Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

AAPS_logo

TUCSON, Ariz., Aug. 28, 2013 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.

Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic. “Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,” Lindzen adds.

Lindzen discusses key aspects of the global warming models, including their dependence on the “globally averaged mean temperature anomaly”—that is the average of the differences between the average temperature for the year at each weather station and the 1961-1990 average for that station. This metric is used to create an influential graph that resembles the daily chart of stock indices, but is of dubious significance. The change in the anomaly is tiny against the perspective of the temperature variations we experience daily, Lindzen demonstrates.

In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.

The highly oversimplified terms of the discussion in the policy arena “largely exclude the most interesting examples of historical climate change. The heavy intellectual price of the politicization of science is rarely addressed,” writes Lindzen.

Lindzen writes: “Global climate alarmism has been costly to society, and it has the potential to be vastly more costly. It has also been damaging to science, as scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions. How can one escape from the Iron Triangle when it produces flawed science that is immensely influential and is forcing catastrophic public policy?”

Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion. It has a global constituency and has coopted almost all institutional science. Nevertheless, he believes “the cracks in the scientific claims for catastrophic warming are…becoming much harder for the supporters to defend.”

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is published by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties, founded in 1943.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) www.aapsonline.org

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons-221474241.html

…and surprisingly, published in the mostly liberal Sacramento Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html

h/t to Marc Marano of Climate Depot

About these ads

135 thoughts on “Climate Science Exploited for Political Agenda, According to Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

  1. The URL for the Sacramento Bee article is correct, but clicking on the link doesn’t take one there; the URL is truncated for some reason.

  2. Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.

  3. “example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda” should read “example of science being corrupted to serve a political agenda”.

  4. I thought it strange that he would publish in a Medical journal, until I realized it was probably the only one that was amicable to him publishing. Money wasted on the AGW scare is less money spent on medicine, which they are very concerned about.

  5. Wow!
    Prizes and accolades are awarded for politically correct statements, even if they defy logic.
    and when the speakers defy law.

    Thank You, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.
    Holy cow! Look at the Table of Contents:

    http://www.jpands.org/jpands1803.htm

    From the President: Dialectic of Deceit,
    – Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D
    Industry Consolidation: the Smoking Gun of “Crony Capitalism”
    – G. Keith Smith, M.D.
    The Fix That No One Dares Mention
    – Craig J. Cantoni

    Book Reviews:
    . The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves (Matt Ridley)
    – Reviewed by Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    . No, They Can’t: Why Government Fails – But Individuals Succeed (John Stossel)
    – Reviewed by Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., M.D.

    Is this a Howard Beale moment?

  6. Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??

  7. Dudley, the original statement is perfectly acceptable and I believe what he intended. Of course corrupted is implied but he is saying that it is being hijacked (coopted) by the activists and politically correct scientists.

  8. It has been obvious for years, but these global warmers find personal fulfillment in shrilling their alarms and they will never be able to see that their dubious science is an ideological contrivance. They will never die, but they will fade away as the present flat temperature trend continues through this century.

  9. @Matthew Souders 7:10 am
    Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??
    The Politicization of Science should be a concern of every profession and voter.

  10. “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”

    Pretty much defines our education system, media, and commonly political inept. Eyes wide shut club.

  11. It has been very obvious to me for quite a while that climate science is now a 100% political enterprise. Nothing gets published unless it conforms to the political aims of the movement. Just look at the abstracts of most papers publish in “professional” climate science journals…

  12. I hope Lindzen is wrong about CAGW taking longer than Lyshenkoism to disappear but I think he’s right. This CAGW stuff is currently being drilled into children’s brains. He’s right on it being a religion now.

    Guardian – 25 August 2010
    “Why would a solar physicist embrace the non-rationality of religion?”

    John Cook, who runs skepticalscience.com, says his faith drives him. But what does religion give him that science doesn’t?……But Cook’s second, self-professed, stimulus took me by surprise.

    I’m a Christian and find myself strongly challenged by passages in the Bible like Amos 5 and Matthew 25″, he wrote. “… I care about the same things that the God I believe in cares about – the plight of the poor and vulnerable.””

    ——-
    John Cook – Skeptical Science – 3 August 2010
    “….my faith and my situation are my own. But hopefully for those curious, you understand more clearly the driving force behind Skeptical Science.”

    ——-
    Guardian – 3 November 2009
    Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion

    “Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal…….In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination…..• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available…..”

    ——-
    BBC – 25 January 2010
    Using religious language to fight global warming

    “If the case for tackling climate change is backed by science, why do so many green campaigners rely on the language of religion?“……The theologian and environmentalist Martin Palmer is also troubled by the green movement’s reliance on visions of hell as a way of converting people to their cause…..”Now they are playing with some of the most powerful emotional triggers in Western culture. They’ve adopted the language and imagery of a millenarian cult.”

    For Palmer, who is a United Nations adviser on climate change and religion,….”

    ——-
    Church of England – 22 February 2012
    “Leaders representing most of the UK’s mainstream churches have today called for repentance over the prevailing ‘shrug-culture’ towards climate change.”

  13. The change in temperature is significant because the planet is big enough. I guess eating an extra grain of sugar could have a significant effect on your blood sugar level if it was averaged over a sufficiently large population. Averaging over a large population or region is a way to lower the uncertainty. After that, you have to look if the effect is significant locally or on a single individual. In reality, the difference between the warmest and coolest temperature of the day/week/month/year all seems to be going down. The UHI might explain it, but maybe the climate is really getting better.

  14. “Climatism or global warming alarmism is the most prominent recent example of science being coopted to serve a political agenda, writes Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the in the fall 2013 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. He compares it to past examples: Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, and the eugenics movement.”

    It is not only science and academia that is vulnerable. I have found that the AGW/anti-fossil fuel movement has methodically infiltrated as many social groups as it can through the the top-down, highly funded approach to publicity called “manipulative populism,” and I think we would all do well to familiarize ourselves with this term:

    ”Without meaning to, Mr Farage has, therefore, become a symbol of national protest against the political class and its now bankrupt methodologies of triangulation, voter targeting, focus groups, eye-catching initiatives and advertising gimmicks – all the ghastly apparatus that has been elegantly encapsulated by the political thinker Anthony Barnett in the phrase “manipulative populism”.

    Started by New Labour (who copied it from Clinton’s New Democrats) and duplicated in turn by Conservative modernisers, manipulative populism has hollowed out the three main political parties. Voters have recoiled in despair from what they perceive as their artifice and deceit…”

    Whether it is churches, or dietary fads, or hobby groups, or even alternative science, I have had a growing concern about all genuine, grassroots movements. I have been alarmed at how many have become co-opted into “global initiatives,” political and economic goals, and flattery and funding by fancy players behind the scenes. It really amounts to focus groups and audience targeting by NGOs, who do not care if it takes crystal skulls and aliens, or churches, as long as the goals of political governance and behavior modification are advanced.

  15. I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.

  16. Matthew Souders says:
    August 29, 2013 at 7:10 am

    Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Because thanks to Dr. Lewandowsky, D*nialism has now been declared a pathology thus medicalizing dissent. ‘Lewd’ behavior: The pathologising of climate scepticism

    This is very dangerous because there is a history of the medical profession placing people they think are delusional, Believing 9/11 was an inside job for example, in psychiatric facilities.

    …As the bill [ Colorado bill, SB-13-013] was debated, no one could explain why it was even brought up.

    “I was told it was so we can exercise 72-hour mental holds on our own citizens,” Sen. Kevin Lundberg said. “I found it curious…Currently a police officer, doctor, psychiatrist, registered nurse and other professionals just on the strength of their word can say they want a person taken against their will and put in a mental institution for up to three business days.”

    http://www.beyondthehaze.com/category/constitution/page/4/

    It has certainly been used by the USSR to get rid of the dissidents.

    A few selected posts:

    Guest post by Thomas Fuller
    The medicalization of dissent is a delicate topic to bring up in conversations about climate change. If you use it about somebody you’re almost instantly associating them with really evil people who used the tactic to further Stalinism, Naziism, Maoism, etc.

    But the tactic, which really is nothing more than a fancy term for calling your opponents crazy, exists. It is reprehensible…

    Medicalizing dissent was perhaps first used by Dr. Samuel Cartwright in 1861, when he invented the term drapetomania to describe a new disease, suffered only by slaves. The disease was a desire for freedom. It had to be a disease, you see, because Cartwright had to justify slavery. As you can see, it’s hard to talk about medicalizing dissent without being offensive.

    The latest attempt is Stephan Lewandowsky’s paper, ‘NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science’, scheduled to be published in Psychological Science in the near future. The paper describes the findings of an internet survey and finds a correlation between belief in a ‘laissez faire’ conception of free market economies and rejection of climate science….

