You may recall that Finnish TV interviewed Steve McIntyre last month. They did a superb job with that. Now they have a new 3 part YouTube series out on Climategate, with English subtitles. It is well worth the watching.
A part that particularly struck me was: “They reveal an aggressive atmosphere, where the scientists consider dissenting colleagues as their enemies…”
Maybe just maybe, one of our other TV networks besides Fox will have the journalistic integrity to do a similar report. One can only hope one will, except for 60 Minutes, a program now in decay.
Part1
Parts 2 and 3 are below
Part 2
Part 3
I saw this on climateaudit. It’s very well done. My only beef with it is that it is not damning enough. They should have interviewed a couple of lawyers at the end calling for all sorts of lawsuits and investigations and the like. Indeed, why hasn’t anybody filed a lawsuit on that hockey stick clown, Michael Mann? If I had the money, I would have.
Hansen was on David Letterman last night, trashing carbon trading as Greenwashing. Does that count?
curiouser and curiouser
Pachauri: TERI-Europe – the enigma (Part 1)
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-1.html
some of the characters in above:
London Borough of Merton
Ward: Hillside
Nicholas Vivian James Robins – Greens Party
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fCKnMxozWSkJ:www.merton.gov.uk/elections-may2002.pdf+Nicholas+Vivian+James+Robins&hl=en&sig=AHIEtbT1KmH91CZx8owVn7STiaEAUoQeeg
John T. Houghton
Sir John Theodore Houghton FRS CBE is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
He is the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation “connecting Environment, Science and Christianity”,[1] where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.[2] He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also the current president of the Victoria Institute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
Sir Crispin Tickell
Sir Crispin was President of the Royal Geographical Society from 1990 to 1993 and Warden of Green College, Oxford between 1990 and 1997, where he appointed George Monbiot and Norman Myers as Visiting Fellows…
He is currently director of the Policy Foresight Programme[3] of the James Martin 21st Century School[4] at the University of Oxford (formerly the Green College Centre for Environmental Policy and Understanding) and Chairman Emeritus of the Climate Institute, in Washington DC. He has many interests, including climate change, population issues, conservation of biodiversity and the early history of the Earth.
****His worldwide status as an authority on climate change is all the more surprising because he has no formal academic training in this area and has formed his opinion by self-teaching.
Tickell helped to write Margaret Thatcher’s speech on global climate change[5]. He chaired John Major’s Government Panel on Sustainable Development (1994-2000), and was a member of two government task forces under the Labour Party: one on Urban Regeneration, chaired by Sir Richard Rogers, now Lord Rogers (1998-99), and one on Potentially Hazardous Near-Earth Objects (2000).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crispin_Tickell
Maybe just maybe, one of our other TV networks besides Fox will have the journalistic integrity to do a similar report.
Climategate has been quite an eye opener regarding “journalistic integrity”. What should, under normal circumstances, have been a real scoop for any serious journalist gets relegated to “network cables used in hack may have been made in China”.
I am fairly sure that if I had not got my own copy then I would still have no clue what was in FOI2009.zip
“journalistic integrity” – dictionary please.
Very nice presentation and I hope it gains some traction.
If anyone is interested there is an English transcript, here:
http://ohjelmat.yle.fi/mot/viime_viikon_mot/transcript_english
Well done. Yes, could have been more damning. So many of the true scientists are very cerebral soft spoken people…. it isn’t their nature to lambast someone else for junk science. But it needs to be done here. The fraud is just spectacular.
There will be no traction to this, already the dems are pleading w Pres 0 that enough is enough for fear of losing upcoming elections. Anyone who still relies on MSM is in the dark ages.
Hopefully these excellent reports will have versions made with subtitles in other languages, for viewing by readers in non-English speaking nations. The Finnish reports are impressive.
3×2 (19:18:11) :
Why do you think so many news mainstream organizations are hiding the truth about climategate and the fraud of AGW? Are they part of a global conspiracy or is it just a money issue for them? Is mainstream media controlled by some powerful, hidden and sinister outfit that is trying to take over the world? Or have they already taken over? They are rather blatant in their dishonesty. Why are they still in control? I don’t get it.
