Beat Up

ChicoBeat_monkey_logo.jpg

There’s an article in this issue of the Chico Beat about my views on global warming. You can read it here:

http://www.chicobeat.com/?q=in_denial

I knew going into it that they’d probably be critical of my views, but that’s what honest debate is all about. My tipoff was Josh Indar’s comment to me that “I’m surprised that you returned my call”. I learned a long time ago that even if you don’t like what the press is going to write about you, you should always be available and up front.

What really surprised me though was that they felt threatened enough by what I had to say to dedicate a complete editorial to it. http://chicobeat.com/?q=watts_is_wrong

And even more surprising was this missive: ” We feel the need to say that this week because we’ve already heard protests from a local climate expert, who we asked to counter Watts in this issue. The expert declined because, he said that printing Watts’ views will only encourage him, lending him a credibility he doesn’t deserve.”

Hmmm. Why is it that those whom have opposing views feel the need to posture this way? I find it telling that those whom say “the debate is over” related to “man made global warming” just shut out anything or anybody that might have another view. It is disengenuous when they do that. It also makes those who like to dig deeper mistrustful of the agenda. If I’m wrong, prove it with facts and logic, don’t just refuse on your own basis of superiority.

I appreciate the Chico Beat taking the time to interview me and print my views, even if they disagree with them.

On the downside, there are a number of abbreviated words and misspellings in the article along with a couple of factual errors related to Edward Teller. I’m quoted as saying he was on the Atomic Energy Commission Board in the 80’s. The agency was dissolved in 1975 and merged with the Department of Energy.

I’m pretty certain I said Teller was on the AEC in the 60’s. I’ve asked them to fix that.

On the upside they gave me some kudos for my work locally on solar power. Thanks.

I think in the interview I’ve given an honest, factual, and pragmatic account of why I think the way I do. But in the editorial, I’m said to be a victim of my own “cultural bias”. Translation: “Since he’s a conservative, he can’t possibly think for himself, so he must simply be regurgitating a mantra”. It will be interesting to see how many “culturally biased” letters appear in the Beat saying all sorts of things that may not be, um, nice.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Beat Up

  1. Is the earth getting warmer? There is some evidence that indicates it is. Is man responsible? That is a theory. There is evidence that supports that conclusion and there is evidence that indicates it is a wrong conclusion. The bottom line is there isn’t conclusive evidence either way. Therefore it remains a theory.
    When I tell people that support the theory that I am not convinced, it always amazes me that they take that to mean that either I don’t believe global warming is happening or I don’t believe that man is responsible. It doesn’t mean that at all. It means it is a theory and it remains a theory.
    Theories are proposed as a basis for investigation and discussion. They should promote the exchange of ideas and promote investigations to prove or disprove them. Were so many people not listening when they were taught the “Scientific Method”. When people accept a theory as fact without conclusive evidence and attempt to silence opposing opinions it is not science any more. It’s politics!

  2. Thanks Tom, for me its all about getting the science right without political interference. I see so many more things that it could be besides or in addition to CO2, it seems folly to focus soley on CO2 alone.
    If there wasn’t so much money being thrown at global warming research, the “consensus” would be different. Even those that practice the scientific method know not to bite the hand that feeds them.

  3. When people accept a theory as fact without conclusive evidence and attempt to silence opposing opinions it is not science any more. It’s politics!
    Tom, Exactly right!
    Anthony said: I find it telling that those whom say “the debate is over” related to “man made global warming” just shut out anything or anybody that might have another view.
    Clearly scientific PROOF means nothing…nor does doing what works.
    …in the editorial, I’m said to be a victim of my own “cultural bias”.
    I wonder if they ever consider their own “cultural (and political) bias.

  4. Keep the faith, Anthony. This debate is far from over. Sure, the Global Warming bandwagon is overloaded and their volume is high. But there are growing numbers of scientists and average citizens out there that are finally realizing the difference between Global Warming and Climate Change.
    Science is my religion. No, not scientology, SCIENCE. Let’s make that clear…lol. I’ve been a student of the physical sciences since the 9th grade. Even at my low level of understanding, I am only too aware that no theory is valid without peer review and proof. And the fact that there are two passionate camps on both sides of the issue is clear and compelling evidence that the science is not settled.
    I don’t pretend to know the cause of the obvious change to our climate. And until the scientific process is concluded (if ever), drawing any hard conclusions is just silly, IMHO.

  5. I’ve been having a debate with a seller of quack medical devices on my blog and it reminds me of what you are going through here with this global warming debate.
    My argument comes down to this: Theory is something that “might” be possible under certain circumstances.
    Proof… as in proof via a scientfic formula produces an expected result when it’s repeated, i.e., double blind studies.
    Nowhere in science has man been “proven” to be the main cause for global warming, there is simply no evidence of this! It’s only a theory shared by a modest number of scientists, yet with the left’s political bias we see theory touted as fact…its like their mantra.

  6. In the February issue of Scientific American, Frank Keppler and Thomas Röckmann publish their findings on the natural production of methane by living plants.
    Their discovery is surprising inasmuch as it contradicts centuries of scientific consensus that methane could only be produced through anaerobic processes. What they found was that methane is in fact produced quite abundantly by terrestrial flora.
    Methane, it should be noted, produces four times the greenhouse event per ton that carbon dioxide does. But combustion of hydrocarbons does not produce methane, and so global warming activists have tended to ignore that particular inconvenient truth in their crusade against free enterprise.
    If climate change is an artifact of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere, then clearly the most effective strategy for reversing this trend would be to mow the rain forests to grade level, saturate the soil with Round-Up, and cover the land with a strong layer of asphalt….

  7. Hi Alan,
    Interesting article. I think some climate modelers already knew this, because one of the paradoxes that emerged from certain models was the odd effect have having more trees at high northern latitudes.
    The research was done right here in California at Lawrence Livermore Labs. You can read a summary here.
    http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-12-04.html
    Conventional wisdom says that a forest should make a cooler environment, and sequester carbon. But the model said was that more tree at that latitude made for a warmer atmosphere.
    Of course that doesn’t get talked about much in MSM.

  8. I find it interesting that Mr. Chamberlain would ignore the summary of the article that he cited. The authors clearly summarized their article thusly:
    “The surprising recent finding that living plants produce methane does not throw doubt on the cause of global warming. Human activities–not plants–are the source of the surge in this and other greenhouse gases” [1]
    Does this show a bias on his part? Quite clearly.
    [1] http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=1367E15B-E7F2-99DF-346DBF33877B8596

  9. Please pardon a meta comment, but it hurts my ‘ears’ to read it: your use of ‘whom’ is grammatically incorrect in both places. You want “who”, not “whom”.
    this post brought to you by Pedanticists International.

  10. Pingback: A note to longtime readers of this blog - the demise of an old friend « Watts Up With That?

Comments are closed.