Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Dr. Ravetz, welcome back to the fray with your new post. My congratulations on your courage and willingness to go “once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more …”
You are putting AGW supporting scientists to shame with your bravery, most of them (with some conspicuous exceptions like Dr. Meier and Dr. Curry) post on some site where people will agree with them and pat them on the back and tell them how right they are. Here, nobody is right, everyone gets attacked (including me), and that is the strength of the site.
Onwards to your issues:
Now, many thanks to Willis for reminding me of the challenge to give an example of uncertain facts and high stakes. Let me try. In early 2001 there was evidence of an incipient epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease in England. It was not at all certain, how infectious it would be, or what sorts of containment measures would suffice. There were conflicting values, although these were not made clear to the public at the time. These reflected the interests of the different stakeholders, including beef exporters, other farmers, non-farm users of the countryside, and politicians.
For each of them the stakes were high. The best-known stake at risk was the status of British beef exports, as certified FMD-free; this was worth some hundreds of millions of pounds in the increased price for such beef on the world market. But there were other stakes at risk, including the pedigree herds of cattle and sheep built up by farmers, and (largest of all, as it was later realised) the possible harm to all the non-farm activities in the countryside. And what was eventually realised to be the overriding stake was the political fortunes of Tony Blair, with an impending General Election which he didn’t want to have in the midst of an epidemic.
Coming back to ‘the facts’, these were to be determined by experts; but there were two opposed groups of experts. One was the government scientists, who generally had a conservative approach to the risks and to the science. The other was a group of academics, who had developed an expertise in epidemiological modelling. They made ‘pessimistic’ assumptions about the infectivity of the disease, and so their recommendations were on the side of a very aggressive approach. This suited Tony Blair’s political agenda, and so there was a severe quarantine and very extensive slaughtering. However one might criticise the government’s actions, the decision was indeed urgent, and there was a situation of high stakes, disputed values and uncertain facts.
My thanks in turn to Dr. Ravetz for providing the example. I now see the difference between his view and mine. What he sees as an unusual situation (facts uncertain, values in dispute) I see as everyday life.
Facts are rarely certain. Life is like that. Science is like that. It is very, very uncommon that we have scientific certainty about any complex real-world question. Despite that, throughout its history science has been of inestimable value in exactly these situations. This is because, rather than being based on something vague like beliefs or myths or “quality”, it is based on hard evidence and falsifiability and replicability. When facts are uncertain, we need more science, not less.
Regarding values, as long as there is more than one person involved (that is to say all of the time) values will likely be in dispute. Again, so what?
Since science has dealt quite well with these problems for centuries, why do we need a new post-normal “science”? How is the example different from any of the other public issues where science plays a part? Yes, as Dr. Ravetz clearly articulates, science often gets lost in the play of power politics … but that is a political issue, not a scientific issue.
Dr. Ravetz continues:
There is another lesson for PNS in the ‘foot and mouth’ episode. It was presented to the public as ‘normal science’: “here’s an epidemic, let’s apply the science and stop it”. The uncertainties and value-conflicts were suppressed. More to the point, the ‘extended peer community’ was nonexistent. Divisions among the scientists were kept under wraps. Damage to the rural communities was revealed piecemeal, and then as incidental to the noble effort of quarantine. Only the investigative journal Private Eye published the gory details of the exterminations.
I would put all of this under the heading of “transparency”. Again, this suppression and hiding is nothing new, nor is it a problem with science itself. Throughout history the people in power have sought to make their decisions in a way that is shielded from the public eye. See my discussion of the CRU Freedom of Information Act (FOI) debacle for a modern example.
I do not, however, see this as requiring any kind of “post-normal” change. It simply requires transparency, transparency, and more transparency. That’s why we have “Sunshine Laws” in the US requiring public meetings of governmental bodies. Thats why we have FOI laws. Not because of any problem with science, but because of a problem with humans and their power games. Sunlight is the best disinfectant for that disease, not a new kind of “science”.
Dr. Ravetz then discusses a couple of issues that had been raised by commenters in his previous posts.
Possible corruptions of PNS. These are inevitable. After all, what prophetic message ever escaped being converted into a battleground between priests and demagogues? But I should be more clear about which corruptions are most likely to emerge in PNS, and then to analyse and warn against them. It will painful, since I will be criticising colleagues who have been well-intentioned and loyal.