I was quite impressed by the qualified Finnish scientists who were willing to discuss the real implications of the emails (as opposed to whitewashing the fraudsters) on camera. Is science more open in the nordic countries?
But then considering the slavish AGW mentality of the Nordic politicians on display at Copenhagen, maybe not.
3×2:
“journalistic integrity” – means toeing the line of the controlling party and using that party’s press releases as news. Also, agreeing to print whatever the controlling party wishes as long as access to said party is retained. (Certain stations have admitted to this.)
“Biased journalism” means providing equal time to the other side.
Thank you, Steve McIntyre, for having the courage to speak out forcefully on climategate.
Climategate is only the visible tip of a very dirty iceberg of deceit in science.
If the spotlight of public scrutiny melts the iceberg, data manipulation and deceit will likely be revealed in other studies that are supervised by DOE, NASA, etc. and financed with tax funds.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Mapou (19:50:00) :
“Why do you think so many news mainstream organizations are hiding the truth about climategate and the fraud of AGW? ”
MSM must maintain the image that it is an authority on all it reports. They also know that crisis draws viewers and tranquility does not. Perhaps they have also found that a fearful populace tends to spend more on trivial diversion than does a tranquil one. Correspondents care far more about putting on a dramatic production than they do about presenting seemingly mundane science.
To perform a 180 turn after years of spouting dogma would completely undermine their image of authority. They are as deluded by their own egos as are the radical “scientists” who have been recently exposed.
It’s no conspiracy, its groupthink.
You are right about 60 Minutes. It has not been worth watching in years. Maybe as long ago as when Dan Rather was on it. but then out of the blue they do a good report like the one on California being held hostage to nutjob environmentalists and a 3 inch fish. Of course Fox reported on it months ago.
Mapou (19:50:00) :
“Why are they still in control? I don’t get it.”
Perhaps they are less in control than their productions imply.
Their cultural dynamics model probably did not project the escaped CRU files.
One thing is certain from this video — this scandal did not “blow over.” As an EE major who sees many things in terms of their impulse response, I can clearly see that this story has the kind of legs that it takes to get into the history books.
Even if the “investigations” are total whitewashes, the scandal will leave a large, permanent mark on climate science and how it is perceived publicly. Even if the alarmists are perfectly right and the climate “tips” and temperature “runs away” to some problematic high value, Climategate will still be an object lesson in how not to manage science news when you are right.
In the much more likely scenario where global warming turns out not to be an imminent crisis, Climategate will be a study in the psychology of ego, narcissism and denial among scientists who could not control their biases.
I think they touched on most of the key points and conveyed the sinister flavor of the scandal quite well.
So, how long do we have to wait for a believer to dismiss this report as corporate propaganda generated by Finland’s “Big Reindeer” industry?
tom t (20:21:23) :
You are right about 60 Minutes. It has not been worth watching in years.
Oh come on now. It is well worth putting on at the end to catch A Few Minutes With Andy Rooney. He is insightful and funny, and always the best part of the show. He is so good, you don’t even need the rest of the hour!
Anthony,
I understand that both the Nature Publishing Group and Scientific American now belong to a private German publishing conglomerate, Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, through its ownership of the Macmillan publishing house. It seems that this interconnected ownership has a large say in what gets published in the popular science literature and their editorial boards have been vociferous in their defense of Jones, et al and CRU. It would seem some light should be shown on their group to increase the expectation of open and honest discourse. Below is an email I have posted to the company through their contact page:
Hello,
I am interested in your corporate response to the ongoing issues regarding certain of your publications, namely Nature and Scientific American. It seems that your editors have been caught up in the unseemly and unprofessional behavior brought to light by the unofficially released email and other records from the climate research facility at the University of East Anglia in Britain. Rather than promote open and honest scientific discourse, they have been at the forefront of defending and rationalizing the demonstrably inappropriate behavior of many in the climate research community. Please respond by describing how this sort of activity is allowed by your journalistic ethics policies.
