The simple man’s math

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.

He writes:

If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere, you will find a common theme coming from self-described liberal or progressive bloggers, and that is that those on the political right are ignoramuses.

The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what – they are even anti-science, rejecting knowledge itself — and consequently they support dumb candidates advocating ignorant policies. Such arguments are particularly evident in the corner of the blogosphere that discusses the climate change issue.  This line of argument of course is a variant of the thinking that if only people shared a common understanding of scientific facts they would also share a common political orientation (typically the political orientation of whomever is expressing these views).

Read his whole post here where he explains why.

Or buy his book:

click for more

The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at Amazon.com

Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science policy expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who reject the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical thinking that the agreement represents.

In The Climate Fix, Pielke offers a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away from meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s economy is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding the crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. The Climate Fix will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.

Editorial Reviews via Amazon

From Publishers Weekly

Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of the politics and science of climate change and proposes a commonsense approach to climate policy. According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed.

Although some may protest on principle the suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and opens up the possibility for effective action that places human dignity and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.

The book is available at Amazon.com and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” category.

The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming is now available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&amp;tag=wattsupwithth-20&#8243; target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a><!–more–>

Why has the world been unable to address global warming? Science  policy  expert Roger Pielke, Jr., says it’s not the fault of those who  reject  the Kyoto Protocol, but those who support it, and the magical  thinking  that the agreement represents.

In <em>The Climate Fix</em>,  Pielke offers  a way to repair climate policy, shifting the debate away  from  meaningless targets and toward a revolution in how the world’s  economy  is powered, while de-fanging the venomous politics surrounding  the  crisis. The debate on global warming has lost none of its power to   polarize and provoke in a haze of partisan vitriol. <em>The Climate Fix</em> will bring something new to the discussions: a commonsense perspective and practical actions better than any offered so far.

Editorial Reviews via Amazon

From Publishers Weekly

Pielke (The Honest Broker) presents a smart and hard-nosed analysis of  the politics and science of climate change and proposes  a commonsense  approach to climate policy.  According to Pielke, the  iron law of  climate policy  dictates that whenever  environmental and economic  objectives are placed in opposition to each other,  economics always  wins.  Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a  precondition for their success,  he writes, and because the world will  need more energy in the future, an  oblique  approach supporting   causes,  such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather  than  consequences,  such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade,  is more likely to succeed.

Although some may protest on principle the  suggestion that we accept the inevitability of energy growth, Pielke’s  focus on adaptation to climate change refreshingly sidesteps the  unending debate over the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and  opens up the possibility for effective action that places  human dignity  and democratic ideals at the center of climate policies.

The book is available at <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Fix-Scientists-Politicians-Warming/dp/0465020526/&amp;tag=wattsupwithth-20&#8243; target=”_blank”>Amazon.com</a> and I think it is destined to be a best seller in the “Global Warming” cate

About these ads

177 thoughts on “The simple man’s math

  1. Actually those on the extreme left often ascribe more sinister motivations: that those who don’t believe are “evil”. For example, I read recently that deniers are “out to destroy the planet”. Silly claim to be sure.

  2. At this point I do not care what the bloggers espousing CAGW have to say.

    I am personally working the political front to kill AB32 in Calif and the US EPA’s endangerment finding on CO2. Killing these for the next 5 to 10 yrs should do it.

    It feels real strange as one who considers himself as liberal voting a straight Republican ticket for the first time.

    The congressional hearing on the subject that will be held next year should be interesting as the Republicans look to take over the House. Power of the purse will also go a long way to stop most of the foolishness.

  3. Elitism, pure and simple. “We’re smarter than the unwashed masses”.

    Perhaps high intelligence and educational achievement don’t always translate into being right.

    In any case, I always been amused by people who view themselves as members of an elite class (the intelligentsia) espouse unending support for democracy… except when the masses disagree with them.

  4. And people on the Right don’t say folks on the Left are Stupid?

    I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science and most people who don’t believe AGE is real don’t understand the science. How many people got A’s in science? It is the same with evolution or even ghosts. For most people it boils down to which sources of information do they trust. Liberals are more likely to believe in ghosts (1). Conservatives are more likely to reject evolution (2).

    (1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/17275/OneThird-Americans-Believe-Dearly-May-Departed.aspx

    (2) http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx

    In the early 1900′s it was liberals who rejected evolution because they confused it with Social Darwinism. Now conservatives reject climatology because they think – wrongly – that it threatens the free market system. Once you’ve decided what you want believe it is easy enough to find and string together bits of evidence that support that belief. Hopefully as people’s economic fears wane they put a little more thought into their longer term interests.

  5. The phenom even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger Effect

    “The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. “Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.[2]“

    And I’m sorry, I have to quote wackipedia as a source… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

  6. What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”

    We’ve seen many, many such accusations on this blog, for instance.

  7. >>The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what

    Yes, it’s because 50% of the population are below average intelligence. (Median is about equal to mean for IQ). It explains why more people believe in alien abduction than AGW.

  8. Thomas Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions” is the last word, I think, on explaining the Leftist mindset. I’ve read most of it twice.

  9. It’s one thing to believe an activist, and quite another to believe an activist and to jump off a cliff because he asks you to do so. Amazing how many are prepared to so just that.

  10. If you’ve ever served on a jury you’ll know that a college degree isn’t a vaccination against foolishness, and that many people without such qualifications are shrewd and sensible and often a very good judge of character. People without a college education may not know enough to judge the science accurately. But they know enough to judge the character of the scientists who are telling them these things. They are going to be asking themselves – “Do I trust these people”? That is why climategate was so damaging to the AGW crowd.

  11. To those such as Obama, Clinton, and Kerry who have now sequentially offered only that people oppose their initiatives because such people are unable to analyze fact and science, there is perhaps only one fitting response: “Polly want a cracker?”

  12. I tend to agree that those with college degrees tend to be more Marxist then those without, just like those who sunbath tend to be darker then those who do not. Universities are primarily focused on Marxist indoctrination. They have developed the most sophisticated brainwashing system ever conceived. It is not a surprise that they are largely successful.

  13. Many of the most aware, intelligent and sucessful people I know personally and many whom I have read about; (Thomas Edison, being one well known example of someone who refused to be institutionalized and thus was written off as an idiot) have not gone to college. Many budding writers who persure an undergraduate degree are warned not to go to Graduate School because it will destroy their talent. Institutions have long been the great brain adjusters to whatever the Status Quo is at the time. Some highly brilliant people also have a well tuned BS early warning system and thus escape it all and go on to move the World ahead a little notch further along than it was before.

  14. I have yet to see any real facts to support AGW, Ive seen a lot of lies and corrupt data, Ive seem a whole lot of own goals on their side and a lot of nazi tactics, the real big thing is the elites cure for all pollution?? send it and all production to India and especially China, what a corrupt crock of shit. I do not have a degree but I have a good education from the 1960s, before the socialists infected the schools in England and if you ignore the political bullshit it is not hard to see what is going on, the left are elitists as are communists that is why they have seized global warming and made a holy grail out of it. Well done to them, they have ruined the economy of the USA and the EU, corrupted the banking system and enabled horrific pollution in China and India while destroying enviromentaly reasonable manufacture in the west. You do not have to look far to see the plan short term long term I cannot say, perhaps I would need to be as mad as them to understand their long term ideas! One good thing is if we get in to a position to prune the parasites working for government they have come out of the woodwork and made themselves known, the public servants can be sacked for corruption, no pay off and no hope of a job in local or national gov, scientists who have dishonored science should be stripped of all qualifications and banned from professional bodies and dismissed in disgrace, and heavily fined for their dishonesty. Everyone who bought in to the AGE/CO2 scam should be disgraced, any in office should be publicaly disgraced and banned from office again.
    That would be a good start.

  15. When I was still in uniform, wearing the Queen’s Crown on my cap-badge I had a bit of a run-in with an officer of a very much higher rank than mine.
    He said to me that I should not give his first name as well as his surname when I introduced him to my wife; “Superior Officers should not be introduced in such a fashion.”
    My reply was, “With all due respect sir, this organisation has many officers senior to me but none superior.”
    I feel exactly the same way about politicians, scientists and anyone else who tries to assume a “superior” position.
    I have a Master’s degree, earned in the early 70s when I had to work hard for the qualification. The last seven years of purgatory of living in the UK has formed my political opinions such that I now make Genghis Khan look like a pinko-liberal wimp! I refuse to accept assertions made by those “in authority”, my experience to date leads me to believe that I should discard any such assertions as being manifestly wrong simply because of their source.
    I have sought what I consider to be hard evidence about the climate, about the economy and about the judicial system as these matters affect the citizens of this benighted Realm. The government is wrong about climate change/adjustments/disruption or whatever it is called now: it is equally completely out of touch with matters economic and judicial (our solution to prison overcrowding? Close 3000 prison places!) I am now convinced, nay, certain that the government of this country is simply perpetuating the lies of its avowedly Socialist predecessor.
    We in the UK are ruled by the EUSSR, our own government is but an expensive frippery, sans power, sans courage, sans meaning.
    All that I am certain of now is that it is all going to end in a frightful mess.
    I sincerely hope that the USA can avoid the pitfalls of which we in the UK are providing all-too-clear an example.

  16. My observation has been that people who accuse others of stupidity on this blog are overwhelmingly from the AGW camp . If they get it thrown back in their faces , then so be it . BTW , I’ve also noticed that the most strident proponents of their own intellect are the least likely to back their assertions with facts .

  17. ” Now conservatives reject climatology because they think – wrongly – that it threatens the free market system”

    If it doesn’t threaten a true free market economy, then what’s all this voting and political discussion about?

    Didn’t think so.

  18. re: Thomas Sowell – I also recommend The Vision of the Annointed. It’s a brilliant book, and there’s a lot of stuff relevent to the present hysteria over global warming. In fact, Sowell’s 4-phase schema regarding liberal initiatives fits the AGW episode very well. The difference between this and the earlier disasterous efforts that he recounts is that in this case the suggested remedies to this (non-existent) problem are so draconian, that the whole process is now stalled in Phase 2. (Nonetheless, it’s perfectly obvious that had the liberal-left been successful in enacting their programs for addressing the ‘menace’ of AGW, Phases 3 and 4 would have followed Sowell’s scheme perfectly.)

  19. Gneiss
    October 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”

    We’ve seen many, many such accusations on this blog, for instance.
    ##

    What are you talking about? I think I am the only one that regularly denigrates greenies here. And I don’t call you guys stupid or ignorant. I usually point out that you are cognitively dysfunctional. Which, BTW, your post clearly demonstrates.

  20. Not having a college degree is not a big impediment to voting for elitists.

    That’s what unions and ACORN are for.

  21. The depressing take-home point should be that we as a society view education as “elitist”

    Reading some of these comments makes me sad too.

  22. This claim of “right wing” tends to mean “to the political right of Trotsky”. It’s sort of meaningless.

    If I identify myself as a classical liberal, then I am neither a socialist nor a conservative nor a libertarian nor a moderate. But to people who disagree with me on global warming, I am part of the enemy that makes believers bond to each other when all else fails.

    Does this mean I don’t criticize classical liberal beliefs or those who call themselves classical liberals? Heck no.

    One of the things I have learned about myself is that intelligent people can be very easily deceived into believing stuff that ain’t so. And often showing people the error of their ways does not make them grateful, but angry and defensive instead. Global warming is the latest manifestation of a very long list of apocalyptic belief systems that are as old as humanity itself.

    We all like our prejudices reaffirmed and not challenged. I know I do.

  23. DesertYote says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm:

    “I tend to agree that those with college degrees tend to be more Marxist then those without, just like those who sunbath tend to be darker then those who do not. ”

    I concur. Unfortunately the timing is a bit early. It can be considered that Marxist will be the future of economic principles, but without abundant, cheap energy, it has no hope. People tend to forget that “energy” translate easily to “slave power”. Less external energy (kinetic or potential) will equal more human power. Thinking about the amount of automation in the modern steel processing plant in the terms of the amount of machinery that is doing the human equivalent is mind blowing.

    In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.

  24. And the Pharisee said, I thank you Lord that I am not as other men …

    As soon as voting came in, this sort of pitch became suicidal. But some of these people are still around – and CAGW seems to particularly attract them. How many times have I seen them loftily telling me that I am a nazi-like denier, an agent of big oil (not a cent from them) or big tobacco (one of my pet hates), or a dummy who can’t see that the science is settled (they predicted the temperature stasis of the last decade of course).

  25. Something that the “educated elite” never seem to remember is that education and intelligence are not the same thing.

  26. Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money, and it has nothing to do with whether or not we accept the warmists and alarmists version of climate. As a one-time student of geology and astrophysics I vigorously deny AGW, and support the idea that more CO2 means better food crops. As a lifelong ‘Labor Party’ voter in Australia I deplore their rather dubious support of carbon taxes as wholly destructive of our economy.

  27. As I recall it leftists or to be more prudent and suitable for the self proclaimed geniuses of the huddled mass’ from the world of academia, yet plain and simple, god damn hippies frankly just didn’t understand that the hashish use as a focal instrument to reach once true mental potential and that’s exactly what they did they reach their true mental potential when the lot of ‘em went completely and utterly mental.

  28. The other problem the hard left / pro-AGW crowd face is the fact that a lot of us on the right have PhDs too. So what? The ClimateGate fraudistas all have doctorates, and they used them as a shield against legitimate enquiry. “How dare you question us? How dare you ask for our data and methods? We’re beyond reproach! We’re SCIENTISTS, dammit!”

