By Harold Ambler
A new editorial in Nature is startling for what it reveals, especially the fact Paul Ehrlich is a go-to figure about how hard scientists have it when it comes to media access.
Ehrlich is an individual who became an international celebrity by spinning one frightening story after another (about the death of the oceans, for one thing) who maintains, with a straight face, that he and his fellow scientists have an unfair disadvantage in communicating their side of the climate debate.
He is quoted by Nature as saying, regarding the aftermath of Climategate and the fact that skeptic scientists are finally getting a hearing,:
“Everyone is scared shitless, but they don’t know what to do.”
People often forget: Goliath, right before the end, sensed that something was amiss.
For, ironically, among the most pervasive myths attending global warming is the one pitching David against Goliath, in which those touting the risks of damaging climate change are cast as David and Big Oil is Goliath.
The story requires observers to ignore the facts: Media, most scientists, and governments the world over have spent and received so much money on their version of events that they have collectively become Goliath. Observers must ignore, too, the reality that skeptic scientists maintain their intellectual freedom at significant risk. Funding routinely dries up; tenure is denied them; ad hominem attacks of the most vicious variety are launched against them from the Ivory Tower of academia, from the studios of multi-billion dollar news organizations, and from the bully pulpit of government.
read the rest at Talking About the Weather
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Christoff
It isn’t like you’d have to change Jesus from a stonemason to a carpenter for modern people to “get” it>>
Fair enough. Perhaps a poor choice of example on my part. That said, the translation “builder of houses” was kept until the middle ages when it was changed to carpenter, which is what the profession building houses would have been at that time. The original term builder of houses meant a stone mason, while a carpentarius would have been a builder of chariots in Jesus time.
Without researching it and for the sake of both brevity and discussion, let’s accept your assertions in your last comment as factual.
Why then, if both carpentry and stonework existed then, would it have been changed since ancient times for us to understand/relate with it in modern times?
That part of your theory makes no sense.
Ken Smith thank you for posting this video. It is such a pleasure to witness an informed debate. Bravo to both scientists: at least Canada has a way better scientist than the ubiquitous Andrew Weaver! What a relief!
David, UK (15:30:25) :
@ur momisugly CRS, Dr.P.H.
Thank you for being one of the (many) good guys. I have never doubted that most scientists out there still adhere to those age-old scientific principles, and that your good name is being tarnished by a relatively small few at the top who have the power and the influence (or are happy to have their strings pulled by such people). The Manns and the Joneses of this world, the ones who have sold out their scientific principles for (twisted) political ones – and for their pieces of silver – have lowered the respect of the Climate Scientist to that of the Politician.
But the truth always comes out eventually. All you need to do is stick to your principles (and I know you will), and when – in God knows how many years – this sorry era in scientific history has passed, you shall hold your head high.
—–
David, thank you for this, it means a great deal to me!!
I used to live in Exeter, UK and was granted an award by DTI for my work in biomethane mitigation in 1994…I miss your land dearly.
Anthony, thanks for this blog, it is a crossroads for some wonderful and interesting minds!! Cheers to all.
Christoph (21:49:32) :
Without researching it and for the sake of both brevity and discussion, let’s accept your assertions in your last comment as factual.
Why then, if both carpentry and stonework existed then, would it have been changed since ancient times for us to understand/relate with it in modern times?
That part of your theory makes no sense>>
At the time the translation was made from “builder of houses”, the use of masonry to build houses had long since fallen out of favour and the translator likely assumed it was a carpenter (since that what he would have associated house building with).
My point was that biblical references evolve and change over time which does not make them fabrications. Untangling the web of translations and historical context can be complicated. Does the commandment “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”? mean that there were actual witches back then? The word meant someone who prepared poisons to be used in assasinations, it had nothing to do with magic.
davidmhoffer (21:22:00) :
I *know* I’m going way OT here, but why not?
Re “journeymen”
My understanding is that “journeyman” was a transitional stage in gaining mastery in a craft.
The first step was for a boy to be apprenticed to a master craftsman. The proud parents would pay the master for this opportunity for their pride and joy to better himself and the family.
On completion of the apprenticeship, the lad would have a certain level of qualification. The next stage was as a journeyman. I think the journeyman was obliged to travel for a certain period, not just entitled to travel.