Thank you,
Joel Black
REPLY: [ No need to post this twice. -mod ]
To me the telling item was when France decided not to enforce their carbon tax, scheduled for Jan 1, ’10. Since that domino has fallen, the rest in the EU will collapse also, and where does that leave carbon trading? In the toilet, I’d speculate. Once $billions are lost, FRAUD will be the war cry for an army of trial lawyers.
Folks, this thing is just beginning. And it won’t stop until Al Gore is humiliated beyond belief. It would serve him right, along with all the other criminals that have been involved.
60 Minutes has been “in decay” for at least two decades.
Interesting that the 30’s were warmer than now in Russia and Finland just like in the USA.
Watching made the frustrations and indignation over ClimateGate come afresh like when I first learned about it in November.
After ClimateGate broke I saw Bernard Goldberg say that some young journalists should investigate global warming. I’m going to send an email to him and suggest he be the journalist to do it.
kadaka (18:38:28) :
Hansen was on David Letterman last night, trashing carbon trading as Greenwashing. Does that count?
I unfortunately watched that interview. Every question was a softball, every answer calculated. The agenda was obvious. Dave was OBVIOUSLY worried about his son’s future and about ruining the earth, as he stated it NUMEROUS times. Of course, Hansen was given the opportunity to say that Climategate was nothing, and does not affect the science behind global warming. He was also very proud of his arrest while protesting a WVa coal mine. Nothing else expected from someone that stopped being a scientist long ago and is nothing but a leftist advocate for the green movement.
ECM (21:20:36) :
60 Minutes has been “in decay” for at least two decades.
So what is its half-life, and has its significance become indistinguishable from background noise?
I think all 3 parts are an excellent combination of tons of facts and context.
An outstanding representation of “hide the decline”, the divergence problem with the logical conclusion, that all tree ring studies are dubious.
On top of that, russian and scandinavian data , easily falsifying CRU “added value” temperature records and even suggesting, that current temperatures are not higher than 1930s temperatures (though this data is only the tip of an iceberg) .
Greg (19:53:03) :
3×2:
“journalistic integrity” – means toeing the line of the controlling party and using that party’s press releases as news.
———————————————-
“The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb.
This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.”
~~Einstein
@ Alvin (21:54:05) :
I was notified it was on and started watching about the middle of the Greenwashing riff. To be fair Hansen did mention about some people at East Anglia behaving badly, that also counts. Saying the science was still sound, and basically stating without saying that his own work was beyond reproach, that was expected. After all, he was there to sell his book.
I don’t think you need conspiracy theories or secret controlling entities.
Just a generation of lazy, bong smoking, tree huggers who happened to land jobs in the endless phloem that is all things green.
You get up in the morning, scan your in-box and your usual sources on the net for an interesting press release or two. Re-jig and inflate such that a google search wouldn’t immediately expose the source, mail it to your editor and in the finest traditions of investigative journalism go back to bed. What’s not to like?
Twenty foot sea rise by 2020 – you got it. Owls extinct by 2025 – no problem. An endless stream of eco-drivel that nobody will remember by 20:25 that evening let alone the year 2025.
Of course like all products that contain little in the way of added value, the good times can’t last forever and you wake up one morning to find that you have been replaced by software re-writes press releases to a standard template automatically. Oh hum back to writing prospective afternoon cable TV shows.
There is a huge industry built around creating and peddling arm waving eco-drivel. They are in too deep. Apart from the embarrassment of “apocalypse cancelled” and a lot of angry people realising that most of what they have been told is complete fantasy, would you really want to kill the goose that lays those golden eggs?
“journalistic integrity” I suggest it is an oxymoron most of the time. Another slant is
“Reporter’s are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same” Scott Adams.
Beside isn’t the MSM about entertainment in order to sell product. I have noted quite a number of commentators saying investigative journalism is dead. There is a system of PR firms who produce canned releases for the MSM to use. Personally I think they have lost it and now starting to wonder why people are going elsewhere. I look at less and less news TV and have stopped reading newspapers. This does not only apply to “Climate Change” my advice is look very closely what the MSM is saying about the economy.