    What about doubt? What about wonder? What about following the data where it leads, instead of following your theory and cherry-picking the data to fit? What about a little humility, for crying out loud, before the awesome, unpredictable glory of nature?

    It’s not about comparing sheepskins. I work in a scientific organization and I’m surrounded by over-educated boffins incapable of actually thinking. Moreover, you don’t need to be a post-doc to understand that science is about validating or falsifying an hypothesis through experiment and observation. All due respect to the pro-AGW crowd, but I’m still waiting for one of them to demonstrate empirically a causal correlation between delta CO2 and delta T. The day somebody does is the day I’ll give the AGW thesis a second look. Furthermore, as Popper argued, an hypothesis must also explain all previous data as well as making accurate predictions about future system behaviour. So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), the anthropogenic climate changers have yet to explain why climate changed before there was any anthropic consumption of fossil fuels, not to mention before there were any anthropoids at all.

    What do they do instead? Hold conferences where they all close their eyes, concentrate until they start to sweat, and try desperately to wish the MWP away. Presumably the Roman and Mycenaen warm periods are next. Sorry. If your thesis doesn’t fit the data, a scientist changes his thesis. A fraud changes his data.

    Until these niggling little details are sorted out, non-correlation still means non-causation, and the AGW thesis will remain on the scrap-heap of history, along with alchemy, astrology, phrenology, phlogiston, and other theories that can’t explain data or make accurate predictions. From a scientific perspective, that’s really all there is to it.

  29. Well, I have a Masters degree with 1st class honours and I can say that my studies, especially in the field of analysis, led me to see the blatant flaws in the leftist ideology. The biggest flaw of a leftie is their inability to ever admit they’re wrong, they are superior after all, so how is this possible? Their self righteousness is 2nd only to their hypocrisy, eg ‘you need to have an open mind’, or Al Gore.

    Basically the left passes themselves off as honest, caring, & tolerant, but the reason they champion (exploit) the poor is purely for political power, the more poor people the bigger their voting base – they don’t help poor people they propagate them. The biggest flaw in a lefties mindset is the ability for self delusion despite all the evidence. This can best be observed in the AGW debate where, contrary to the facts, the devotees cling for dear life to their beloved theory. When backed into a corner they prefer to lash out with slander, lies, and red herrings rather than admit their superior intelligence could be wrong in any way.

    In essence your average leftie is vain, self righteous, hypocritical, closed minded, self deluded, and intolerant – more so than any of the righties that I know.

  30. Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.

  31. DesertYote says:
    “I tend to agree that those with college degrees tend to be more Marxist then those without, just like those who sunbath tend to be darker then those who do not. ”

    Do people still actually sunbathe? Out in the actual sun? Don’t they know they’ll catch cancer? Oh, the humanity!!

  32. Gneiss says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm
    “What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”

    We’ve seen many, many such accusations on this blog, for instance.”

    Please you asked. Why just the other day on WUWT a blogger called GM these choice titbits for readers.

    I won’t even comment on the fact what is revealed about the intellect of the author by his inability to understand that the problem with CO2 is that by a long, unfortunately much longer than the ability to grasp such things that the average ignoramuses let loose on the pages of this blog possesses,….

    And
    We also lock up people for crimes against humanity. Simon and Lomborg are firmly in that category.

    And
    I am not saying that they should be jailed – they should be laughed at and ignored as the village idiots they are.

  33. Cap & Tax is like telling your teenager not to drive the car while you are away on vacation.
    Sure, anything you say, pops. Bye, see ya, have a nice trip, don’t worry about a thing.
    (Has he left yet??…)

  34. DesertYote – I think that college profs and universities in general tend more towards Marxism today than at the time I attended college . My oldest stepson – a recent grad – seems steeped in the stuff . Fortunately , he has a libertarian streak and enjoys the good life too much to become a true believer . Like a lot of his peers , he spouts that garbage because it sounds “cool”. Unfortunately , like a lot of his peers , he can and will do a lot of damage at the ballot box before wisdom catches up with him .
    As an aside , when I was in college , I was always astounded by the disdain my more liberal profs held for the middle class . Especially when they were so middle class themselves .

  35. Well, I’m a liberal, but I am fed up to my eyeballs with what is going on.

    Not having a college degree is not a big impediment to voting for elitists.
    That’s what unions and ACORN are for.

    You left out phonebooks, graveyards, super heroes, and comic book characters.

    (However, it turns out that being on active military service is a big impediment to voting for anyone, elitist or no.)

  36. Has the time come to question the value of most education? It seems to me that we are now seeing the Triumph of the Essay-Writers: of those who were set a certain amount of verbiage to crank out by Friday and could best sense what was required in the way of futile puffery. It’s been going on forever, you might say; but it’s only now that the Essay-Writers are becoming a governing class, unhampered by a seniority system and other such traditional limiters.

    At Joanne Nova’s site today, she describes the background of the young West Australian Environment minister with the power to annihilate viable, high investment rural businesses with the stroke of a pen. If ever there was an example of essay-complete-by-late-Friday…and she’s not even from the Left!

    Since most of what we do is governed by commonsense and experience, there’s a real danger that education will only work to short-circuit the natural judgment of the educated, while enhancing their natural vanity. More and more, the educated see facile equivalence and sequence in matters that are far too fluid and complex. One might say that this literal-minded and compulsively abstract approach is already apparent in the evolution of so much mock-science appealing to the envies, spites and frustrations of the Left: Marxist Dialectic, Derridanism, the Gaia Hypothesis…

    Oh, and climate modelling, of course.

  37. Gneiss says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:14 pm

    What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”

    Right, I’d say it boils down to being more like the Progressive’s only response, or at least it’s the response which defines the “quality” allegedly validating Post Normal Science’s CO2CAGW Method – the “you’re stupid, we’re smart” PNS definitional*: ~”You inferiors can’t possibly see that real Science with its Scientific Method just can’t handle the [alleged by virtue of the same 'qualilty'] CO2CAGW problem, nor likewise that we self-annointed Intellectual Superiors don’t have to use the Scientific Method. ”

    *which in turn is a form of the definitional argument that, “The Monkeys know it’s true because they always say it’s true.” – Mogli, The Jungle Book Movie.

  38. Malcolm Miller says:

    “Leftism is about looking after people instead of money”

    Well, Malcolm, that’s certainly the leftists’ conceit. However, acting out of good intentions feels so good, that leftists tend to believe their own preferred solution to a problem is the only solution, and will demonize anyone anyone who disagrees. Righteous wrath is such a seductive emotion. And they tend to blind themselves to the disastrous consequences of their actions.

    Meanwhile, “rightists” give tremendously more actual money and time to helping others.

  39. As Prof Lindzen says: ‘Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable’

  40. Well from my viewpoint in Denmark some of the candidates from the Tea party movement are amazingly ignorant and stupid. One of the candidates just claimed that Denmark has “panels” deciding on who is valuable enough to recive treatment in the health care system that is just som amzingly stupid that …. well im at a loss for words. Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait……..

    REPLY: Your viewpoint on stupidity from Denmark needs a spelling and punctuation checker. – A

  41. Or buy his book:

    Will his book tell me why Creationism/Intelligent Design/”Teach the Controversy” proponents tend to run as Republicans?

    @Gneiss

    “What’s the evidence, apart from Pielke’s own political prejudices, to support assertions that accusations of ignorance and stupidity come more frequently from “self-described liberal or progressive bloggers?”

    This seems like the critical question and I don’t see any answer to it either in the post or the comments. This post seems like a lump of “red meat” for people opposed either to climate science, “leftism” or both to chew on but it lacks substance and coherence.

  42. So, Pielke first proclaims that the only intelligent people are the ones with a college degree? And then claims that the other side is the one with elitist views? Fascinating.

  43. Just say you want to talk about partial differential equations, numerical methods, or climate code documentation, and they’ll all go running for the tall grass…

  44. To Paul Coppin on the Dunning Kruger effect. My old roommate, a dog lover and very smart guy (PhD solid state physics), put this much more simply. He said he and his dog have equal intelligence. However, since he didn’t really believe in his heart that the dog was that smart, it gave the dog operational advantage.

  45. I am sure cognitive dis-function is not constrained to one political belief system. The save the worlders, from whatever background are not always wrong. Just mostly mislead by others into somewhat appalling behaviors. These others are not necessarily ignorant, but do have schemes that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves nor our loved ones. I find it a shame that usually my only real choices are limited to Republicans or Democrats.

  46. In trying to award themselves ‘scientific’ degrees, even though they don’t understand such basic scientific formulae such as V=IR and P1V1=P2V2, the ex-pot smokers went to college a bit late in their life, studied something for which they obtain a BS in political science and became political scientists. These scientific non-starters are now telling us that we, that is those who can read the science and understand it, are deniers, skeptics, child killers, in the oil producers’ pockets etc etc. But all I know is that the science I learned at my university gave me enough basic knowledge to understand all the science, pro and con, on AGW. I have formed a scientific opinion: AGW is just a big scientific mistake at best, a global scam at worst. Climategate was the end of the scientific story, however, the political/MSM tandem is still pumping oxygen into the AGW lungs…but it’s clinically dead and soon they will abondon the corpse and create another frankenstein out of the dismembered bodies of AGW/ACC/GCD

  47. Ideologs don’t see outcomes as relevant to actions. If the action is “correct” then a negative outcome is irrelevant. Consider the “you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet” remarks by Fabians about Stalin’s genocide of the kulaks.

  48. Malcolm Miller says:
    October 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm
    Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money…
    —————————————————————————–

    Socialism is the equal distribution of misery….Winston Churchill

    From where I come, Malta, we suffered extreme leftism for 16 years. The Labour party here describing itself as the party of the poor/workers party and ended its three terms (some elections were even rigged) with high unemployement and relatively poor people compared with mainland europe.

    Now, their pet theory is climate change/environment and wind turbines. Lucky we they’re still in opposition after 23 years.

  49. Ever tried explaining to a university graduate why their beautiful theory doesn’t work in the real World?

    DaveE.

  50. DesertYote says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm:

    “In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.”
    I advise anyone who feels this way to go on holiday with a copy of Schumpeter, “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”. It’s the intellectual equivalent of Olbas Oil.
    As to Dr Pielke’s analysis of the typical illiberal induhllectual: One of the major problems for the Left is institutionalised hubris. I thought for one moment that Dr Pielke had blown the gaff – but then realised that the Left would ignore it.

  51. Ed Forbes says:
    October 31, 2010 at 12:52 pm

    “It feels real strange as one who considers himself as liberal voting a straight Republican ticket for the first time.”

    I don’t know how much age has to do with it, but I reached your point about 10 years ago.

    Perhaps it has something to do with what Churchill once said ““If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

    I am quite convinced that the AGW crusaders are NOT liberal. Their squelching of debate on the issue is pretty clear on that point.

  52. Whatever the educational system is doing to people from the ages of 5 – 24,

    it is obviously exactly the opposite of what would be best for optimal brain function.

    :-)


  53. Dr A Burns says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    >>The argument is that they are just too stupid to know what’s what

    Yes, it’s because 50% of the population are below average intelligence. (Median is about equal to mean for IQ). It explains why more people believe in alien abduction than AGW.

    Bearing the above in mind, perhaps we could persuade our illustrious president to put in place an educational program so that, within say 5 years, every student will be above the average in IQ.

    …urk!

  54. A college degree does not mean you know it all. The smartest people i know have good old fashion common sense, and some have degrees and others do not. High IQs does not translate to being smart, if you do not have common sense and use it in what ever field you you chose to persue then the degree is useless!!! Stephen Brown great post , being former USMC myself you hit the nail on the head.

  55. Malcolm Miller says:
    October 31, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Grow up, you guys! Leftism is about looking after people instead of money, …

    You didn’t finish this off correctly. the rest of the statement is “… whether they want it or not, need it or not, asked for it or not, asked you to do it…

  56. David A Evans – The operative word hereis tried . And , yes I have – to little avail . It’s almost as though modern history doesn’t exist .

  57. “Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success, he writes, and because the world will need more energy in the future, an oblique approach supporting causes, such as developing affordable alternative energy sources rather than consequences, such as controversial schemes like cap-and-trade, is more likely to succeed”.

    There is no climate problem, therefore we need no climate policies, no UN IPCC, no government policies or regulations to deal with CO2.
    The free market will take care of the world’s energy needs as it did during the past century.

    There is no basis to broker a deal based on Pielke’s view because the entire AGW scam is based on fraud.

    No surrender.

    This is the problem with luke warmists.

    They question the warmist policies but keep the fraud alive.

  58. For sensible people, beliefs about climate do not split along left/right political lines. Interest in natural climate & weather phenomena spans political, economic, & social spectra. In the long run, anthropogenic computer-climate fantasies based on absolutely untenable assumptions will fool neither masses of sensible people on the left nor masses of sensible people on the right.

    Toxic pollution remains a real problem. Personally I also heavily advocate natural parks & forests. Climate alarmism is neither politically nor environmentally strategic.

  59. Intelligence is a matter of internal wiring – it’s innate. Education is acquired information – external. The two are often confused. An educated person may come across as intelligent but may, in fact just parrot information, make poor use of resources, and be inept at problem solving – an educated fool. On the other hand, an intelligent person may not necessarily be educated and thus unable to impress others with academic achievements but be highly successful in recognizing and using resources and very good at problem solving – a true intellect.

