John Abraham panics, apparently he and the AGU are forming a “Climate rapid response team”

UPDATE! See this new press release: AGU backs away from “climate rapid response team” citing faulty reporting

Prof. John Abraham - click for his page

Gosh. A “Climate rapid response team” from Minnesota? What will they be armed with? Wits and a hockey stick? So far that hasn’t worked out too well.  From the Chicago Tribune:

Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. The effort is a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday’s election.

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is pulling together a “Climate Rapid Response Team,” which so far has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.

“This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

“We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”

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

Heh, that last sentence pretty well sums it up. Read the whole article here.

I find the phrase “climate rapid response team” a bit of an oxymoron. Given the speed of climate change, did they mean “weather response team”? ;-)

Well it looks like I and many of my associates be traveling more. When these guys come to your town, demand some equal time to present the skeptic side of the story.

h/t to WUWT Reader “Craig” in tips and notes.

John P. Abraham
John P. Abraham, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Email: jpabraham@stthomas.edu

Phone: 651-962-5766
Toll Free: (800) 328-6819, Ext. 651-962-5766

Mail  OSS101
2115 Summit Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55105

Office Location: OSS 107

Faculty Web

About these ads

282 thoughts on “John Abraham panics, apparently he and the AGU are forming a “Climate rapid response team”

  1. With Secretary of State Clinton still signing Climate Treaties there is still something to defend I guess.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/australia-us-leadership-change-pact/

    And Steve Goddards view on the same article:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/who-are-you-who-are-so-wise-in-the-ways-of-science/

    The closure of the Chicago Climate Exchange must be a big set back for Al Gore and Obama. They will try to make come back even if they have to use all dirty tricks in the book.

  2. Stand by for a cut and paste blizzard…

    Amazing what government funded researchers can pass off as research these days.

  3. “plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.”
    What is this supposed to mean? How can air pollution be anything but man made? Surely they don’t think nature pollutes, if they are talking about CO2 that isn’t pollution.
    Meanwhile global warming hit North Carolina with ski areas opening.

    http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/41263/north-carolina-skiers-take-to-1.asp

  4. Well, their livelihoods do depend on continued funding etc. One almost feels sorry for them, until one starts thinking just how much it’s costing the rest of us.

  5. They’ll get slaughtered in any public forum they don’t control. This group will make no difference at all.

  6. The only comments that will be accepted from him and his team are ones that are done standing stark naked outside in the Minn. winter with a 50 mph wind.

  7. Well, I guess they are finally waving the white flag on their failed “the debate’s over” strategy.

  8. Now I’m going to have nightmares about scientists dressed in white lab-coats, bullet-proof vests with pocket-protectors and helmets on, kicking in the doors in Cancun to intimidate everyone into signing a climate agreement. I can hear it now “Capitulate! Or, we’ll make you listen to tapes of James Hansen lectures!”

  9. I thought the climate stopped warming in 1998 and has been cooling in the past few years. How does this fact jive with the warmists message?

  10. They need to hurry before climate cooling is obvious to everyone. Of course, that truth is not what they are peddling.

  11. There are hundreds of climate scientists? I’m only aware of a few dozen. Are they really cranking up the machine lately, or is this a pedigree you can order online?

  12. Then they already recognize that there is NO “scientific consensus” on AGW, that it is NOT a “settled science.” If there is no consensus and everything is subject to debate, why continue the endless attempts at national and global environmental regulations and energy taxation? Why push the UN FCCC global climate “binding commitments” just 3 weeks from now?

  13. Finally! Now I have one more permutation so now I can quantify a formula of which I’m 100% sure to get 50% right.

    1. Dumb ass hippie nerds cannot but come up with what they think is really cool names in the bestest of Hollywoodian drama name convention.

    2. There is now 700 climate scientist (or as it appears to be: 700 measly puni reasearcher) that can prove their point in fact.

    Using simple card tricks for probability calculations I come up with about 21 to 1 of those 700 that’ll draw fairly quickly or otherwise distance themselves from the running-towards-the-cliff-herd.

  14. When I first seen this seen this I went wow 700 scientist then looked down and it was 3 dozen or so then alittle farther and it was 39 then get to the end of the piece and it’s three names from the team things that make me go HUUMMMM

  15. “a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media”

    Yeah. Right.

    Just like many Mafia members traditionally avoid any illegal or dubious activities.

  16. Well, i didn’t expect some kind of climate rapid response team…

    Abraham: NOBODY expects the Climate rapid response team! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the IPCC…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.

  17. Well having seen Gavin Schmidt’s atrocious debating skills against Michael Crichton, Professor Lindzen and Professor Stott I hope he’s in the team!

  18. Yes but there is only 39 of them so far, it seems they don’t really want to debate openly only possibly appear on news programmes and the like where they still have some control. All guff I would say.

    Kindest Regards

  19. HMMM a mechanical engineer pontificating on climate change. Was that not verboten in climate consensus world?

  20. “Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.”
    ====================================
    Superb. Looking forward to receiving a schedule of events in good time to buy some beer and popcorn.

  21. Enquiring minds want to know: Are all AGW-centric “climate scientists” gay?
    … not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  22. Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.

    Handing out AGW ‘bibles’ in schools? Yep, it sure looks like a religion.

  23. Even if it were proven conclusively that we are about to die from a man-caused CO2 climate-warming disaster, the regulations and initiatives these 700 Don Quixotes are about to defend won’t make the slightest difference anyway.

  24. Remember, the left is horrible at leading but stirring up trouble? It’s what they thrive for. This does not surprise me. I saw a report a month ago where they (leftists) were looking for paid/volunteers/activists to work starting in the coming year, most likely to protest and push newly elected conservatives in congress.

  25. Any chance the participants in the ICCC will go public in response ? Will “closet skeptics” , regardless of their field , be willing to potentially jeopardize their standing – possibly even their careers – by stepping forward with the truth ? If the AGU is really ready to start an offensive , are we ready to meet it ? After all , they’ve had an advantage for years .

  26. I wonder how long it will take before they start accusing people of having unreported income from the oil companies? And yes that is an accusation of a felony.

  27. @Prof. Abraham (in the article):
    > “The notion that truth will prevail is not working.”

    That’s your fault. You have failed to provide convincing proof that observations of warming support your theory of environmental catastrophe, or that observed warming is entirely man-made.

    “We have eliminated all of the other possibilities. CAGW is the only one left, so it must be true” is not such a proof.

  28. “Climate Rapid Response Team”
    Climatebusters, that is so freaking cool.
    Where can I get a badge?
    Do they offer 24 hour cover?
    Do we just dial 999?
    Is there a uniform?
    Is it absolutely necessary to suffer from a God delusion disorder and have low levels of testosterone to join?

    “engage the denialists”

    Burn them at the stake more like.

    Whoya gonna call?
    Prof. John Abraham, Celebrity Climatebuster and Tarot Card Extraordinaire

  29. Quoting Dr. Judith Curry:

    ‘As we approach the anniversary of Climategate, I am getting a lot of queries from reporters, which invariably includes the following question:

    Is there any hope for ending the war between climate scientists that support the IPCC and skeptics?

    My answer is “yes.”’

    My answer is “probably not”. Abraham has declared war, has put himself in an inflexible position, and seems headed toward the Jonesian utopia that comes from suspending as many human rights as needed to get his way – and to stop the “death trains”, certainly.

    I just want the science to be scoped beyond looking for the human fingerprints in the climate record (which is another way to say dump the IPCC), for the science to be accurate (dump the boyz of Climategate), for the scientists to show some integrity, and the resolution to be both proportional and rational regardless of what causes the climate change and direction. And it wouldn’t hurt to show that the climate is changing in an unnatural way, or admit that that knowledge is beyond our ken and that we just don’t know.

    We are poles apart. And Dr. Curry seems to have embraced a fool’s errand.

  30. This is so predictable.

    What these spineless and unethical clowns will do is talk tough but never go on conservative shows, they’ll visit only left wing shows, and ramp up the propoganda distribution to public schools.

  31. The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media.

    *thphhhhht* there goes my coffee.

    i think that should read, “many of whom meddle in politics and saturate the media.”

  32. The best demonstration of their weakness is their absense from here.
    There has been nothing stopping them from making their case all along.

  33. Sounds like a climate science version of the stock market’s Plunge Protection Team. I look forward to reading their latest work of fiction, oops! I mean their “handbook” targeting teenagers.

    As noted above, the 700 number quickly morphed to only 39. Hide the decline?

  34. Hmmm, rent seekers, begging for more rent? I sincerely hope the new congress cut their funding full stop.

    You can already hear the squawking from Mann and Mr Abraham, we live in interesting times, sadly.

  35. “a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    Why are they targeting our children with their ‘truth’? They can’t win a scientific argument with us grown ups, so they target our naive children.
    That’s called indoctrination, not debate.

    The communists did it to me as a child in the Czech republic, the advertisers do it to my children and now the environmentalists are doing it. We need to stop this form of child abuse.

    I did not like this under communism in the Czech Republic, I don’t like advertising industry doing it and I sure don’t like Climate scammers doing it. We need to fight this. Climate skeptics are not like creationists – The Royal Society has admitted that this, and if we can’t prevent propaganda in our schools we have a perfect right to demand equal time.

  36. “The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media.”
    ================
    “For fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

    Alexander Pope

  37. Isn’t this exactly what the Climatati were accusing skeptics of doing: Organizing a mass (dis)information campaign?

    It’ll be interesting to see how this unfolds. Will it be a rinse-repeat of the same old “CO2 is the devil” theme, or will they take a broader approach of looking at the variety of human forcings, such that advocated by Pielke, Sr?

  38. I’m beginning to thihnk someone self described as a “climate scientist” not only should be ignored, but shouldn’t be allowed to vote or buy beer or do anything that you need to be an adult to do since they behave like hysterical children. Once we’ve defunded NPR, we should move on to “climate science” grants.

  39. First off, this Abraham goof is an ASSOCIATE Professor who teaches undergrad science and engineering classes at some little known college in Minnesota. As far as I know the only “skeptic” he has challenged is Lord Monckton and he did this poorly. He also had his butt handed to him in Monckton’s response.

    Still, I imagine right now there is flop sweat all over college professors who head “climate studies” programs. Funding cuts are a very real possibility. Congress controls the purse strings…not the Senate or the White House. If this fraud crumbles it will ruin careers, end entire college programs and put a lot of these parasites out of work. Maybe it’s not too late to study sociology.

  40. ” …..that science and politics can’t be divorced …..”

    History is littered with the graves of misguided and flawed ideologies …..which all caried such mantras ….

  41. BS Footprint ,
    They want to indoctrinate them before the next election . Sadly , ill educated teachers and school administrators will allow it to happen .

  42. “Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.”

    Validated the science eh?

  43. Mr Abrahams
    It’s cold out my way and it should really be quite warm.
    Could you please send out the Rapid Response Team.
    Does a callout fee apply, plus your normal hourly rate ?
    I need an increase of about 5C, do you charge by the degree ?

  44. Precisely the wrong approach, and very disappointing to this scientist. Refute the off-base claims of fringe skeptics if you have to, but treating this disagreement as some battle that needs a militant response only underscores the weakness of the AGW case. It is almost certainly motivated by an attempt to ensure continued flow of funds. Seems to me that admitting uncertainty and the need for “further study” is a better approach. As a federally funded life scientist, I understand the anxiety about continued ability to carry out our work, but this war room mentality is wrong headed. Having looked at John Abraham’s prior efforts, however, I don’t think that there’s too much cause for concern that it will be very effective, however.

  45. Well they seem to promise just what you have been asking for – discussion.

    Therefore why so much bad feeling?

  46. Nice to see that consensus scientists are now ready to rise from the trenches and enter the barbed-wire zones, engage in hand to hand debate and win the war!
    For those that do, much respect. Just a pity that your generals, Gore, Cameron, Arnie et al, hadn’t been as brave.
    Go you dough-boys. Death or glory. Lions led by donkeys.
    How sad!