[ A number of other groups were entitled to travel as well – it was mostly only the serfs who were owned by the feudal landholder and weren’t allowed to leave.]
Travelling journeymen made a lot of sense. The Guilds were based in larger centres, so having partially qualified craftsmen travelling reduced competition at home and provided the service more widely.
On completion of the journeyman period, the young man (by this time) was entitled to attempt to become a master craftsman. This was accomplished by creation of one or more “master pieces” to the satisfaction of the Masters in the Guild; and probably by meeting other criteria as well.
I assume many were content to remain journeymen rather than make the further effort to join the ranks of the masters.
Looking at what I’ve jut written, this looks very much like the progression in the medical or legal professions here in Australia. with undergraduate, intern / GP and specialist, or the academic version with Bachelor, Master and Ph. D.
Of course, I may be partly or totally wrong, in which case I shall be corrected and learn something in the process 😉
Dave F (20:38:36) :
Sorry to have ruffled your feathers, asking you to back up an assertion based solely on your understanding of the world.
I do notice which question you did not answer.
———-
I notice you answered 0 questions.
And I only asked one.
You asked six.
Many years ago Paul Ehrlich was a guest on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Johnny knew what a good suit looked like and chided Ehrlich for wearing an expensive suit when he professed the world to be in trouble because of excessive consumption. Ehrlich’s reply went something like this: When you have booked passage on the Titanic, why go second class?
I understand that at one time he was an expert on Lepidoptera (butterflies). Then his best seller “The Population Bomb” made him a darling of environmental kooks and it has been a downward spiral for him ever sense. He seems to be still wearing the expensive suits and looking for his personal Titantic.
A blog with 15,000 visits a month has a yearly carbon dioxide emissions of 8lb.”……’
Every blog – large and small needs a header: “Don’t read this blog. Think of your carbon foot print. Besides you could be out motoring”
David,
Well, I certainly agree with that.
I’m quite sure some of them are fabrications.
I think we agree that the Bible, at least as it exists today, is often absurd. (In that case, immoral, although of course you believe this is inadvertent due to an error in translation and/or cultural misunderstanding.)
However, your certainty that you have “the one true interpretation” albeit of a naturalistic variety and thus more natively appealing to yours truly, is less than convincing.
Reply: And the biblical debate stops here. I declare myself the winner. ~ ctm.
So in Lilliput the antagonists went to war over whether to open a boiled egg at the big end or the small end (I’m a big ender).
I’ve always favored little endian. Although I can work either way.
OK, the greek text Mark 6:3:
is this not the “tekton” , the sun of Mary
In the Perseus dictionary the translation from greek is “builder” “carpenter” etc.
Now building in the Mediterranean region uses stones for foundation, a lot of bricks or plinths( unbaked bricks) and wooden rafters on which to cover the building or make floors. At that time there would have been small distinction between a stonemason builder and a carpenter builder( unless one were building the Acropolis where a lot of marble was used).
Builder is the better sense of “tekton” . It is evident that in countries where houses were mostly wooden, and one used carpenters to build the house, the term migrated to carpenter.
The greek word for carpenter is “xylourgos”, worker of wood.
The word “architect” is made up of arch(head) tect( builder).
That was son of Mary of course 🙂
Anu says:
Do you have any proof that a belief in guardian angels does not correlate negatively with an understanding of science ?
Obi-wan is my Master. And yet he is totally a creature of imagination. And still. He is my Master.
Is this proof that my designs don’t work or that the aircraft they fly on don’t fly?
Guys, guys.
You/We got sidetracked by having a language in common.
Not being religious, what *I* took away from the D vs G story — even as a child — wasn’t platitudes about bravery, but simply that better tech and being smart wins over brute force (preferably both.) David slew Goliath via long distance weaponry. Clever use of better technology for the task at hand.
In my earlier post I presumed Goliath as being the AGW juggernaut which controls the peer review process, the mainstream media, the puppet media stars, and the politicians. In the past without the internet they would get away with their attempts; they own the technology (he who controls the printing presses, etc.) But… in 2010, they don’t own the technology. David is a collection of random sites that preserve the right to assemble, albeit virtually, which collectively can muster the necessary voice and resources to stop the juggernaut.