I just love Lord Monckton! Here is another set of videos I recently found from over at ClimateGate.com. This is a 5 series video set from an CTS Television interview in Canada on the Michael Coren Show…filmed in Toronto. (scroll down to comment #3 to get all 5 embedded videos in a row):
http://www.climategate.com/lord-monckton-al-gore-debate-me
Good one. Let this be in other languages too
http://naija-konnect.com/hots-on-the-web/
Solar wind
speed: 271.8 km/sec
density: 1.0 protons/cm3
http://spaceweather.com/
I’m just looking at a news item on the girl guides on Channel 10 here in Australia – the introductory spiel talks about them fighting global warming.
I agree with 3×2, this thing runs deep and the green warmistas have got into every area with this religion. We have nightly lectures on TV about how the Great Barrier Reef is going to die unless we combat warming, although the reef is over 60 million years old according to some, and thus must have gone through extremes of temperature and it is still there.
Even though I am not anybody important, I have started writing (snail mail – emails are too easily ignored) to all parliamentarians asking for a Royal Commission into the Australian temperature stations, with a list of reference science websites and YouTube videos, in the hope that some word I say will resonate with someone.
Trends and crazes are strange things, no one seems to know where they start, but they can sweep the world.
It’s not enough to depend on others such as journalists, to direct our future. Each individual has the power to influence by contacting their representative, and talking to their friends and neighbours. I am also sending emails to my friends with resources for them to look at, and asking them to contact their representatives, whichever party they belong to.
Here we go, the TV news reports that a group of Australian Girl Guides attended the Copenhagen conference.
I admit I am a little surprised that posters here are so unclear as to how the MSM, public sector and academia have swallowed the AGW koolaid.
It doesn’t require conspiracy or material incentive. Just look at the educational background of those involved, the way that education has changed over the past 50 years, and the way the MSM has changed over 50 years.
Reporters are no longer anonymous fact-finders who gain their roles through cadetship and work their way up to expressing opinions in op-ed pages after 30 years of hard grind through minefields of cynicism.
Now they come from university Communications and Literature courses that drip feed them half-understood leftist philosophy and ideology, and within days of starting work they have a by-line and a photo in press. They come from an academic background that values political engagement above fact, and a cultural background that elevates subjective impression over validated science. Sit through any Comms or Cultural Theory course and you will see what I mean. I have a degree in Philosophy (among others) and the complete misrepresentation of most philosophic positions in these courses is mindboggling.
Rigour is only valued to the extent it is sophistry that supports the moral vanity of the accepted position. Engaging with maths, logic or hard science is avoided.
The general decline of hard disciplines and high expectations is clear to anyone working in an academic environment (at least in Oz). With it comes a plethora of soft options with ideology so ingrained it becomes conventional wisdom for entire generations of students.
There is also a high representation among public sector policy and project workers of people from similarly soft academic backgrounds. And they tend to be predisposed to wholeheartedly swallow conventional wisdom (so long as it is “morally pure”).
While we can lament the shoddy analysis and overwhelming credulity of the media, and the growing religious cult of the environment, it is really just a result of low educational standards and the elevation of “political engagement” as a measure of whether or not you are a moral person.
As soon as the New Left started its march through the institutions – universities, teachers’ education, public sector, media – a farce of AGW standards was completely predictable.
jamesafalk (23:55:03) :
Now they come from university Communications and Literature courses that drip feed them half-understood leftist philosophy and ideology, and within days of starting work they have a by-line and a photo in press. They come from an academic background that values political engagement above fact, and a cultural background that elevates subjective impression over validated science.
Like I said …. Just a generation of lazy, bong smoking, tree huggers who happened to land jobs in the endless phloem that is all things green.
:^)
It seemed to me, watching this show, that the Finnish scientists were less than happy about how all their hard work got trashed by Mann and others, including the IPCC.