  47. Peter says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:07 pm

    Well, their livelihoods do depend on continued funding etc. One almost feels sorry for them, until one starts thinking just how much it’s costing the rest of us.

    Translation the house of representatives is in the hands of the tea party.
    If we want any funding we need to make public spectacles of ourselves.
    We will become a rent-a-mob as good as anything PETA, Code Pink, or ACORN can dredge up.

    I generally don’t condone violence, but I may reconsider.

  48. But what I don’t understand, like Can above, is what the politics of the issue have to do with the APS in any case. They should just concentrate on publishing (and checking) their papers and leave the politics up to the politicians!

  49. How many of those 700 “climate scientists” are in danger of losing their funding? Probably most of them, from both the government and big oil.

    “You cannot trust a man whose livelihood and family’s welfare depend on his agreeing with his boss.” – Author unknown

    SOmebody should trot out the raw and adjusted temperature data from those 3 sites near Washington as often as they can. They speak directly to the problem:
    (1) they show no warming, but cooling instead and
    (2) they show the dishonest adjustments made to create warming, on paper.

  50. “People who’ve already dug their heels in, we’re not going to change their opinions,” Mandia said.
    Would be more accurate if he had said:
    “People who’ve already dug their heels in, we’re not going to change OUR opinions,”

  51. Haven’t heard from Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Brenchley, for some time now. Is he preoccupied composing Vol. III of “Refutations Against Abraham”? If peculating Green Gangsters plan on issuing “Mickey Mouse on Climate Change” to kindergartners, Monckton could lend Peer Review a whole new dimension.

  52. “…plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed…”

    Sounds like they are counting Fifi and Dan from Accounts, Bill the office cleaner, Paddy and Willo the two gold fish in the office aquarium… Fred’s dog Boxy… the list goes on – so easy to find 700 climate scientists – such a lovely round number, not 645, not 723… no 700 precisely…

  53. This is the worst nightmare of the pro-AGW-AGCD establishment. Having a group flying the establishment flag and taking part in public debate on AGW-AGCD can only lead to the revelation that the emperor wears no clothes.

  54. “…Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds [?] of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened [threatened?] prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions [at least in the US. For the rest of the world, not so much.].

    The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. [and some who have gone out of their way to actively protest and issue press releases.] Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in last Tuesday’s election.

    I especially liked the “… many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media…” line

    I remember one “prominent climate scientist” who complained that a former president censored his press releases. If he was really trying to stay out of politics and avoid the media, there wouldn’t have been stories about that.

  55. Alvin says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    Remember, the left is horrible at leading but stirring up trouble? It’s what they thrive for. This does not surprise me. I saw a report a month ago where they (leftists) were looking for paid/volunteers/activists to work starting in the coming year, most likely to protest and push newly elected conservatives in congress.

    The socialists-communists, Obama lobbyists, and Greenpeace are often found recruiting paid bloggers and community activists on craigslist. There was a recent Time magazine article complaining about the loss of most of Obama’s online activists since the 2008 election. The author of the article failed to take note of the extent to which the decline in online activism may have been due to the decline in hiring paid online activists.

  56. Well, their media machine is working well. This story is in the LA Times too:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29

    Here’s the part that made me laugh loudest:

    “Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.”

    Hilarious.

  57. Michael Cejnar says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    “a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    Why are they targeting our children with their ‘truth’? They can’t win a scientific argument with us grown ups, so they target our naive children.
    That’s called indoctrination, not debate.

    —————

    Agree 100%. On the bright side, you edited a key part of that statement out… “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change…”

    Yes. they will ‘pull something’ together, which, if their track record is any indication, should be fun for the kids to pull apart… if their brainwashers, I mean ‘teachers,’ allow them to discuss it.

  58. Puts me in mind of the Templar Knights … warrior monks devout to a fault and trained to a high contemporary standard of combat effectiveness (read media effectiveness). Mock them if you will but do not under-estimate them. The AGW base has or soon will embrace them.

  59. “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced….

    Wait a sec!!! Didn’t the Obamanoids tell us they would END the politicizing of science, supposedly something practiced by the eeeeeevil Bush Cheney cabal?

    Can’t these bozos ever maintain a consistent “message”??

  60. I wonder if this “Rapid Response Team”, since it is so pure and scientific, will demand that all data and methods used to support their argument will be published? That would go a long way to bringing some credibility to their “cause”, assuming the data didn’t turn out to be fabricated and manipulated (with bias) in the first place.

  61. Oh no!
    Not a hand-book!!
    Whatever shall we do!!!?

    Billy Liar says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:31 pm
    Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.
    Handing out AGW ‘bibles’ in schools? Yep, it sure looks like a religion.

    I was today chatting to my son (Phil – since you ask) who told me they were “doing global warming” at school. I suggested a few questions he could ask his science or geography teachers.

    He said “Why them? We are doing it in Religious Education”.

    “Hah! There is a God!”, thought I.

  62. The only future the AGW pushers are worried about is the future of of the gravy train that has sprung up around so-called climate science.

  63. Good to see Kevin Trenberth listed as one of the scientist. Maybe we can get a rapid response on the missing heat.

  64. Tim says: November 7, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    “It looks increasingly like Custer’s last stand.”

    More like Pickett’s Charge.

    “Pickett’s Charge was an infantry assault ordered by Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee against Maj. Gen. George G. Meade’s Union positions on Cemetery Ridge on July 3, 1863, the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. Its futility was predicted by the charge’s commander, Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, and it was arguably an avoidable mistake from which the Southern war effort never fully recovered psychologically.”

  65. Good to see Kevin Trenberth is listed as one of the scientist. Maybe we can get a rapid response on the missing heat.

  66. BTW, there have been a couple of questioning over the past few months about whether an”Associate Professor” is actually a professor.

    An “Associate” professor IS a professor, usually with tenure.

    Even an Assistant Professor is a professor. Very often only the head of division is ever a Full Professor.

  67. Well the 10:10 approach was considered a bit over the top. Why not try a handbook, and a crack team of Climatologists who will swarm in and “educate” the heathens unceasingly with The Absolute Scientific Truth until they recant their primitive unscientific beliefs?

    No one expects the Climate Inquisition!

  68. Theo Goodwin says: “This is the worst nightmare of the pro-AGW-AGCD establishment. Having a group flying the establishment flag and taking part in public debate on AGW-AGCD can only lead to the revelation that the emperor wears no clothes.”

    They’ll be armed with a low-carbon-footprint Ditto duplicator copy of a script to read. There will be no debate.

  69. “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

  70. walt man says:
    November 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    Well they seem to promise just what you have been asking for – discussion.

    Therefore why so much bad feeling?

    Which part of sending out pamphlets to high schools indicated discussion?

    Sounds a lot like Gores don’t talk to the old folks, they don’t understand to me.

    DaveE.

  71. These guys are probably concerned with the sound of investigative feet pounding down their hallowed halls.
    They do have much to lose: face, funds, reputations and positions and in a couple of instances, thier freedom.
    They might be described as “desperately cool, calm and collected with very high levels of anxiety”.

  72. walt man – at 5:18- Well they seem to promise just what you have been asking for – discussion. Therefore why so much bad feeling?

    Walt, do you think there will be an opportunity for discussion on the impropriety of the following plan?
    “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    Sounds like these folks do understand how to care and nuture a religion..

  73. I predict Marc Morano’s stock is going to go up. After Marc’s first TV debate at the onset of Climatgate where he king of flubbed it, I sent him a piece of advice in an email. He needed to get his talking points in order and and stick to his own pre-prepared talking points agenda. Marc has come a long way in the past year. Marc is now a firecracker, and everything that comes out of his mouth is fact. I love hearing this guy talk.

  74. evanmjones says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:27 pm

    Yes – I do find the US system confusing.

    In Australia we have tutors, then 3 levels of Lecturer I, II, III, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor (formally Principal Lecturer), and finally Professor.

    Thanks Phil’sDad – I had a good laugh at your post :) :)

  75. Scott Mandia should might as well retire his physical science professorship and switch over to politics and activism.

    I always thought his posts on here had spin …and here he goes again….this time… saying science and politics are inextricably linked together…and that they will “aggressively engage” the “denialists”.

    Nice job, Scott. sarc/off

    Bring it on.

    We “denialists” are waiting for you.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA , USA

  76. P Walker says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:39 pm
    [….] If the AGU is really ready to start an offensive , are we ready to meet it ? [….]

    Meet it? That is defense. You don’t win by playing defense, which cedes the advantage of choice to the opponent. As General George S. Patton, Jr. said:

    “I don’t want to get any messages saying, “I am holding my position.” We are not holding a Xxxxxxxxx thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s xxxxx. We are going to twist his xxxxx and kick the living xxxx out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like xxxx through a goose; like xxxx through a tin horn!”

    Take the research grants back and give them to real scientists who will respect the scientific method, the law, and the right of the public to participate in Science and its proper funding. Take the leadership positions and professional societies back, and/or replace them with uncorrupted organizations dedicated to the scientific method and honest representation of their memberships. Replace the corrupt peer reviews and corrupt scientific journals. Make it safe for uncorrupted scientists to practice honest science without fear for their academic and commercial careers. Drive Lysenkoism and post-normal science back into the dustbin of history where they belong. Chase the climate religion out of the schools. Never give up. Never stand idle. Never quit.

  77. Even more PR. Typical response.

    Instead of scientific measurement.

    They could just prove it for once instead of engaging in yet another PR campaign (which is what this scientific field is 100% about – not evidence but PR).

    There really should be congressional investigations and the funds should be cut-off until someone shows some actual evidence.

  78. “This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with propaganda to keep funding.” pat says: November 7, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    I agree with you Pat. And what is a climate scientist anyway? A geochemist, a sedimentologist, a glaciologist, an atmospheric physicist, geophsicist, astronomist, paleontologist, oceanologist etc.
    Probably none of these, more likely a mathematical modeller and as Pat suggests public funded greedy, pompus, we-know-it-all scientists and scientific groups.
    By the way, I declare I am a Geologist/Geophysicist (Geoscientist) not funded by public money (and you probably know what that means). So I guess I’m biased, although I know a little bit about paleoclimate.

  79. walt man says:
    November 7, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    Well they seem to promise just what you have been asking for – discussion.

    Therefore why so much bad feeling?

    ==================================
    Not sure that it is so much a bad feeling but rather a hefty dose of skepticism about what John Abraham is saying because historically the climate science Team have shut down nearly all attempts by skeptics to enter debate or engage them at any level. This has been shown on WUWT and Climate Audit countless times in previous posts.

    The question is; why does John Abraham and his 700 or 36 or whatever number of scientists he thinks supports him suddenly feel the need to aggressively speak out as experts on Global Warming?

    The answer may be; He/they are concerned that the billions of dollars currently funding them to try and prove a link between CO2 and global warming will be usefully channelled into productive areas of scientific research that will show benefits to us all.

  80. The more they fight this the more obvious it is they are not scientists, that they are not right, and that the public deserves a *large* refund.

  81. Threatening their funding is a less strategic approach than coaxing them into figuring out natural variations. The goal can be to make sure funding is used sensibly. We need more climate research, not less. That can be made very clear. These folks need to stop playing with computer fantasies (based on untenable assumptions) and get back to finishing the job of exploring the data. They have fallen victim to Simpson’s Paradox and this is crucial. Threatening the funding will not elicit the most adaptive response for our society & civilization. This is not about revenge. This is about understanding nature. Putting aside the left/right hyperpartisan nonsense and being practical is the way to go here. This is a teachable moment. It’s a chance to get them to realize they actually can figure out nature within a reasonable time frame. Just put the carrot on the stick to ease them into the task. These are bright folks and we can get them working for society.