    Fools, whether educated or not, usually have superiority complexes, having to put others down to achieve self importance. They’re predisposed to pretense and ad hominem because they’re short on intellect and social skills. They are often underachievers in life and seek significance through self promotion. Intelligent people, both educated and uneducated, are generally confident in their abilities and are achievers or doers. They tend to be more congenial, resourceful, and intellectually honest. They tend to be more successful in life and more reserved by nature. You see both kinds here.

    Don’t tell me what I don’t know. Show me what you know so that I may learn.

  60. Grumpy old Man disagrees with:
    October 31, 2010 at 3:28 pm:
    “In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.”

    Actually, that was me. Think about it, if energy is “dirt cheap”, then the social system will have to be rethought entirely. There are taxes that EVERYONE takes advantage of at sometime. If we have an abundant source of energy that continues to do more and more work that humans used to do, it is inevitable that we would have to re-think the system.

    The current “socialistic plan” is irresponsible and “takes advantage of the poor” just like the system “they” would like to replace. Every socialistic national endeavor has resulted in a tyranny (i.e. elitist control) which has been an issue of debate since the Grecian times.

    Take away is, consider if we do achieve fusion; cheap reliable energy, and we have automatons doing all the work with this energy, does capitalism survive?

  61. The fact is that acting against climate change requires understanding and acceptance of sophisticated scientific concepts, which predict problems far in the future, and would primarily affect people making a precarious living in the developing, and non human biological species. Most people are not willing to pay anything extra, or make any change in their lifestyles to battle such a distant threat. Those who are less well educated, and politically conservative, are less likely to accept the scientific research which is the basis for the theory of AGW. This is not just my opinion, it has been proven by scientific surveys.

    http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_Hamilton_Climate_Survey.pdf

    If you look at the above link you will see that acceptance of AGW is 37% for HS or less,
    42% for associates degrees, 55% for bachelors, and 63% for Postgraduate.
    It also shows that political affiliation accounts for a lot of the opinions on AGW.

    What is interesting is that people believe that scientists share their personal beliefs about AGW. Whatever one may think of about the validity of AGW, there can’t be any uncertainty about what research scientists think about AGW. Two surveys have shown the 97% of researchers believe AGW is happening now. This survey was actually performed by Roger Pielke Sr.

    It is clear that advocates of action against AGW, who complain about the public’s lack of education being a factor in public opinion against taking action to stop AGW are correct. Pielke doesn’t really deny that from what I have read so far. What Pielke is saying is that their public statements about this are poor politics, and will not help their cause. He is probably correct about this.

    Of course there are people with education posting on this web site who reject the idea of AGW. That should be no surprise, because this web site would attract such people. Certainly the statistics don’t say that 100% of people with bachelors degrees or higher, so the posters who are believe AGW is nonsense don’t prove that lack of education is not a factor in the public’s failure to accept AGW. It only shows that this is not the only factor in determine people’s opinions.

    It is not comforting that political conservatism, and lack of education are causing people to believe falsely that scientist do not accept AGW is an important effect, when the contrary is true. This false belief persuades them that the science behind AGW is incorrect also.

  62. “Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains why some leftist bloggers set themselves up for failure when they espouse their intellectual superiority. Screaming “hell, high water, global boiling, climate disruption, etc ” while at the same time saying “you’re too dumb to understand it” looks to be an epic “failure to communicate”.

    Not a communication failure I think, rather an attempt to bolster the failed CAGW conjecture by spreading alarm and trying to panick the public. Despite the millions spent it became obvious that CAGW wasn’t going to happen, but the need to ensure the green agenda could still press forward resulted in the observed furore.

    “The science is settled”, “It’s worse than we thought.”, “The polar bears will be wiped out.”, “Sea levels will rise 8m.”, “Hurricanes will destroy the USA.”… e.t.c., e.t.c, e.t.c.

    Fifteen years of no statistically significant global warming and one read through some of the Climategate emails. This was enough for anyone with even an ounce of grey matter to see that CO2 is just a bit player regarding climate and natural cycles are the real agents of change.

    CAGW and the green agenda are both dead. Lets screw the coffin lid down nice and tight and bury it six foot under.

  63. Maybe off topic butI was just thinking this: Do we really need ‘Climate Scientists’? Could we survive without them?

    Well, of course we could. we got along very nicely without them thank you very much until the species evolved about 20 – 25 years ago. Frankly we’d be better off without them.

  64. AGW is the 90′s version of New Math. It doesn’t matter if the result is wrong, as long as the method is correct.

  65. Zeke the Sneak says:
    October 31, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    You are right!, and perhaps you don´t remember when, after the Russians launched their first satellite, the Sputnik, there was the intention (just that I guess) to change education…..and now what is it called education?: Teaching kids how homosexuals engange in their counter nature relations?, not teaching them to think by their own?
    I will tell you, one day I went to pick up my wife from the school she works here in SA. I found a group of teens, sitting around a pine tree, trying to memorize formulas of aromatic hydrocarbons: I took some rosin out of the pine tree and told them this was one of them, I told them to smell it and chew it and taste it; I am sure that 30 years after they won´t ever forget it. Another example, Pythagoras square triangle equation it is taught, literally as: C2=a2+b2 and NEVER by drawing a square on each catet and on the hypothenuse.
    The trick when the first computers appeared was to tell the students to make a program to solve any given problem: While doing it they learned waht was the problem really about; it gave birth to the idea that computers were helpful in education, which now THEY ARE NOT, etc.etc.
    Not to mention the fact that, as a consequence of self conceit, the less understood is a teacher the wiser he/she considers himself (this is tragically valid too for “new age scientists”), the more entangled and obscure his/her explanations are the more wise and intelligent they consider themselves. The worst it could happend to them is someone to appear around, like Pythagoras, who showed that a slave taken from a prison could demonstrate his famous square triangle formula. They, daughter and sons of mommy and daddy, being so accustomed to “mutual caressing activities”and self indulgement, are really driving occidental culture to the deepest of darkness eras ever known. No, don´t say we are surrounded by intelligent gadgets and artifacts, THESE WERE the making and the product of the ingenuity of such dropouts as Bill Gates and others, were not for them we would not have all the confort we have in our lives. Wake up little Susie!

  66. Reading all these posts confirms one thing to me; there is way too much hate in the whole AGW/politics topic.

  67. I’m not convinced that the alarmists (or at least the leaders of that movement) even believe in it themselves. Certainly one look at the homes of Al Gore or Oprah shows that they don’t see any need for themselves to conserve; that’s something the masses are supposed to do for them.

    And I don’t see much need for wilderness or wild animals in the world anyway. Most of them simply aren’t below us in the food chain. And if the amount of park land ever drops to anywhere near the demand for it, it will pay someone to buy and maintain it and charge admission.

    The real problem in today’s world is the willingness of government to help busybodies appoint themselves everybody’s mothers. The point of being an adult is to be able to tell people like that to f*** off and die, and make it stick. That’s a human right.

  68. @ DN:

    When you say:

    “So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), …”

    didn’t you get the ice core data arse-about? I seem to recall the Vostock ice-cores showing a correlation between CO2 and T whereby the CO2 tracked T approximately 800 years afterwards. If that is the case, delta CO2 possibly responds to changes in T, not vice versa.

    Otherwise, well said!

  69. Cognitive dissonance explains this : just about everyone believes themselves to be good. If they have devoted years pursuing a thesis they have not only invested intellectual energy but also emotional energy and their sense of self so that when confronted by evidence that contradicts their views, it is easier to deny/rationalize/ distort this than admit error, where an outsider would have no difficulty precisely because they are uncommitted. This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest

  70. H.R. says:
    Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.

    Your mistake lies in the use of the phrase “to assume all people without formal education are not intelligent.” In a society with universal public education and a lot of opportunity for higher education for merit scholarships for those who are bright, not wealthy, there will be a correlation between educational level and intelligence.
    Most intelligent people would choose to get more formal education, if it were available, because it is a ticket to a better life. Some may not like the effort and may not want to spend the time it takes to get a formal education, but they would be a minority. Some feel they may not be able to afford it. That is why there is only a correlation between intelligence, rather than an identity.

  71. Kaboom says:
    October 31, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    @ DN:

    When you say:

    “So in addition to fixing the problem of T refusing to scale linerarly with CO2 concentrations over any time period (except to the extent that, according to ice core data, T seems to respond to changes in CO2 concentration), …”

    didn’t you get the ice core data arse-about? I seem to recall the Vostock ice-cores showing a correlation between CO2 and T whereby the CO2 tracked T approximately 800 years afterwards. If that is the case, delta CO2 possibly responds to changes in T, not vice versa.

    Otherwise, well said!

    It is distressing to see propagation of the fallacy, that CO2 leading temperature change in the recent cycles of ice ages and warming, shows that CO2 cannot cause warming. Radiation physics and measurements of the atmosphere shows that CO2 will warm the atmosphere, and this has been understood since 1859. The ice ages are understood to be initially driven by changes in the earth’s orbit and axis which increase solar summer heating in the northern hemisphere. The increase in CO2 concentration which is driven by the resulting increases in temperature and the increase in water vapor concentration amplifies the temperature increases during the glacial cycles.

    http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh2.html

    When the temperature, CO2 and CH4 curves are carefully compared, it is found that temperature changes usually precede CO2 and CH4 changes by 500–1000 years on average. This indicates that climate change causes CO2 and CH4 changes. However, these greenhouse gas changes are a positive feedback that contributes to the large magnitude of the climate swings.

  72. Mike says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
    ______
    C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are the very best in their fields who believe AGW is real and who understand the science far better than 99.9% of the bloggers who think AGW is not real. To assert they “don’t understand the science” is to miss the entire debate that brave people like Dr. Judith Curry are trying to open up. This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),

  73. Peter Sørensen says:
    “Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait…….”

    I would venture that the vast majority of the Tea Party Members realize the difference between what Sarah Palin really said and what Tina Fey, a comedian pretending to be Sarah Palin said on Saturday Night Live.

    Good luck with finding the right words there in Denmark. Those who only dig deep enough to find what they want find often stop far short of finding the truth.

  74. R. Gates says:
    October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm (Edit)

    Mike says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
    ______
    C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are the very best in their fields who believe AGW is real and who understand the science far better than 99.9% of the bloggers who think AGW is not real. To assert they “don’t understand the science” is to miss the entire debate that brave people like Dr. Judith Curry are trying to open up. This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),

    And, on the other hand, there are many millions who DO understand completely the math, the assumed and simplified “science” involved with global warming, and the massive errors and coverups involved with ONLY presenting the so-called CAGW theory to politicians in the name of taxes (1.4 trillion and counting) and bribes and influence and “igNobel” prizes and research funding and papers and incestuous peer-reviewed papers, etc.

    The CAGW theorists (deliberately) understate uncertainty and re-write the summary for policymakers by themselves to deliberately make CAGW appear worse than it is. They deliberately exaggerate the threats, call for riots and call for death to skeptics, and appeal to emotions (never reason) to the public at large because they have no “science” on their side.

    These so-called “scientists” have nothing but simplified theory on their hands. Long term data, unaltered data, proves them wrong.

  75. Laura Hills says:
    October 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    “This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest”.

    EXACTLY. This is the REAL debate. I am not sure how scientifically the two sides are into the whole debate, but one thing that is true, the distortion and torture of the data in the form of graphs and other visual media has stoked the fires (i.e. Hockey Stick, minimizing the MWP, etc). Humans are very adversarial to others taking advantage of themselves.

  76. Could some of the real climate scientists here to comment on. (I was trained in physical chemistry, and my understanding is as follows:)

    Assume incoming TSI is a constant, and the Albedo is also constant. We will make CO2 the driving force. Since radiation is scattered in all directions, and since the Earth is a sphere, there will always be MORE IR radiation scattered to space. This is independent of any heat “trapped” and is true no matter how many “layers” we compute in any models.

    So, if the downwards component of IR radiation increases due to increasing greenhouse gases, then so does the outwards component by a slightly greater amount.

    But since the albedo & TSI are constant (in this word model) and since the Earth loses more heat energy to space than that which is directed downwards, THEREFORE the Earth is cooling overall (loosing heat to space).

    So, the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it loses heat. Since the incoming energy is assumed to be constant, we have a logical impossibility.
    Can someone help me with this?

  77. eadler
    “Your mistake lies in the use of the phrase…“

    Wow! You so perfectly exemplify what is meant be the the term ‘elitist’ that you should submit you picture for the Wikipedia definition.

    MikeEE

  78. racookpe1978 says:
    October 31, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    “Long term data, unaltered data, proves them wrong…”

    _____
    And your links to the specific data that PROVES AGW is not happening???

  79. It’s clear that many of the European commenters here are pretty ignorant about American politics. It’s not their fault, however, but rather due to the sorry state of the manipulative European (and US) media.

    By the way, we’re having a tea party here in the States on Tuesday…

  80. DesertYote says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Universities are primarily focused on Marxist indoctrination.

    I have to interject here. Not all universities are Marxists. My college was not. I went to East Carolina University for computer science (aka computer programming) and math. But before I went, I went to a local community college for some credits to save money. I had to take a bunch of junk courses to make me “well-rounded” student. Not once was I attempted to be indoctrinated into Marxism, or socialism, or any other -ism you can name. Granted, my field of study not in liberal arts. But even in the liberal arts classes I had to take, it had no indoctrination.

    When I was at the local community college, my calculus teacher also taught at NC State University. NC State is considered to be a conservative college focusing more on farming and science. This calculus teacher was a staunch conservative and from what he said, he was the majority at NC State. That was 10 years ago. Also in this one class was a student from UNC-Chapel Hill (usually just called UNC). UNC is known to be a very liberal college. This one student from UNC was clearly indoctrinated into the left’s ideology. She kept trying to argue with my calculus teacher, but could not hold her own against him.