    Paging Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky – show your climate survey invitation RSVP’s

    The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation
    So much happening in LewWorld, so little time. I’ve decided to simply aggregate all of the posts on Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky into one news item.
    The Daily Lew

    The Daily Lew – Issue 2

    The Daily Lew – Issue 3

    The Daily Lew – Issue 4

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/the-daily-lew-issue-5/

    The Lewandowsky participation census, re-booted

  17. Thanks for the good news, as truth emerges. The environmental movement appears to be a religion, as Michael Burleigh’s books on history make clear that often political movements have replaced Christianity during the 20th Century. Nazism, Fascism and Communism all are examples. It appears there is something inside most humans that requires a belief in something higher than self. Maybe it’s evidence of a soul?

  18. Matthew Souder has two questions:

    “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??

    I have one answer that covers both. Quackery is the enemy of the physician. The acceptance of quackery in one branch of science presents an existential threat to all science, including medicine.

  19. One of the great enablers of the corruption of science through funding Bart Gordon responded to Climategate in 2009 with “we need more research”

    Senator Lamar Alexander another fully vested member of the congressional funding team makes a statement in preparation for his reelection campaign “we need more research”

    They keep calling for it because they believe they can control the results. Marcott, Shakun et al being an excellent example of the genre.

  20. Chris Riley says:
    August 29, 2013 at 8:10 am (Edit)
    I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Out here they use the word “conscientise” which is really horrible. Having your conscience pricked is worse than being made aware even if the objective is equally nefarious. The spread of these methods to engrain “Climatology” into, especially, young people’s heads is a crime against humanity.

  21. Jimbo says: “I hope Lindzen is wrong about CAGW taking longer than Lyshenkoism to disappear but I think he’s right.”

    Even as long ago as 2008 I was aware that the evidence didn’t show a warming trend. Half a decade later there are still academics denying that the climate is not currently warming.

    I’m afraid evidence doesn’t seem to have any sway on these people. E.g. when we take the period since the start of CO2 records (1958), we’ve had 5.5 decades. Of these only 3 have shown warming. That is not exactly fulsome backing even for the known physics of CO2 greenhouse effect (1C per doubling CO2) let alone the completely “pie in the sky” claims about feedbacks.

    As for their predictions:-

    In the 1970s they predicted global cooling … in the 1980s it warmed. (WRONG)
    In the 1980s they predicted warming …. 1990s it warmed (RIGHT)
    in the 1990s they predicted warming … 2000s it did not (WRONG)
    In the 2000s they predicted warming … 2010s so far it has not (WRONG?)

    So, the fact there is no real evidence of an unusual warming trend during the period of rising CO2 is incapable of altering their view that “something dreadful” is happening. Nor does the proven fact they cannot predict the climate shake their belief that they can.

    If this were science, it would be fairly easy to set a test for when their theories are busted – that test has already been and gone when the global temperature fell below the 95% confidence interval for their projection. But this is not science, and not subject to scientific rules. Instead it is psychology and like you I would love to know the answer to this question: how much evidence over how long a time will it take to force people like this alarmists to confront their delusion and denial and change their views?

  22. “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
    Quote of the week.

  23. A so-called moderate, such as Alexander above, or any of several dozen “quasi-not-really-“conservative” members of the opposition party, can pretend to be “pro-science” (or more accurately) “not against real science” by calling for more spending on research. It becomes a campaign issue: “Look, I called for more research into global warming, so you can’t call me a flat-earth-anti-science-right-wing-religion-nut-denier” ….

    Even though their liberal-socialist democrat opponents will anyway.

  24. Another reason, besides those adduced by commenters above, for a physicians’ journal to publish criticism of climate alarmism, is the alarmist talking point that CLIMATOLOGISTS (at least many of them) ARE the PHYSICIANS for the rest of us to call and heed about the climate up to and including supposed urgent remedies that disempower and impoverish people globally. Now we see what a real physicians’ journal offers pertinent to that claim.

  25. @philjourdan noted: “I thought it strange that he would publish in a Medical journal, until I realized it was probably the only one that was amicable to him publishing.”

    @Matthew Souders asked: “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons?”

    It’s possible, as some will assume or imply, that Prof. Lindzen had to ‘shop’ his paper for a place willing to publish it. Did he set out to make a contribution to the medical community?

    Certainly, Dr. Lindzen does make a nominal nod to his medical hosts. The opening paragraph poses his thesis in terms of social institutionalization, which can be a matter of public mental health & well-being … and thus can come under the medical purview.

    Though valuable as a process, science is always problematic as an institution. Charles Darwin often expressed gratitude for being able to be a gentleman scientist with no need for an institutional affiliation. Unfortunately, as a practical matter, the gentleman scientist no longer exists. Even in the 19th Century, most scientists needed institutional homes, and today science almost inevitably requires outside funding. In some fields, including climate, the government has essentially a monopoly on such funding.

    Certainly, when we’re talking about overt pathologies like Lysenkoism … we’re talking real “pathology”, and right up the Doctors’ alley.

    Eugenics, which in fact is Richard Lindzen’s original ‘specialty’, is however much less clearly a pathology. It is now taboo, and certain actors on history’s stage abused it badly … but it was basically legitimate science.

    Eugenics was/is, though, essentially a medical initiative & activity. It was & is ‘their baby’. We have several mildly eugenic activities currently in practice. Where eugenics ‘went wrong’, how it remains useful, and comparisons with major contemporary science-venues … are going to be relevant to the medical community.

    The paper does devote the center section to hard-core climate-science science-arguments, but Prof. Lindzen does return to his treatment of the venue as a pathology, and to more than a fig-leaf extent.

  26. It is difficult to imagine anything more direct and correct than this description of climate science.

  27. Leave it to mafia judges and doctors to stand up to thugs. Bravery tends to have a predictable lineage to it.

  28. It wonder how receptive Dr. Lindzen’s audience was. The medical profession should be filled with skeptics, and it may have some. But, the ones I know are devout believers. Call me a cynic, but it appears to me that most docs’ pragmatic training makes them real hesitant to pee in their own private feed trough. Why would they? Consider the range of health abnormalities and diseases that remain a source of public funding: .

    acne, anxiety, cancer deaths in England, cannibalism, cholera, dengue hemorrhagic fever, depression, frostbite, heart attacks and strokes, kidney stones, malaria, prostitution, suicide, yellow fever (from: “A Not Quite Complete List Of Things Supposedly
    Caused By Global Warming”,)

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

    Anthony’s and Dr. Lindzen’s presentations notwithstanding, I think the medical profession will be a tough nut to crack.

  29. “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??”

    Because there are some 1000x more members intelligent in the sciences than shoddy climatologist journals and they all know this affects us all. High priced energy affects the health of real people and doctors and surgeons see it… that’s the real world. It’s an excellent place to be published.

    BTW: Excellent article Dick.

  30. A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.”
    That one sentence describes every major player on the alarmist side.

    Is there even one supporting hypothesis of the warmist agenda which hasn’t been shown to be incorrect and more often than not, derived through corrupt practice?

  31. I’m not sure we needed a paper to tell us AGW is politically motivated. Whenever you have political groups taking sides you should now what you have,

  32. Physicians might be interested in the predicted high mortality rate as a consequence of global warming. Think of the malaria mosquito allegedly migrating north etc.

    It seems the IPCC and associated governments will now emphasize the prophesized terrible consequences of global warming. As former UN climate chief (what is that) Yvo de Boer put it, based on the ‘leaked’ 5th Assessment Report (AR5): it “will scare the wits out of everyone”.

    Risk = Probability x Consequence

    In the anticipated AR5 the probability of (runaway/unprecedented/etc) global warming is being scaled down while the consequences are simultaneously being blown up. Giving politicians a fine excuse to state that “considering the potentially disastrous consequences we can’t afford the risk not to act” and such.

    In this story the amount of warming c.q. climate sensitivity will not much interest politicians, unless it becomes obvious that it will remain below their self-defined danger threshold of 2 C. The water cycle will probably take care of this, as it always appears to have reliably done.

  33. It’s not surprising physicians are more rigorous in their science than the junk peddled by “climate scientists”, as their judgment directly affects patient outcomes, eg. life and death. Also, they have been very badly burned pretty in the past by powerful self interest from within their profession. I’m thinking of surgeons’ long/fierce resistance to accepting peptic ulcers are caused by bacteria (H. pylori) and are best treated with cheap antibiotics rather than expensive surgery.

  34. Bloke down the pub says:
    August 29, 2013 at 6:54 am

    Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.

    An arrest for public indecency?

  35. @Richard D –
    Let’s also not forget the Duke University cancer cure scam two years ago – that had to have been a wake-up call for physicians. Like you say, people die quickly if doctors get it wrong, but the deaths from global warming alarmist policies can take years to become evident.

  36. The environmental movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the anti-war movement …. have all been of political in nature. While the low level adherents may actually believe what is espoused, the leadership is acting from a political motivation, that of bringing down capitalism.