  82. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.

    Absolutely right. There was no actual evidence for the silly CO2-driven AGW theory in 1988, and after two decades and $100 billion, there is still no evidence for it, and in fact it has been completely disconfirmed in all its predictions.

    Bring on the pscience and the pscientists supporting this nonsense. Real scientists will respond — now, in testimony before Congressional committees — and “the truth” may actually get some publicity.

  83. Money is always the deciding factor. I would wager that funding is what’s really at risk to the climate science community. Unwilling to admit that they’ve been practicing bad science with mixed politics has caught up with them. At this point I don’t think I’m really worried any longer. They’ll start savaging one another as the ship goes down…, Be fun to watch…,

  84. The part that really stick out like a sore thumb is this:
    Global Warming expertise is useless in a cooling world.
    Wanted: Energy Efficiency experts. Perpertual Motionists need not apply.

  85. scott ramsdell says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    700 “climate scientists” vs. 1 Lord Monckton

    Bets?
    ***************
    Lord Monckton would have to leave all his wits at home, as I doubt the 700 could summon a half-wit amongst themselves.

  86. evanmjones says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:27 pm
    “BTW, there have been a couple of questioning over the past few months about whether an”Associate Professor” is actually a professor. An “Associate” professor IS a professor, usually with tenure.Even an Assistant Professor is a professor. Very often only the head of division is ever a Full Professor.”

    In the American system, an Assistant Professor is a newly hired professor who is on a tenure track. An Associate Professor has just received tenure and employment for life. Associate Professors are on a standard schedule and nearly all are promoted to Full Professor if they work hard, publish, deliver papers at conferences, and so on. Department Chair is not a prestigious job. It involves endless office work, which the professoriate loathes, and is usually foisted on someone whose poor publication record requires him to do the job as a means of getting promoted to Full Professor. The people who invariably and deservedly enjoy prestige are the journal editors.

  87. Scott Mandia posts on several sites that I frequent. When it comes to details I generally agree with him but often draw different conclusions from the data.

    It dismays me to find that Mandia will allow himself to be associated with a someone as deluded as John Alexander.

  88. Those “scientists” in the Team don’t seem to appreciate that hypotheses and theories are targets for criticism. That is their purpose. To put forward an idea and to have people try to shoot it to pieces with data.

    What sort of fool does it take to deliberately stand between a sharp-shooter and the target?

  89. scott ramsdell says: (November 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm)

    700 “climate scientists” vs. 1 Lord Monckton
    Bets?

    Yeah, sure doesn’t look fair, does it . . .

    . . . maybe Monckton would be willing to let it get to 1000 – yet, then he still would be them in any debate . . . :-)

  90. Phil’s Dad says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:58 pm
    Climate Rapid Action Party anyone?
    ———–

    Heh heh heh.

    Yeah, but would it morph into Climate Rapid Action Schutzstaffel ???

  91. AGU recently started a new blog (http://blogs.agu.org/outdoorscience/), “Outdoor Science – Geoscience without the hot air”. Apparently not!

    They are covering a range of topics including ‘climate change’, with an apparent Warmer bias.

    Something to keep an eye on for a good laugh, or just to keep tabs on them.

  92. Tiger Woods is being groomed to be one of our heroes in the future from our past.

    After the ravages of economic breakdown has occurred, in 2013 or 2014 a hero from our past will have emerged. Like a country coming back from it’s darkest hours.

    Tiger will be a symbol of our redemption in those years. How well off we ascend from the ashes is anybodies guess. In which way will one of our hero Woods of the past lead us?

    Which political way will Tiger choose? Will his choice be your choice? Will you follow him anyway? Will you people choose to stay a sovereign country or will you choose to be governed by a new world order? That is the question.

  93. My prediction is they will ride Obama’s coat-tails at a university rally, 20,000 teenage kids with OforA shirts cheering their every word with TV cameras rolling. There will be no debates of any real sort. They will generate the propaganda in leu of real science.

  94. New methods for rapid response by alarmists:

    http://sppiblog.org/news/alarmist-spammer-unleashes-twitterbot-to-stifle-climate-debate

    Alarmist spammer unleashes Twitterbot to stifle climate debate
    Source: CFACT
    Nigel Leck, an Australian software developer, grew tired of debating climate realists on Twitter so he created a spambot to “wear down” his opponents. The bot, @AI_AGW, scans Twitter every five minutes looking for key phrases commonly used by those who challenge the global warming orthodoxy. It then posts one of hundreds of canned responses hoping to frustrate skeptics.
    [...]

    REPLY: It always pays to check the front page of WUWT first – Anthony

  95. Thanks to people like Anthony and Steve Mc, we’ve finally flushed them out.

    I look forward to it. I doubt they intend to engage in much serious debate, but we will see.

  96. I wonder if the “climate rapid response team” which includes scientists are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

    Wouldn’t it make sense for them to show up at critical blogs?

  97. “congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.”

    They do a bang super job of killing things, that’s for sure. I just hope they limit to the GHG emissions. History has plenty of examples of their overkill.

    What am I saying? They turned this place into a bankrupt police state. They’ll probably kill me.

  98. Psst… Michael… it’s obama… I know, I constantly confuse him and Tiger too. They look a lot alike, sound a lot alike, and both have the same amount of political experience…

  99. After witnessing Abraham’s glacially ponderous “attack” on Monckton – it’s amusing he intends to form a “climate rapid response team”. He reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke – “he’s so slow he couldn’t herd turtles”.

  100. They’d better be careful showing up on the conservative talk radio shows. They will get their asses handed to them by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Michael Savage who have first-hand knowledge of the so-called climate science debate AND a crack staff ready to lay a field of land mines for naive scientists.

    This Climate Response Team will end up being a farcical endeavor because, even as Joe Romm has said, the Obama administration is an utter failure when it comes to climate Central Planning. Romm went from calling Obama the “Green FDR” to a failure. I guess it’s just a “messaging problem”.

  101. CodeTech says: wrote
    November 7, 2010 at 10:05 pm
    “Psst… Michael… it’s obama… I know, I constantly confuse him and Tiger too. They look a lot alike, sound a lot alike, and both have the same amount of political experience…”

    Thank you for pointing this out for us CodeTech, but you have not been exposed to our modern culture of Lindsy Lohan and Dancing With the Stars, and you do not understand our level of mind control. I say Tiger woods will be our prophet after the collapse. We are half way through phase 2 of the collapse. Phase 3 starts about June of next year and will last 18 months. Then the real fun begins.

  102. Open question: why can’t these liberal climate scientists just accept that they overreached and lost? It really doesn’t matter if conservatives do not believe the science and are labeled Holocaust deniers — it’s the draconian legislative measures and government control of energy/life/carbon that scare the hell out of the majority of the public. Climate change legislation and cap & tax is only going to be tried in deep blue states like California. Let’s watch what happens for the next 1-4 years in the Golden State as they drive unemployment and taxes to new heights.

    Darrell Issa said he will be “investigating a lot”. What do these climate scientists have to hide — besides that decline? Alas, it’s just a messaging problem –which we know now because that ClimateGate email messaging sure backfired.

  103. God, I want a piece of this action!

    Protect polar bears that aren’t actually dying, stave off the Venus Syndrome, raise energy bills through the rough, drive all remaining industry off of US shores, etc. etc.
    vs.
    9.6% Unemployment.

    Doesn’t sound very hard to me, actually…..

  104. The CRRT and the AGU have a problem, when they engage in debate they lose the debate, when they compare their evidence with that of the sceptics the sceptics win every time.

    One of the main reasons that the CAGW industry peddled the consensus/there is no debate narrative is because the evidence behind CAGW is so very weak. All this silly desperate ‘team’ can do is sling mud which they have been doing already which has been a major ingredient in the current demise of their narrative.

    CAGW is a dying theory, the funds are drying up and the followers are thinning out leaving behind only a determined minority who find it difficult to move on. More and more people decide for themselves based on the evidence to hand, thanks to the sceptics this evidence has been seen and digested and understood perfectly.
    In the end the CAGW industry will shrink in size and numbers until only the most fanatical followers and those wholly unable to modify their belief system will be left and the end result will be a cult.

    You can take a dummy to the library but you cant make him think.

  105. I’d love for them to mail one of their “guides” to me in the hopes I’ll actually use it in my classroom…it’ll be a complete waste of their money, which suits me just fine.

  106. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    Threatening their funding is a less strategic approach than coaxing them into figuring out natural variations. The goal can be to make sure funding is used sensibly. We need more climate research, not less. That can be made very clear. These folks need to stop playing with computer fantasies (based on untenable assumptions) and get back to finishing the job of exploring the data. They have fallen victim to Simpson’s Paradox and this is crucial. Threatening the funding will not elicit the most adaptive response for our society & civilization. This is not about revenge. This is about understanding nature. Putting aside the left/right hyperpartisan nonsense and being practical is the way to go here. This is a teachable moment. It’s a chance to get them to realize they actually can figure out nature within a reasonable time frame. Just put the carrot on the stick to ease them into the task. These are bright folks and we can get them working for society.

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

    Paul, as always, an evolved viewpoint. I could not agree more. “This is about understanding nature.”

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  107. Sounds like some political activists posing as researchers are watching a boatload of research money flash before their lyin’ eyes and they are willing to play Chicken Little on Tee Vee to keep the money flowing.

    We don’t have the money for the man made global warming lie anymore. Let’s move on to more pressing and real problems facing this country. No more watermelon “research” and it’s public shake down solutions.

  108. Perhaps this post of mine in a previous post is more relevant in this one;

    They always try to jigger the language to control the message, as if, it isn’t the message that is flawed, but rather the way people perceive it. Let me assure you, IT IS THE MESSAGE THAT IS FLAWED.

    We see these communication tactics blamed for various setbacks in the agenda of many political groups. The great loss by the democrats in the recent election was blamed on the democrats not communicating their achievements effectively. While democrats feel what they did was a great achievement, the vast majority feel that what the progressives did was an affront to our principals and our wallets.

    The people with the flawed message have a solution to their problem, change the wording they use to brainwash people with. They have no clue, too many people have woken up to their scams and the woken ain’t going to be sucked into their vortex anymore.

    The democrats, warmists, and even foreign governments seem to think that by just changing the wording they use to promote their position, people will buy what they are selling. A complete and total economic collapse has a way of getting people to think about exactly what is being said, and conker over the mind control tactics.

    Here is a perfect example of how foreign governments play in this arena. This is something that was not meant for the publics general viewing, but it’s hard to keep secrets with a modern Internet like ours.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8303274/The-Israel-Projects-2009-Global-Language-Dictionary

  109. If they keep this up, one day they will be referred to as the Beatniks of Climate… just like the 3 other climate scares that preceeded the Computer Modeled Photoshop version.

  110. “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia,…..

    This is a sure sign that they are worried that their gravy train is about to be derailed.
    “aggressively engage the denialists….”
    Scott should know better than anyone about science and scepticism. Why has there been no trend in the global total number of storm days between 1965–2008?

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2010/2010GL042487.shtml

    Even hurrican intensity increase has been called into question.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452

    http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landseaetal-science06.pdf

    http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006GL028836.shtml

    Global warming has had since 1975 to make its presence felt with hurricanes and see nothing much going on there. Yet Scott has not doubt (scepticism) about the theory.

  111. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    This is a teachable moment. It’s a chance to get them to realize they actually can figure out nature within a reasonable time frame. Just put the carrot on the stick to ease them into the task. These are bright folks and we can get them working for society.

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

    Take a little issue here. Some of these folks….are not so bright…or they would have never made such egregious errors in the first place.

    Or at least they could have “manned up”…pun intended…and admit they were wrong.

    Or maybe they are very bright but blinded by the cognitive dissonance spirit of the age.

    Its not like it has not happened in human history in the past.