    The point of this is that not every college is Marxist.

  81. eadler: “Radiation physics and measurements of the atmosphere shows that CO2 will warm the atmosphere…”

    Yes, radiation physics does show that when there is solar influx CO2 heats the atmosphere, and it also show that at night without solar influx CO2 cools the atmosphere, just as water vapour does. You forgot that bit.

  82. Wow, the trolls are out tonight. Probably appropriate since it is, after all, Hallowe’en.

    Eadler manages to write even more tortuous prose than my own unintentionally contorted offerings here. He writes:

    It is clear that advocates of action against AGW, who complain about the public’s lack of education being a factor in public opinion against taking action to stop AGW are correct. Pielke doesn’t really deny that from what I have read so far. What Pielke is saying is that their public statements about this are poor politics, and will not help their cause. He is probably correct about this.

    I would argue, to the contrary, that they mean the public’s ‘lack of indoctrination’ as the public is not too stupid to notice that the despite all the alarmist tripe thrown about in the media, their own daily experience is not showing much evidence of warming. Also, many of the least educated most likely don’t pay any attention to scientists diktats whatsoever, and those who read the papers regularly have become accustomed to scientists proclaiming the danger of cholesterol, fats, starches, sugars, caffeine and coffee, food in general, and then finding evidence that they may have been wrong. Anyone who tries to pay attention, after a few decades, does grow somewhat wary of the latest claims for immanent death or cancer for eating this or that normal food. Plus scientists regularly reverse their former pronouncements on the effects of ingesting Vitamin C, Vitamin A, Vitamin D (until recently thought to be extremely dangeous above 200 IU per day, now with a minimum recommendation of 2000 IU.) Plus, on top of that, anyone who has studied the history of science quickly learns that whole cadres of scientists have defended theories that were later found to be insufficient (eg wave theory vs particle theory of light) wrong (neo-Lamarckism comes to mind) or evil (eugenics). Why would anyone who has studied the history of science come to the conclusion — in a politically correct era in which to speak otherwise brings down opprobrium and even shunning from colleagues– that a survey indicating that 97% agree with AGW is therefore indicative of a defensible scientific theory.

    Of course there are people with education posting on this web site who reject the idea of AGW. That should be no surprise, because this web site would attract such people. Certainly the statistics don’t say that 100% of people with bachelors degrees or higher, so the posters who are believe AGW is nonsense don’t prove that lack of education is not a factor in the public’s failure to accept AGW. It only shows that this is not the only factor in determine people’s opinions.

    ??????????
    Moving along:

    It is not comforting that political conservatism, and lack of education are causing people to believe falsely that scientist do not accept AGW is an important effect, when the contrary is true. This false belief persuades them that the science behind AGW is incorrect also.

    I don’t thinks that those of us who are either conservative and uneducated (or conservative and educated or liberal and uneducated etc etc) who reject AGW reject it because we think that scientists do not accept AGW. We come to WUWT precisely because we do understand that most scientists still accept the theory, and we think that the theory is wrong, and that for the most part their acceptance is due to an unexamined acquiescence to what they believe is a scientific consensus. As has been spectacularly revealed in the last year (anniversary of the great day coming up, BTW!) that consensus has been manufactured by a very small coterie of ‘climate scientists’ who have a definite agenda. Scientists by dint of their education are not immune to the influence of belief systems, and the more that people understand how extra-scientific influences help determine the focus of investigations and kinds of explanations put forward by scientists, the better. The strangely left-wing prescriptions put forward by climate scientists as patently useless remedies to global warming that might possibly have tipped off your so called conservative and/or uneducated skeptics and led them to doubt the scientists as well as the science.

    [Your post is not clear: Where do you wish to stop quoting him? 8<) Robt]

  83. R. Gates says:
    October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    “This issue isn’t whether they “understand the science” but what they do with that understanding and how it is presented to policy makers (especially, of course, the issue of uncertainty in the science),”
    ============
    So, you have given your life over to the “policy makers”.
    Wow.

  84. Its really a matter of people who think and people who can’t think, its easy to find an abundance of morons on both sides of the political fence. This left right crap is just crap. If you look at the pew surveys on climate change, university educated democrats and independents are among those that are changing their views the quickest. Americans are amongst the worst in the world in holding dogmatic political views and spinning their political views whenever they can. Its a sad state of affairs when a nation is in decline like the US and they waste massive amounts of money on political spending. If you want to rail about anything involving politics, thats something to get worked up about. Imagine the year is 2010 and the US political machine is still fuelled by dollars from the private sector. What’s killing the US today is not the liberal lefties but an absence of free thinking folks.

    [Is it not more troubling that the liberals want the "public debate" entirely funded by (their) very-well-controlled and politically-corrupt public money? Robt]

  85. Chris Edwards says: October 31, 2010 at 2:05 pm
    I have yet to see any real facts to support AGW, I’ve seen a lot of lies and corrupt data, I’ve seen a whole lot of own goals on their side and a lot of Nazi tactics, the real big thing is the elites cure for all pollution?? send it and all production to India and especially China, what a corrupt crock of shit.

    Well done to them, they have ruined the economy of the USA and the EU, corrupted the banking system and enabled horrific pollution in China and India while destroying environmentally reasonable manufacture in the west. You do not have to look far to see the plan short term long term I cannot say, perhaps I would need to be as mad as them to understand their long term ideas!

    —————————————————————————————
    Chris. I share your anger with the arrogance and hubris of the so called elite. In the early part of this century, I would read about that wizard of economics Alan Greenspan and his apparently infallibility. The famous (but now infamous) Greenspan ‘put’ effectively stuffed the US economy. His acumen was something to revere (Emperor’s clothes?). The destruction of the US and UK economies was presided over by the likes of Greenspan, Larry Summers (US) on Clinton’s so called watch and George Brown (UK) under Blair’s towards the end of the 20th century. I watched the explosion of the (casino) banking system that they allowed and encouraged. This ultimately led to the collapse of the financial systems of the west. It took 10 years to stuff it up properly. It is still in a condition that nobody knows how to fix from what I can ascertain.

    More recently (about 2 years ago) I began to question the science behind global warming, ocean rise etc. that previously I assumed was based on solid science. After some time I realised that the same arrogance and hubris abounds in this area as well. There seemed to me to be no real level of science that provided certainty for any of these claims. In fact, quite a deal exists to the contrary. And again it is taken up by our political leaders with alacrity. Again we see the commitment of trillions of dollars towards unproven technology (wind and solar power) and the abandonment of proven energy sources (coal and nuclear) At the same time the transfer of manufacture to the east (China and India) whose industry is based upon these two energy sources.

    The point I am trying to get to is that these people blessed with great and superior education and intellect (Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan George Brown and Tony Blair) have not shown any more insight than the common person. It has been well documented and argued at the time that the removal of the last vestiges of the Glass Steagall legislation was likely to lead to the very trouble that we are now seeing. But no, hubris reigned – or was it hubris coupled with greed – there were plenty (the banks) who profited by this. It is well documented and argued now that global warming is not driven by co2 emissions and that what global warming there is does not lead to a catastrophic end of the earth. Hubris and greed – they seem to go together.

    Douglas

  86. Very Sad.
    I guess we will all have to learn “Seig Heil” again.
    Unfortunately that is where I see the United States heading.
    good luck

  87. Laura Hills says:
    October 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    “Cognitive dissonance explains this : just about everyone believes themselves to be good. If they have devoted years pursuing a thesis they have not only invested intellectual energy but also emotional energy and their sense of self so that when confronted by evidence that contradicts their views, it is easier to deny/rationalize/ distort this than admit error, where an outsider would have no difficulty precisely because they are uncommitted. This is not a fault of left or right but simply human nature. Perhaps if science education elevated empiricism and honest data above theory people would be more honest.”

    There is no evidence that cognitive dissonance can explain the adoption of AGW theory by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. The theory of AGW is the result of over 150 years of scientific investigation. The theory is a result of years of collection of scientific data, beginning with John Tyndall in 1859, who was motivated by Fourier many years before. In 1959, a scientifically sound one dimensional theory of radiation propagation in the atmosphere nailed the role of CO2 and water vapor based on sound radiation measurements. The theory has evolved since then into a 3 dimensional model, aided by the development of super computers. There is no evidence that this was driven by cognitive dissonance. Arrhenius , who originated the theory of AGW, actually believed that AGW was a good thing, and a warmer climate would be beneficial to mankind. In addition, in the long term, it is understood by modern scientists, that CO2 emission could prevent another ice age from reducing the habitat for mankind to thrive. The rise of the theory had nothing to do with politics.

    It is the people who deny that AGW is real who are trapped by cognitive dissonance. Survey data shows that many of them don’t even know that there is a consensus among climate scientists that AGW is real, and they believe the opposite. In addition many are driven by political conservatism to reject the science behind AGW, because it would require government legislation for mankind to stop or slow down AGW.

    http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/IB_Hamilton_Climate_Survey.pdf

    The scientific opposition to global warming has been financed by think tanks who draw their money from wealthy conservatives including oil and coal industrialists.

  88. from New Zealand says: October 31, 2010 at 2:31 pm
    Well, I have a Masters degree with 1st class honours and I can say that my studies, especially in the field of analysis, led me to see the blatant flaws in the leftist ideology. —In essence your average leftie is vain, self righteous, hypocritical, closed minded, self deluded, and intolerant – more so than any of the righties that I know.
    ————————————————————————————-

    Whew! John – glad you got that off your chest! But sad to say – they don’t have this on their own John.

    Douglas

  89. “The scientific opposition to global warming has been financed by think tanks who draw their money from wealthy conservatives including oil and coal industrialists.”

    Oh brother…get out the tinfoil hats…

    By the way, didn’t BP give money to UEA and Jones bragged about it somewhere…hmmm….

  90. I would rather hear what a truck driver or a shop keeper has to say about current events over some PhD who is educated beyond their capacity to think.

  91. Gates, what are we going to do with you? At least you’re entertaining:

    “…there is a logical fallacy (not made in the study by the way) in drawing a conclusion that just because CO2 levels may not have been the driver behind a warmer Arctic during the Holocene Optimum, that they couldn’t be the driver behind a warmer Arctic now.”

    That is a Gates version of the logical fallacy called the Argumentum ad Ignorantium: the argument that says, “Since we don’t know what causes climate variability, then it must be CO2!”

    Albert Einstein relied on Occam’s Razor to construct his Theory of Relativity. It allowed him to reject Michelson and Morley’s notion of an “[a]ether.” You might think about that. Just replace “Relativity” with “climate change,” and the “ether” with “CO2.”

    Both the ether and CO2 are extraneous variables, unnecessary to answering the question. Mr Ockham would have told you to dump the extraneous variable.

    CO2 as the cause of climate change is also a red herring argument, because it cannot be shown to have any effect on either the global climate or temperature. If CO2 does have an effect, it is too small to be measured, therefore it is insignificant and should be disregarded. The true causes of climate variability are yet to be nailed down; there is no Theory of Climate.

    Best for you to not stray into logic. Emotion is your strong point; stick with that.

  92. Hank Hancock said, October 31, 2010 at 4:10 pm:

    “An educated person may come across as intelligent but may, in fact just parrot information, make poor use of resources, and be inept at problem solving”

    Milton wrote, “Deep verst in books and shallow in himself”. In Algernon Blackwood’s Dudley and Gilderoy, a vicar says “deep in books, but shallow in himself” about an actual parrot.

  93. OK, there’s so much confused logic in this thread I hardly know where to begin. I’ll try and keep it to the point on [four] issues:

    1. Intelligence and education
    2. Elitism and who is guilty of what
    3. The real flaw in leftist thinking
    4. The flaw in Pielke’s argument

    1. Intelligence and education – there is a vast gulf between theory and practice. Walk the floor of any custom metal fab shop and talk to the welders and sheet metal workers. They spend an amazing amount of time explaining to the much more educated engineers that the drawing they produced can’t be assembled in real life, or that the amazing fix that they came up with will require 30 hours of rework and that there’s another way to go about it that is much more sensible. Pick any industry and you can find some version of this story. Does that make the welders more intelligent than the engineers? Of course not. The trades people understand from first hand experience with the real materials how they behave to certain stresses and techniques in the assembly process, a perspective that most engineers don’t have. On the other hand, most of those trades people don’t know what finite element analysis or why it is important. The gap between education and intelligence comes in part when the educated believe that there is no gap in their knowledge that the less educated in the field can fill. The other part of the equation is best illustrated by (I think) Robert A Heinlein who said about education (paraphrase mine) that there is no need to study a particular subject in university to get a good mark, one need only study the professor’s opinions on the subject and repeat them in different words. The result is intelligentsia who proceed on one of two false assumptions, either that there is nothing in practice that they could learn from to improve their understanding of theory, or that parroting the opinions of others achieves high marks indicative of intelligence.