Why wasn’t I impressed even as a kid? Because we’ve seen this story time and again, and we will continue to, because it’s part of the human condition. David (Gutenberg) took on Goliath (the Church) and the printing press kicked the reformation and enlightenment into high gear. May, 1940: seriously outnumbered yet superior RAF fighters stomp the Luftwaffe. 1973/4: newspaper reporters vs the US president. 1977: Ragtag rebels take on the galactic Empire in X-wing fighters. The story never gets old.
One day when the climate wars are all but forgotten and the world has moved on, the story that will persevere will be the same: how McIntyre and Watts and others figured out how to take down the AGW political Goliath.
That said, I doubt ancient humans were building such robust towers that God was really freaked out and threatened that we’d reach heaven all on his own…
I dunno those pyramids in Egypt are pretty impressive. Think like a Progressive of 2,000 BC. Pyramids are definitely a sign of hubris. An affront to the natural world. Think ofthei9r stone footprint. Disaster awaits.
Think of their stone footprint. Disaster awaits.
Gail says:
I am stating this after being fired from three different jobs for refusing to falsify laboratory results. I am a chemist.
Don’t take it so hard. I usually quit before they could fire me.
Extract from the Nature editorial (with emphasis added by myself): “Yes, scientists’ reputations have taken a hit thanks to headlines about the LEAKED climate e-mails at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK. . .”
Notice this significant (and I would presume unconscious) admission by the AGW side that the CRU “climategate” e-mails were not in fact hacked by some wicked denialist individual or organization but rather leaked by someone who had been on their own side and who developed a conscience about what he/she observed going on. In admitting a leak rather than a hack they are also admitting that there must be a prima facie good reason for the leak (i.e., since people do not leak just for the sake of it, given that it can have serious legal consequences).
Hello Anthony! First time posting and loving it! I couldn’t bear listening anymore to the garbage being promoted as AGW/climate change. I have enjoyed the discussions at your website since before Climategate broke. I just couldn’t resist posting at http://www.treehugger.com mentioned earlier. I hope they take a hint here:
“Unfortunately, when you have the UNFCC originally dictate the mandate of IPCC’s work, it introduced an immediate bias into the scope of the IPCC and those scientists. When their results didn’t work with Mother’s Nature’s plans, instead of being honest and open, they tried to either force or massage the data to fit or deliberately withheld it from outside scrutiny. With so much research and money at stake, and a dubious theory to “prove” (IPCC’s mandate), of course, it became necessary to skip details, override objections, push the “agenda” and declare the science settled. Control of information was critical to maintaining the message and contrary opinion was sidelined and ridiculed. With the scientific method of openness, validation, and duplication suppressed, AGW/climate change held sway for decades without justification and verification. Collectively, it was our “fault” and we had to change for the sake of the planet. The crescendo of impending disaster for mankind grew exponentially, even more crucial as Copenhagen approached, seeing this as our “best” opportunity to avoid the coming doomday scenario.
Reminds me about cults – going great, until someone shines some light on its activities. Having been exposed, it’s pitched as a David (AGW/climate change) vs. Goliath (naysayers and skeptics) epic for our beliefs and souls, not to mention our taxes and way of life (I wish we had the billions that the warmists have already squandered from John Q. Public). Now, you want to send team Obama to tour the country and sell the concept? One suggestion for Romm – in a street fight, your opponent is REAL. So, let’s make this more like a townhall meeting across America with REAL opponents to debate. That way, the American public will hear both sides and decide. If the AGW/climate change theory is so ROBUST, it should be able to stand up to the challenge. Kind of like the way REAL science works. Like this should have happened a while back, before the cover-up. Yup, you couldn’t write a better Hollywood script or even make this stuff up. ”
I think that covered it.
Yes, which was the point.
I have never heard of Terrance Rattigan. I have not seen The Winslow Boy. I have no plans to ever see The Winslow Boy. Right away we have a problem… we have no common frame of reference.
I have not seen High Noon, although I’ve seen enough derivative works to glean an inkling of what happens. Two gunfighters face down in the middle of a hastily evacuated street while the occasional tumbleweed rolls by. They both draw and shoot at the same time. One has superior shooting skills and wins. I don’t see any moral implications here other than that gunmanship is a useful survival skill in the Old West.
Why?
I doubt I will ever understand why some people want to completely erase anything to do with “The Bible”, as if its very existence is bad. Why is “secular” automatically good?
