Bishop Hill writes:
Fred Pearce is on the receiving end of the full fury of the warmosphere for his article about the Lisbon conference in New Scientist. Pearce, discussing who had agreed to turn up, said this:
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
Now Josh’s take:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Every day I am more and more surprised at how people just accept that these guys are scientists and what they say is gospel. I had college professors who allowed me to question their lectures they had been giving for 20+ years, and they would even (on rare occasions) open their minds and reconsider their position based on my question. Whether I’m right or wrong this is the behavior of true professors.
These charlatans who keep repeating “there is nothing to discuss” are the worst kind of political activists, not scientists.
I always hear about the debate being over. Are there any records of the minutes of the debate?
Gavin said:
“None of the seemingly important ‘conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are ‘conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.”
Sounds like he’s saying the “science is settled” to me.
As a person trained in medicine, I get surprised every day again by nature. You may call me stupid but I think people who claim the science is settled are very closed minded. A scientist should be above all sceptic and humble.
This brought an old quote to mind, not sure where the attribute belongs.
Never argue with an idiot. He’ll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience!
Hm, was Gavin’s finger the index or middle finger? It does make a difference.
Gavin isn’t interested in anything that doesn’t further his fame, career or bank account. He certainly isn’t interested in properly documenting his climate code, Model E, but then that apparently was never in his job description.
At GISS, nothing changes, nothing ever will…they’ll keep pumping out the same old CAGW junk at taxpayer’s expense.
I have a question though – who, if anyone, uses their “climate products” – other than a few scientists in their field? What are we getting for our money? Nothing that probably can’t be done elsewhere at much lower expense…
And Scientists of every stripe and country wonder, “Why?”.
Thanks Gav, ya’ really know how to make a mess!
Imagine, you’re even getting paid for it.
What an unsidedown, screwed up world!
I am thankful for Gavin et al, without them I would not know there was such a thing as AGW.
Funny though the weather seems much the same as it has always been in my 58 short years. Perhaps I should be concerned it hasn’t altered much!
The Little Ice Age and the Midieval Warm Period are mere proxies for politics?
Hey, I think Gavin is a nice guy.
My friend (radun) posted one of my links http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
on his blog, and his answer was perfectly reasonable and civilised as you can see here , acknowledging natural variation.
He said: There are also natural forcings – solar, volcanic, orbital etc, so the magnitude of internal variability (aka unforced variations), cannot be simply defined from the observed record. – gavin
Compare that to Dr.S’s ‘nonsense’, pseudoscience, etc, or the WUWT’s regular Steve Mosher : ‘There’s a guy on WUWT who blathers on about this. i think. i generally tune out’.
I might even post myself on his blog.
When they say “the science is settled”, what they really mean is that they got fossilized circa 2000.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is now a dinosaur gone extinct.
Ah…Nasaschmidt, junker science since 98
If the science were really settled, climate scientologists should welcome the chance to debate their critics, bury them with science, and settle the matter once and for all. That they refuse to debate speaks volumes.
Thank you for providing these links with their sub-links, Anthony, these lead to interesting articles & comments sections.
I’m a not a skeptic of warming per se (I’m unconvinced but believe that mild warming is possible, unless balanced by solar minima etc.). However, I’m highly skeptical of the methodologies, conclusions, claims and models employed by the the very biased Hockey Team bunch. Their leap to “catastrophic” results of warming, leading to nightmare scenarios & end-of-Earth blather, leaves me cold.
A huge problem for me is their insistence upon invoking the “precautionary principle” to save the planet. This is employed all the time in my field of public health, particularly regarding bioterrorism.
However, the only large-scale bioterrorist attack on US soil originated from within the public health infrastructure (Army biologist Bruce Ivins concocted the attack for unknown reasons). I consider much of the precautionary (preparedness) efforts in public health to be a waste of resources, and the likelihood of a foreign bioterror attack is minimal at best.
Similarly, Gavin Schmidt and his ilk wanting to hamstring the US economy for a poorly proven/documented phenomenon such as “global warming” is highly objectionable.
Schmidt et al have taken a position and will not waver . Let’s see how tenable their position is in a couple of years .
I love this quote from the original article
“The meeting was the brainchild of University of Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz, an 81-year-old Greenpeace member who fears Al Gore may have done as much damage to environmentalism as Joseph Stalin did to socialism.”
so he agrees that the “greens” are watermelons? A factious bunch of reds on the inside. LOL
Then too, the first commenter weighs in to assert that he’s a researcher who’s studying how the Arctic produces so much methane that we surely are going to die (ok, I exaggerate). He argued, naturally in all CAPS, for the Precautionary Principle. Waving that stick is code. I’d argue that a Precautionary Principle would say: lets drop the AGW research and add a few 10s of billions of dollars and go all nuclear…both construction and research.
As Anthony said (approximately)…China looks at Thorium while we remember Sputnik.
Once again we are reminded that there never was debate – at least as far as the looney climate cabal are concerned.
They decided back in the 1970’s that they needed to find a simple story that would scare enough people that they would willingly allow the destruction of modern civilization.
They almost succeeded this time. They even may yet succeed (at least in the US), if the EPA is allowed to continue with its stealth Cap ‘n trade.
You will note however that they have failed big time in the developing nations. This means that their destruction will be limited to only the developing nations biggest markets.
Jim Barker says:
February 5, 2011 at 11:55 am
This brought an old quote to mind, not sure where the attribute belongs.
Never argue with an idiot. He’ll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience!
============================
I always heard it as:
Never argue with an idiot; an observer may not be able to tell which is which.
CCR
scientist, egoist, scientist, egoist, scientist, egoist, make your mind up!
There was a debate, Robert W., and the warmistas lost, big time. They learned a valuable lesson about going head-to-head with knowledgeable skeptics. I’m sad that Michael Crichton died before he saw the collapse of the human-caused warming theme.
Check it out:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/
If the Science is Settled, why are we still spending 2+ billion dollars a year on it? Shouldn’t these people be doing something else with our tax dollars beside rehashing Settled Science?
http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/
Schmidt and lots of other “scientists” betray that their craft when they take the position that there is nothing left to discuss except what should be done with their findings. Those are the words of politics, not science.
I have been told( by bloggers) that climate scientists are all on the take . Their only reason for existance is the big pot of government money bthey cut in the backgrounds.
Now you are telling me that Gavin turned down a booze cruise and the earthly pleasures of an all expence paid weekend with Moncton.
Hard to believe.
or “Mike’s Nature trick”.