    2. Elitism and who is guilty of what – I saw several comments complaining that both “sides” engage in ad hominem attacks, insults and denigrate each other’s intelligence. Very true, just read through the comments in various threads on this blog. BUT, and this is a HUGE but, there is a major gulf between an anonymous commenter on WUWT saying alarmists scientists should be put in jail and people in public positions saying the same thing. When you reduce the discussion to what those with a public persona and the ability to influence large numbers of people are saying, the divide is clear. Greenpeace leadership publishing threatening articles suggesting to skeptics “we know where you work, we know where you live”, David Suzuki or Nasa/Giss scientist Hansen calling for skepticism to be made a criminal offence, calls by senior leadership to equate skepticism with crimes against humanity, the IPCC itself publishing volumes of questionable science while proclaiming the science to be settled even as their predictions repeatedly fall flat on their faces. Has the leadership and public face of the skeptic community done the same? Has Anthony Watts, or Lord Moncton, or Professor Lindzen or any other high profile skeptic with a large public following said similar things? Worse, the leadership of the alarmist side actively engages in the suppression of contrary opinion. Not simply by declaring the science settled, but by actively suppressing debate. Post a well worded objection to a matter of AGW science on “warmist” blogs like Real Climate, and your point will likely never be seen by anyone other than the moderator. A quick read through this skeptic blog, in fact this thread, shows that dissenting opinion is both allowed and though a warmist will get their share of insults, they also get well founded well explained rebuttals. On this issue the alarmists are guilty as sin and there is no comparable behaviour amongst the luminaries of the skeptic side.

    3. The real flaw in leftist thinking – it may come as a surprise to those who know me or have read my writing that I am a leftist. No, really, I am. But I am a leftist who understands the divide between theory and practice. In theory, there is little to complain about as regards communism. From each according to their ability to each according to their need. What evil lurks in such a statement? Answer; human nature. Trotsky and Lenin may well have believed their own theories, and on the surface, what better way to run a society than for maximum benefit of all? But in practice, implementation of the communist system requires the one thing that Trotsky and Lenin didn’t seem to get; someone has to be in charge. In theory, if that someone is as committed to the greater good as Lenin and Trotsky proclaimed themselves to be, then we need only worry about their competence. But I doubt that Lenin or Trotsky foresaw that their theory of governance would, in practice, give rise to monsters like Stalin and Khrushchev. Stalin had no illusions about communism, he loudly proclaimed the opinions of his teachers (Lenin and Trotsky) to get the good marks and trust needed to seize power. What happened next was not communism in theory or practice, and those who objected were silenced with death, Trotsky amongst them. This is the real flaw in leftist theory. No matter how much sense the theory makes, in practice it degrades from benevolence to suppression in a single change of leadership, proving repeatedly that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Democracy by comparison is an akward and inefficient method of making decisions in the national interest. But precisely because it is akward and inefficient with power spread so thinly, it cannot give rise in a single change of leadership, not even in several generations of leadership, to a monster like Stalin.

    4. The flaw in Peilke’s argument – At the risk of offending someone I have a great deal of respect for, and proceeding without having read the book itself, only the review, it seems that his argument is predicated on the following:

    “According to Pielke, the iron law of climate policy dictates that whenever environmental and economic objectives are placed in opposition to each other, economics always wins. Climate policies must be made compatible with economic growth as a precondition for their success…”

    I submit that the opposite is true. Given the nature of the warmist position, that the economy must be energy constrained in order to save the environment, what is required for their argument to gain traction with the public in general? Answer; strong economic conditions. During weak economic conditions, their arguments fall on deaf ears. People aren’t interested in what is best for the planet a century from now, they want to keep the bank from foreclosing on their house. Implementation of the warmist agenda is predicated not on climate policy compatible with economic growth, but on an economy so robust that the average person is prepared to consider giving up some of what they have “just in case”. The fat man with well fed children scurrying around his beautiful home entertains the entreaties of the salesman at the door promoting swamp land in Florida and considers that the possibility for profit may in fact exist, and considers if he will commit some portion of his personal wealth to invest. The starving man whose children’s bellies are swollen with hunger answers the knock at the door of his decrepit shack to find the same salesman pitching the same swamp land. He doesn’t hear the words spoken, though the vibrations in the air reach his ears as well as they did those of the fat man. The difference is that his mind is preoccupied with another matter entirely. Is the salesman edible and will anyone come looking for him? Climate policy is not trumped by need for economic growth. It is economic growth that enables climate policy to be heard and sit at the table where decisions are made by the rich and powerful. But when the climate declines the public revolts, at the ballot box if not worse, and the alarmists voices fall on deaf ears, for the public is focused on finding their next meal. The rich and powerful may not be under the same strain, but make no mistake about it. The climate alarmist sits amongst them at the dinner table only because they see some use in his drivel. When the public both cottons on to the swamp land scheme while at the same time focusing on their next meal with no regard for the meal after that, the alarmist loses his sway and becomes ever more shrill and insistent, lest the rich and powerful lose all interest in his usefullness and withdraw the invitation to dinner.

    They’ll bring him back of course, when economic conditions have improved and the public is dominated by fat men with well fed children who can be taken in by CAGW. Oops, I meant swamp land investment schemes.

  94. Very Sad.
    I guess we will all have to learn “Seig Heil” again.
    Unfortunately that is where I see the United States heading.
    good luck

    What is it with the elites and the Nazi accusations? Hitler was a socialist, for Pete’s sake. Do you really think the name calling is going to make someone change their mind and agree with you?

    I have never, NEVER so looked forward to an election in my life, and I’ve been through my fair share. Tuesday can’t get here soon enough for me. I’m throwing an all-night party to watch the election returns.

    I don’t see what difference the so-called intelligence of the candidates makes in the great scheme of things. Given a choice between a supposedly stupid, backwards Tea Party candidate that supports limited government and a Mensa alumni leftie who claims he knows what is best for me, I say it’s Tea Time. I’d happily vote for a bunch of new-Earth creationists if I thought they would vote within the limits of the Constitution. And, for the record, I have a degree, but I don’t think it makes me smarter than anyone else.

  95. Wade
    October 31, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    I pretty much agree with what you have to say. There are still some fine educational institutions that do not hammer Marxism. I had a good experience at Mesa Community College many years ago, but ASU was close to intolerable. I am fortunate to be able to work with summer interns every year. This gives me an opportunity to gauge the curricula. Most have been taught some very biased history, but a few Universities stand out as exceptions. I have been pretty impressed by the knowledge of some of the kids pursuing Computer Engineering degrees at Georgia State. One thing I have noticed, that is quite interesting, is the number of students who are recognizing the bias of their professors seems to be increasing.

  96. David A. Evans says:
    October 31, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Ever tried explaining to a university graduate why their beautiful theory doesn’t work in the real World?

    Yes. Their answer: “Real Socialism hasn’t been tried yet.” Many of them are very attached to the theory and completely ignore how it’s played out in the real world. Much like climate science.

  97. I wish Obama would release his college & university records so we can how smart HE is. For some reason he doesn’t want anyone to know. One wonders why.

  98. I clicked the link to Dr. Pielke’s blog entry and the comments there are too good to miss. Please do read them.

    mod: Those comments may be very useful please view them. Thanks.

  99. This debate should not be about who is smart and who is dumb. It should not be about who is educated and who is not. It should not be about whether using energy is moral or not.

    Let’s take emotion and labelling out of the debate and we will all be better for it.

    Is the theory factually accurate or not. That is the debate.

    I think the theory has never been outlined in enough detail so that we can tell whether it is accurate or not. That indicates the problem is not with the “masses” but with the science itself which refuses to lift the veil of secrecy over how it is supposed to work. We are supposed to just believe it or not.

    We are not given the evidence to prove it (which is the normal manner in how humans accept new scientific fact). As a whole, humans are very smart but, in this case, we are expected to believe rather than be shown the facts.

    Are the predictions actually happening? What specific predictions you might ask. The cloud ones? The Albedo ones? The tropospheric specific humidity ones? The increased forcing expected to date from increased water vapour ones? etc. etc. These examples are absolutely crucial aspects to the theory and nobody knows what these predictions are. It is clear we have missed them by a certain amount, whatever they might be.

  100. It is interesting to note that cognitive dissonance can cut both ways. Highly educated and otherwise intelligent people can have so much invested in an idea that they refuse to acknowledge, against all evidence, or lack of support, that their much cherished theory might be wrong. One might reasonably point out that the history of scientific research is littered with examples. Indeed, the breaking of such idealogical constructs on the anvil of reality could be quoted as a measure of great moments in science.

    Is there a name for an reverse Dunning Kruger effect where supposedly highly educated people make ill considered and less than competent decisions?

  101. Smokey says:
    October 31, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    “Albert Einstein relied on Occam’s Razor to construct his Theory of Relativity. It allowed him to reject Michelson and Morley’s notion of an “[a]ether.”

    Eh! WHAT???????????.

    Michelson and Morely set out to test whether the ether existed by experiment and concluded that it did NOT. It is a classic experiment: but so strong was the notion that the results were disputed for years afterwards. Einstein’s relativity showed in theory of why there was no need for the ether, which M&M had shown experimentally did not exist: or indeed for other mechanistic assumptions still popular back then.

    Kindest Regards.

  102. Bill Illis says:
    October 31, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    “This debate should not be about who is smart and who is dumb. It should not be about who is educated and who is not. It should not be about whether using energy is moral or not.

    Let’s take emotion and labelling out of the debate and we will all be better for it.

    Is the theory factually accurate or not. That is the debate.

    I think the theory has never been outlined in enough detail so that we can tell whether it is accurate or not. That indicates the problem is not with the “masses” but with the science itself which refuses to lift the veil of secrecy over how it is supposed to work. We are supposed to just believe it or not.

    We are not given the evidence to prove it (which is the normal manner in how humans accept new scientific fact). As a whole, humans are very smart but, in this case, we are expected to believe rather than be shown the facts.

    Are the predictions actually happening? What specific predictions you might ask. The cloud ones? The Albedo ones? The tropospheric specific humidity ones? The increased forcing expected to date from increased water vapour ones? etc. etc. These examples are absolutely crucial aspects to the theory and nobody knows what these predictions are. It is clear we have missed them by a certain amount, whatever they might be.”

    I think that you are arguing from ignorance. The theory of how greenhouse gases warm the earth is at least 150 years old. There a loads of publications in the open literature and there is lots of evidence and data. The percentage of climate scientists who accept AGW as an important force has been determined as 97% by two indepenedent surveys.

    The climate models are not yet capable of making specific predictions. Due to the empirical nature of some of the parameters, and the chaos in climate models, their predictions, just like weather models are uncertain. The nature of such predictions is such that we cannot expect them to predict the future accurately. To complain about this shows ignorance of the fundamentals of climate science. Climate models have been used for “hindcasts” and the results are reasonably good. It has been shown that the evolution of global temperature since 1900 cannot be explained without the contribution from human emissions of greenhouse gases.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

  103. Extreme Left and Right philosophies join in totalitarianism. Having decent slightly right thinking people at the throats of slightly left leaning people is exactly why a totalitarian state is possible. Stop arguing over who’s smart and who’s not because that is exactly what divide and conquer is all about. The “liberals” are being led by false leaders, the “conservatives” are being led by false leaders and the leaders are winking and nodding as the noose tightens around the masses. The liberals leaders know AGW is a crock, but like the pied piper they have a job to do — meet the fascists at the OK coral and enjoy the shared laugh as the gate slams. (This is not the first time in history this has happened — let’s not be so gullible this time.)

  104. a jones, my apologies, you are right. For some reason I was recalling Lorentz, who believed the effect was due to changes in the ether, but had just been reading an article on M&M’s emitter theory of light, which M&M also wondered about and wasn’t falsified until much later.

    Thanks for pointing out my error. Scratch M&M and replace with Lorentz.

    Kindest Regards ☺

  105. When you say that educated people are “elite” and don’t think straight, I believe this may be true of liberal arts colleges, and those who major in political science, etc. But I defend my profession of engineering. If engineers misuse phony data, the plane won’t fly, the bridge falls down, the Hubble telescope is out of focus, etc. Most engineers realize this and try to be objective. (On the other hand, Jimmy Carter was an engineer, so there are exceptions!)

  106. Dave Springer says:
    October 31, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    “I wish Obama would release his college & university records so we can how smart HE is. For some reason he doesn’t want anyone to know. One wonders why.”

    He should also show his birth certificate, and while he is at it, he should prove he is not a Muslim.

    Obama apparently did not have a distinguished college career, and it may be due to emotional difficulties and drug use.

    http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008/10/barack-obamas-gpa-and-college-records/

    “Law school was another story for Obama. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School (the second highest honor available) in 1991. He also was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, a very prestigious honor.”

    He graduated from Harvard Law School with a Magna Cum Laude honor, which is quite good.

  107. There is hardly anyone regardless of political persuasion who knows the math necessary to assess the validity of some climate science. How many liberals or conservatives are familiar with Navier-Stokes equations? At the same time, most anyone can make some sense of simple graphs and assess the strength of a relationship between two variables plotted on the same graph. For instance, if we plot paleoclimatological estimates of global mean surface temperatures over the entire Holocene against estimated atmospheric CO2 concentrations it is clear to anyone that there is no correlation between the two. If we compare the rate of increase of global mean surface temperature during the 1930s and the recent period of warming between 1975 and 1998 we find no notable difference. If we compare rural temperature recording sites to ones that have been influenced by urbanization or other land use changes we find that largely undisturbed rural sites largely show no or little increase in global mean surface temperature. Some show a cooling trend.

    There is a large body of climate science that is entirely accessible to the interested layman regardless of political persuasion. Some if not all of that layman-friendly science can be found at http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.pdf .

    In short, the academic credentials of the self-defined left wing intelligentsia are not significantly superior to those of the average plumber. Neither of them know the physics involved in climate modeling. Both can at least read simple charts. The left-wing intelligentsia has no advantage in this regard. The entire political spectrum must belly-up to the same trough of information.

    What differentiates the left from the right is unquestioning acceptance of the declarations of authority figures. The conservative disposition expects extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. The left-wing or progressive or statist disposition requires consistency with political aims. There is no shortage of scientist cadre members they can rely on to advance a political agenda. Welcome to post-normal science.