    But you get people like Abraham….and Mandia…..and I would venture to guess that, no….they are NOT as bright as given credit.

    If they were, they would be willing to say a couple of phrases that are all-too-rarely uttered amongst our species: “I’m sorry. I was wrong.”

    Fat chance on that.

    Just look at the psychotic length at which Abraham has tried to spin away or handwave away Monkton’s relentless pedantic and unstoppable search for the truth.

    [Check out Jo Nova's post on the subject as referenced herein].

    I really think that some of these people are beyond repair. A man with the dementia of James Hansen has NO BUSINESS running one of the most powerful climate positions in the world.

    The good thing is…their influence is waning and their time is fleeting.

    Can’t wait to see a new crop of scientists who are in it for the science and not about to do the biddings of the religious dogma of the day…whatever flavor that dogma may manifest itself.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  112. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    Threatening the funding will not elicit the most adaptive response for our society & civilization.

    Yes it will, by eliminating the effete [degenerate] niche which allows CO2CAGW-type Political Science to proliferate masquerading as and in place of real Science. Defunding has to occur as a necessary step, until the funded science is required to employ the Scientific Method solely and completely, with easily enforceable standards.

    For example, how many of the 700 “Climate Scientists” who will allegedly show up to defend the unscientifically derived and supported CO2CAGW hypotheses or “tenets” would any sane scientist trust to know and follow the Scientific Method?

    One of my early complaints to Dr. Curry was that she apparently had not thought to investigate the adequacy of the scientific basis for her own Climate Science “specialty”. Even up to the present, who else amongst those calling themselves CO2CAGW “Climate Scientists” has?

    So, no, it is not in the interests of our society and civilization to provide funded, on the job training for people who either do not know anything about the Scientific Method or don’t have the moral character to follow it. Given this “teachable moment” they should get and pay for their own remedial training and perhaps form their own private “support group”, not us.

  113. “scott ramsdell says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    700 “climate scientists” vs. 1 Lord Monckton

    Bets?”

    Yes, the same as Elijah against the 450 prophets of Baal. (1. Kings, 18)

  114. This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced

    I recommend a trial separation.

    Just to find out what it’s like . . .

  115. Charles Higley says:
    November 7, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    “You cannot trust a man whose livelihood and family’s welfare depend on his agreeing with his boss.”

    Another way to put it is:

    “You cannot trust a man whose livelihood and family’s welfare depends on the climate getting warmer.”

    What I find odd is that this rapid response team is being launched as we enter the Northern Hemisphere winter. How many people will listen? ;o)

  116. I expect that the US House will provide opportunities for the climate people to testify about their beliefs.

  117. I think it’s very good that this is happening because it may help to open many more people’s eyes and to make them see that the climate panic is not associated with top science – and not even good science – but with a few extreme and extremely poilticized people at several community colleges (Mandia) and catholic seminaries (Abraham).

    For more comments about it, see

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/agw-jihad-collects-700-or-39-or-6.html

    Why would they associate themselves with Mandia of a community college? Is a community college graduate the opposite of complete loser? :-) (The Big Bang Theory viewers surely know what I mean haha.)

  118. “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.”

    Hmm, the last time such happened was during the early 19th century when the English Whigs used geology to unseat the Tories from government; they succeeded.

    Will this latest manifestation of scientific prostitution also win? I hope not since but as it will be the climate godzilla versus the davids of climate rationality, there is a good chance that godzilla will be stopped, albeit after a long battle.

  119. It would be good if these people could be engaged in free and open debate. Up to this point that certainly has not happened.
    Please cousins in USA don’t give these guys their usual free ride, make sure you follow Anthony’s request – demand some equal time to present the skeptic side of the story and may the truth prevail!

  120. I have an idea. Let’s make a video game that proves AGW!
    oops. you mean that already has been tried?
    How about some movies?
    hmmmm.
    Any modelers in the house?

  121. They venture on their quest, lances alert, spooring after dragons. We salute them and snicker as we do.
    ===========

  122. Anthony,

    Alert to Josh!

    John Abraham is unleashing his hordes of AGW dogs-of-war poodles-of-panic on the wiley-lone-wolves of skepticism.

    It is going to be poodle pandemonium time. : )

    John

  123. Dr Dave says:
    November 7, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    November 7, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    He also had his butt handed to him in Monckton’s response.

    I think he is still wondering what it was that Lord Monckton handed to him. He still looks far too smug and he is still linking to his “rebuttals” of Lord Monckton on his website.

    It will be interesting to see what the new make up of the US Congress will do to climate research funding. Personally I can’t see the need for such extensive research and with the scary component it’s virtually useless.

  124. Looks like a good member of the team – has the same sh@t eating grin as Mann’s mug shot.

    I suppose it is hard to look humble when you know so much.

    Michael

  125. Again and again, its circular reasoning, sort of, just like their computer programmes. First the warmists are afraid to debate openly with the skeptics because they know that their (the warmist’s) argument is weak and the skeptic’s one is strong, being based on science and geological history that cannot be denied (and then they call us deniers). Now, that the tide has turned and a great majority of Joe the plumbers have turned skeptical, the warmists are having their last suicidal attack, kamikaze style, on the truth. Kamikaze attacks are always the weapon of last resort.
    Repent, the end is nigh.

  126. Why 700 scientists? If their theory is right, one scientist would have been enough. It took only one scientist to prove E=MC2. LOL. Now now, wait a minute. I have re-read the report and it does not say ‘scientists’ but ‘researchers’. Does’nt it explain it all/ These 700 researchers are all riding the research gravy train and if CAGW dies the death, or better still has its life-support machine switched off, these researchers will all be unemployed. Poor kids, what a way to go?

  127. With JA as their leader, we can’t lose.

    He’s way out of his depth, and the undertow has him in its grip.

    The whining “pickin’ on me!” tone of the Warm-larmists is in response to what they’ve gotten hit with so far? What’s about to slam them will raise howls of agony.

    Schadenfreude is such fun!

  128. “Climate scientists plan campaign …”

    When scientists “campaign”, that is your first indication that something is very, very wrong. Physics isn’t a democracy. The nature of things isn’t decided by how many believe that this or that is so. It is what it is.

    So far the major failings of their “campaign” have been:

    1. Failure of transparency in data and methods.
    2. Reluctance to accept criticism when errors are pointed out.
    3. Failure to show any atypical climate behavior (rate of change) in the current time relative to other periods in the Holocene.
    4. Failure to show any atypical global temperatures (magnitude of change) in the current time relative to other periods in the Holocene or past interglacial periods.
    5. Failure to show results consistent with observational data through dubious “adjustments” to the raw data that completely change trends in both sign and magnitude.
    6. Failure to observe any of the predicted side effects of CO2 forced warming (e.g. mid-troposphere “hot spot”).
    7. Repeated attempts to obfuscate methods and data, deceive, sidetrack, delay, and suppress any attempt to look into their work to include the social isolation or professional ostracizing of anyone looking with a critical eye at their work.
    8. Coordination of propaganda among different “scientists” of a consistent theme and (written) evidence of conspiracy among them in coordinating that propaganda message.
    9. Failure to maintain a consistent source of measurement stations over the course of the record with additions and deletions from the network contributing to a “warm bias” by eliminating wholesale the rural and high altitude stations.
    10. Failure to show that today’s climate is in any way harmful to any one or any thing.

    So, we have no evidence that today’s temperatures are unusual. We have no evidence that the rate of change in today’s temperatures are unusual, we have no evidence that the data used to present the current state of global climate is even accurate, we have manipulation in the network of reporting stations, we have manipulation of the data that completely changes the result (hey, whatever happened with that New Zealand case?) … and NOW they are going to embark on a “campaign”? It seems to me that they have been on a “campaign” for decades already. All that this “campaign” is doing is yet again attacking anyone who dares disagree with them.

    It is a desperate act by desperate people.

  129. @ Alex the Sceptic. Wasn’t it a yiddish library clerk who did physics as a hobby, not a scientist, who discovered E=MC2 ? As I remember, the scientific consensus looked at his scruffy exercise books full of math equations and said, “this can’t be right, your maths is crap”. A group of scientists with nothing better to do reworked the math and said, ” Hey, this boy’s got something”, and Newton was knocked off his pedestal. All the great and good were so embarrassed that they allowed the library clerk to be called a scientist out of sheer self-defence. There’s a lesson somewhere in there for scientific consensuses everywhere, something along the lines of, “The science is never settled, there’s always a smartarse who will upset the applecart.” perhaps?

  130. co2insanity says: “Now I’m going to have nightmares about scientists dressed in white lab-coats, bullet-proof vests with pocket-protectors and helmets on, kicking in the doors in Cancun to intimidate everyone into signing a climate agreement … ”

    … Actually, there’s not going to be a single scientist of any description at Cancun. It’s just all politicians, media types, bankers, bureaucrats, regulators, and money movers. Says it all, really.

    As for the 700 … I’ve a list of over 7,000 real scientists, engineers, Phds, and Masters saying the opposite, and they don’t have grants to protect. The clue is in the word “researchers” – as in their eternal cry; “we need MORE MONEY” for ‘climate research’.” Who’s the public going to believe?

    CCX … good riddance.

  131. It took only one scientist to prove E=MC2.

    Look at the notion of plate tectonics. Wegener’s idea were not accepted until 20 years after he died. If anyone should have been “campaigning” it should have been him. He, after all, was right. They laughed at his notion of continental drift at the time.

  132. Time to write a letter.

    Dear local radio station,
    Just wanted to make you aware of this group of 700 scientists who are openly challenging skeptics to debate in conservative forums such as yours. Could you please contact them and get some of them on the air as soon as possible? Act now because my understanding is that there are only 39 left of the original 700 and no one knows where the others have gone. If you could have someone knowledgeable from the skeptic side at the same time, I think that would be wonderful. I have a list of questions that I would be happy to submit in advance if that would be helpfull. We could start by getting an explanation of how 7 trees in Siberia represent the climate of the earth over 1,000 years, there must be some serious science in that. Then perhaps we could ask how tree rings have been no where near the thermometer record in the last 50 years, but we are certain that they were accurate for the 9 centuries before there were thermometers to verify against, and then I would like to know…

    Regards,

  133. AndyOH’s comment about Templar Knights needs to be seriously considered by all of us concerned in getting reasonable debate and honesty on the AGW issue. !
    Templar Knights still exist in some countries, and they are determined people.

    One has only to look at the current dilemma in Germany with many thousands of believers of stopping nuclear power production fuel being returned from the French reprocessing plant by blocking the railway lines, and so far the police are helpless without using undue force. This will get ugly as many AGW believers have similar warrior attitudes.

    REMEMBER.. It was not long ago that the comment was posted “We know who you are, and where you live”. Barack Obama has the power to stop this issue going that far, but will he do so.! I think not..!! Al Gore would never forgive him.

  134. “We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”>>

    Huh? Say what? You picked up a hockey stick, brandished it about in a professional hockey league, and when you take a few body checks into the boards suddenly you are going to write a report and send it to the other team’s kids? You’re tired of being hit? If your science were solid it could take the hit, keep the puck, and put it on net. But your science never learned to skate, let alone stick handle the puck, and it was only a matter of time before the people in the stands figured out that the ticket prices went up because the guy skating on his ankles is demanding more money and the coach and general manager are dumb enough to pay it, plus your science wants an enforcer on the left wing so that they don’t have to take the hits and fight their own fights. Oh, and they only want to play against the other team’s kids.

    On the truth side, yes it has been out there for two decades. But nothing’s changed? Let’s see. Hockey stick graph, debunked. Positive feedbacks, debunked. Tipping point, debunked. Polar bear extinction, debunked. Glacier extinction, debunked. Sea level rise, debunked. The truth is out there and as the invisible cloak unravels, even a child at some point has to snicker, point, and exclaim – the truth is the emperor is naked! And he skates on his ankles!