  37. This is an extremely important article. It is running in some major news papers and may be picked up by more. Basically we are seeing that there are ‘behind the curtain’ discussions among the directors and editors of some prestigious scientific organization as they realize that climate science has been dominated by extraordinarily poor science. Not to say a political agenda designed to siphon money out of gullible politicians that are offered the opportunity to tax without limit. And that it would be best to remove oneself from the ridicule sure to come as study after study, often undertaken by intrigued specialists whose interest was sparked by outrageous predictions, fail to confirm data, much less the hypothesis.

  38. Forget the religion metaphor. Lindzen is too easy on the people occupying the appropriately-coloured green box, who are essentially corrupt. Big Green organizations purposely exaggerate, twist and misreport the equivocations of the people in the yellow box to keep the story scary because their multi-billion dollar operations require it to be scary to keep them relevant and keep the cash flowing. The same goes to a lesser extent for their journalistic sycophants who wouldn’t have a news story if it wasn’t scary and overhyped.

    As for Matthew Souders’ question, any corruption in one scientific area will quickly spread to corrupt other areas of science. I want my doctor to be concerned about any movement that is corrupting the scientific process since my health depends on the science being correct, accurately reported and fact-based.

  39. “…In consequence, he writes, “A profound dumbing down of the discussion…interacts with the ascendancy of incompetents.” …”

     
    Incompetents, whoo boy, climsci sure has a lot of manns, menn and womenn including the loopy shrink, glieckk water specialist and numerous wacked CAGW weaving web religious.
     
    Well, of course Dr. Lindzen published in the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’! Where else would he find an uncorrupted publication addressing a large customer base of science educated citizenry. It’s quite clear that the AGU, Nat Geo and Nature constituents are among those coopted by the eco-nut money troughs with their dumbed down discussions loudly echoed by the journalistic imitators.

  40. ATheoK says:
    August 29, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Well, of course Dr. Lindzen published in the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’! Where else would he find an uncorrupted publication addressing a large customer base of science educated citizenry. It’s quite clear that the AGU, Nat Geo and Nature constituents are among those coopted by the eco-nut money troughs with their dumbed down discussions loudly echoed by the journalistic imitators.

    Yeppers! 8<) Very true!

    (Oh. Wait. Were you trying to be sarcastic? ) What is your money-trough of government (er, taxpayer-extorted) money?

  41. “The scientific community is clearly becoming less ambiguous in separating views on warming from totally unreasonable fears for both the planet and mankind. Environmental advocates are responding by making increasingly extreme claims.”

    I’m all for that! The faster the Sierra Club, Nat. Geographic, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council etc. destroy themselves from within to be replaced by organizations that really
    actually care about the environment the better off the Environment and all of Humanity will be.

  42. ‘Escape from climate alarmism will be more difficult than from Lysenkoism, in Lindzen’s view, because Global Warming has become a religion.’

    I suspect the escape from the global warming elephant may end up being quite a bit different than people perceive. When Richard Nixon ended the final vestiges of the post WWII, Bretton Woods, agreement anchoring the US dollar to gold it was widely perceived that US currency no longer had a physical backing. However, it has been rumored that Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to Saudi Arabia around that time to negotiate an agreement whereby Saudi Arabia, then the world’s largest oil producer, would trade its oil in dollars. Whether or not that rumor is true the fact of the matter stands that all oil, worldwide, is traded in dollars; often referred to as ‘petrodollars’. Ultimately, oil is what backs the US currency. The US has never engaged the Middle East militarily to ensure a stream of oil for domestic use. Oil imported into the US comes primarily from Canada, and alternately, Venezuela and Mexico. So, the US engages the Middle East solely to foster world trade, and importantly, to insure the value of its own currency.

    The US has had a relationship with Saudi Arabia extending all the way back to the mid 1930s when FDR visited there. Well, it was reported, somewhat under the radar, and only yesterday, that Saudi Arabia sent an emissary to meet with Vladimir Putin. Years ago that would’ve been inconceivable. Russia now vies with Saudi Arabia for being the world’s largest oil producer.

    If oil is no longer traded in petrodollars, and China and others wish so, then all bets are off. What is the current US debt load? What is the situation if the US creditors no longer have faith in its currency? The US is the most lavish funding source for climate science. All those politically correct scientists may be in for a very rude awakening when they discover that not only did they screw us, they screwed themselves. And they lacked the wisdom to recognize that had to be the inevitable outcome.

  43. Another article from the same issue:
    From the President: Dialectic of Deceit
    Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D.

    I received a packet in the mail from one of the big insurers, asking that I consider joining their network. To amuse myself I opened it and read. Attached was a 15-page contract, prefaced by the usual vague assumptions about the insurer and the manner in which it would tell the doctor what to do. The rest, paragraph after paragraph, began with the words, “Doctor shall submit….”

    Doctor shall submit. Over and over. The language was so—hypnotic in its repetition and cadence. Doctor shall submit. Like a chant, or a hymn. Doctor shall submit. I thought to myself as I tossed it in the trash, “I will not submit.”

    Little Subtle Lies
    I have been thinking lately about the jargon surrounding the medical field and how the subtle naming of things ensnares the physician into bondage to insurance companies, the government, and pharmaceutical companies, impelling him to act on the demands of everyone except himself and the patient. This contrived and manipulative style reflects the retreat of rights and autonomy.

    THIS journal is going to go on my reading list! Refreshing!

  44. “Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.”

    Oh no – does that mean that we all have to bear witness to Michael Mann in a sandwich board and not much else?

    The sandwich board will read “Climate Whore”.

    Richard needed to publish this somewhere it wouldn’t get dismissed out of hand; kudos to him for taking that important first step into dismantling the Ponzi scheme known as AGW.

  45. “The time has come for us to see. What we are now asked to worship, what had once been dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent. This is the new ideal, the goal to aim at, the purpose to live for, and all men are to be rewarded according to how close they approach it.” – Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged, 1957)

    “It is very often by Princes rather than by their own merits that men are brought to the greatness that they desire.” – Giorgio Vasari (Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, 1568)

  46. Unfortunately, this also often induces better scientists to join the pack in order to preserve their status,”
    Fair statement , the ones leading it front and centre could in no way be called ‘better’

  47. Old global warming arguments never die. They just smell that way.

    The article is like a breath of fresh air.

  48. ATheoK says: August 29, 2013 at 10:38 am
    “Well, of course Dr. Lindzen published in the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’! Where else would he find an uncorrupted publication addressing a large customer base of science educated citizenry.”

    hmmm – Lindzen has published in better journals than this one and the ‘Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons’ has published articles of an odd kind e.g. http://www.jpands.org/vol12no4/bauer.pdf and also flirted with the vaccines-cause-autism nonsense http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf and has spent a lot of time trying to convince people that abortions cause breast cancer.

  49. Anyone here understand the word “irony”? The science has been co-opted by both sides of the argument. Of course, when the message chimes with what we want to hear, it makes a louder, more mellifluous sound.

  50. Margaret Hardman:

    Your post at August 29, 2013 at 11:33 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1403023

    Anyone here understand the word “irony”? The science has been co-opted by both sides of the argument. Of course, when the message chimes with what we want to hear, it makes a louder, more mellifluous sound.

    Bollocks!
    There is NO irony!
    You are asserting that because AGW-supporters are Lysenkoist it must be that those who oppose them are Lysenkoist, too. That assertion is pure psychological projection.

    Many climate realists have been fighting the pseudoscience of AGW purely BECAUSE we support science and oppose Lysenkoism. I have been engaged in this fight since the early 1980s.

    And we are pleased that Lindzen has managed to publish his paper because it is a small victory in the fight to defend science against the harm caused by the Lysenkoists.

    Richard

  51. It would be helpful if more engineers and science majors, as well as the general public, had a basic grasp of the historic abuses of science in the 1900’s.

    Lysenkoism’s destruction of agricultural output in both Russia and China (during the Great Leap) have clear parallels with the attacks on modern agricultural advances and water use we see right now. Science has a shameful, and very recent, history of being coopted by government in these areas, and the results before and after WWII were lethal to millions – at the hands of their own governments, through fashionable scientific manias, obsessions, and fixations regarding agriculture.

    China still refuses to acknowledge the starvation caused by the Great Leap, attributing the deaths of millions of Chinese to natural causes. New planting techniques were enforced from the top down, and as crops completely failed, bureaucrats were eager to report the success of the government agricultural policies. As a result of the false reporting and manipulated numbers, the Chinese exported rice as the people starved and were forced off of their private farms. So it is well to require China to acknowledge and allow free discussion (on its firewalled internet) of the horrifying death toll resulting from the Great Leap scientific agricultural programs, before we accept any agricultural sustainability programs in Europe or the US. But instead, agreements have been signed with China to pursue a 5 year plan for sustainable agriculture in the EU and with the US Dept. of Agriculture.