I guess it just goes to show you that, if you step on people on your way up, you can’t expect them to hand you pillows when you fall.
I laughed when I heard “Hide the Decline” used as theme music in the show. There must be a teleconnection between Finland and Minnesota.
Such a clear and compelling indictment of those involved in Climategate. I’ll be on the look out leading up to spring, for comments from politicians and senior bureaucrats who may have advance notice of the outcome of the investigations – trying to position themselves on the right side of the findings.
I also agree with the appeal to broaden the scope of the IPCC to include space research. Maybe then it could fulfill it’s function of being the International Panel on Climate Change, rather than the International Panel on Carbon Control.
I am not a statistician, but looking at the rural temperature graphs gave what looked like a good correlation between North American temperatures and Russian/Finnish temperatures. 1930’s hotter than now.
The questions that arose for me was;
1. Are there enough rural Russian and Finnish weather stations to give an accurate, statistically sound temperature analysis? Without the Urban centres.
2. Is the weather station data available?
Cant we donate to a fund and bring a class action against these fraudsters?
Itd be payback for all the good scientists out there who have had to endure such a horrendous treatment at the hands of their so called “professional” colleagues.
@3×2
@jamesafalk
I very much agree, as I suffered the consequences of such an “education”, and I’m still trying to clean up the mess.
Another biggie is the difference between intellectual development and ethical development. Intellectually people can wax lyrical about saving the planet. But having the fortitude to do what’s necessary is another thing entirely. So greenies resort to blaming everyone else for not having the moral fortitude to do what’s necessary. This is not unlike Mugabe blaming the UK for its “imperialism” when Mugabe himself is a whole sackful worse than any imperialist system. But he sure can stand up and give a speech about it.
Best words I heard on the matter were, “saving the world begins with washing up the dinner plates with excellence”. If you don’t have the moral character to clean and tidy your own home with selfless care and hard work, then don’t even think about any grand (ego-gratifying) project.
I’m not exactly certain where to post this, but p gosselin posted this yesterday at C.A. before it was taken down for being OT. It is a “must-read” for anyone following this mess for the past few years and should be a must read for the team as well.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat
Stefan (06:09:16) :
@3×2
@jamesafalk
“…Best words I heard on the matter were, “saving the world begins with washing up the dinner plates with excellence”. ”
You have spoken a great truth.
The downfall of many high-minded Hippy communes in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s was due to big fights about who left the dirty coffee cup in the sink.
I was very depressed about the failure of communes back then, and wrote a long and boring poem that had a good couplet in it:
“A young poet always wishes
That his muses did the dishes.”
@James Chamberlain
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat
As a layman I like that article very much. It presents impressions I already had or imagined about what goes on in science when it is progressing, and what might be lacking when it is stuck.
AGW defenders claim, “he’s not in the field”. As the article says, “They knew more about E. coli than anyone else, but that was what they knew”
AGW defenders say, “the science is settled!”. As the article says, “Belief, in other words, is a kind of blindness.”
AGW scientists say, “let’s hide the decline!”. As the article says, “People have to pick and choose what’s interesting and what’s not, but they often choose badly.”
The article recommends encouraging diversity, seeking out the ignorant, explaining things in simple terms, and being aware of the bias.
And not just diversity of blogs, but it was obvious long ago that the IPCC and climatology was “settled” on “the” science of one field. What did space researchers have to say? What about statisticians? What about geologists?
The AGW defenders always say, “so and so is not in the field”, sure, but your climatologist used statistics, didn’t he? Why doesn’t a statistician get to have a say on the field of statistics when it is used in climatology?? It is kinda embarrassing how obvious were their ploys to control things.
As the point is made in the film, the IPCC should open up to other fields, and then perhaps they can have one of those multi-disciplinary meetings which the article says is so illuminating. My wife works in the medical field and even she is always off at some multi-diciplinary meeting as part of the normal day job.
Joel Black said “I understand that both the Nature Publishing Group and Scientific American now belong to a private German publishing conglomerate, Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinck, . . . and their editorial boards have been vociferous in their defense of Jones, et al and CRU.”
