Chances are people “do” have an impact on the environment. Duh. But to shut down debate and other arguements at a certification level reeks of pure ego.

Sure, anything that lives or even that doesn’t live (volcanoes, earthquakes, storms, etc..) have impacts on the “environment”. But for some reason when humans do it it’s not “natural”.

Chances are people “do” have an impact on the environment. Duh. But to shut down debate and other arguements at a certification level reeks of pure ego.

Pathetic, we need our schools to re-teach our scientists what it means to be open minded and not agenda driven. There is a pretty damn good precident for science changing with the emergence of new technology and new information.

People (Hansen and this lady) are arguing at the same time that AGW is obviously true and the science is settled AND that the expression of dissent from this view is so plausible and threatening that it must be suppressed because of the danger that people will believe it.

Both cannot be true. If it is so very obvious and settled, the only effect of voicing public doubt will be to cover oneself with ridicule. If you are worried about the effects of such expressions of doubt, it must be because you don’t feel the science is as settled as you are arguing.

After all, no-one thinks that members of the flat earth society should be banned from speaking in public in case too many people find its arguments plausible!

You cannot escape the conclusion that these people must have an unconscious realization that the theory is not as well grounded as they wish it were. This is why dissent is so threatening. This is why they think it will be so easy for the masses to be led astray. This is why skepticism must be silenced.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Yeah thats the way I should probably be doing it…but the way this blog software is setup, it takes four extra steps to reply in a separate comment because the software only allows editing of the last comment, not adding a new one. So I have to open a separate browser window, locate the blog entry, type in comment, post it, then go back to admin page to approve my own comment. I’ll try not to take the short cut in the future.

No worries on the censor discussion, I wasn’t concerned at all, but just wanted to let people know what my criteria was. And I’m sorry if that gave an incorrect impression. The Internet is notorius for not conveying tone or intent that you can pickup from verbal conversation.

Thanks for the nice comments, I believe that even the most opposite sides can always find common ground. See my letter to the editor today regarding that idea.

And I didn’t mean to imply that you would edit or censor my posts at all. Quite the contrary. As this is was my first post to your blog and not every “conservative” blogger posts my reasonable and non-slanderous/profane/disgusting comments it was a genuine thanks for posting.

But don’t let that imply that I *expected* you to censor them. I already know enough about you to respect your openness to discourse, period. I have respect for you as a person, a former elected official, and now as a blogger and climatelogist. If only we could see eye to eye on a few things. ;)

*** Moderators reply *** I don’t censor anybody’s comments, except if there’s foul langauge or a slander involved. I use the AP’s writer guide as my bible there.

One could also argue that the seemingly religious “we are right and we aren’t going to discuss it anymore because there’s ‘consensus’ ” green movement fits as an example for your argument too.

The big problem is that anytime science becomes politicized, it loses its objectivity. And science without objectivity is dangerous ground.

The science needs to stand on its own first, then change policy. Right now there’s neither a full scientific consensus nor absolute proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the cause (though some claim there is) but there is building evidence.

But science has been known to head down garden paths before, only to reverse itself in the face of new hard facts.

A good example is the case of stomach ulcers. Doctors used to think it was all about nerves in the stomach. That didn’t change and there was no complete cure until a stubborn clinician in Australia who had been treating thousands of patients gave himself ulcers by purposely drinking a bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, giving himself an ulcer, then curing it with antibiotics. Then saying OK NOW tell me its nerves, go ahead.

Of course now stomach ulcers are treated with antibiotics.
He got a Nobel Prize just two years ago:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4304290.stm

The Nobel citation praises the doctors for their tenacity, and willingness to challenge prevailing dogmas.

If Global Warming does prove conclusively to be caused only by anthropogenic CO2, then hey I’ll be the first to admit I’m wrong. Right now there’s other compelling evidence its not.

By the way, did you attend the NorCal Natural History museum lecture series last night? Some eye opening things were presented there.

The Catholic Church advocated an adherence to a flawed perspective beyond the early indications otherwise. As more information and scientific study was conducted, the Church could no longer adhere to their flawed theory.

Incidentally, it took over 200 years before the Church came around and permitted a censored release of his work and ideas. Unfortunately, if the “hypothesis�? on global warming and its manmade causes prove correct we are doomed to substantial damages (which can be estimated wildly). But it does appear with the number of scientists now on board and that number increasing faster than the population of new scientists, we may be in the neighborhood of the turn the century 1700; keeping in mind that it wasn’t technology that so much improved to help the Church “see�? its errors but adoption by the masses and scholars.

So where are we in this debate now?

*** Moderators Response ***

Hi Randall, Thats a nice spin on the subject. See my next blog entry, in a day or two, and then tell me what you think.

Cullen’s supposed expertise on climatology includes, among other things, earning a bachelor’s degree in Near Eastern religions and history from Juniata College. One must indeed have to believe in the mystical to accept anything Ms. Cullen has to say about climatology.

…advocating that broadcast meteorologists be denied certification (or re-certification) if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade global warming.

Is this woman an American? Was she educated in our schools? If so, why does she not realize what an incredibly un-American idea this is?

Hugo Chavez might have an opening for her should she find herself in need of a job!