  52. Or to quote Eisenhower who predicted this 52 years ago:

    “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.”

  53. As always, Prof. Lindzen is honest & to the point! Perhaps the medical community is a bit nervous, as they have hitched their wagon to CAGW rather tightly & may be starting to reconsider that. In my field (public health), it is de rigueur to hew to the party line, i.e. more warming equals malaria in Wisconsin eventually etc. I’m surrounded by it and have to keep my yap shut.

    I highly recommend everyone to watch Prof. Lindzen’s colloquium speech to the assembled scientists of Fermi National Laboratory in 2010, titled “The Peculiar Issue of Global Warming.” He really goes after the “new religion” aspects of CAGW, much to the dismay and disapproval of the assembled physicists. Since FNAL is DOE, that was to be expected. It was a great show, I was glad I attended! If the link doesn’t work, it means FNAL is having a technical issue, that happens in these sequester shortages.

    http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm

  54. I have to agree with richardscourtney in his response to Margaret Hardman.

    AGW is pseudoscience. If I am wrong about that, I challenge anyone to produce verifiable, testable scientific evidence showing conclusively that human CO2 emissions affect global temperatures.

    So far, I have seen no such evidence. If anyone has such evidence, post it here.

  55. Anthony,

    You write: “In normal science, models are judged by how well they agree with nature, Lindzen explains. In the climate “debate,” however, the models are given a claim to validity independent of agreement with real observations.”

    Point taken. However, I think you mean “real science,” not “normal science,” which has an entirely different meaning per Thomas Kuhn (1962). The behavior of the alarmists is entirely in keeping with Kuhn’s “Normal Science,” (capital N, capital S), i.e. the defense of the paradigm even to an irrational degree and irrespective of contrary facts.

  56. Dr. Lintzen is certainly justified in discussing the historical abuses of science through the eugenics/population control movement in the recent past. But modern eugenics/population control programs – do they exist?
    The Population Control Holocaust by Robert Zubrin

    The Characteristics of Population Control Programs
    First, they are top-down dictatorial, and based on foreign governments meeting quotas for funding.
    Second, the programs are dishonest. It is a regular practice for government civil servants employed in population control programs to lie to their prospective targets for quota-meeting about the consequences of the operations that will be performed upon them.
    Third, the programs are coercive. As a regular practice, population control programs provide “incentives” and/or “disincentives” to compel “acceptors” into accepting their “assistance.” Among the “incentives” frequently employed is the provision or denial of cash or food aid to starving people
    Fourth, the programs are medically irresponsible and negligent. As a regular practice, the programs use defective, unproven, unsafe, experimental, or unapproved gear, including equipment whose use has been banned outright in the United States.
    Fifth, the programs are cruel, callous, and abusive of human dignity and human rights. A frequent practice is the sterilization of women without their knowledge or consent, typically while they are weakened in the aftermath of childbirth. This is tantamount to government-organized rape. Forced ab——s are also typical.
    Sixth, the programs are racist. Just as the global population control program itself represents an attempt by the (white-led) governments of the United States and the former imperial powers of Europe to cut nonwhite populations in the Third World, so, within each targeted nation, the local ruling group has typically made use of the population control program to attempt to eliminate the people they despise. In India, for example, the ruling upper-caste Hindus have focused the population control effort on getting rid of lower-caste untouchables…”

    ref: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-population-control-holocaust

  57. Lindzen describes the Iron Triangle and the Iron Rice Bowl, in which ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.

    That is very nicely put, clear and succinct, as is everything Richard Lindzen is quoted as saying. Excellent.

    “Science” as a concept has never been scraping the bottom of the barrel as long as it has been recently. It is a consequence of zero self-discipline, with no consequences to those high-profile crazies that have hijacked it at every step. And they have far surpassed all the previous historical examples of un-scientific carelessness.

  58. “…ambiguous statements by scientists are translated into alarmist statements by media and advocacy groups, influencing politicians to feed more money to the acquiescent scientists.”

    The most cogent description of the AGW phenomenon as I have ever seen. Thank you Dr Lindzen.

  59. Richard

    Thank you for your measured and considered comment. It is no more than I had expected, especially from you. Have you actually read the paper? It is here http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

    It is written in the usual style of the (now) “realists” – AGW is a religion, it is comparable with lysenkoism (are governments putting you and your skeptical mates like Lindzen and Spencer in prison to rot away and die long and painful deaths? Of course they aren’t because the comparison is unsustainable). Why didn’t the beloved George W Bush (2001-2009) end the global warming conspiracy? He didn’t because there isn’t one. Climategate as pathology – that one is dead.

    The fact that it is in such a low impact journal, one with a very poor reputation says so much. The fact that it plays the same Tony’s tricks to hide the incline by having two squiggly graphs and asking the reading to spot the eight differences (clue, there is an elephant in one of the graphs) and another of using daily variation to mislead the reader into not noticing the year on year increase is typical “fake realist” fare. And you have the shallowness to call my comment bollocks when you know that both sides of the argument, for and against, use the science to their own ends.

    I have no more to add. Good afternoon

    Margaret

  60. To those researching the AGW issue with a historical perspective. here is a link to a well written view on the Lysenko-istic character of the AGW story when the craze was being fueled up in 1996 by Gore and others.

    http://dwightmurphey-collectedwritings.info/A67-GlbWrmg.htm

    Another article can be found by Bob Carter, around 2010 I think.
    Kudos to Lindzen, upon whom future historians will record as a hero.

  61. Re: NikFromNYC
    “The time has come for us to see. What we are now asked to worship, what had once been dressed as God or king, is the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent. (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged. 1957)

    From: Dialectic of Deceit: —–
    “We are called “providers” instead of doctors. This single, seemingly non-threatening word instantly erases our years of top grade scores, entry exams, expensive and intensive education, highly competitive testing, and unbelievable residency hours—and lumps us in with the physician assistant or nurse practitioner who completes a part-time two-year course.
    “… We must learn to identify deceptive and manipulative language, and avoid falling into arguments or discussions founded on terms designed to mislead. To allow manipulative language to remain unchallenged is to engage in a dialectic of deceit, a debate in which logic is useless and the truth can never be revealed. Adopting the language of our opponents automatically concedes the fight. Are you a “provider” or a doctor? … ”
    “…. I don’t submit a claim. I send a bill. ….
    “…. Submitting a claim is the same as submitting your training, your experience, your very profession, to the whims of the lowest insurance clerk. I can tell you that this doctor, that this organization, will never submit.” [end] ( – Dialectic of Deceit, Fall 2013)
    -Juliette Madrigal-Dersch, M.D., Marble Falls, TX, serves as president of AAPS.

    Friends, seldom do I stumble upon such a magnificent essay for the ages. 2 pages, 4 columns, 1430 words. It is worth you time to read every golden word. And reread. Savor it.

  62. Game over when Dick Lindzen goes JPANDS. That is not a mark of distinction.

    (Lindzen’s CV. Compared with his intellect, you have zero distinction. Comparing yourself to a rabbit. Supremely pathetic. ~mod)

  63. What Eisenhower did not warn against was that public policy might become the captive of a self-declared scientific-technological elite, one which is driven by its preferred policies first and last, and which is shameless in presenting its “science” to support them, even when it doesn’t deserve the name.

  64. Londo says: August 29, 2013 at 11:55

    All credit to Eisenhower but another (half) American put it well a few years earlier.

    “But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties…”

  65. Matthew Souders says:
    August 29, 2013 at 7:10 am

    “Hey I have a question…why is Richard Lindzen…an atmospheric scientist…publishing in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons? Why is that journal accepting an article on a completely unrelated issue??”

    Unrelated? The issue is neither AGW nor medicine. It is science, or, more accurately, Normal Science, which includes both climatology and medicine. (Cf. Thomas Kuhn (1962), who may not have gotten the structure of scientific revolutions right, but he nailed “Normal Science” and “Paradigms” right on the head.) Indeed, what Lindzen addresses affects every scientific disclipine, or at least every discipline that receives outside funding. Therefore, his paper is entirely relevant to nearly every scientific discipline, and the various related journals.

  66. Rabbett, how about when you do the dirty deeds of William Connolley on Wikipedia? Talking about the gutter…

  67. It will be hard to turn this bus around when 17,000 attendees get their annual 2-week paid vacation to Rio, Copenhagen, Dubai, Durbin, or Cancun for toeing the line.

  68. Tom J says:
    August 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
    – Russia vies with Saudi Arabia for ‘Biggest Oil Producer’ title.

    but for much of the 70s and 80s [and perhaps later – my source was recycled in a house move two decades ago] Russia [~= the Soviet Union, then] was the biggest oil producer [not ‘exporter’ – that was Saudi Arabia].
    USSR production roughly 600,000,000 tonnes/year
    Saudi production roughly 480,000,000 tonnes/year
    3rd place [then]
    American production roughly 320,000,000 tonnes/year =
    My sources – multiple BP Statistical Reviews of the Oil Industry – and memory.
    My guess is those numbers are from about 1980-85.
    And they are about producers, note.