When someone says “David and Goliath” everyone knows, or USED to know before the bible was essentially banned in public life, what story is being told. It’s supposed to be a story about the little guy who prevails against the large opponent. Whether or not people want to grind down to the details of who Goliath was or whether the protagonist was even David or not… makes no difference.
I am not a Christian, I don’t study the Bible, I am not defending its accuracy, but in all of the first world countries about the only common, long-term compilation of stories we have available is the Bible.
I can use references to Loaves and Fishes, Water into Wine, Walking on the Water, Noah’s Ark, The Ark of the Covenant, and a few more, and be reasonably certain that most in my audience will have some idea what I’m talking about. It DOESN’T MATTER the accuracy, historical background, or even original intent of the story. As a common background of stories, The Bible is best known.
This thread has amazed me, actually. I am in awe at the lengths some people will go to pretend there IS no Bible, or that nothing in it could possibly be of any value to them. Again, I’m not religious in any way. I don’t attend a church or go to confession or speak in tongues or try to impose my moral values on others.
But others are always trying to impose their moral values on me, and those others are rarely religious these days.
Herman L (09:25:13) 11 March:
“I like the way you guys use a biblical metaphor here. Of course, it means absolutely nothing. We are in the 21st century…”
You are of course entitled to your opinion, as are others to theirs. There is no question that science, properly done, has advanced the human condition beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors. But, at best, science can tell us only the “what”; it can give proximate causes, but it cannot tell us the underlying cause, the real “why”.
For example, why was atmospheric CO2 many times higher millions of years ago than it is today, or why did warming periods give way to ice ages and thence to warming and glaciation again? What was the underlying cause, the “why”, not merely the contributing factors. Rhetorical questions, because I put it to you that no one knows the “why”.
Mankind can predict times of “sunrise” and “sunset”, solstices and equinoxes, phases of the moon, tidal movements, and planetary orbits, because of order in our solar system and beyond. Many argue that these events are the result of the accidental collision of atoms. Those same people also argue without knowing they do so that their thoughts and the words expressing them result from the accidental collision of atoms in the brain. On this view, my thoughts and words are no better or worse than those of others. Science cannot have made the giant strides it has if this line of reasoning is true.
I should think it obvious that even the most capable scientist sees as in a hazy mirror. At best, we know in part, something AGW and non-AGW advocates alike need to recognise. One day we will know fully, as we ourselves are fully known now. Meanwhile, it does us no ill to recognise and give thanks for the bountiful provision around us. Let us all remember that though we may plant the seed we do not make it germinate and grow.
You may reject out of hand this insight into my worldview. I cannot and will not attempt to deny you that right. Without, I trust, smugness or complacency, I content my self with the knowledge that many of the greatest minds in history held the same worldview. This is not to say they condoned the faults and excesses of fellow believers that sadly continue today. We humans all have feet of clay.
Ken Smith@18:53:14, “The Agenda with Steve Paiken” is a pretty good program, thanks for that. I first saw the show while in Montreal recently but unfortunately TVO is not available in Alberta.
When was Paul Ehrlich ever right about anything?
” That said, the translation “builder of houses” was kept until the middle ages when it was changed to carpenter, which is what the profession building houses would have been at that time. The original term builder of houses meant a stone mason, while a carpentarius would have been a builder of chariots in Jesus time.”
Whoa whoa whoa. The Greek is ‘tekton,’ a maker or artificer: a rather generic term like the related modern “technician” of somewhat different meaning. The Vulgate has ‘fabri’ of similar meaning, with perhaps more a connotation of ‘builder’: neither word has ever been changed, in the Middle Ages or since. The more specific ‘carpenter’ we probably owe to Wycliffe. Similarly Luther used ‘Zimmermann,’ wood-man or lignarius. (Interestingly, the 10th century West Saxon Gospels have “smith.”)
However, ‘carpentarius’ would not have meant “builder of chariots” by Tiberius’ reign, since the things had been obsolete for centuries. Sure, they would put a triumphator in an ornate ceremonial one, but that was rather akin to the Household Cavalry, a conscious anachronism for the sake of tradition. By Jesus’ day the word meant “cartwright, wagon-maker.” A carpenter was a ‘lignarius,’ woodworker.
Compare ‘luthier’, originally ‘maker of lutes’, but which today means a maker of stringed instruments generally, especially guitars and almost never lutes. Or ‘clerk,’ which rarely if ever means ‘clergyman’ now.