When did the sale occur? I noticed an abrupt change after Nature published these important discoveries in 1970s and a news report on “The Demise of Established Dogmas on the Formation of the Solar System” in 1983:
“Mass fractionation and isotope anomalies in neon and xenon,” Nature 227 (1970) 1113-1116.
“Extinct radioactive nuclides and production of xenon isotopes in natural gas”, Nature 235 (1972) 150-152.
“Xenon in carbonaceous chondrites”, Nature 240 (1972) 99-101.
“Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in the Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis”, Nature 277 (1979) 615-620.
“Terrestial-type xenon in meteoritic troilite”, Nature 299 (1982) 807-810.
“The demise of established dogmas on the formation of the Solar System”, Nature 303 (1983) 286.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Perhaps I missed it somewhere (I don’t understand Suomi, I’m afraid) but on what date was this broadcast, and by what network in Finland?
I want to cite the damned thing. English-language ranscripts anywhere?
Thanks.
Tucci,
There is an english-language transcript in one of the comments on the same post at Climate Audit.
Mapou (19:50:00) :
3×2 (19:18:11) :
My take is as follows, this is a multi-dimensional problem, so it needs it’s threads to be teased apart.
Thread 1: The commercial news media (like any business) is intended to be a revenue generating machine for its owners. Media outlets that don’t earn money soon lose staff, or get sold off, or shut down. So the operators are very interested in making a profit. They have a single product to sell, which is advertising space. The value of that space is driven by the number of viewers who see it. – i.e. ratings. The goal of commercial news media is to attract and hold viewers. Scary stories sell, and the AGW meme has been an excellent scary story that has given for a relatively long time.
Thread 2: The commercial news media is dependent upon the appearance of “credibility” to attract and retain viewers. Having invested so much of their credibility in to the AGW story, it is almost impossible for them to now back off to the sceptic position without appearing to be gullible fools. – (Unless they do a “Huge Scandal” story, which would require overwhelming and easily presented evidence to allow them to sell the shift as doing investigative journalism to retain credibility).
Thread 3: The typical journalism student is an Arts/Humanities graduate and has been steeped in “Progressive Ideology” and is thus philosophically predisposed to believe the AGW meme (global crisis) as it supports movement towards global governance. These journalism students end up in the MSM.
Thread 4: Government news media is politicised to the progressive side of politics and will ignore anything that puts the current government in a bad light.
To sum up, the reasons why the MSM is unable to deal with climategate and AGW in an open, honest and inquiring way is because of the acquisition of profit, maintenance of credibility, & philosophical/political bias.
This however is only a strategy of the MSM to survive, and all strategies have weaknesses. The weakness of this strategy is that the internet provides another, uncontrolled (unmanaged), outlet of news. And that news is devastating the credibility of the MSM, which will shed viewers, and hurt profits. The MSM will shrink in popularity and influence due to it’s ineffective and inept handling of the AGW meme.
I will predict that those entities within the MSM that do the “Expose of the AGW Scandal” will be the ones to ultimately survive and prosper.
The AGW meme was killed at Copenhagen by China and India, and it will now only continue on momentum due to the financial and political vested interests, and the self validation of the die-hard true believers. In the end, the economic imperative of competition and survival will kill it off, as the AGW meme is essentially destructive and hence unsustainable in the long term.
Trucci:
For the new WUWT readers, after seeing that Climategate video, maybe you want to enjoy the Svensmak videos too?
Note when he mention, in episode 5, I think, how difficult
it was to get his paper published.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51K9x5iyjnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zOLtMIH8Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRrkitPezhI
James, Roger, thanks. Broadcast on 7 December 2009.
So how come we’ve got this in Suomi – up and running at the beginning of the month – by way of YouTube and nobody in the U.S. has done anything remotely like it?
What the hell is it that justified the ex-Journalism school clowns breathing the nation’s air, much less drawing paychecks for spiking this story?