  108. I’m going to get the local library to buy the book. That way lots of other minds can see what a fresh approach does to old problems. Well done RP jr!

  109. Peter Sørensen says:
    October 31, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    Well from my viewpoint in Denmark some of the candidates from the Tea party movement are amazingly ignorant and stupid. One of the candidates just claimed that Denmark has “panels” deciding on who is valuable enough to recive treatment in the health care system that is just som amzingly stupid that …. well im at a loss for words. Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait……..

    How is it so “amazingly ignorant and stupid” to equate the Danish practice of gatekeeping by physicians and the organizations in a single payer government they must be accountable to for their decisions as the general equivalent of having “death panels” decide upon whether or not a particular patient’s life is worth the expense of attempting to prolong with an expensive medical procedure or treatment?

    Although Denmark has had some commendable success with its healthcare services; it has also resulted in a extraordinarily expensive tax system while still having too few intensive care beds, shortages of certain types of healthcare and facilities for the elderly, and a loss of some personal freedom to select healthcare providers when the government approved providers are unsatisfactory. Many Europeans make an erroneous knee-jerk assumption that healthcare is a human right and many Americans do not. What these same Europeans enjoying and/or suffering universal healthcare fail to understand is how so many Americans jealously guard their personal freedom and human right to select their own choice of healthcare and healthcare providers, because they refuse to be dependent any more than absolutely necessary upon any single healthcare provider who too often may not provide safe, appropriate, or desired healthcare. We do not want any medical doctor/s, medical board, or any other authority becoming the sole arbiter of our personal fate. You can nitpick an argument about the definition of a “death panel”, but the context in which the terminology was used clearly meant any circumstance in which some authority other than the patient’s free choice from an adequate number of alternatives has the authority to deny healthcare services and treatments to the patient. You can call us “stupid,” but doing so says more about you than us.

    Your remark about Governor Sarah Palin betrays an unfortunate ignorance. Perhaps you were unaware or chose to disregard reality, but Sarah Palin’s service as Governor of the State of Alaska does in deed qualify her as having some reasonable degree of very important experience in foreign affairs and international military affairs. In comparison to her political opponents Joe Biden and Barack Hussein Obama who had no military command experience at the time of the election, Sarah Palin was far more experienced in the role of a military commander and foreign trade diplomacy.

    Governor Sarah Palin served as the Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, Air National Guard, and other state military forces. During and after the Cold War, Alaska served as a frontline for the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of the United States and Canada, and their successor organizations. The Governor of Alaska is an important decisionmaker in certain areas of Alaska’s military affairs. Unlike most other states, Alaska’s extraordinary size, low population, extensive wilderness, location, and proximity to USSR, People’s Republic of China (PRC), Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea), and the Great circle routes to the Euro-Asian theaters of operation have resulted in certain substantial and sometimes unique geo-political and military responsibilities for the Governor of Alaska that the governors of most other states do not have an opportunity to experience. Although the Adjutant General and the gaining commands of the U.S. Department of Defense are responsible for Federal mobilization of the Alaskan Federal Ready Reserve, the Governor remains responsible for and accountable for many important military decisions in Alaska not related to the Federal mobilizations.

    Given the unusual size and location of Alaska with respect to international maritime trade, international fisheries, international air transportation, and foreign trade, Governor Sarah Palin experienced foreign affairs responsibilities, especially with Russia and Russian communities nearby Alaska, unknown to her opponents in the election campaign.

    Perhaps you would care to reconsider your viewpoint?

  110. tj says:

    The “liberals” are being led by false leaders, the “conservatives” are being led by false leaders and the leaders are winking and nodding as the noose tightens around the masses.

    tj, I disagree strongly with this statement.

    I don’t know a single “conservative” who follows a leader. Conservatives tend to make their own decisions and choose representatives who appear to represent those beliefs. In contrast, every “leftist” I know is constantly quoting and deferring to a “leader”, whether it’s chomsky or huffington or whoever.

    Every conservative I’ve ever met (and yes, I do know there are many exceptions) are aware that guys like Rush and Hannity are entertainment, nobody takes marching orders from them. From what I can see, people who are willing to be led by “leaders” just assume that those they see as their adversaries must also do the same.

  111. R. Gates says:
    October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Mike says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
    ______
    C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are…

    —–

    I did not say most scientists, I said most people. The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change. Of course most scientists believe AGW is real, just as most scientists believe evolution is real. Look, most people who believe in electricity do not understand it. If some religion or ideology came out against Maxwell’s equations there would soon be blogs and radio talk show hosts denouncing them and millions of saps following along. Some blogs would spread word that James Maxwell was a Muslim or a Communist. Some politician would find a secret diary he left hidden that revealed the whole conspiracy.

  112. intrepidwanders says:
    October 31, 2010 at 2:20

    In the future, we will be forced to consider Marxism, but we are not ready now.

    —————————–

    Odd, I thought we already had, and found it wanting.

  113. “The climate models are not yet capable of making specific predictions. Due to the empirical nature of some of the parameters, and the chaos in climate models, their predictions, just like weather models are uncertain. The nature of such predictions is such that we cannot expect them to predict the future accurately. To complain about this shows ignorance of the fundamentals of climate science. Climate models have been used for “hindcasts” and the results are reasonably good. It has been shown that the evolution of global temperature since 1900 cannot be explained without the contribution from human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    =================

    Actually the hindcasts are ‘g0od’ only after significant ‘training’ of the models. Given that the earth’s climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic system I would assert that models will NEVER predict future climate with any degree of confidence.

  114. CodeTech says:
    October 31, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Conservatives tend to make their own decisions and choose representatives who appear to represent those beliefs.

    A state senator recently made the observation that the counties in his senatorial district with a predominance of Democrats are responsible for making nearly all of the demands on his time and efforts to provide favors and tax monies on their behalf. By contrast, the counties dominated by Republicans are rarely heard from and tend to take care of and pay for their own local problems, or they do without rather than seek favors and outside appropriations of money. The differences in behavior are very stark.

    The counties in his district with the demanding Democrats have serious problems with crime and poorly maintained infrastructure, while the counties with the Republicans have low crime rates and reasonably well maintained infrastructure, albeit less extravagant in the first place in keeping with the low income of the farms and small communities.

  115. eadler;
    re: climate models
    (and I quote)

    “The nature of such predictions is such that we cannot expect them to predict the future accurately. To complain about this shows ignorance of the fundamentals of climate science.”

    Are you honestly attempting to assert that we cannot expect the models to predict the future accurately and we shouldn’t complain about it? Really? I mean freakin’ seriously? Your asking me for my tax dollars to mitigate future problems based on a model you admit can’t predict them and with a straight face tell me to stop complaining about it because if I understood it I wouldn’t complain?

    Then consider the gob smacking unreality of your next sentence which confirms your either so completely besotten by groupthink that you’ve completely lost the ability to reason, or that you are so short of brain matter that a single beer may well kill off enough brain cells that you will forget to breath:

    “Climate models have been used for “hindcasts” and the results are reasonably good. It has been shown that the evolution of global temperature since 1900 cannot be explained without the contribution from human emissions of greenhouse gases.”

    Are you reading what you are writing? Are you getting this drivel off warmist web sites and sticking the paragraphs together in what you think is some semblance of a logical train of thought? Or do you simply subscribe to the notion that you can fool some of the people some of the time, so let’s see how many this time. You began by admitting that the models aren’t that good at predicting the future, and then vaunt their accuracy in hindcasting to prove warming from GHG. Let’s explain some science that I don’t appear to understand and have no right to complain about. Not complainin’, just explainin’.

    The models don’t know the difference between future and past. They are built with a set of rules regarding how various elements of the climate interact with each other, and calculate from a given set of conditions at a given point in time the resulting end state conditions for a different point in time. The fact that they can hindcast accurately but are unable to forecast is proof positive that the rules are based on factors that are not, in fact, the correct factors. They are clearly factors coincidental in the past with the correct factors, and hence the inability to predict the future with any accuracy. Further, the hindcasts aren’t all that good. They can’t recreate variability even at the decadal scale, and they can’t hindcast the MWP and LIA.

    I have two suggestions for you.

    1. I have built a computer model that hindcasts my bank account. When I run it forward it insists that you are going to give me all your money next week, and if you don’t a bolt of lightning will descend from the heavens and strike you dead. You’re probably going to complain, but if you understood models you wouldn’t.

    2. Have a beer. I want to see what happens.

  116. eadler says: October 31, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    H.R. says: “Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.”

    Your mistake lies in the use of the phrase “to assume all people without formal education are not intelligent.” In a society with universal public education and a lot of opportunity for higher education for merit scholarships for those who are bright, not wealthy, there will be a correlation between educational level and intelligence.

    Just a grammar n*zi picking of a nit, “Merit Scholarship®” is a registered trademark of the National Merit Scholarship Corporation. So is “Merit Scholar®.”

    To see who’s really bright and who isn’t, look up Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Steven Chu, and Bill Gates at the National Merit web site.

    https://www.memberconnections.com/olc/pub/NMS/register/register.cgi

  117. R. de Haan says:
    October 31, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    The free market will take care of the world’s energy needs as it did during the past century.

    I sympathize with the belief, but please, point out one, just one, free market. I’ve not seen one lately.

    [Stamp collecting? Garage sales? Paparazzi? ~dbs ☺]

  118. RE: Mike 1:03 PM “Now conservatives reject climatology because they think – wrongly – that it threatens the free market system. ”

    Mike – - No. The thing is — is. Not reject. Not feel. Not claim. Is. The great and powerful is. Measure without a side and objectively.
    PS: Interglacial. “During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2°C higher than at present.”-Wikipedia.

  119. Peter Sørensen says:
    October 31, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    “Well from my viewpoint in Denmark some of the candidates from the Tea party movement are amazingly ignorant and stupid. . . . . Or how about Palin claiming that she knows a lot about russia because she’s seen russia across the Bering strait……..”

    Well for the 19th time, Mr. Sorensen, Ms. Palin never said this. An actress playing her in a comedy show uttered that line. It was funny.

  120. It would be interesting to see a survey done of the broad community of scientists, those working outside climate science itself who supposedly endorse the CAGW hypothesis overwhelmingly, to see what percentage of them have actually laid eyes on any of the work of the IPCC or any of the other canonical works of climate science. My own acquaintanceship of working scientists is admittedly too limited to form a conclusive judgement, but based on purely anecdotal evidence, I would suspect that percentage is much smaller than advertised. I have encountered a number of ardent carbon demonologists, who were working scientists and were more than ready to call me an idiot when I questioned their perspective, who if I could actually get them to respond to a question, revealed that they had spent considerably less time than myself in examining the science they were so certain of. Often they had just absorbed the media stereotype that the argument was between “scientists” on one side and politicians, corporate PR hacks, ignorant lay people on the other and of course their sympathies were with their Fraternal brothers in support of “Science”.
    An earlier commenter mentioned the Dunning-Kruger Effect involving low skilled thinkers overestimating their abilities, but I think there is a different psychological effect at work on the other end of the educational spectrum. It’s called “preference falsification” and is based on a book by Timur Kuran from 1987.

    The basic notion is that when asked to make public statements on issues. even barely controversial ones, people tend to offer up what they think others expect them to say, rather than what they really believe, even where there would seem to be little negative consequence from speaking the truth, or gain from the falsehood. Given the thuggish levels of intimidation that have been visited on those who have made fairly timid criticisms of CAGW dogma, I suspect PF could account for a great deal of the climate “consensus”, at least that part of it which is not completely illusory.

  121. Ed Forbes says:
    “…It feels real strange as one who considers himself as liberal voting a straight Republican ticket for the first time…”

    Don’t worry, I was a registered Democrat for 23 years.

    I wised up. It became very clear that the rain that I was told was falling turned out to be a urine stream from my elected representative.

  122. I ‘ve known a lot of “highly educated people” with a title who walk in a thunderstorms with a steel shafted umbrella.
    Who did our pal Barnie Madoff con, the streetwise who learn to do their due diligence or the highly educated who “just took his word for it”?

  123. eadler says:
    October 31, 2010 at 4:49 pm
    H.R. says:
    Education and intelligence are two seperate things. It’s a mistake to assume that all formally educated people are intelligent and it is another mistake to assume all people without a formal education are not intelligent.
    —————————————————

    “Your mistake lies…”

    No, eadler, your mistake lies in projecting meaning onto my words beyond what I wrote. I made no comments about educational opportunitues, public education, etc.

  124. Whenever I hear mention of the Tea Party I can’t help but think of the Mad Hatter and his guests.

    Seems so appropriate.

    [Sorry your side is losing. -mod]

  125. Someone up here asked what does C on CAGW stands for: Computerised. The complete acronym stands for Computerised Aided Global Warming. You see, the only warming we had these last 10 years were computer-modelled predictions of global warming, ranging from the moderate through hockey-stick and now to catastrophic. LOL

  126. How would our cognitively superior left wing academia respond to that seriously smart but intellectually modest sceptic, Freeman Dyson? In my humble opinion, they might find his ‘heretical thoughts about science and society’ quite intellectually challenging :-)

  127. Bill Illis says: October 31, 2010 at 7:18 pm
    “Is the theory factually accurate or not. That is the debate.”

    Gee Bill, what do you have against red herrings?

