Ed Scott:

I freely admit to being libertarian-conservative, but is there a political overtone in objecting to an unproven scientific premise which has serious life consequences. I would appreciate a link to the scientific data that shows AGW, in order to collect the award from Junk Science.

The point is that if you have strong political opinions that would tend to lead you dislike the policy prescriptions that follow from AGW, you are going to demand more “proof” before you accept the science. And, since science can never prove anything…it is inductive, not deductive…you can always find the evidence wanting.

Curious. I’ve been interested in almost any form of hard science since grade school and didn’t get much involved in politics until I discovered I was a Libertarian.

Perhaps that’s why I demand much more honesty from the politicians before I’ll accept the policy prescriptions that follow from AGW. AGW seems to be having a little trouble now that CO2 levels and solar activity are going in different directions. Before the split, separating politics from science was nearly impossible.

I’m happy that this blog is run by someone like Anthony instead of the National Academy of Science. Small science can be a beautiful thing.

I freely admit to being libertarian-conservative, but is there a political overtone in objecting to an unproven scientific premise which has serious life consequences. I would appreciate a link to the scientific data that shows AGW, in order to collect the award from Junk Science.

The point is that if you have strong political opinions that would tend to lead you dislike the policy prescriptions that follow from AGW, you are going to demand more “proof” before you accept the science. And, since science can never prove anything…it is inductive, not deductive…you can always find the evidence wanting.

This is why the Junk Science award is meaningless. They could make the same award for evolutionary theory and also not have anyone satisfy it to their standards.

There is a good reason why the National Academy of Sciences was created and that is exactly to prevent science from becoming a political football. Unfortunately, those on the losing side of the scientific debate are going to always want to change the rules.

I have read the series of articles in the Canada Free Press by Dr. Tim Ball, and have not recognized a political agenda.

You might want to read here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Timothy_Ball

It wasn’t until hurricanes didn’t develop as predicted that they started looking for excuses. Along came the effect of wind shear as well as dust storms in Africa, discoveries I believe, which were made by the Skeptics.

I’m not familiar with the history of hurricane research, but the affects of these and other impactors like dry air entrainment were understood long before people started up the AGW bandwagon. Satellite tech has made seeing dry air and dust clouds much easier. While some effects have been studied by hurricane researchers who flat out say that global warming is not affecting hurricane intensity or rate, that stand would not have affected the timing of the discoveries.

People who have not taken a broad look at hurricanes, e.g. Kerry Emmanuel, have claimed there’s a link between AGW and hurricanes, but the last couple of years has taught them there’s more to tropical storms than air and water temps.

One point to Joel.

Ridiculous! I’ve been reading the forecast discussions for hurricanes for years and they have long known about wind shear. And, lest you think it is something that the forecasters knew but the climate change people didn’t, here is a reference to shear in discussing hurricanes in the 2001 IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/367.htm

When we have sufficient data (30 to 50 years from now), my bet would be on, warmer conditions decreasing hurricane strength, and the most dangerous times, would be the periods of strong temperature and pressure gradients, between the tropics and the poles.

REPLY: I beg to differ. He’s selling it now, people are eating it up.

I saw a graphic which indicated an area of water between Yucatan and Cuba and extending briefly into the Gulf. It was said that hurricanes, Gustav, would gain strength over that area. The surface temperature was said to be 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Do you know if this relatively shallow water?

I believe wind shear disappointed the AGW acolytes during the hurricane season last year. Maybe the water temperature is the only dynamic that remains relatively static and the AGW crowd “clings” to that.

So who’s creating the “strawman” here, you or Tom. From what I see, it seems to be you.

Shore also wrote: “The main questions still being debated is how strong an effect this is and to what extent other factors, such as wind shear, are likely to remain equal in a warmer world. These are valid questions but just pointing to the fact that wind shear does play an important role in the evolution of individual hurricanes isn’t enough to show that any changes in wind shear that are likely to occur as a result of AGW will be less conducive to hurricanes in a way that counteracts the effects due to warmer ocean temperatures.”

That’s one of the “foggiest” paragraphs I’ve read in a long time. But putting the “fog” aside for the moment, up until recently the Pogies were completely oblivious to wind shear and completely fixated on SST. It wasn’t until hurricanes didn’t develop as predicted that they started looking for excuses. Along came the effect of wind shear as well as dust storms in Africa, discoveries I believe, which were made by the Skeptics.

Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com

I freely admit to being libertarian-conservative, but is there a political overtone in objecting to an unproven scientific premise which has serious life consequences. I would appreciate a link to the scientific data that shows AGW, in order to collect the award from Junk Science. There are believers on both sides of the political spectrum and the facts used to prove AGW are anecdotal, in nature. One serious consequence of AGW, was the Lieberman-Warner legislation, which fortunately failed. It began life as the McCain-Warner legislation with the subsequent change in name made to protect the “guilty,” with quite obvious political overtones.

As stated in a post by Leif Svalgaard: Science is about what has been observed, demonstrated, and explained. Ideology is belief in what must be true ['final analysis'].

The AGW acolytes have not observed, demonstrated or explained AGW. The fact that a political group has an agenda driven by the ideology of AGW, does not make my objection on scientific grounds, political.

I have read the series of articles in the Canada Free Press by Dr. Tim Ball, and have not recognized a political agenda. His objections seem to be directed toward Maurice Strong and the UN with their IPCC Report signed by 2,500 scientists, the majority of which may well be politicians (If I say I am a scientist, I am a scientist).

I apologize for errors that I made in the backgrounds of the petition signers. It does say American scientists. Chalk it up to personal bias.

(and with the interpretation of what constitutes a “scientist” being very broad).
That speaks of a familiarity with the 31,000 plus scientists which you may not have. I did, at one time, peruse the qualifications of the IPCC signatories and scientists were in the minority.

I have re-read the petition and failed in recognizing any political bias. As of yesterday, petitions were legal to use to effect change and are not necessarily political in nature, especially one that objects to bogus science.

Here is Dr. Seitz’ cover letter. Please point out the political content. Do you consider the geopolitical statement to be political?

Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of “global warming,” a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.

The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.

It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.

We urge you to sign and return the petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.

Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University

The equivalent of an old Soviet-style election where you are bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote but with the only option (besides not voting) being to vote YES. This is a classic example of the true AGW believers projecting their actions upon the deniers.

Science has been politicized but not by responsible scientists.

The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on “I am not too sure.”
-H. L. Mencken

I need to work on my tolerance.

This is only a very, very small sample of things that should have been met with far more skepticism by the scientific community.