A lot of good posts here. Is there any forum out there where people can discuss the whole issue, and not have to stay on thread topic? For me the whole issue is gut wrenching and fascinating at the same time, but it IS an info war, and many lay people are not interested yet. This issue is an example where the fabric of the Matrix is uncurling, where we’re briefly seeing the man behind the curtain.
To stay on thread topic a bit, Scandinavia is more science literate than North America. They’re also not quite as afraid to say the truth.
Tucci,; Isnt the yellow text all over the screen good enough?
There is an interesting thing when people argue around comments from sceptics that “it’s not his/her field” or the like. That is not science, an attempt to distract from the argument, because you have no real counter argument.
Fundamentally in science there are a lot of common methodologies that are used in ALL fields, such as data analysis, mathematics, and so forth.
Therefore a Geologist can find errors in the methods used by a physicist, and vice versa, and a mathematician, can find errors in an Engineers work, because there are commonality between all fields of science. You may not be able to judge the conclusion, however you can verify that the methods used are correct.
The whole point of peer review is to evaluate if the methodology is correct, or not, and if the interpretations of the data is correct.
Any scientist worth their salt, any mathematician, and any engineer can analyse and find possibly find errors in methodology, even though they do not understand the interpretation, or the specifics of the case, and therefore their critiques are as valuable as a specialist climate scientist.
Also any scientist worth their salt will be able to explain any changes to methodology that they have made, to a scientist of another field, if the changes are valid. If they cannot explain the changes, then the questions become, why the changes, and why can’t you explain it – are the changes valid and logical ?
When you need to go to “It’s not his field” argument to avoid some criticism, then you are really on shaky non-scientific grounds, and arguing on belief, and not fact.
Either take the debate, and defend your findings, with facts, or shut up! Name calling has no place in science.
saw the movie clips before, awesome
Well jesse ventura has been working on the subject of AGW a show called Conspiracy Theory ( 4 part series)
tom t referring to 60 Minutes:
but then out of the blue they do a good report like the one on California being held hostage to nutjob environmentalists and a 3 inch fish. Of course Fox reported on it months ago.
I agree that it was a good report, but it seemed more balanced to me than what Fox has been doing. Rather than just taking in the complaints of the farmers, they looked at the broader issue, saying that the real cause for the mess is a drought, not just concerns over a 3-inch fish. It sounds like a public water works project is long overdue, because the current water system they have for the area is inadequate. One analyst said that some of the foodstuffs being grown in the area require too much water for the capacity.
@Stefan:
Re: Trying to “clean up the mess” from the education system
Yeah, you and me, both. 🙂
The AGW defenders always say, “so and so is not in the field”, sure, but your climatologist used statistics, didn’t he? Why doesn’t a statistician get to have a say on the field of statistics when it is used in climatology?? It is kinda embarrassing how obvious were their ploys to control things.
Yeah, I’ve seen that tactic used a lot. It didn’t fly with me for very long. The same people will often refer to James Hansen as an authority, which is really ironic. All one has to do is a simple Google search for his bio. to find out that he has no climatological credentials in his resume. He has degrees in astronomy, physics, and mathematics. That’s pretty much it. What first tipped me off to this was a video posted on YouTube by an AGW proponent (of all people!), of testimony given by Dr. William Gray before a senate committee. Sen. Boxer asked him if he knew who James Hansen was. Gray responded clumsily that Hansen was an astronomer who did his doctoral thesis on the greenhouse effect on Venus. To which I thought, tongue in cheek, “Yeah…I guess that makes him an expert on the greenhouse effect on Earth…” 🙂 The same principles do apply, but we’re quite a bit farther away from the Sun than Venus is, and Venus and Earth are polar opposites when it comes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. On Venus it’s 97% of the atmosphere. On Earth it’s about 0.04%.
I watched the videos. Good presentation. I wonder who got the idea to play “Wherever I May Roam” by Metallica for station identification. 🙂 I get it. They’re being cute, but I can’t imagine an American station using this music.
There’s a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
http://www.onlineuniversalwork.com