  69. Wikipedia “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness share the same address with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons “

  70. Vincent Nunes says: @ August 29, 2013 at 11:22 am

    “Once people get the idea that it’s ok to say that the emperor has no clothes, then there’s only one way this will end.”

    Oh no – does that mean that we all have to bear witness to Michael Mann in a sandwich board and not much else?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    It could be worse it could be Al Gore!

    Now what I want to know is when we will get ALL that money back. Just think we could pay off ALL the national debts!

  71. Margaret Hardman 12:45 pm, reply to richard.
    AGW is a religion, it is comparable with lysenkoism (are governments putting you and your skeptical mates like Lindzen and Spencer in prison to rot away and die long and painful deaths?

    It has been proposed by some.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

  72. Another rational, spot-on and exposing contribution from Lindzen. For that, he will no doubt be further demonised by the CO²-centric, ’97% consensus’ expert, fund leeching, grant driven, gravy-train, corrupt AGW science cult.

    Lindzen all over the hoax: “For a lot of people including the bureaucracy in Government and the environmental movement, the issue is power. It’s hard to imagine a better leverage point than carbon dioxide to assume control over a society. It’s essential to the production of energy, it’s essential to breathing. If you demonise it and gain control over it, you so-to-speak, control everything. That’s attractive to people. It’s been openly stated for over forty years that one should try to use this issue for a variety of purposes, ranging from North/South redistribution, to energy independence, to God knows what…”

    http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/bureaucratic-dioxide/

  73. In fairness, this sort of thing happens in every field of science and academia. There are fashions, no matter how absurd, that come and go as political moods change. Climate science claim to fame is the brutal virulence of its need for the bizarre.

  74. Margaret Hardman says: @ August 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    …..Why didn’t the beloved George W Bush (2001-2009) end the global warming conspiracy? He didn’t because there isn’t one. Climategate as pathology – that one is dead…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And why would you think there is any real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? That is a fairy tale for the brain dead masses, and even they are waking up to that fact. Politicians are bought and paid for by the elite. Top senate Democrat Dick Durbin even blurted it out on radio.

    …Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.

    The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials….

    http://www.salon.com/2009/04/30/ownership/

    Elaine Dewar [Cloak of Green}

    Strong blurted out that he’d almost been shut out of the Earth Summit by people at the State Department. They had been overruled by the White House because George Bush knew him. He said that he’d donated some $100,000 to the Democrats and a slightly lesser amount to the Republicans in 1988. (The Republicans didn’t confirm.)

    I had been absolutely astonished. I mean yes, he had done a great deal of business in the U.S., but how could he have managed such contributions?

    Well, he’d had a green card. The governor of Colorado had suggested it to him. A lawyer in Denver had told him how.

    But why? I’d asked.

    “Because I wanted influence in the United States.”

    So Strong gave political contributions (of dubious legality) to both parties; George Bush, now a friend, intervened to help him stay in charge of the Rio conference; he was thereby enabled to set a deep green agenda there; and Bush took a political hit in an election year. An instructive tale — if it is not part of Strong’s mythmaking….

    Or from the more liberal Mother Jones:

    …ADM’s bottom line has always been interwoven with public policy. To reinforce this relationship, Andreas has contributed impressively to the campaigns of politicians, from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey to Bill Clinton and Bob Dole….

    Andreas announces that global capitalism is a delusion. “There isn’t one grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians. People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country.”

    It might seem odd that a man with personal assets well into nine figures would be so quick to hoist the red flag of socialism over the American heartland. But Andreas is essentially right. Agriculture is the last industry where the U.S. government so routinely sets prices and determines production levels, a complex arena in which doing business often has more to do with influencing legislation than with responding to supply and demand. Prospering in this environment is ADM’s forte.

    Or WIKI

    In 1970, Dwayne Andreas became the chief executive officer of ADM, and is credited with transforming the firm into an industrial powerhouse. Andreas remained CEO until 1997 before his nephew G. Allen Andreas was named to this position.[8] He was one of the most prominent political campaign donors in the United States,[9] having contributed millions of dollars to Democratic and Republican candidates alike….

    [ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]

  75. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 29, 2013 at 11:33 am

    “Anyone here understand the word “irony”? The science has been co-opted by both sides of the argument. Of course, when the message chimes with what we want to hear, it makes a louder, more mellifluous sound”.

    Margaret, you are correct if your meaning is that scientifically illiterate cheerleaders exist in large numbers on both sides and the affiliations are political. Indeed, they tend to be the noisiest of the lot. But you are gravely wrong about the central scientific content in this and other skeptic blogs. Follow the money, a well-worn cliche for very good reasons, should instruct the brighter ones among us. Why would well educated scientists and engineers go against the gravy train, or horrors, self-preservation if one is among those poor sadsacks at risk of losing their employment and tenure for their beliefs? The answer to that is most don’t – only the bravest or those who have safely reached retirement do. There is certainly no money in skepticism. I’m going to believe that you don’t accept that WUWT or Climate Audit or the other precious few scientifically skeptical bloggers are in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal or whatever. Having heard Obama out on the subject and the gag order in DOE and Energy against saying anything against global warming, hiatus in temperature, etc. you have to agree that funds from that rich source aren’t available to the likes of those at WUWT.

    You joined us here fairly recently and may not be aware that many of the “new” discoveries in climate science that are toning down a 25-year hysteria on warming rates, climate sensitivity, and even more recent retractions of scientific papers because of their shoddy math and science came out of work by skeptical scientists that is unacknowledged by the proponents of CAGW. The movement is terrified of Steve McIntyre a courtly, gentlemanly mathematician who single-handedly has trashed scientific papers supported by bad math and conclusions not supported by the data. Lindzen of MIT, that I hope you weren’t referring too in your statement was calculating a climate sensitivity of ~ 1 when IPCC was talking 5 to 8 over a decade ago (temp effect of a doubling of CO2). You are a guest (as am I) on a magnificent, history-making site and the best example of the phenomenon of electronic exchange of thought. That there is light material and lampoonery going on as well as serious science, that there is an open door to commenters as long as they adhere to a simple code that is basically courtesy-based, is a testimony to the dedicated-to-truth, democratic, tolerant, mild-mannered and welcoming host here at WUWT. Try to say anything critical on any of the consensus blogs and you will electronically disappear, most often without comment.

    Don’t look for the lowest common denominator on the site to engage yourself. Suspend belief a tad. Critically absorb the good stuff, ask interesting questions, dangerously avail yourself of a different education. This venue is history in the making.

  76. Lindzen mentions eugenics, and it is important to note that eugenics was part of a larger movement called Social Darwinism, which had many variations but essentially advocated forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies. Of course, what ‘natural law’ is, can be ambiguous, often politically convenient, and also often becomes co-opted for political reasons to justify e.g. wars, racism, and forced sterilisation. One of its common assumptions was that what occurred naturally was ‘good’ and right, and most of what occurred in society that was ‘bad’ could therefore be blamed on humans and human societies.

    But it is a undeniable fact that not all that occurs ‘naturally’, or in nature, is good for humans: e.g. radioactivity (e.g. people used to wear ‘naturally glowing’ blue thorium around their neck, until they found out it killed them), lightning, hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, volcanos, allergic reactions, poisonous and addictive plants and vegetables, most but not all genetic mutations, cosmic rays, viruses, spontaneous cancerous cells etc etc.

    But the important thing is this, just because something occurs in nature, doesn’t mean humans should follow it, or that it is ‘good’ for humans in any case (see examples above). What ‘is’, is not necessarily what ‘ought’ to be, for humans of otherwise. We take, share and use those things in, and from, nature that are good for us, and we reject those that are not, taking into account the available science and our socio-economic values. Getting this balance right is an issue that faces every generation. It is something that we have been doing for thousands of years.

    It often seems that climate alarmism is in danger of assuming one of the major mistakes that social darwinists also made, that is, it tends to see nature and what occurs naturally as essentially good and stable, and therefore things that occur in nature that is unstable and ‘bad’ for humans (e.g. hurricanes, floods etc), can therefore be blamed on humans. It also sees nature as being essentially stable and unchanging, whereas nature always changes. It also seems to sometimes advocate forcing ‘natural law’ onto human societies, the same sort of way social darwinists did; that is, ‘natural law’ that is defined politically, not in nature as it is-an example being forcing an unchanging climate onto human societies, rather than seeing nature and climate as in a constant state of change. (Interestingly, this is also what anti-evolutionists tend to do, they regard species as constant and unchanging and in ‘balance’ with each other and nature, whereas species are always changing (albeit often very slowly in terms of human time frames) and in constant competition).