    Question for you from your sensitivity post.: “…Given the last GISS study, we can take 75% X 150 Watts/m2 X 4.5% (water vapour feedback based on its percentage of the greenhouse effect) and we get +5.0 Watts/m2 from water vapour feedback…” If the water vapour feedback results in a temperature increase as you calculate, wouldn’t this in turn increase the water vapour level further and therefore the temperature with it leading to a sensitivity increase? Am I missing something?

  128. too many die hard right wing conservatives, too many die hard left wingers, not enough independent free thinking people in the US today. What a mess for both science and society, a nation doomed to decline unless something changes.

  129. Ammonite;
    If the water vapour feedback results in a temperature increase as you calculate, wouldn’t this in turn increase the water vapour level further and therefore the temperature with it leading to a sensitivity increase? Am I missing something?>>

    Yes. Negative feedbacks. Water vapour blocks downward radiance and well as upward, and then there’s pesky clouds, etc etc.

  130. For me, the fundamental difference between the Left and Right is that the Right believes that individual rights come from our Creator, the Left believes that individual rights come from the government. That is why one of hallmarks of a Lefty regime is to deny a Creator. And why whenever the Left decides who deserves special rights or protections, the solution is always more and bigger government to provide those rights. In my opinion, individual rights don’t belong to the government or to the politicians for them to hand out as rewards for approved behavior, like voting as a bloc for a certain political party.

  131. Totally off topic and having to do with the Oulu Cosmic Ray Station. We are back into the mode of a peak in the cosmic ray flux at the middle of their day. Lately (like in the last 3 days) it has become a massive peak to trough difference. Earlier in the record, it was much smaller. Does anyone out there have an explanation for why this occurs. Are we rotating toward a cosmic ray source during the day and then away from it? This seems to happen for long periods of time and then there is a period where the peak to trough does not seem to occur at mid-day only to return to its earlier behavior.

  132. Over time it seems to have little to do with the sunspot count or the 10,7 cm flux, so I do not think it it is solar in origin.

  133. eadler says:
    October 31, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    “He graduated from Harvard Law School with a Magna Cum Laude honor, which is quite good.”

    Oh goody. I got a live one!

    What are the GPA cut-offs for Latin honors?

    Since Latin honors are determined by a combination of grade point average and recommendations by the concentrations, there is no fixed GPA cut off. (Degrees Summa cum laude are determined by additional criteria as well. See above.) The lowest GPA to receive a degree magna cum laude in June 2006 was 3.679; the lowest GPA to receive a degree cum laude in field in June 2006 was 3.417. Please remember that these numbers will change year by year.

    http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~advising/honors.html

    The Harvard Law Review is a student-run organization. It’s president is elected by popular vote not by academic qualification or accomplishments. No one questions the fact that Obama can convince people to vote for him. That’s charisma not intelligence. Interestingly Obama never published anything in the Harvard Law Review which is rather unusual for the leader of the organization.

    Let’s see the transcript. If it’s so magna(ficent) I don’t see why there’s a problem with producing it. The truth of the matter appears to be that we have an affirmative action poster child in the White House – charismatic yes, very bright no.

    That’s not to say there’s anything wrong with having a person of average intelligence in the white house. In fact there may be quite an advantage as high intelligence often gets in the way of common sense. I should know. I’m in the 99.97th percentile in intelligence quotient and when it comes to common sense I do some pretty boneheaded things because I always think I can do better than what commonly accepted wisdom would dictate.

  134. R. Gates says:
    October 31, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Mike says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    I think the truth is most people who think AGW is real don’t understand the science…
    ______
    C’mon Mike, please get real. There are many highly educated scientists who are…

    —–

    I did not say most scientists, I said most people. The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change. Of course most scientists believe AGW is real, just as most scientists believe evolution is real. Look, most people who believe in electricity do not understand it. If some religion or ideology came out against Maxwell’s equations there would soon be blogs and radio talk show hosts denouncing them and millions of saps following along.

  135. Ken Lydell says:
    October 31, 2010 at 8:04 pm

    “How many liberals or conservatives are familiar with Navier-Stokes equations?”

    I’m familiar enough with them to know that we don’t use the output of computer models to certify aircraft but rather use wind tunnels and prototypes flown by test pilots. Non-linear partial differential equations are notoriously difficult or impossible to solve in complex real-world situations. Is that familiar enough?

  136. “If you spend anytime at all perusing the blogosphere,”

    Sorry, Dr., that’s incorrect use of an adverb. I just love to correct people with degrees. (Seeing how I ain’t got none.) It is funny though, howling about how “the left” insinuates that he’s ignorant yet demonstrating incorrect grammar in his opening sentence.

    There ain’t no “left” and there ain’t no “right.” There’s just “us” and we’re all hypocrites.

  137. This may not get read by a wide audience, but as a member of the great unwashed the reason many of us are not tuned into CAGW is far simpler than has been expressed here.

    1. We know warmer is better.
    2. We know that anyone trying to restrict my access to energy is somone trying to restrict my freedom.
    3. We know from all the shows on TV we watch about science that the climate has always changed, the atmosphere has changed and the animals on the earth have changed without people being responsible.
    4. We are an optimistic group that does not abide doom and gloom.

  138. SSam says:
    “I wised up. It became very clear that the rain that I was told was falling turned out to be a urine stream from my elected representative.”

    Interesting you should mention this. In his book, “The Unexpurgated Code”, J. P. Donleavy suggested that the true test for those wondering if they have “arrived” in society, is to stand on the ledge of a tall building. When a large crowd assembles below to watch….you urinate on them. If no one gets out of the way of the stream, you have “arrived”.

    I can’t help thinking that Obama has been out on that ledge, but on November 2nd a huge majority is about to jump out of the way.

  139. Reagan, who was also called “stupid” by the left, had it right when he said, “It’s not that our liberal friends don’t know anything. It’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so.”

    If you are a registered voter in California, I encourage you to vote “yes” on Prop 23. This is by far the most important proposition on the ballot. The left/liberal legislature needs to hear from those of us they view as their intellectual inferiors on this issue.

  140. Mike;
    The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.>>

    I took that in Grade 1. Demonsration done with a spot light and a globe. Seemed to me the the bulk of the 6 year olds got it, wasn’t complicated. Are average people incredibly stupid where you come from, or is it just your opinion that they are?

  141. Paul Coppin says:
    October 31, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    “The phenom even has a name: The Dunning-Kruger Effect”

    From wikipedia:

    Dunning and Kruger quote Bertrand Russell (“One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.)”

    Indeed, Dunning et al. cite a study saying that 94% of college professors rank their work as “above average” (relative to their peers), to underscore that the highly intelligent and informed are hardly exempt.

    If you believe Dunning et al. then when a member of the self-annointed intelligentsia says they are certain that AGW is real (“settled science”) and are convinced they know what to do about (“limit CO2 emissions”) it means those people are actually uinimaginative and stupid because those with true understanding will express uncertainty.

  142. Beth Cooper says:
    November 1, 2010 at 3:34 am

    “How would our cognitively superior left wing academia respond to that seriously smart but intellectually modest sceptic, Freeman Dyson? In my humble opinion, they might find his ‘heretical thoughts about science and society’ quite intellectually challenging :-)”

    Freeman Dyson is anything but modest. His opinion actually reflects ignorance of climate science. In fact Freeman Dyson could be the world’s most famous crackpot.
    He proposed a rocket ship for space travel powered by nuclear detonations and other crazy schemes. The solution he proposes to fix the global warming problem is to increase the amount of topsoil to sequester carbon.

    Here is an analysis of what he wrote:

    “No crackpot essay would be complete without a crackpot solution. He believes “the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management” and that the entire climate problem can be solved by increasing topsoil:

    We do not know whether intelligent land-management could increase the growth of the topsoil reservoir by four billion tons of carbon per year, the amount needed to stop the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Actually we kinda do know. The best data suggest we are losing billions of tons of topsoil each year. A major effort will be required just to stop that loss rate from increasing sharply. Indeed, global warming itself is projected to cause both increased flooding, which washes away topsoil, and increased drought, which destroys topsoil.”

    A lot of other ideas on climate by Dyson have been shown to be based on ignorance:

    http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/08/dyson-exegesis.html.

  143. S U P E R B post!

    Yeah, they do have a problem. Their problem is that the simple man often is able to see pseudoscience when confronted with it. But it pays a lot -$trillions in the case of the co2 pseudoscience- to promote falsehood and pseudoscience, so if the truth shows up they DO have a problem.

    Yeah, they need to denigrate people and tell them they are inferior. If you feel inferior you will be less reluctant to allow “superior” academics and politicians to have insame power, control & punishment power over you. They need to damage people self esteem because they tend to be sadistic & arrogant and one who has his self esteem damaged may more willingly accept becoming a serf of politicians & bureucrats with the blessing of mainstream academia

    Probably Switzerland and the USA are the No1 and No2 places where the people has the most political decision power. Well, last data that I know Switzerland has the highest wealth per capita in the world. And I most not prove that the USA is the world technological and economic superpower and its people have produced technological prowesses like no other society in mankind history. All the while being ruled by “simple men”

    But places ruled by the “superior intelligent elites”, like Stalin Russia, were places of utter mass murder, theft by government and sadistic utter punishment for those that commited no crime, they were places where rulers-like Stalin- could indulge UNPUNISHED in their depraved devastating vice of sadism, power, control, punishment, mass murder & mass theft.

    By promoting pseudoscience not only they “justify” more power & control & punishment & tax & spend for them but they pose as the “saviors” of the people while actually causing enormous damage and suffering when their sadistic power & control agenda of giving even more power to the political class is implemented.

    When people see them alleging that we must TAX MORE co2 in order to get LESS co2 then people understand that THE MORE you tax a thing, THE LESS you get about it. But when people see those same people alleging for MORE TAX on investment and employment in order to get MORE investment and employment then people realize that their “science” is falsehood and nonsense.

    They pretend that they “possess” the hidden truth that THE PEOPLE cannot understand, but the truth is that their truth contradicts the most elementary logic and common sense, and a well functionning mind cannot understand something that lacks logic. Just take a look of the utter nonsense of keynesian economics.

    I am not a big fan of republicans but they promote less than democrats an increase in the political class oppressive power. Today the markets say that there is a 92% probability that republicans will control the house, an 85% probability thay republicans will have 48 senators and 40% probabilities that next president will be a republican.

    I hope those probablities become facts. Maybe then Bush tax cuts will not be reversed and you will get MORE investment, MORE employment thank to LESS taxes and you will get a well deserved recovery.

    Cheers

  144. I think it has more to due with the Media propaganda.

    October 2010 Pew Report

    http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1780/poll-global-warming-scientists-energy-policies-offshore-drilling-tea-party

    Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming?
    51% believe the Earth is either not warming or warming due to natural patterns.
    34% believe the Earth is warming due to human activity.
    6% believe the Earth is warming but don’t know why.
    9% Don’t know if the Earth is warming.

    How serious a problem?
    63% indicate its a somewhat to very serious problem.
    34% indicate it not too serious or is not a problem.
    3% don’t know if its a problem

    Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
    Yes: 46%
    No: 50%
    Don’t Know: 3%

    Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
    Yes: 44%
    No: 44%
    Don’t Know: 12%

    Of those believing Global Warming is a Very Serious, Somewhat Serious, or Not Too Serious problem.

    Is there solid evidence the Earth is warming [due to human activity]?
    Tea Party Republicans: 84% No
    Republicans: 71% No
    Democrats: 31% No
    Independents: 48% No

    How serious a problem?
    Tea Party Republicans: 74% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Republicans: 57% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Democrats: 15% Not too serious or Not a problem
    Independents: 35% Not too serious or Not a problem

    Is it a problem requiring immediate government action?
    Tea Party Republicans: 39% No
    Republicans: 39% No
    Democrats: 19% No
    Independents: 31% No

    Do scientists agree the Earth is getting warmer?
    Tea Party Republicans: 71% No
    Republicans: 58% No
    Democrats: 32% No
    Independents: 45% No

  145. I worked for a time at a Silicon Valley Tech firm. One day, someone presented an electronic IQ test. It bounced around among friends, with most scoring in the high 130s.

    Most individuals had advanced degrees or were working on them. Nearly all of them are conservative. Education isn’t the equivalent of intellect. Nor is it the difference between conservatives and progressives.

    If there are differences, it seems to me that conservatives embrace independence, personal responsibility and pragmatic self reliance. Progressives embrace social relationships and consensus. I think perhaps Progessives are quicker to embrace abstract and creative ideas, which can lead to great discoveries. But it can also lead to a nether world of fantasy, as in CAGW.

  146. eadler is a crank, as his post above confirms.

    Richard Feynman acknowledged that Prof Freeman Dyson should have won the 1965 Nobel Prize along with him for synthesizing and reducing to practice the Feynman-Schwinger-Tomonaga solutions to the renormalization problems of quantum electrodynamics [which eadler probably couldn't even say without practicing it]. But the Nobel prize is given to a maximum of three individuals for any particular discovery, and although equally deserving, as usual Nobel politics determined who those three would be [just as Nobel politics awarded the inexperienced Obama the Nobel prize not long after his inauguration].

    Prof Freeman Dyson has received over twenty [20+] honorary degrees from as many different universities throughout his lifetime. I would like to see eadler name any others who have been equally honored. Dyson is a member of the Institute for Advanced Study, and worked with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, and most of the leading physicists of his day. Only a crank would label him “ignorant.”

    Dyson is an extremely well respected Physicist by everyone – except cranks marching in lock-step to Saul Alinsky’s dictum demanding personal ad hominem character assassination attacks against anyone not drinking the CAGW Kool Aid.

