the person, not the theory, it *is* ad hominem, by
> > definition.
>
> It's a useless definition in this case. We evaluate the credibility of
> advocates all the time. We have no choice in cases like this, where neither
> you, me, nor most other people can evaluate the science they're talking
> about.
I'm sorry but that is simply wrong:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
> Ad hominem is a logical tool for judging inappropriate use of personal
> attacks. This isn't personal attacks; it's looking into the background of a
> speaker or writer to judge how likely they are to be accurate or to be
> telling the truth. If you automatically dismiss such evaluations, you're a
> sucker for every con man who comes down the pike.
If they were running for public office, where their character is very
much the question, then I would agree.
But they are not running for office, they are making scientific claims,
and we can test the truth or falsity of such claims regardless of the
speakers' character or lack thereof.
> > Saying that their funding is evil so their conclusions must be incorrect
> > is also a non sequitur.
>
> What is this, Latin Appreciation Day? <g> Don't do the Aristotelian schtick,
> Joe, when the questions are whether this guy is telling it straight, whether
> he knows what he's talking about, and whether he's in somebody's pocket.
The form of your argument is that so-and-so is a SOB so we should not
believe him. This is the classic ad hominem argument.
The reason to reject ad hominem arguments is because they are non
sequiturs - the truth or falsity of the statement has nothing to do with
the speaker being a SOB, and the statement can be false even if the
speaker is nice.
Another way to think this out is to note that the ad hominem approach
necessarily implies that evil people cannot be right, and by extension
cannot be competent. But one fears the combination of evil intent and
competence the most, and can think of many examples from history.
> > And almost everybody is funded by something or someone.
>
> Yeah. So be skeptical about everybody, then.
Well, yes. They are all human, all too human. And your point?
> >> > It is also self
> >> > defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
> >> > all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.
> >>
> >> If you believe that, you can believe anything.
> >
> > Heh. Ad hominem, now directed closer to home. Is there a pattern here?
>
> Yes. The pattern is that you're digging up some Latin terms for logic to
> hide behind, in an attempt to dodge some things that are simple and obvious.
> d8-)
I scarcely think that using the standard names for certain forms of
fallacious argument is hiding behind Latin terms. By that theory, most
of medicine and science would be off limits, as a large part of their
vocabulary is derived from Greek and Latin.
> >> Your only guidance would be
> >> your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems to
> >> be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
> >> it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
> >> understands the science.
This basically makes the skeptics' case. One side asserts that they
know the Truth, while the other side says that the verdict is Not Proven.
> > Given that we are all biased this way or that, or rather that everybody
> > is biased except me and thee, the only durable solution has been to get
> > all the theories and analyses and arguments out on the table and give
> > them all The Treatment. What survives scathing review by opponents is
> > what the next generation of theories will be made from, the rest having
> > been refuted and discarded.
>
> The opponents may be assholes. How will you know? Will you be able to
> evaluate the science?
By letting them fight it out.
> > The story of Newton and the achromatic lens is instructive. Newton
> > convinced himself that achromatic lenses were impossible, and stopped
> > progress for a generation Newton was by far the most respected
> > scientist of his age, so he could do this with a word. I also recall
> > reading that he destroyed the career of at least one person who
> > disagreed with him, but I don't have the cite at hand yet. But Newton
> > was wrong, as we now know. For some of the history see
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatic_lens>.
>
> I don't think Pat Michaels is another Newton. d8-)
True enough, but the parallel would be that Michaels would be one of the
doubters (Newton deniers?).
> >> > And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
> >> > that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
> >> > entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
> >> > disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.
> >>
> >> So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and since
> >> all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's your
> >> guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
> >> climatologists?
> >
> > I believe in flat-wire brushes wielded in gladiatorial combat.
>
> I'd prefer a .45.
Too quick; reduces entertainment value. Nor are firearms very good
cleaning implements.
They all say that the emails did not directly undermine the science,
which is true. But what the emails revealed was political, not
technical, so the news articles talking about the science alone are
misdirected, are missing the central issue. In short, a red herring.
> >> > I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> >> > at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> >> > scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few
> >> > years, if history is any guide.
> >>
> >> Maybe. I certainly hope so.
> >
> > Now that CRU's ability to control events is ended, nature should take
> > its course.
>
> We'll see.
Yes. A useful parallel is Microsoft after the antitrust case. While in
one sense Microsoft won the case, their ability to pull the tricks amply
demonstrated in evidence was ended -- Mother is Watching.
> >> > A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
> >> > science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
> >> > thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
> >> > these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
> >> >
> >> > Joe Gwinn
> >>
> >> I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
> >> politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
> >> constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
> >> the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
> >> most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)
> >
> > I think the key is that politicians representing states and districts
> > where the backbone of the local economy is heavy industry of some kind
> > now have the ammunition to slow or stop the rush to carbon restriction.
>
> Right. That's what they're looking for: ammunition, not the truth. The truth
> could be very inconvenient, as they say, when your income depends upon your
> not "understanding" it.
It's true that what they seek is ammunition, to stop what they (and
their constituents) perceive as a rush to judgement that will cripple
their economy. Voters can be *so* inflexible and short-term oriented.
More generally, nothing of this impact will get through Congress unless
the great majority of voters believe in the absolute necessity, and this
has not yet happened. The surveys I've seen recently show that belief
in global warming is in fact slowly waning, which increases the pressure
on the politicians.
<http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming>
<http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-
exaggerated.aspx>
Nor does the reluctance of China (the largest CO2 emitter) and India
(working on it) to agree to meaningful restrictions help. In round
numbers, the combined populations of China and India is 2.5 billion.
The US is a distant third at 0.3 billion, call it one tenth as large.
The EU is about the same size as the US. What China and India do will
simply swamp what the US and EU do. This is a big issue at Copenhagen,
and was an issue at Kyoto ten years before.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population>
> > Before Climategate, it was a close thing, so it takes only a few votes
> > changing to opposition to stop all motion.
>
> Yup. We can bugger up anything if the financial incentive is strong enough.
> Who cares what the truth is, anyway?
Well, this assumes that you know the Truth, despite earlier having
admitted that none of us can really know, or are experts in the relevant
science. A faith-based belief?
Joe Gwinn
Buerste
I used to try and discuss things rationally with them until, rather than
presenting a rational argument, they constantly initiated personal attacks
on me and my family. I just don't bother with them anymore. I believe
there is true evil in this world and fringe liberals ARE evil incarnate.
Hit the reset button, will 'ya?