    In other news, Obama says he’s going to find “other ways” of restricting CO2 since the newly elected house doesn’t seem to be afraid of science’s left wing enforcer. I note that in his career, Obama has never accomplished much except to create a great deal of hype and charisma to launch himself to yet a more prestigious position than the last one. Having become president of the USA, one wonders what his next move is, and what “other ways” means. Is he going for a job at the UN? Look out Ban Ki Moon, soneone wants your job. (And I’m good with that as long as he accomplishes as much at the UN as he has in the rest of his career).

  135. “The notion that truth will prevail is not working.”

    Oh dear! The facts are not supporting the CAGW theory, public support for mitigation is falling to lower and lower levels and our quiet sun is dealing a death-blow to the idea that increases of a few ppm of CO2 will fry the world.

    The true believers in who earn their income from CAGW now want the debate to be reopened without new evidence. Feather dusters at dawn, anyone?

  136. Michael in Sydney says:
    November 8, 2010 at 12:03 am

    “Looks like a good member of the team – has the same [/snip] eating grin as Mann’s mug shot.”

    Another top quality post in what is ostensibly science blog. Well done sir.

    [REPLY: Kind of hard to encourage folks to let their kids read WUWT, learn from content here, etc... if we get to spicey with language... bl57~mod]

  137. “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    Who is paying?

  138. What clever folk. This story, the one most will remember, simply says that “The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue.”

    700 sounds impressive, if one is impressed by such numbers. Much better than 39. But from a November 8 story:

    “In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate…”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

    So… they plan to announce this as a fact just as soon as they round up another 661 comrades, if that ever happens. Its yet another convenient projection. And in the meantime this 700 story is out there in the ‘news’ stream, fooling some of the people.

  139. How did Abraham’s last attempt at influencing people end up? His recent attempt was a less than spectacular success. Last I heard in the story Chris Monckton was threatening him with all sorts of unpleasant legal stuff…and a book.

    Does anyone have a later instalment of this gripping drama? Or should Abraham just expect His Honour Lord M to be waiting at his first public appearance? With considerable malice aforethought. Can I buy a ticket now please?

  140. With apologies to Edward Lorenz…

    Does the flap of a climate scientist gums in Minnesota set off a tornado in Washington?

  141. <blockquote cite="DirkH says:
    November 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    ……..Abraham: NOBODY expects the Climate rapid response team! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency….

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    ……..No one expects the Climate Inquisition!

    TomRude says:
    November 7, 2010 at 9:46 pm

    Someone post this one, please:

    Oh, thank you God! – this is sublime comedy.

    Even better than “Climate Hawks (Dodos)”.

    I’ve been weeping into my coffee all morning.

    “Nobody Expects The Climate Inquisition!” has got to be their best move since Splattergate.

  142. A few years ago a poster on this blog said the AGWers will have lost their cause when two things happen. The climate refuses to warm to a tipping point and, the AGWers are publically ridiculed. That time has about arrived.

  143. Tim says “Another top quality post in what is ostensibly science blog. Well done sir.”

    My apologies for the language – I agree it is uncalled for and writtern in a moment of haste.

    Perhaps those with opposing views can drop the more offensive term of “denialists” etc as used by John Abraham in what is ostensibly a science debate – or is it not?

    [REPLY: Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. You are correct regarding the other matter. Disparaging labels 'should' be left out of intelligent conversation lest it no longer be. .. .bl57~mod]

  144. Latimer Alder says:
    November 8, 2010 at 2:07 am

    “How did Abraham’s last attempt at influencing people end up? His recent attempt was a less than spectacular success. Last I heard in the story Chris Monckton was threatening him with all sorts of unpleasant legal stuff…and a book. ”

    Monkton threatens…as far as I’m aware, he has yet to file a libel case against Abraham. A book is much more likely.

  145. Stop it rednecks, and stop it puppets for oil companies.

    Scientists do not do science because of funding nor do they engage the public because of the threat of cutting funding. It is not the way it works. Study the history of science.

    It is a history of curiosity and anti-establishment thinking.

    In the present day, scientists are far beyond Your level of intelligence – they would be the last people to ever be fooled by a conspiracy to establish one world government or whatever You dim-wits believe their motivation is.

    Compare their achivements with Yours and develop some respect. Not everybody is motivated by base greed and ignorance like You are. By the way, how does it feel to be fooled to support the same people who supress You in health care and finance? Hard to admit is it not?

    REPLY: And once again “truth” and insults are hurled by a person too cowardly to put his/her name to their own words. Some class act. – Anthony

  146. scott ramsdell says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:46 pm

    700 “climate scientists” vs. 1 Lord Monckton

    Bets?

    ****************************
    Lord Monckton is a gentleman and as such knows that it is the height of bad manners to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is obviously unarmed!

  147. John Whitman [November 8, 2010 at 12:01 am] says:

    “Alert to Josh!

    John Abraham is unleashing his hordes of AGW dogs-of-war poodles-of-panic on the wiley-lone-wolves of skepticism.

    It is going to be poodle pandemonium time. : )”

    Great idea. And if Josh can work it in, how about throwing in Monckton as the Dog Whisperer!

  148. Ryan Maue 11/7/2010 10:11 pm They’d better be careful showing up on the conservative talk radio shows. They will get their asses handed to them by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Michael Savage who have first-hand knowledge of the so-called climate science debate AND a crack staff ready to lay a field of land mines for naive scientists.

    No, they wouldn’t get their asses handed to them by Limbaugh, Beck, or Savage. (I’m a conservative and an AGW skeptic.)

  149. @grumpy old man

    ‘A group of scientists with nothing better to do reworked the math and said, ” Hey, this boy’s got something”, and Newton was knocked off his pedestal’

    Far be it for me as an Oxford man to defend somebody from Fen Poly, but Einstein did not knock Newton from his pedestal. He merely showed that Newton’s work was a subset of his own. The experimental technology of his day meant that Newton could not possibly have made the discoveries that Einstein did. They both deserve to share that pedestal.

    And Newton’s Laws are still good enough to get men to the moon….and back. Which must have come as a great comfort to those stranded in Apollo 13.

  150. I find it really sad that John Abrahams has so little real understanding of the English language and of the science that he teaches that he has utterly missed the import of Monkton’s rebuttal of his ( Abraham’s) accusations and assertions. Even sadder is the fact that the strange little college that employs Abrahams has a leadership that do not understand the issues involved in their employee being both an incompetent and untruthful to boot, but by their support of him, encouraged Abrahams to behave as he does !
    I see no signs of fierce scientific debate with Abrahams, or his fabled 700 scientist, on the immediate horizon for WUWT or any other rational forum, but hear empty vapourings from an increasingly defensive and embattled group who have not yet realised that their time in the sun has gone into history as just another failed idea.

  151. Michael in Sydney says:

    I suppose it is hard to look humble when you know so much.

    Reminds of the (possibly apocryphal) story of George Bernard Shaw being cornered by a bore at a party. When, after two hours, GBS finally managed to get a word in, he told his tormentor, in a conspiratorial tone, “You know, between you and me we know everything there is to be known.” “Really?” replied the bore. “Yes,” said GBS “You appear to know everything except that you are the most boring man in the world, and I know that.”

  152. The Ch.4 vid is inaccessible in Canada, and with only 4 views I assume it’s blocked in the US, too.

  153. Paul Vaughan says:
    November 7, 2010 at 7:39 pm
    …………………
    What is needed is allocation of funds for research the alternatives. Each tax-funded university or institution should allocate (make it a legal requirement) about 20% of their climate research fund and facilities for investigating natural causes of climate change. Mutual interaction and the knowledge interchange would produce far better science at both sides of the debate.

  154. Robuk says:
    November 8, 2010 at 4:12 am

    OT.

    A documentary on channel 4 UK TV called ( What the greens got wrong).

    40 million deaths from the banning of DDT and no apology from the greens or the EPA.

    http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.html

    It is my understanding that DDT is not banned for residual spraying malaria control. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoor_residual_spraying

    http://www.treated-bednet.com/agro-chemical.htm

    If I’m wrong, please correct me.

  155. Sending out AGW dogma pamphlets to public high schools is but one step removed from riding bicycles handing them out door-to-door like Jehovah’s Witnesses:

    “Sir, have you found Jesus Gore yet?”

  156. “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”
    Oh good, a “Little Green Book”. But, high schoolers? Methinks they are overreaching a bit. They should try kindergarteners, who are a bit more gullible and easier to mold.
    But, I guess they realize they are out of time, and this is their last gasp effort.
    This should be fun.

  157. “We’re here tonight to celebrate total victory in the climate war. AGW is a done deal! In the immortal words of our President, ‘We won and they lost’.”

    “Er….whats all that clatter outside, Speaker Abraham?”

    “Ignore them. Those are just ignorant peasants and crazy people dissatisfied with the outcome of the war. Acknowledging them would send out bad signals; a sign of weakness; a sign of uncertainty. Total victory demands a show of certainty!”

    “But….they’re climbing in the windows and the door is off its hinges!”

    “Ignore them, I say! Royalty does not acknowledge common rabble. We won. They lost. End of story!”

    “Dammit….who took my microphone? I need troops! I want 700 soldiers at my side! Now!”

  158. Depends how you define rapid response. CEI is still waiting for FOI info from 2007. These sure are rapid responders.

  159. Be interesting to see if ANY of these 700 so-called experts are not paid by the government. So far warming alarmists have been totally unable to find more than 1 alarmist scientist (Prof Lovelock in the UK) who is not paid by the taxpayer, though the majority of the world’s scientists are not so funded.

    I would say bring it on but experience shows that such promises to debate are regularly made & rarely kept.

  160. So a professor of engineering from a very small school knows more than climatologists like Lindzen, Pielke, Sr., Curry, etc.?

  161. “Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York”
    ——————-
    They are really bringing out the big guns in this fight! I might beable to get my kid’s 7th grade science teacher to sign on as well.

  162. “The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. ”

    Most posters here have picked up on the fact that this is nothing more than the “Climate Ca$h Protection Act of 2010″. If you think about it, here’s how much Climate Ca$h we’re talking about…

    700 “researchers” @ $100,000/yr (salary + benefits) = $70 million / year.

    Assuming the average researcher controls about $500,000 / year worth of NSF and other related useless government projects, that’s: 700 x $0.5 million = $350 million.

    Add in overhead (you know, trips to Bali and Cancun) and other costs, and you can see that we’re talk nearly $500 million / year of Climate Ca$h that’s at stake here.

    Time to pull the plug on these clowns and spend the money (our tax money) on fighting poverty and disease, activities which are infinitely more useful to society…

  163. Going into the 2004 Presidential campaign, the Democrats perceived a public relations shortfall and instituted the Air America Radio network.

    We all see how well that worked out for them.

  164. By stepping off the science platform and on to the politics platform, hasn’t the AGU now placed any government research funding that its members receive in jeopardy? Or itself violated aspects of federal law about using federal dollars for lobbying? Seems like a ripe area for a little legal research! Let the subpoenas fly.

  165. “…a “Climate Rapid Response Team,” which so far has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    The high priests of the Church of Global Warming are pulling out all the stops to protect their disintegrating power base–and I’m including those with the McKlatchy News Service who put this story together. McKlatchy supports the premise that there is a “scientific consensus” and happily mentions that the AGW scientists are preparing a propaganda handbook for distribution to our kids.

    The hubris just keeps coming.

  166. Steve Jones says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:41 am
    “…And Newton’s Laws are still good enough to get men to the moon….and back. Which must have come as a great comfort to those stranded in Apollo 13…”

    Just a pity these ‘laws’ stop working at galactic distances, but come to that neither do Einstein’s!

  167. Interesting.
    The Chicago Tribune article reads word-for-word like the LA Times article.
    Both with the same pictures and both printed without attribution/by-line.