  77. Chad Wozniak says: August 29, 2013 at 10:15 am.
    @Richard D –
    Let’s also not forget the Duke University cancer cure scam two years ago – that had to have been a wake-up call for physicians. Like you say, people die quickly if doctors get it wrong, but the deaths from global warming alarmist policies can take years to become evident.
    ____________
    Exactly right. If only global warming advocates would adopt a “do no harm” mindset.

  78. I can hardly wait to begin nominating CAGW believers for a nice 3-year stint of psychiatric observation and intense interventionist remediation.

  79. Which do you prefer when revealing a scientific truth – reasoned logic and objectivity or blind allegiance to invalid modeling, compromising gray literature, identify theft, and e-mails “taken out of context?” Of course, you could (as some have done) employ fallacious reasoning via argumentum ad hominem instead of addressing certain points (e.g., behold, the religion of warming), but where’s the challenge in that?

    The promulgation of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is similar to a religion because its followers (a/k/a warmists) believe in or partake of the following:

    (1) Revelation – warmists know the peer-reviewed papers of “deniers” is anything but sound let alone objective. This knowledge is revealed by summarily dismissing denier criticism of any and all warmist papers, provided the appropriate web sites (the Cannon of the Cause) are quoted as supportive scripture. While the denier messaging may be well-managed and include some… impact on public opinion, neither are good enough for the cleverness of warmist speculations on wide-ranging aerosol variables in climate models or deep ocean heat transfers.

    (2) Reminiscence – warmists often gather in communal settings entitled “climate conferences” to listen to each other speak the truth about CAGW, as represented by a “consensus.” While these may be compared to locust swarms due to the ridiculous number of attendees, the conferences are a perfect setting to reminisce about their cleverness at having revealed the “truth” or the… Cause, while deniers remain ignorant. This sharing allows warmists to integrate their shared thoughts into daily thinking and, ultimately, the public lexicon.

    (3) Ritual – warmists use constant repetition of self-labeled truths (e.g., 97% of scientists agree that climate change is… man-made and dangerous, the Earth has a fever, and temperature lags CO2) and common terms (e.g. denier) to reinforce their revelations. The repetitive use of these truths and terms lends comfort to warmists through their ritualistic use. Similar and consistent approaches are taken against those who disagree with the warmists (a/k/a skeptics) in a thoughtful and considerate manner, ensuring that the denier’s points are not addressed but their character is questioned openly – and repeatedly.

    (4) Reverence – warmists give great weight to “enlightened” and “embattled” scholars (e.g., Gore, Hansen, and Mann) as verification that the Cause is not only valid but “just” (morally anyway vis-à-vis Gleick). How could someone like Dr. Michael E. Mann be… wrong?

    (5) Restrictions – warmists place opposition to the consensus alongside other conspiracy theories. Accepting deniers as conspiracy theorists is a gateway through which warmists must pass to be accepted by other followers. If a person cannot or will not pass, then they are likely a denier or shill for the same – ignorant of the consensus and Cause.

    (6) Repentance – warmists who have passed through the gateway but falter in the “faith” (a/k/a luke-warmers) must be shown the error of their ways or thoughts. If they repent of their misdeeds, then they are permitted to return to the warmist fold but under a renewed watch for repeat lapses (e.g., wherefore art thou, Lovelock?)

    (7) Reliance – warmists are optimistic and rely on the belief that once the public (especially in carbon excessive nations) fully accepts the consensus, then hope for a greener and sustainable humanity is possible (the planet might even heal). However, things may (some warmists would argue – must) get worse before they get better (e.g., submerged coastlines, vanquished polar ice, and angrier people).

    (8) Resurrection – warmists assert that full acceptance of the consensus will reawaken humanity from its slumber of ignorance and yet again attain its magnificence but as a kinder, gentler, and more globally-conscious and focused species, willing to share its wealth equitably.

    (9) Rebellion – warmists are in opposition to objectivity (a necessity of the scientific method) because it is the denier that perpetrates the “crime.” Naturally, this requires a high level of devotion and dedication to the Cause or “rebellion” because of the possible consequences… if caught (e.g., 10:10 the Eco-terrorists, Gleick the Liar, and Mann the Climate Warrior).

    (10) Removal – warmists who now understand they have been deceived by the consensus must be removed and disassociated with the Cause (Curry). The best vehicle for accomplishing this removal is to claim the violator was a wolf in sheep’s clothing all along – meant to split the unity of the consensus.

    (11) Relevance – warmist thoughts and actions are critical to the times in which they live – extreme weather is climate… now. With the presumption that carbon excesses are tantamount to environmental injustice, a global immorality exists within Western culture that only the Cause via the consensus can reverse – thank goodness for the UN IPCC; let’s award them a Nobel Peace Prize.

    (12) Relationships – warmists share: knowledge via a multiple of web sites (e.g., SkS, Real Climate, and even *gasp* HotWhopper – big wave to Sou), subjective articles, false papers, bloated conferences, etc.), which create social and emotional relations that only strengthen the consensus to the Cause

    (13) Reality – warmists promote the Cause as its own “reality” not by evidentiary examination via the scientific method but by the collective will of the consensus – 97% cannot be wrong because… even dictatorships achieve such numbers – whatever. The reality is the inertia that IS the collective will of the individual warmist, and surely, this many people cannot be wrong. “We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves,” – George Orwell.

    (14) Righteousness – warmist leaders have established rules (e.g., communicating the evils of CAGW by all possible vehicles and paying lip service to the scientific method as a matter of necessity) by which those within the consensus must operate. Adherence to these rules is required and assists the leaders by ensuring that the consensus is aligned to their wills (schisms are not tolerated, Lewis – ever).

    (15) Retribution – Prior to repentance, a former denier or luke-warmer must understand that there are consequences for not following the rules. These consequences include a diminishing of the former denier’s words, close association to a leader to learn more of the truth (or be watched more closely), and use as a public image of the Cause (Muller).

    I believe that an adherence to the scientific method, with a healthy dose of Occam’s Razor thrown in, is a better approach with sounder results to reviewing the global surface mean temperature anomaly rather than a religious-like movement and its multiple and complex (sometimes conflicting) components. In this case, the path to the truth is as important as the truth itself.

    Please note that this comment has been adapted from an online diary entry I posted in 2007, regarding the 9/11 Truth Movement. Lindzen is spot on to label the Cause as a religion.

  80. MojoMojo says:
    August 29, 2013 at 3:04 pm

    Wikipedia “Doctors for Disaster Preparedness share the same address with the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons “
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    So?

    I did a search for ‘Doctors for Disaster Preparedness’ and the first thing I click on gives me a video of Scott Armstrong (Ph.D., MIT, 1968) professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.

    This is the guy whose paper, Bafflegab Pays, on how to write a peer-reviewed paper, I often link to along with several other of his papers.

    So some how I am supposed to thing it is BAD to have a speaker like him instead of liars like Peter Gleick, buffoons like Al Gore and lawsuit happy little Mann?

  81. [ADM is Archer-Daniels-Midland, a ag-chemical-processing giant, right? Mod]
    Correct. Sorry I meant to indicate that in the first use of the initials.

  82. @Lance of BC –
    I just visited the Sac Bee website a little while ago, and was able to read Dr. Lindzen’s piece on it – and unfortunately, also some incredibly stupid comments by one “Smithers72″ who had the crust to call the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons “not credible”, and further to falsely and slanderously accuse Dr. Lindzen of being in the pay of Big Oil.

  83. Hoya Skeptic says:
    August 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm

    Anthony,

    You write: “In normal science, . . .

    This seems to be a statement in a press release that quotes or closely follows the words of Richard Lindzen. I don’t see an attribution to the actual press writer but will go out on a limb here and say I doubt the person is named “Anthony.”

  84. That I can think for myself, the intended insult notwithstanding, means I can see through things like CAGW is a religion, an assertion designed to convince those that don’t think for themselves that there is no evidence for CAGW (or evolution or effective vaccines or HIV as the cause of Aids). It is cliched d-speak and reading around science might educate you and your fellows here to know what path you are truly being led down.

  85. “What Eisenhower did not warn against was that public policy might become the captive of a self-declared scientific-technological elite, one which is driven by its preferred policies first and last, and which is shameless in presenting its “science” to support them, even when it doesn’t deserve the name.”

    I guess the 97% consensus paper by SkS et al make that point abundantly clear.

  86. Chris Riley says: “I think that it would not be a bad idea for Anthony to consider sponsoring an annual Lysenko prize competition. it might help “raise awareness” (to use a revolting phrase) of the poor scholarship that is the norm today amongst alarmists.”

    There already exists such a prize, I believe, awarded by the Club de l’Horloge, a French organization that Wankerpedia refers to as “far-right.” Far-right, in Wankerpedia-talk, means “not a spittle-spewing Socialist.”