    Dyson’s nuclear powered heavy launch vehicle is no more outlandish than the space elevator, and it has been used by authors [Niven & Pournelle among others]. Nothing about it violates any law of physics, and unlike the space elevator, it could be built today with off the shelf materials. It is based upon physics and fact – not on a baseless fantasy like the CAGW scam.

    If eadler has a credible source verifying that “billions of tons” of topsoil are lost “each year,” he should post it instead of the wacko alarmist blog he uses for his incredible “analysis.” Dyson was not talking about lost topsoil, that is nothing but eadler’s red herring diversion; Dyson was explaining how to increase topsoil [by using no-till farming, etc.] His explanation is here.

    The alarmist contingent hates Freeman Dyson because Dyson doesn’t think CO2 or global warming are problems. That drives the eco-tards up the wall, because of Dyson’s immense credibility – which none of them can come close to matching.

    To claim that Prof Freeman Dyson’s view is “based on ignorance” shows that eadler is simply a crank. He should retract his ad-hom character assassination against one of the 20th Century’s internationally esteemed physicists or go away.

  147. Mike says:
    October 31, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Look, most people who believe in electricity do not understand it.

    I dont believe in electricity, I have never seen any!
    So how can I understand it?

  148. CodeTech says:
    October 31, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    I agree completely, particularly in that progressives interpret the actions of the right in terms of what THEY would do, or that which motivates THEM. And in this, they are completely mistaken. We are not at all alike.

    If someone on the right makes the accusation that a progressive leader is a Marxist, progressives see this as a politically motivated smear (even as they quote Marx in the rebuttal).

    For a conservative, making such a statement is simply an attempt to describe that individual, and express alarm at the implications. It could be an exaggeration, but lately, it is all too often true in modern politics.

    The left really has little to insult conservatives about, so they invent imaginary “characteristics ” of conservatives…. such as racism. In the last 48 hrs in Alaska, progressive journalists were caught on a recording planning to smear Joe Miller by false association with an as yet to be discovered “child molester”.

    http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/10/30/anchorage-cbs-affiliate-caught-on-voicemail-conspiring-against-alaskas-gop-senate-candidate/

  149. Mike said: “The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.”

    davidmhoffer said: I took that in Grade 1. Demonsration done with a spot light and a globe. Seemed to me the the bulk of the 6 year olds got it, wasn’t complicated. Are average people incredibly stupid where you come from, or is it just your opinion that they are?

    …………..

    Good that you remember 1st grade. Most people don’t. I know they don’t because I teach at a university. But good of you to question my assumption. You can look up surveys on this. One said: “Only 38% of students correctly selected December as the
    time of year a Southern Hemisphere location receives the longest period of daylight and only 14% of the students answered the three questions (about the cause of seasons) correctly.” http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4r0521815203226/

    Ask some people you know who aren’t involved in science issues.

    My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.

  150. Dyson is a major figure in physics. He has not done any work in climatology and I doubt he has done much physics of any kind of late. He is past his prime. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the relevant fields understand that that AGW is real and serious.

  151. @November 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    “My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.”

    My point is that most people who live in the US do not have degrees in economics, they do not have degrees in foreign policy, and they do not have degrees in Constitutional Law, and yet we do have a system of self-government which requires decisionmaking in all of these areas by every voter.

    And it is an excellent system, because individual freedom and responsibility work. There is no better system.

    Scientists who want to save the planet can take a number and get in line with all of the rest of the yahoos who have all the answers. This is still a question of the size and scope of government and we the people will still decide for ourselves.

  152. Mike says:

    “Dyson is a major figure in physics. He has not done any work in climatology…” and blah, blah, etc.

    So physicists who don’t work in climatology are denigrated by Mike who shovels this rubbish into the minds of students? And what are those “relevant fields”? Geography? Railroad Engineer?

    Post your CV, Mike. We’ll compare it with Freeman Dyson’s. Then everyone can make up their mind as to who has credibility – and who doesn’t. Eh, Mike?

  153. I copped a few good biffs today, but let me say that dickhead politicians are poison whether in your country or mine, and no matter what party they belong to. The old saying, “Only the left is right!” is a joke as we all know. But the right isn’t inevitably right. I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor. All our politicians, except the Greens, want to put off drastic carbon taxes as long as possible, even while giving lip service to the idea. Hypocrites, the lot.

  154. Malcolm Miller says:
    November 1, 2010 at 4:08 pm (Edit)

    I copped a few good biffs today, but let me say that dickhead politicians are poison whether in your country or mine, and no matter what party they belong to. The old saying, “Only the left is right!” is a joke as we all know. But the right isn’t inevitably right. I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor. All our politicians, except the Greens, want to put off drastic carbon taxes as long as possible, even while giving lip service to the idea. Hypocrites, the lot.

    I will remind you of a few “inconvenient truths” to refute your ill-founded prejudices and false assumptions.

    Enron was donating to both the Bush and Clinton-Gore campaigns in year 2000 at roughly a 40% – 60 % ratio; and, before that, gave more to democrats nationally (Clinton-Gore) for access and international pressure via the State Dept – particularly for their proposed operations and manipulations of the US coal market, the overseas coal from Indonesia, and the Chinese energy market development. With the money they gave Clinton, they gained exclusive rights to several Indian and Indonesian energy operations that were supposed to “save” the Enron Ponzi scheme. Bush came into office, removed their power and influence – basically, he refused to accept their bribe money’s purpose, but did accept their campaign money. 8<) Nice move.

    Clinton-Gore-Enron's schemes fell apart as soon as Bush came into power, and the leaders were prosecuted. Enron (under Cltinon's watch of "regulators" is strongly impklicated in manipulating California's power transmissions loads to artificialy raise spot market electric rates that induced CA's year 2000 recession – well underway when Bush came into power in spring 2001.

    Enron's ponzi schemes included cap-and-trade, and Enron stood to profit by the billions if Bush had accepted cap-and-trade as Gore wanted him too. Still does: Gore is a big investor in cap-and-trade, as are all of the democrats and many in the UN/IPCC. East Anglia's university, Penn State and otehrs invoking the CAGW theory are also big cap-and-trade/carbon trading investors through their pensions funds and NGO investments. (Yes, the money trail is complicated, but present. And it all begins with Enron, Chicago futures markets, Obama's economists, Obama's advisors, and their mutual desire for socialism to rule.

    “I think that a party which wants to represent people and their well-being is better than one which wants to maximise profits (Enron, etc?). Maybe I’m a sentimental idiot. “

    Good reason to support capitalism – or as close as we can get today. Socialism kills people. Ruins economies. Ruins the environment. Socialism kills morality – In fact, it cannot withstand scrutiny nor morality, and demands the “people” sacrifice for the good of their “betters” – who manage in all socialist countries to make out just fine. Today’s “democrat” elites do despise and hate the “people” who are trying to throw them out of power. Your words are exactly the way they do it: By inverting the facts and still demanding to “right” spew their lies without correction or editing. And with a liberal and extremist press, they manage just fine via their minions in ABBCNNBCBS.

    “The rich in Australia give very little to universities, or research, or charities. But they make lots of money, sometimes by cheating the poor.

    False – Completely false. Republicans/conservatives here in the US donate more than ten TIMES the amount that “liberals” do to charities. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Boxer, Gore, Frank, and hundreds of other multi-millionaire democrat politicians – some of who (but a very few!) even made their money without being in office! – donated less COMBINED than Bush did all by himself. Yes, Bush – who regularly donated 5 – 10% of his income – gave more than Gore, Obama, and Clinton combined. So, who are the “selfish rich”? The “liebrals” in America. And Gore made 300 million from HIS carbon trading and CAGW industries.

    I cannot blame you for your mistakes – You were (deliberately – given them as propaganda through a very effective, 24-hour-per-day liberal/socialist news media who are themselves to blame for the tragedies we live in. But I will blame you if you repeat these lies again.

  155. Mike;
    Good that you remember 1st grade. Most people don’t. I know they don’t because I teach at a university. But good of you to question my assumption. You can look up surveys on this. One said: “Only 38% of students correctly selected December as the
    time of year a Southern Hemisphere location receives the longest period of daylight and only 14% of the students answered the three questions (about the cause of seasons) correctly.” >>

    I can construct a survey to show that only 14% of the students know that the earth circles the sun if you want. Sure, lots of times in a conversation I’ll say something about NH winter occuring when the earth is nearest the sun, and someone will inevitably interject with “that’s impossible” followed by various heads around the room nodding in agreement. All one need do is look at them and say “noooo…. seasons are caused by the tilt of the earth’s axis… remember?” 9 times out of 10 there is a brief pause followed by a sheepish look and “…oh right. forgot”.

    I’m in sales and I sell some very complicated products, often to people whose expertise lies elsewhere. How people answer questions on a survey or in response to a casual question is not necessarily indicative of their actual knowledge if you ask in such a manner that they are forced to think the response through rather than just react… which is what you get on a survey. In fact, sometimes you get the “right” answer to an off the cuff question, but a little digging exposes a deeper belief that is wrong, so I suppose it cuts both ways to some extent.

    When I’m doing sales training I sometimes make the point by asking the class (usually people 10+ years in the business) how many of them have one of those customers so enthralled by VendorX that if VendorX told them that on a bright sunny day the sky is blue and they’re so trusting that they look up at the sky and remark “so that’s what blue looks like”. About half the hands go up, sometimes more. I just stand there for long enough until someone finaly pipes up “but…the sky IS blue on a bright sunny day”.

    Point being that if you phrase it correctly you can get some very odd responses from some very intelligent people, but force them to think it through, and you’ll find that their real recollection will come to the surface.

  156. Mike says:
    November 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm (Edit)

    Mike said: “The average person does not know what causes the seasons to change.”
    ….
    Ask some people you know who aren’t involved in science issues.

    My point is that most people do not know enough about even basic science to make scientifically informed decisions. They instead rely on sources they trust.

    Like you? And – because you appear to be wrong about CAGW, what is your defense of YOUR (deliberate) errors? What do YOU do to emphasize the errors, propaganda, lies, exaggerations, and false computer modeling? What do YOU teach – who they “trust” – about the MWP and LIA and RWP?

  157. to davidmhoffer:

    I think the point is not about whether academics are smarter than auto mechanics or other people. It is about how their pseudoscience is so absurd that the common man do not believes it.

    Those leftists are not complaining that simple men do not believe Newton, Einstein or Pasteur, which all are true science geniuses on whose true science the common man usually has full belief. I doubt that the average auto mechanic is smarter than Einstein or Newton. Those leftists complain that the common men do not believe THEIR corrupted by politics pseudoscience that says that we will get to paradise if we give the political class even more power, control, punishement power and $trillions.

    In EVERY poll that I have seen in my life the political class falls among the most distrusted people. The common man is smart enough to know the obvious fact that he must distrust politicians.

    They pretend that their PSEUDOSCIENCE is as good as Newton, Einsteins or Pasteur science, they pose as the EQUALS of those scientific geniuses, but the common man is smart enough to understand that their science is mainly charlatanery.

    Their nonsense pseudoscience lacks logic and they say that what happens is that their science is so “deep” that only a very few “superior” minds can understant “the truth”

    In fact this is the same old story that has repeated itself for milleniums. Only this time it will actually be different thanks to superb blogs like WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) that will show to millions the truth. Global warming alarmism will be the biggest fiasco in modern times, IMHO their discredit will be almost total because there will be NO WARMING and they alarmed people so much.

    We are writing history here at WUWT. This DO is the new academia that is replacing the old academia that systematically allowed itself to be corrupted by politics.

  158. SouthAmericanGirls;
    I doubt that the average auto mechanic is smarter than Einstein or Newton>>

    I doubt it too. My point was that practical knowledge trumps theory. When my car engine starts making odd sounds and won’t run properly, there’s little value in asking a scientist with a Nobel in physcis for an opinion. An average auto mechanic will do much better, thank you. When the Nobel laureate doesn’t understand why this is so and starts to tell the auto mechanic how to do her job, then we have a problem. Since she supposedly lacks the intelligence to argue the matter, she may resort to lending excessive acceleration to a metal tool chosen for the best combination of availability, weight, and size, guiding its path through carefull adjustment of directional arcs in all three dimensions, ending in collision with elitist’s protruding snoot. My personal recommendation is a 3/4″ drive SnapOn ratchet. The Nobel laureate may well retire from the discussion secure in his knowledge that she resorted to violence and thus proved her inferior intellect. I on the other hand just want my car to run right again and I’m thinking that the chick with the SnapOn tool is probably the better bet.

  159. Two things.

    Warmists accuse us of things like not knowing why the days are shorter, or why the trees change color and of not being smarter than a first grader. Heh, when I was six, we were taught that Winter brought cold, Summer brought a warm and March blew in like a lion, left like lamb. My mother taught me to adapt.
    And yet, the warmists are intentionally blurring the difference between carbon-dioxide and carbon-monoxide. They have renamed the so called polutant “carbon” and claim the exhaust from my car is “poisoning the planet with carbon emissions” that will change weather. Absurd.

    The other thing is that mechanics make things work, theorists dream about it. Sometimes it all comes together, usually it doesn’t.
    My current favorite quote, “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”
    — Ronald Reagan

  160. The bar chart at the top of this article doesn’t show anything relevant. The fact is that the vast majority of people hate being patronised, regardless of their level of education. That’s why talking down to people is a bad idea for absolutely anyone who wants to get a message across.

  161. it is the same with any position on any issue.

    the vast majority of people’s beliefs are formed and held emotionally

    any one who disagrees is stupid or evil ;)

Comments are closed.