    Looks like the Lame Stream Media is reprinting someone’s press release and calling it news again.

  168. As the academia is organized it follows by necessity that there will be mutual grooming, caressing and self indulgement, a characteristic of apes´societies (as Desmond Morris tells us) as the human defects reinforced when there is not pursued individual development but corporative development and establishment, so the consequences would seem a conspiracy; thus not necessarily the best of academy is obtained as result but an “average”; thus science and knowledge will be obligatory “settled”: the product of a social agreement, of mutual and social caressing. It has happened differently where to achieve a doctorate it was needed instead of a doubtful “research”(as it can not be possible an infinite “menu” of themes of investigation) an examination, where the afterwards development was an individual achievement and a personal search and research following, if existent and present, the individual´s real interest in approaching knowledge and truth.
    Thus, the characters who appear on the scene, the “researchers” or “scientists”, are, in the best scenario an “average” or worst, as it has evidently happened, the basest of the human kind, the lowest expression of society, protected by the “corpus academicum”, individuals incapable of surviving outside of the academic environment: the most feeble specimens of the human breed.

  169. This is all hot air, theres no way they’ll debate anyone with a modicum of intelligence in AGW science, it’ll be stage managed to make them look good as usual.

    I’ve given up on holding my breath as i started turning blue, i’ll file this under ‘another pile of rubbish from the high priest’s of doom’.

  170. ..The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media…

    LOL, that’s a good one Neela Banerjee! I haven’t laughed that hard in a while.

  171. “Holy Hockeysticks Dr. Abraham. The flat-earthers have dealt a serious blow to us. Whatever shall we do?”
    “We will send out the signal to the Climate Response Team. Quick, to the environmentally friendly signal lamp my properly indoctrinated intern.”
    “Dr. Abraham, the lamp isn’t putting out enough light. What’s wrong?”
    “Well Intern, that is the problem with environmentally friendly signal lamps, they are weak. Like out arguments on AGW.”
    “But what will we do????”
    “Let me see that dispatch again Intern. Hmmmm…. Yes.”
    “What is it Dr. Abraham?”
    “A 2nd cousin, thrice removed, of one of the chief advocates for the skeptical viewpoints once worked as an attendent at a gas station. No need to debate, we’ll just label them a shrill for the oil companies.”
    “But Dr. Abraham, that link is so weak it might as well not exist.”
    “I see it’s time for re-education for you, Intern.”

  172. Oh wait, this is the same John Abraham who failed to respond to Monckton’s rebuttal? Ah, I see we have nothing to worry about then. These people still don’t have a grasp of where the truth of the matter lies, much less how to present it. Until they learn that the truth is nuanced and not absolute in this matter of climate change, they’ll continue to look the fools as they take their well-choreographed, hollywoodized presentations and fail to respond to criticism.

  173. Tenuc says:
    November 8, 2010 at 7:13 am

    Steve Jones says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:41 am
    “…And Newton’s Laws are still good enough to get men to the moon….and back. Which must have come as a great comfort to those stranded in Apollo 13…”

    Just a pity these ‘laws’ stop working at galactic distances, but come to that neither do Einstein’s!
    ________________________________________________________
    So what works out there inside the dark and deep galactic empire? hockey shticks maybe? or have these been sucked up by a black hole, causing galactic freezing?

  174. “John Abraham panics, apparently he and the AGU are forming a “Climate rapid response team””

    I know were “Climate rapid respons team”s can be useful. Serving FOIA requests !!!

  175. People who lack a well and correctly formed individuality, being conceited because of a wrong education received from their parents, usually seek the protection of the group, of a bigger body, of society, so they tend to be inclined to a political environment where they can be protected by “big daddy”=government and “big mommy”=society, they run away and fear the most free expressing individuals and individualities. Their eagerness to “return to the womb” it is so extreme a necessity, that they will do anything to reach such protection; that is the origin of fanaticism and it is obviously the cradle of “liberalism”, which thus becomes a contradiction in itself as its members desperately seek not to be freed but to remain protected from what they consider a hostile environment. So, everyone which does not show the same characteristics of them becomes an evil person or group, a menace to their security, and being such, they MUST be sent where they can make no harm on them, if possible to “special camps” or better to make them disappear ASAP.

  176. DirkH – hysterical ! Ha ha ha! I laughed out loud, really did.

    Am not so worried about the depth of the challenge, just that they seem (as newly minted PhD’s?) to be scattered amongst those august and venerable institutions such as St Thomas University in Minnesota and Suffolk County Community College. They’re invested in this story and will be taking in their unsuspecting students with their fanaticism.

  177. Where does all this disparaging comment come from? Do you people not read? The evidence is out there, based on research from all over the world. But if you don’t want to accept the evidence revealed in the research, come with me to the Canadian north in any season, monitor any watershed in North America, and observe the increasing number of severe weather events in your own backyards. We are already living with a new normal which threatens the survival of civilization as we know it.

  178. So…there is not any “conspiracy” at all, but a tacit agreement among weak individuals, who are afraid of being left alone in the middle of a, for them, “hostile environment” where they are fearfully surrounded by “bad kids” who are wishing them bad.
    Fu*** em all!

  179. For the Truth;
    In the present day, scientists are far beyond Your level of intelligence – they would be the last people to ever be fooled by a conspiracy to establish one world government or whatever You dim-wits believe their motivation is.
    Compare their achivements with Yours and develop some respect. Not everybody is motivated by base greed and ignorance like You are.>>

    Well since you don’t know what my level of intelligence, or anyone else’s on this blog, or even that of the scientists, you can’t actually say who is more intelligent and who is less. On the other hand, I’m intelligent enough, and have sufficient technical background, to read many PhD level papers (part of my job) and the level of “science” in many many many climate papers is very weak, poorly reasoned, and based on faulty methods. So, having confirmed that I DO have the intelligence and education to in fact converse with the scientists on this and other topics, I conclude that it is you who stand in awe of the magic dressed up as science and decides to believe it because “they” are so much smarter. Not often someone jumps into a blog and tacitly admits their inability to understand the subject matter based on their intelligence level. Congrats.

    You may want to study that history you read again by the way. The “intelligentsia” is the FIRST segment of society to be fooled. They are known as “useful idiots” by those who manipulate them. As for their motivation, you might want to read up on Maslo’s Hierarchy of Needs. I recall that food and shelter are the top two? In modern language that would be read as… enough money to buy food and enough money to buy shelter.

    Never mind, you just proclaimed your awe of scientists operating at planes of existance that you yourself can’t achieve and so assume that the rest of us can’t either. Don’t bother. You’ll not understand it any more than the history you claim to have read.

  180. Hunter says:

    So a professor of engineering from a very small school knows more than climatologists like Lindzen, Pielke, Sr., Curry, etc.?

    Yep. And do they intend to take this fight all the way… Really? Are they going to go on, say, Mark Levin’s show, or better yet Rush’s show? I mean, if you’re going to fight, you’re sooner or later going to have to slay the dragon!

  181. For the Truth says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am
    #
    Thanks for providing this forum with such a clear datum. Your post is an eloquent depiction of the very heart of those who are saving the world from mankind. It is an invaluable piece of information in understanding the true nature of the AGW debate.

  182. The main stream media which have articles on this announcement refer to the ClimateGate investigations as having cleared all scientists of any wrong doing and validated the “science” involved. Most of the main stream media are just co-conspirators in the phony political climate fear campaign.

  183. From the AGU web site: “AGU membership encompasses more than 58,000 individuals from over 135 countries.” Wow, 700 members out of 58,000! That’s more than one percent!

  184. I have been captivated by the number 7 in this story. Seven is a mystical number of great importance; from the 7 headed hydra, the whore of babylon (And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth), 7 deadly sins, the pharohs dream of seven lean years, the archangels seven trumpets that herald the apocalypse, the magnificent seven, seven brides for seven brothers, etc.

    The most relevant of these myths must be the magnificent 7, or more correctly, the magnificent 700, riding out to protect the defenceless from the predations of the rapacious denialists. The story will not end as the 700 may wish. In the Clint Eastwood movie ‘High plains drifter,’ Eastwood persuaded a gullible population to defend their remote town by taking armed positions on the rooftops ready to take the marauding bandits by surprise. The poor fools were no match for skilled gunmen and they were all shot down like birds in a cage.

    Instead of marauding bandits, enter one Lord Monckton. Like Eastwood’s townsfolk, these gullible 700 will be ovewhelmed. Overwhelmed by the sheer ferocity of climate facts, and that will be the end of them.

    Those warmists that know the science are the ones who know enough to avoid debating it.

  185. Advocacy and science should not mix in the way that it does today. If unpoliticized climate science results were to show that certain gases increasing in concentration due to anthropogenic activities have a radiative forcing effect that will result in warming and other climate changes, then fine. They should report their results to policy-makers and other stakeholders and that should be the end of it. As soon as they THEMSELVES get into advocacy, then a culture develops within that biases the research, frightens contrarians, and directs the interpretation of results toward the dominant paradigm. I am not sure if there is such thing as unpoliticized climate science today. This is neither good for science, nor society.

  186. For the Truth says

    “In the present day, scientists are far beyond Your level of intelligence – they would be the last people to ever be fooled by a conspiracy to establish one world government or whatever You dim-wits believe their motivation is. ”

    Sorry – I’ve worked with scientists in “pure” research situations and they may have a high level of intelligence but they suffer the same flaws as thre rest of us mere mortals. Hubris, greed and intolerance. I’ve seen Phd’s go ballistic because his lab was 15 square feet smaller than a peer. I’ve seen a chemist try to remove the stopper from a flask of acid by heating it. And while many are dedicated to their craft, they have to compete to perform their work.

    Besides which, if you are really looking for truth, you’re going to have carry your lantern further than just the inconvenient pages of Gore, Cameron, Hansen et al.

  187. It is the sceptics who police the official (nominal) climate researchers and their (nominal) research.

    That they would run a campaign against sceptics is analogous to criminals and felons launching a campaign against the police and the courts


  188. For the Truth says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Ad hominem and appeal to authority.

    Not much else to consider in your comment.

  189. Remember how awful it was when Moncton sued Abraham. How dare he show his face after loosing, paying $100,000,000,000 to the Viscount and apologising, naked, on the steps of the House of Lords.

  190. Lulo says:
    November 8, 2010 at 9:33 am

    Some think that science and politics are each others’ servants, apparently, based on this following comment, as a matter of feeling.

    “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.

    Science however is very cold, impartial and clinical, has nothing to do with politics or group feeling. This is where Galileo incurred the wrath of the church for being a renegade against what that group happened to feel, and this is what we have had to start again today, after some 250 years of impartial scientific thinking, which shows signs of going into abeyance.

  191. Oh, I forgot! the murder robot from out of space is called Gorth, or was it Goreth? ;-) Only one thing can stop it:

  192. This made the front page of the Sacramento Bee. I think this is the first time I have seen any newspaper article discussing the Climategate scandal on the front page. Phrases like “unabashed activists, climate misinformation, and scientist surpressed information, make me , if you pardon the expression, feel warm all over!!

    I’ll be interested in seeing what t

  193. I’ve been a member of AGU for 35 years. In recent years I have observed that the organization was becoming somewhat political. I never expected this but in hindsight I’m not much surprised. It’s distressing.

  194. Food prices have almost doubled due to the ethanol craze, which was promoted by Abraham types: click.

    Abraham is a complete coward, taking pot shots from the safety of his ivory tower and protected by tenure. Those agreeing with him aren't much different in their character.

  195. For the Truth says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Stop it rednecks, and stop it puppets for oil companies.

    It sounds like you dislike a certain segment of society. I can see no other reason for such ad hominem. This indicates intolerance towards others. But please, lets hear what you have to say…

    Scientists do not do science because of funding nor do they engage the public because of the threat of cutting funding. It is not the way it works. Study the history of science.