  87. Margaret Hardman:

    Thankyou for your post at August 29, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1403086

    which begins saying

    Richard
    Thank you for your measured and considered comment. It is no more than I had expected, especially from you. Have you actually read the paper? It is here http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf

    Thankyou for your recognising my comment was “measured and considered”. It can be seen at August 29, 2013 at 11:49 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1403037

    Indeed, I always err on the side of mildness when confronted with extreme and dangerous propaganda of the kind you had presented, so it is not surprising that you expected my comment to be “measured and considered”.

    Of course I have read Lindzen’s clear and accurate analysis. You are again demonstrating psychological projection by asking if I have read it: warmunists applaud unread words of their ‘priesthood’, but climate realists assess information then comment on it.

    I think you need to read this earlier paper by Lindzen.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

    It explains how a handful of warmunist activists have usurped the executives of scientific institutions. This shocking read ‘names names’.

    The pretence that AGW is not pure pseudoscience is dangerous. The pretence harms the reputation science and encourages Lysenkoist energy policies. You try to minimise the seriousness of this by pretending the AGW-religion is merely

    comparable with lysenkoism

    . NO! AGW is Lysenkoist.

    Lysenkoism always needs to be opposed. And the evil religion of AGW has already killed thousands by inducing fuel poverty for the elderly in the UK.

    Richard

  88. When I went to college in the late 1970s and grad schools in the 1980s it was “proven science” that humans had no nature that was predisposed or genetic in origin. It was even more fanatical than today’s climate science but just as left wing. You could be road out on a rail for just whispering blasphemous statements human behavior might have an innate and genetic basis.

    In the 1960-70s the women’s equality movement was based on the premise that man and women were behaviorally essentially the same. The perceived differences were a factor of “gender norming” where behavior was solely a feature of conditioning and expected behavior. Under this theory the minor physical characteristics needed to be accommodated and resultant performance would be indistinguishable.

    Since that time research has shown without a doubt that human behavior is strongly dictated by biology. Men and women are genetically predestined to behave significantly and fundamentally different as a result of different evolutionary roles.

    Science has never shown any introspective realization of this embarrassing period of time where it was obvious the scientific community was prostituting itself to their political beliefs and masters.

    As I watch the Global Warming Crowd tie itself in knots in an attempt to support its funders I have strong feelings of Déjà vu. It is easy for me to discount the entire leap of logic because I have seen it all before.

  89. The hopelessly-brainwashed, logic-impaired, and irrational Margaret claims she can “think for herself”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Pathetic.
    CAGW is a belief system, nothing more. It has similar attributes to religion, as pointed out by Tom Murphy above, so the comparison is an apt one. Margaret uses all of the illogical “tricks of the trade” that True Believers love, including straw man, ad hominem, poisoning the well, red herring, consensus, and authority arguments. This is because, deep down, Margaret knows that there is very little actual science supporting either her position or that of the IPCC.

  90. Here’s an excellent book that is relevant to this thread.

    Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth,
    by Henry H. Bauer, professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and dean emeritus of arts and sciences at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech)

    “The nature of scientific activity has changed dramatically over the last half century, and the objectivity and rigorous search for evidence that once defined it are being abandoned. Increasingly, this text argues, dogma has taken the place of authentic science. This study examines how conflicts of interest–both institutional and individual–have become pervasive in the science world, and also explores the troubling state of research funding and flaws of the peer-review process. It looks in depth at the dominance of several specific theories, including the Big Bang cosmology, human-caused global warming, HIV as a cause of AIDS, and the efficacy of anti-depressant drugs [and, also, Plate Tectonics]. In a scientific environment where distinguished experts who hold contrary views are shunned, this book is an important contribution to the examination of scientific heterodoxies.”

  91. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    That I can think for myself, … , means I can see through things like CAGW is a religion,

    That is a false and (probably) self-deceptive statement. It is NOT axiomatic that the simple act of thinking (for ones self) produces correct thought, or leads to accurate, appropriate or right beliefs/action. It is like saying, that I am Catholic, means I can see through other religions and therefore KNOW that Catholicism is the only correct/true religion.

    …. is no evidence for CAGW (or evolution or effective vaccines or HIV as the cause of Aids).
    I cannot recall a single incident of anyone calling the belief in or of evolution or effective vaccines or the cause of Aids as being a religion.
    Besides that, evolution IS a theory (that even Darwin had his doubts about), not ALL vaccines are effective to the same degree in everyone and the same can be said with the efficacy of HIV on the immune system.

    Accepting banalities and superficial statements (such as the above by Margaret and the CAGW believers have a propensity to make) WITHOUT thinking or grasping the false subliminal logic (in the first case, thinking makes me superior so you should accept everything I say as the truth) leads one to the mental establishment of false premises and the (religious?) belief in pseudo-science.
    (One of my favorites that has nothing to do with science is- The majority of Americans voted for Obama, therefore he can __________)

    What tells me (as I think about it) that a belief is or borders on a religion (or not) is HOW a person speaks/writes about it. And exactly how Margaret (and others) write about CAGW convinces me that it has taken on many aspects similar to or the same as any formal religion. The primary one being: they cannot prove or even speak about it without summoning the greatest (false) spirit of all time – – the computer model. NOW THERE IS A TRUE RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

  92. Just when you think their brains can’t get any deader:

    http://climatenamechange.org/

    They want to name storms for “d*nier” politicians (Republican, of course) who dare to question “the science” and obstruct the wrong-headed and destructive policies of the carbon catastrophists.
    An interesting study would be if CAGW Belief causes the brain to atrophy, or if it simply attracts those with lower mental capacities to begin with.

  93. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph. D. said {in jpands},

    Global warming differs from the preceding two [Lysenkoism & eugenics] affairs: Global Warming has become a religion. A surprisingly large number of people seem to have concluded that all that gives meaning to their lives is the belief that they are saving the planet by paying attention to their carbon footprint. There may be a growing realization that this may not add all that much meaning to one’s life, but, outside the pages of the Wall Street Journal, this has not been widely promulgated, and people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.

    – – – – – – – –

    Lindzen’s observation above in bold prompts me to address more fundamental aspects of Man’s nature quo Man than the need to seek meaning in one’s existence. More fundamental concepts which the search for a life defining meaning depend on are: the objective criteria for understanding the physically existent capacity to know ; and the methods appropriate for correctly using it.

    If a person has not worked out in their own minds independently and in a reasonably complete way those kinds of concepts from a real set of observations of physical nature, then one needs to accept what someone else claims to have done to understand a meaning of ones life. That borrowing would be a second hand basis for determining your life’s meaning.

    I think the wide acceptance of the religion of Global Warming stems from a profound lack of elemental education of youth by both parents and the members of immediate families. Lack of elemental education on the concepts I described above. Global Warming adherents have simply borrowed a prepackaged and one size fits all meaning of life largely because they lack the elemental education to derive individually and reasonably their own understanding of the meaning of their unique life.

    John

  94. @Bruce Cobb at 5:12 am
    …. Margaret claims she can “think for herself”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Which begs the question, “How does anyone know you can think for yourself?”

    – Just because you agree was a group consensus doesn’t mean you are not thinking for yourself.
    – The action of changing your mind from one group consensus to another evidence neither way.
    – On the other hand, If you hold an opinion or belief that is not shared by anyone else, I suppose that is proof you are thinking for yourself, but it is hardly evidence that you opinion is well founded.

    I suppose a necessary condition is that you are able to explain to others your thinking process, inferences, and (current?) conclusions. Necessary, but not sufficient, because you could have simply remembered an argument taught to you.

    One source offered this:
    Ask questions, particularly the question “why?”. Ask everyone (not just the so-called experts), and try to answer your own questions as well. When you get an answer, try to think of exceptions, and then ask yourself why those exceptions exist. Never be satisfied until you arrive at an answer that has very few exceptions.

    That sounds to me like good reasoning. I cannot think of many exceptions to that rule. ;-) Couple that with the ability to explain your reasoning to others and to answer their questions to their satisfaction, and I would grant that you pass the test of “thinking for yourself.”

  95. Bruce Cobb says: @ August 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    Poor Margaret. The CAGW religion seems to have rotted her brain.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    More likely her purse or her ‘Cause’ is threatened.

  96. Here’s an example of thinking for oneself; one time, in 3rd grade we had one of those lame spelling tests, and one of the words was “donut”. Well, I had seen the word spelled “doughnut”, and double-checked it at home. Sure enough, I was right, and that was how I spelled it on the test. The teacher marked it “wrong”. LOL. She had to reckon with my mother, though.

    • “I was terrible in English. I couldn’t stand the subject. It seemed to me ridiculous to worry about whether you spelled something wrong or not, because English spelling is just a human convention–it has nothing to do with anything real, anything from nature. Any word can be spelled just as well a different way.”