    It is a history of curiosity and anti-establishment thinking.

    Scientists are human beings like anyone else. They require air to breathe, and food to eat. They also, just like any other human being, love the easy life if they can get it; nice homes, quiet neighborhoods, and the right kind of intellectual fame wherever they can grab it. This isn’t a fault on them as much as it is human nature. The history of science is full of examples of good scientists/mathematicians being ignored by history because a bigger-ego scientist pushed his name on slight changes of what was mostly someone else’s work.

    For a good example, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz
    Or a better example, look up the history of the discovery of nuclear fission where a woman was FROZEN OUT of being awarded a prize for its discovery by egotistical men.
    For a painful real-life example, try getting yourself a post-doc position at CERN. You’ll quickly see how political science can become.

    In the present day, scientists are far beyond Your level of intelligence – they would be the last people to ever be fooled by a conspiracy to establish one world government or whatever You dim-wits believe their motivation is.

    Actually, this is entirely wrong, entirely. Anyone who has worked with PhD’s in a laboratory can tell you this: they are prone to the same mistakes as anyone else, but more often than with people with lesser-degrees, their ego wont let them ask for help or advice on how to take data. A great example from a friend is the PhD who upon not understanding how to get a fragile stainless-steel liquid helium transfer line into a dewar (because he was short and didn’t see the stepladder), decided that he would bend it to fit it down into the tank (that’s a true story). Of course he couldn’t do this when the real lab rats were around, that might make him look bad, so it was left for them to discover the next morning.

    The reality is the human intellect is not unlike our own capacity for physical strength. It increases the more you use it, not necessarily because of how many pieces of paper you have on the wall. I’ve met some people that are clearly smarter than I am, who have no college degree or fewer degrees, and yes I defer to them on things they clearly understand better.

    Compare their achivements with Yours and develop some respect. Not everybody is motivated by base greed and ignorance like You are. By the way, how does it feel to be fooled to support the same people who supress You in health care and finance? Hard to admit is it not?

    I will quote Tex Winter, and by proxy Phil Jackson who uses Tex’s wisdom in his book:
    “You are only successful for that moment when you have completed a successful task.”

    The point is, yes, achievements are commendable.. But, like glory, they are fleeting. For instance, America can wave a flag and cheer over the fact that we went to the moon through taxpayer funded efforts. However we’ve done nothing of any value to human inspiration on that scale (and subject) in going on 5 decades now. In short, the landing of men on the moon has quite sadly almost passed into irrelevance, and will soon. All that because America rested on its laurels and did not appreciate the very in-the-present nature of accomplishment.

    We would all be wise to keep these things in mind..

  196. Jeremy says:
    November 8, 2010 at 10:42 am
    You will find, someday of course, that there are big differences. A lot of stupids does not justifies stupidity but encourages us to diminish it. A lot of slaves does not justify slavery but encourages us to free them all.

  197. OddSox says:
    November 8, 2010 at 9:30 am
    From the AGU web site: “AGU membership encompasses more than 58,000 individuals from over 135 countries.” Wow, 700 members out of 58,000! That’s more than one percent!

    Indeed. But to repeat myself (from November 8, 2010 at 2:04 am) it isn’t 700. They just announced that bogus target number to fool people…

    “In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate…”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

  198. P Wilson says:
    November 8, 2010 at 10:02 am

    Science however is very cold, impartial and clinical, has nothing to do with politics or group feeling. This is where Galileo incurred the wrath of the church for being a renegade against what that group happened to feel, and this is what we have had to start again today, after some 250 years of impartial scientific thinking, which shows signs of going into abeyance.
    #

    Not to be a contrarian, but your understanding of history bears the bias historians have passed down to you. It makes for a great Anti-Christian Anti-Catholic narrative. The whole Galileo thing was political. The Catholic Church of Rome was in a battle for the moral high ground with the Reformers, many of whom were more interested in power then piety. If the Church went along with the Helio-Centric solar system ( which many churchman including Cardinals would have liked), then the Protestants would have been all over them. The issue was engineered to go away, and to let science prevail quietly, but Galileo opened his big mouth, satirized the church, stabbed the Pope in the back, and made it a purely political issue.

  199. I believe “For The Truth” is correct, at least as far as I am concerned. I have achieved nothing compared to those climate scientists he supports.

    I have not been prepared to sacrifice my integrity to foist junk science on the governements of the world.
    I have not followed that up by demanding that the global populous have their pockets emptied in the name of that junk or have their quality of life destroyed for the same false claims.
    Nor have I engaged them in debate as they are requesting but that is not for want of trying. Most here will know what happens to posts on realclimate when you dont stay “on message”
    I have failed to get responses from two prime ministers, two energy ministers, the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Independant and most frustrating of all, from the chief scientific adviser to the governement on climate change. I caught him telling provable lies at a London debate and I asked him to bring a libel action against me or retract and of course I got neither.

  200. John Abraham has the credibility of a Smurf. He’s the perfect poster child for the foolishness.

    This statement is laughable:
    “Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall.”

    K-12 requires educational material to be fact checked and aligned to State Standards. Unless they are going to pitch the literature as fiction, they can be sued for circulating propaganda to the K-12 class-room.

    I’m looking forward to who they use to fact check the material but doubt any K-12 teacher in the USA will do anything other than throw the propaganda away.

  201. The climate consensus brigade plus the World Wild Life lot plus the governements of the world need to have another look at a fact that seems to have passed them by.
    A rogue asteroid or the eruption of a super volcano could destroy all life on the surface of the planet tomorrow. A fast approaching ice age could also get close.
    Of all the species on the planet (save the snail, save the whale, thanks George Carlin) Man is the only one with the potential to develop the technology that just might prevent that destruction.
    I say save the human race, encourage economic growth and support technological advance.

  202. Ahh yes… “For The Truth”…

    Every once in a while a website or blog or forum evokes the kind of manic-eyed rant that is a true classic. This one is a contender. We got “redneck”, “oil company”, “scientists are smart”, “scientists are noble”, “you’re stupid”, all in one post. It was truly a tour de force of foaming at the mouth.

    Unfortunately it fell a bit far behind in the substance category. For example, where is the actual detail on this “health care” claim? Most productive members of society already have health care, and I can’t really see how calling out a few dishonest “climate scientists” has taken away health care. But I quibble.

    Personally, I prefer “For The Shire!” as a rallying cry.

  203. When I first read the header tag on this article, I actually thought that a “Climate Rapid Response team “was going to be something positive, as in a group helping flood victims or perhaps a research team, conducting more experiments in global climate…..but no, it’s the “Scientific “equivalent of a central American Death Squad!

  204. Cry Havoc!… and let slip the dogma of warming.

    [REPLY - Great Caesar's Ghost will get you for that. ~ Evan]

  205. Russ Blake says:
    November 8, 2010 at 10:21 am
    This made the front page of the Sacramento Bee. I think this is the first time I have seen any newspaper article discussing the Climategate scandal on the front page. Phrases like “unabashed activists, climate misinformation, and scientist surpressed information, make me , if you pardon the expression, feel warm all over!!

    I’ll be interested in seeing what t
    ————-

    Uh oh, looks like the climate rapid response team got to Russ before he could post the link !!!!

  206. DesertYote says:
    November 8, 2010 at 11:32 am

    “Galileo opened his big mouth, satirized the church, stabbed the Pope in the back, and made it a purely political issue.”

    Nope Galileo didn’t stab anybody, “in the back”, or any other place, at least as far as we know.

    And Giordano Bruno? What’s your excuse for the Catholic Church burning him to death?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

    The religious have been torturing to death, and slaughtering millions in more efficient ways, for millennia. It’s time it stopped.

    Religion, all religion, is applied ignorance..

    Stop making excuses for religious crimes.

  207. What Jeremy said at 10:42 am
    @ For the Truth
    Excellent! Thank you!

    And an update:
    Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union.
    AGU Release No. 10–37
    8 November 2010
    For Immediate Release
    WASHINGTON—An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch. The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.

    “In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”
    See the article here: http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-37.shtml

  208. acementhead says:
    November 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    Religion, all religion, is applied ignorance..
    More exactly, they PROMOTE ignorance and prohibit knowledge (Agnosticism: You do not need to know anything, you only need to believe in our SETTLED SCIENCE-Dogmas-)

  209. To what acementhead said at 12:41 pm
    “Hatred is a blindfold on the mind and blockage of the doorway to enlightenment.”
    In other words Grasshopper, while truth may set you free you must let go of hatred before you can “see” the truth.

  210. “Climate Q&A Service,” the program, according to the society, aims to provide accurate answers to questions about climate science from journalists.”
    Acurate answers, whew, that’s a relief! Silly me, I was afraid they’d just be singing from the same CAGW/CC/CD hymnal they’ve been singing from all along.

  211. acementhead
    November 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    You need to learn some real history instead of the anti-Christian propaganda that is taught in school. It also might do you some good to learn about the Christianity you have been taught to despise so much, before you spout off in ignorance. The same people who used false religion to control people are now using false science for the same end. So according to you, we should do away with science also.

  212. davidmhoffer says:
    November 8, 2010 at 8:56 am

    You might want to add a “w” to the corrected version of your post, otherwise very good.

    I reckon “when being clever be VERY clever”. In other words use Chrome; it won’t protect against the dreaded homophone “problem”, but it will save us from most missing dubyas.

  213. Not to restart a huge religious argument, but two observations of a non-believer:

    1.) Sure, there have been a lot of religious wars. But who among us thinks there would have been fewer wars had there been no religion? Seems to me that if religious cultures are stained red (and they are), atheistic cultures are positively drowned in oceans of blood.

    2.) Galileo like so totally screwed the pope. He wrote a so-called “neutral dialogue” — by permission of the pope — during which the guy who held the church’s (incorrect) position was made to look like a total moron. One can certainly argue that the church totally deserved to get knifed, but not that Galileo did not knife the church (in general) and the pope (in particular).

    Thus endeth the Holy Wars.

  214. DesertYote says:
    November 8, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    In response to

    acementhead
    November 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    “You need to learn some real history instead of the anti-Christian propaganda that is taught in school. It also might do you some good to learn about the Christianity you have been taught to despise so much”

    DesertYote I went to school a long time ago and wasn’t exposed to any “anti-Christian propaganda”. I was also not taught to despise “Christianity”(or anything else , for that matter). What I was taught, was that I should think for myself, and that was what caused me to become an Atheist (I didn’t know the word at that time) at age six years and three months, which was when religionists came to my school and started “teaching” us about god. I judged them to be very stupid because they could answer none of my questions.

  215. Sent the following email to John Abraham
    ===============================
    Dear John

    Having read the article in the Chicago Tribune titled “Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

    I can, with great delight, advise you of a perfect forum for you and your experts to speak out to skeptics about global warming.

    The forum is the science blog called Watts Up With That. This site was the winner of the 2008 Best Science Weblog award and is known as the world’s most viewed climate website with over $50 million visitors. Most but not all visitors are are skeptical that CO2 is the main driver of any apparent global warming – your perfect target market!

    The obvious place for you to comment would be at the following post written about you and your Climate Rapid Response Team.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/07/john-abraham-panics-the-agu-into-forming-climate-rapid-response-team/#more-27561

    Yours Sincerely

    James Allison

  216. Djozar says:
    November 8, 2010 at 9:53 am

    ” I’ve seen a chemist try to remove the stopper from a flask of acid by heating it”

    Not unreasonable as long as she did it correctly(brief high temp localised heating outside the stopper). But then when I was eight my favourite experiment was to melt about 5 grams of potassium chlorate in a test tube and drop in a crystal of pyrogallic acid, so maybe I’m not a reasonable judge of laboratory safety.

  217. Milwaukee Bob –

    AGU update is interesting. however, Neela Banerjee’s misrepresentation has been already been picked up by all the usual MSM gatekeepers.

    Climate scientists gear up to fight climate-change skeptics – USA Today

    Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change – The Guardian – John Abraham

    US scientists unite against climate sceptics – The Guardian

    US scientists to speak out on climate change – AFP

    best (or worst) of all:

    7 Nov: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Scientists Join Forces in a Hostile Climate
    The news was first reported by Neela Banerjee of the Los Angeles Times (a former colleague)…
    This came up when I taught a graduate seminar at Bard College on communication and environmental policy in 2007, the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rolled out its fourth report.
    I divided the class into two groups. One had to defend the presentation style of Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the climate panel’s science report team. Solomon rebuffed reporters trying to get her to interpret the findings and said her job was to lay out the science, not discuss how to respond. The other group defended James Hansen, the NASA climatologist who has become a passionate advocate for a quick end to coal combustion…
    If a scientist wants to join the policy fray and retain credibility, a vital step is to distinguish between assertions supported by data and those framed by personal values.
    Nobody explained this better than Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University, who passed away this year after decades of work on climate science, communication and policy…
    There’ll be more from my Schneider files on uncertainty and climate down the line.
    [*The post has been corrected to reflect that Scott Mandia teaches at Suffolk County Community College, not Stony Brook University. It has also been updated to clarify that the "rapid response" team is separate from the American Geophysical Union's project; the team is being organized by Mandia, Abraham and colleagues.]
    [3:13 p.m. | Updated * I intended to convey irony with the term "Schneidergate," in that these e-mails are the antithesis of what anyone searching for clues to a climate conspiracy would want. Steve would have chuckled (here are his thoughts on "Climategate"), but some readers have complained, so I'll be dropping that term going forward.]

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/scientists-join-forces-in-a-hostile-climate/?partner=rss&emc=rss

    andy drops “schneidergate” at the first criticism – which can’t be found in the comments – yet “deniers” is liberally sprinkled throughout the comments of the faithful.

  218. It should provide a nice target; send offers to talk shows etc. on both sides of the spectrum to debate as many as they want, with just 2 conditions: Not be outnumbered by more than 2:1, and Talking-Stick rules (whoever has the T.S. has the floor with no interruptions until they give it up, alternating pro/anti/host).
    :)

  219. James Allison November 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    See my suggestion above.
    Also, WUW the “$50″ million visitors? RU an accountant? ;)

  220. Brian H says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    James Allison November 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm
    See my suggestion above.
    Also, WUW the “$50″ million visitors? RU an accountant? ;)
    ==================================
    Hell no – but must have been thinking about money as I typed. lol

  221. acementhead
    November 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    So, you were schooled during the fifties? Or somewhere outside the US or Europe ( because of your sentence structure, I was assuming you were educated in the US)? The socialist anti-Christian spin was already becoming pervasive in public schools even in conservative areas of the US by 1965. It was pretty subtle as to not unduly alarm the parents. Most victims of indoctrination do not realize it. Kind of defeats the purpose. Sorry to hear that you turned your brain off at such a young age.

    Your very words betray your irrational hatred of Christianity. You had to have learned, somewhere, that it is OK to hate that which you do not understand. And you had to have been that anti-Christian version of history you believe in so religiously. My guess would be school. I could be wrong, but that’s where most of you anti-theists get such strange notions, like that nonsense about Christianity meaning not thinking for oneself, or that rejecting GOD somehow equals wisdom. Being a Christian is all about thinking for oneself, but being as ignorant of the subject as you are, you would not know this. You are so blinded by your preconceptions, you probably have no idea what I am talking about.

    BTW, I was taught the Scientific Method by my dads boss, who was a pioneering High-Energy Physicist at Argonne National Laboratory, when I was four. She had shown me that truth is not a thing or a point, but a process. I am fifty and I can still remember exactly how it felt thinking about it. A couple of weeks later I figured out that infinity and the opposite of infinity ( I did not know the use of the word negative) were the same. These incidents happening right on top of each other changed my life. Ever since, I have had a thirst for truth and have applied the Scientific Method in pursuit of it. It was an act of intellect that led me into belief in GOD. Thous who do not recognize the existence of GOD are sort of short sighted, kind of like those who have difficulty thinking past infinity.

    I find it ironic, that all of you Anti-Theists railing against religion, do not recognizing that your Anti-Theism is a religion. But as Christianity is founded upon the LUB of mankind, and your religion is based on random white noise, I think I will stick to my Christianity.

    [Please explain: "LUB of mankind"? Robt]

  222. acementhead says:
    “Not unreasonable as long as she did it correctly(brief high temp localised heating outside the stopper)”

    Unforetunately, no; HE placed it on the hot plate and left. I was left in the lab with a cloud of hydrobromic acid vapor.

  223. LUB is shorthand for “Least Upper Bound”. The concept is originally from set theory, but has been extended to more abstract systems (I’m working with New Foundations). Think of mankind being a set (really a naive set) partially ordered by some quality, lets call “goodness”. Our intuitive notion of what “goodness” means is good enough for illustration (I am working on a formal definition but it involves math that is still a bit beyond me). Then Jesus, as 100% man, would be the LUB of mankind. I see the world in terms of math. I am an aspie and have some trouble communicating. I should just keep my big mouth shut, sorry. And sorry for clouding this forum with all of this GOD stuff :(

  224. So the “warmer” scientists are forming a climate PR strategy to counteract the skeptic scientist deniers. And we thought there was a consensus!

  225. DesertYote,

    I enjoyed your comments on religion. What many here at WUWT don’t seem to realize is that holding onto a religious belief gives one a separate set of values from the societal ones promoted by governments and (especially) leftist social activists and the mainstream media. By seeing how consistently our religious beliefs – and particularly those of Christianity – are misrepresented or outright distorted by the media, we come to an instinctive distrust of the mainstream media’s relationship with accuracy and truth. Whilst there are many atheists and agnostics who are regular members of WUWT, there are also many theists whose religious beliefs do not cloud their appreciation of how science should be conducted.

    @acementhead

    Galileo portrayed the position officially taken by the Catholic Church, which was the defense of Aristotelian geocentrism, as being held by a character named ‘Simplicious’. In his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems by essentially giving the defender of Aristotle’s cosmic system the name ‘Stupid’ he was stabbing the Church in the back. He claimed to merely be offering a neutral discussion of the theories of the motion of heavenly bodies, but naming the Aristotelian ‘Simplicius’ was rather like naming skeptics of AGW ‘deniers’. It was insulting.

    Remember, there was no concept of inertia or gravity in those days. For most people, the idea of the earth hurtling around the sun was unfathomable, since they could not feel the earth on motion. They could not explain how the moon would manage to stay in place around a moving earth. Had the Church not been contending with the bloody and unfortunately fallout of the Reformation, Galileo probably would not have been challenged. But with the crisis in faith that was going on, the Church did not dare to give fodder to the Protestants, who already accused the Catholic Church of ignoring the Bible.

    That being said, the Church did not honour its promise to Galileo when it persecuted him for breaking the supposed ruling of Cardinal Bellarmine in 1515. An illegal document was produced for Galileo to sign that stated that Galileo was not allowed to teach or discuss his theory. Galileo signed, but Bellarmine, who was a friend and who was overseeing his case, refused to sign this document. He had a fresh document drawn up which was signed by both men stating that Galileo was allowed to discuss his ideas as a theory, but not hold or defend them. But the notary who overstepped his bounds and who had drawn up the first document, writing it according to his own notions and ignoring Bellarmine’s wishes, held on to it, and it ended up in the hands of Galileo’s bitter enemy, Christopher Scheiner. Scheiner was an Aristotelian university academic who had forced the Church to deal with Galileo over his earliest discussion of his theory, because Galileo had ridiculed Scheiner’s astronomy.

    This illegal document was the basis for the beginning of the prosecution of Galileo after his publication of the Dialogue of the Chief Two World Systems. But when Galileo produced the actual legal document signed by Cardinal Bellarmine, which allowed him to teach his ideas as a theory, the Church then should have backed down, even though Galileo had offered a major insult in naming the defender of Aristotelian physics ‘Simplicius’. Instead, they reneged on their understanding with Galileo. This was to the effect that if he expressed repentance, and proclaimed his theory to be only a theory, he would avoid punishment. The Church went back on its word, put Galileo under house arrest, and thus deserves the opprobrium of history.

    ——————–
    For the Truth says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Stop it rednecks, and stop it puppets for oil companies.

    Scientists do not do science because of funding nor do they engage the public because of the threat of cutting funding. It is not the way it works. Study the history of science.

    It is a history of curiosity and anti-establishment thinking.

    —-

    For the Truth,

    I am responding as a historian of science (professional). You need to do some reading of the history of science, yourself, beyond whatever you might find on Wikipedia. Scientific endeavours are shaped by jealousy, irrational beliefs, and hubris as well as by the quest to understand nature. The history of science is littered with stories of petty feuds or major battles between holders of opposing theories (see above) i.e. Scheiner resorted to setting the Church on Galileo to help preserve his own expertise, because if Galileo were right, the Aristotelians would lose their scientific authority.

    It may have escaped your notice, but scientist-supporters of CAGW or even of AGW are on the side of the establishment. They have the ear, support, and attention of governments and most of the mainstream media. If scientists are anti-establishment by definition (which actually is an assertion that cannot be supported by the history of science) then that would automatically make the skeptical scientists the REAL scientists, and the establishment scientists a bunch of posers.

  226. Vigilantfish, I often worry that I’m foolish for rebutting statements like the ones you’re rebutting. I keep thinking, “They’re willfully wrong.” Having read your message, I’m struggling with whether I should feel reassured that I’m not foolish, or think that both of us are foolish.

  227. I want the climate change deniers in Congress, state, municipal government, and each vendor to submit to a polygraph that they have not taken bribes, audit their bank accounts, campaign contribution lists, lobbyists and the so called climate science skeptics’ pertinent credentials and peer review by climate scientists to openly and accurately determine their credibility and if they were bribed. [/snip]

    [I snipped the rest of your rant. The term 'deniers' has become a derogatory slur and should not be used. But, I left it. However, when you start talking about 'treason' (something you clearly know absolutely NOTHING about) and talking about hanging members of Congress (even rhetorically) you step over the line. ... .bl57~mod]

  228. What is that noise? Who are the hooded hordes
    Emerging from their castle walls;
    Their incantations resounding
    Through the land?
    The drum beats,
    The heart pounds,
    Climate scientists are marching
    Across the land.

  229. The Guardian & a few other papers writing from the same press release also, a few years ago, publicised the challenge from Alan Thorpe boss of Britain’s NERC quango (£450 million a year for alarmist propaganda) to engage in a face to face or online debate on warming. Thorpe’s challenge was immediately accepted & he immediately went into purdah, from which he has yet to emerge. The Guardian, of course, has yet to report sceptics picking up his gauntlet & his running away.

  230. For the Truth says:
    November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am
    ‘blah blah, ad hom, lies described as facts, etc etc, usual foaming’

    Loved it, you gave me a good chuckle at your puerile invective. And you wonder why we distrust and despise people who use your sort of argumentation. Grow up little troll, grow up.

  231. Smoking Frog says:
    November 9, 2010 at 2:43 am

    Vigilantfish, I often worry that I’m foolish for rebutting statements like the ones you’re rebutting. I keep thinking, “They’re willfully wrong.” Having read your message, I’m struggling with whether I should feel reassured that I’m not foolish, or think that both of us are foolish.

    ———-

    Thanks for the feedback. I often feel foolish here. Sometimes I get so exasperated by divers instances of misinformation that vexation overcomes diffidence and I plunge in headlong… only to blush over typos and poorly constructed sentences (and once or twice intemperate comments later wished unwritten). Fools rush in….

Comments are closed.