      Richard P. Feynman

  97. Bruce Cobb says: @ August 30, 2013 at 9:26 am
    …. An interesting study would be if CAGW Belief causes the brain to atrophy, or if it simply attracts those with lower mental capacities to begin with.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    They were carefully trained not to think. See Dumbing Down America by Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

    the purpose of the school was to show how education could be changed to produce little socialists and collectivists instead of little capitalists and individualists. It was expected that these little socialists, when they became voting adults, would dutifully change the American economic system into a socialist one.

    Worse when that wasn’t enough to produce good little brain dead ‘Team Players’ they resorted to drugging children as young as 7 especially little white boys. … nearly twice as many students had been diagnosed with ADHD compared with the number medicated in school. Among elementary students, 17% of all students and 33% of white boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and the vast majority had been medicated for this condition at some time during the 1997-98 school year…. Parents who want to refuse school mandated medication are threatened with removal of their children via child abuse charges dispite Ritalin: Brain-Damage Evidence For Amphetamines

  98. Chad Wozniak says:
    @Lance of BC –
    I just visited the Sac Bee website

    I’ve been to the Sac Bee website and I agree they(commenters) can be wonked! hehe
    But I was referring to the URL linked to their site. It has been improperly written and is split.
    Thought I might point it out to the mods, but I see it is still not corrected.

    Corrected link on a freakin’ OLD post,

    http://www.sacbee.com/2013/08/28/5687619/climate-science-exploited-for.html

    Love WUWT, peace out. :)

    Lance

  99. Margaret Hardman says:
    August 29, 2013 at 10:18 pm
    “That I can think for myself…”&etc.

    Poor Margaret. She parrots all the talking points that she finds on alarmist blogs, and thereby convinces herself that she is actually thinking for herself. She really doesn’t understand how ridiculous her assertion sounds.

    As hoya says above: “The science speaks for itself.”

    That is true. There is no credible scientific evidence supporting the CAGW narrative. It is a fabricated invention fueled by grant money. Some people would know that if they thought for themselves. They should try to find any measurable evidence of CAGW. There simply isn’t any. None at all.

    Poor Margaret. I think she really believes what she writes.

  100. (Snip. This moderator, at least, is getting weary of your non-stop ad hominems targeting Prof. Richard Lindzen. If you have the need to constantly single out and disparage a well respected scientist, do it on your own blog where both your regular readers will see it. ~mod.)

  101. hoyawildcat says:

    “Oh, you are being so unfair. He has at least three regular readers.”

    And 98% of them agree! ☺

  102. Eli Rabett on August 30, 2013 at 8:32 pm

    – – – – – – – –

    Chronic illeism is a nasty behavior.

    Lest we forget, so is spitting in public.

    John

  103. dbstealey

    Of course I believe what I write. That’s why I am prepared to stand by it. As for your ad feminam comments, it ill behoves a man of your intellect and respectability. Nevertheless, since it is not my eyes that are occluded by smoke, it would be interesting to see anyone try to justify the idea that AGW is religion (and before you ask, I’ve read widely on the philosophy of religion and I don’t mean Dawkins or Hitchens) but that is something that Lindzen puts into his paper without any attempt at justification. It is, of course, a well trodden and content free rhetorical trick used when it is clear that the real evidence is missing for your argument – claim that the side which has the huge stacks of evidence actually bases its conclusions on faith. And then we get the funding argument. Puh-lease. I wonder if you actually understand your own comments, I really do.

    I stand side by side with Eli on this one – Lindzen has gone a long way down if this is where he wishes to publish these days. But then again, the esteemed owner of this site did a talk to a similar group of concerned physicians whose organisation strangely shares the same address, and he used some of the same tricks to hide the incline. Are they in some way related?

    Yours

    Margaret

    • Margaret wrote: “Lindzen has gone a long way down if this is where he wishes to publish these days. But then again, the esteemed owner of this site did a talk to a similar group of concerned physicians whose organisation strangely shares the same address, and he used some of the same tricks to hide the incline. Are they in some way related?”

      OK, Margaret, let’s stipulate that you are correct. Then what is Lindzen’s motivation here? Big Oil money? Careerism? Or simply stupidity. (I realize there are other alternatives, but I think you know what I mean.)

  104. You’ll have to ask Lindzen what his motivation is. I can’t pretend to speak for him. There are many possibilities but I am not going to speculate. Others on this thread pretend they can talk for me, however. All I can say about Lindzen’s paper is that it was a rehash of so many over-familiar and unreferenced statements in one place. It’s like he decided to make a collection of anti-AGW cliches in one handy place.

    Margaret

    • Well, Margaret, I have to say your response is disappointing. It seems to me that what you said about Lindzen could be just as well applied to yourself, except on the opposite side. Am I being unfair in drawing that conclusion?

  105. Margaret Hardman:

    At August 31, 2013 at 2:01 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1404856

    you assert

    All I can say about Lindzen’s paper is that it was a rehash of so many over-familiar and unreferenced statements in one place. It’s like he decided to make a collection of anti-AGW cliches in one handy place.

    A cliché may be true and many are.
    You do not cite any clichés provided by Lindzen and provide no reason to think he presented any that are untrue.

    You assert that Lindzen made “many over-familiar” statements.
    Do you mean true statements?
    An explanation of what you mean by “over-familiar” would be helpful. And could you provide some examples of such “over-familiar” statements, please?

    You also assert that Lindzen made “unreferenced statements”.
    Really? Please justify that assertion with meaningful examples.
    Or by “unreferenced statements” do you mean ‘rational arguments which you cannot refute’?

    At present your post from which I quote is empty and offensive verbiage, so I would appreciate the clarifications I have here requested.

    Richard

    PS I offer you some sincere advice. You do yourself no favours by siding with an anonymous troll whose delinquent behaviour makes him a laughing stock. Argue your case if you have one and thus raise yourself above the level of that bottom feeder.

  106. Richard

    To engage you in debate would be good for your CV, less so for mine. Nothing I would say would change your ossified beliefs so I shall not bother. Read Lindzen’s essay and keep asking yourself why, how do we know that, what’s that statement for, and so on. That is skepticism. What you do is that infinite series trick – you ask me for evidence, I give some, you come back with a response that says thisis not so… No one wins except everyone gets bored. I am bored with that trick to hide the incline.

    Margaret

    • Margaret, Aren’t we concerned with the truth here? I’m a skeptic, but not just an AGW-skeptic, but a skeptic of both sides. Sure, both sides have powerful forces (and tons of money) behind them. And maybe, just maybe, AGW is true, and maybe it isn’t, but the bottom line (for me, at least) is that the “Settled Science” is hardly settled at all. And, IMO, attacking individual people, personally, simply because you disagree with them, does nothing to advance the debate, and actually discredits the position you defend, which is a position I think is worth defending.

      You are probably aware that Kepler came up with his three laws of planetary motion in order to make his astrological prognostications more accurate, That is certainly a very questionable motivation, if not a bogus one but it does not refute what he discovered. Moreover, Newton practiced alchemy (and nearly died of mercury poisoning as a result). So what?

      Now, one can take a post-modern position and argue that “there is no truth.” But if that’s correct, then how does one account for error and falsehood? Clearly, there is plenty of error and falsehood in the AGW debate. But, thankfully, science proposes and nature disposes. And that is my faith.

  107. Margaret Hardman:

    Your post at August 31, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/29/climate-science-exploited-for-political-agenda-according-to-journal-of-american-physicians-and-surgeons/#comment-1404914

    is complete bollocks.

    You provided a list of falsehoods.
    I asked you to explain and justify them.
    You refused that request because you know you were stating lies.

    And you try to excuse your despicable behaviour by claiming I was attempting “an infinite series trick”.
    NO! I ONLY ASKED YOU TO EXPLAIN THE SPECIFIC LIES WHICH YOU HAD MADE AND I QUOTED.

    Not content with that, you raise a ‘red herring’ about CVs.
    But you do not have a CV to be bolstered.
    On the other hand, I am retired so I do not need one.

    I am a true skeptic. You are a true believer in AGW. And everybody is “bored” with your nonsense.

    Richard

  108. Correction: Kepler came up with his three laws *as a result* of his desire to make his astrology more accurate, not in order to do so.

  109. I note that Margaret Hardman has yet to post any testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing conclusively that AGW exists. She has no such evidence. No one else does, either, or skeptics would be hit over the head with it 24/7/365.

    If AGW exists [and I think it does, to a small, unimportant extent], it is too small to measure. If something is too small to measure, it is hardly science, which depends on quantifying physical measurements.

    So AGW starts and ends at the Conjecture stage of the Scientific Method. It is too small to measure, so it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes. And thus, so can the entire “carbon” scare, which is entirely Belief-based opinion.

Comments are closed.