Well, despite his warning of inevitability, “democracy” as a prophetic message seems to have done pretty well. “Liberty” hasn’t fared too badly either. “Marxism”, on the other hand, led to the death of millions of people. Post-normal “science”, like the Marxism that Dr. Ravetz followed for much of his life, is rife with possibilities for corruption. This is because it preaches that, rather than following a hard line of evidence and scientific replicability, we should follow a very soft mushy line of something called “quality”. Me, I agree with Robert Heinlein, who said:
“What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”–what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!”
Or as Homer Simpson said:
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!
It is only when people don’t like facts proving something that is remotely true that they start clamoring for a judgment based on something like “quality”. Dr. Ravetz goes on to discuss this problem of the vague nature of “quality”, saying:
Quality. On this I find myself reduced to arm-waving, that ‘we all know what Quality is’. But I can say that I am well aware that Quality is not a simple attribute, but is complex, influenced by history and context, recursive (who guards the guardians?), fundamentally a matter of morality (if the people at the top are crooked, the whole edifice of quality-assurance collapses), and of course fallible. This may seem a very insecure foundation for the sort of knowledge that we need, but it’s the best we have. And if one looks for better guarantees of truth even in Pure Science, one will be disappointed.
Although Dr. Ravetz claims that “we all know what Quality is”, count me among the ones who don’t have a clue what it is. Dr. Ravetz seems unable to define it, despite my repeated requests for clarification. I disagree entirely that “quality” is the “best we have” as a foundation for the sort of knowledge we need, as Dr. Ravetz categorically states. I don’t want something undefined (and perhaps undefinable) as the foundation for my knowledge. I prefer to build my edifices on data and evidence and mathematics and facts and replicability and falsifiability and the usual scientific foundations, rather than on “quality”, whatever that might be.
Dr. Ravetz then reveals his aversion to the concept of “truth”:
There is another unsolved problem, Truth. I realise that I have a case of what I might call ‘Dawkins-itis’ in relation to Truth. Just as Prof. Dawkins, however learned and sophisticated on all other issues, comes out in spots at the mere mention of the word ‘God’, I have a similar reaction about ‘Truth’. I must work on this. It might relate to my revulsion at the dogmatic and anti-critical teaching of science that I experienced as a student, where anyone with original ideas or questions was scorned and humiliated. I happily use the terms for other Absolutes, like ‘beauty’, ‘justice’ and ‘holy’; so clearly there is something wrong in my head. Watch this space, if you are interested.
I can see why, if that is his reaction to the word “truth”, he might be averse to science. For me, a scientific truth is merely something which we have not yet falsified. And until it is falsified (as most “truths” may be in time), it is our best guide. For me, scientific truth should be the “foundation for the sort of knowledge we need”, as Dr. Ravetz puts it.
Dr. Ravetz then defends himself against a straw man, viz:
Finally, for this phase of the dialogue, I would like to defend myself against a charge that has been made by various critics. This is, that I personally and intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU, by providing the justification for Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity. First, there is no record of the guilty scientists ever mentioning, or even being aware, of PNS during the crucial earlier years. Also, shoddy and corrupted science in other fields did not wait for me to come along to justify it. My influence is traced back to a single footnote by Steven Schneider, citing an essay by me in a large, expensive book, Sustainable Development of the Biosphere (ed. W.C. Clarke and R.E. Munn), (Cambridge, University Press, 1986). PNS first came into the climate picture with the quite recent essay by Mike Hulme in 2007. That was a stage in his own evolution from modeller to critic, and came long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed. I should say that I do not dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand, since some of them are correct! But this one really does seem far-fetched.
I neither think nor have I said that Dr. Ravetz intentionally laid the foundations for the corrupted science of the CRU. However, what he calls “Steve Schneider’s perversion of scientific integrity” fits perfectly into the framework of post-normal “science”. For those unaware of Schneider’s statement, it was:
To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Call me crazy, but I prefer scientists who are scrupulously honest, regardless of whether or not they are effective. I don’t want “scary scenarios”. But post-normal AGW scientists seem to have no problem with Schneider or his claim. For them, “scary scenarios” are their bread and butter.
Next, as ScientistForTruth pointed out in his comment on Dr. Ravetz’s earlier essay, the influence of post-normal “science” on climate science does not trace to “a single footnote by Steven Schneider”, nor did it come into the discussion “long after the worst excesses at CRU had been committed.” To the contrary, Dr. Ravetz himself linked the two back in 1990, and the link was cited by Bray and Von Storch in their 1999 paper, “Climate Science: An Empirical Example of Postnormal Science”. So the idea that it all came to pass after the CRU excesses is nonsense, it was in play a decade before that. ScientistForTruth provides further examples as well, his comment is worth reading.
As to whether post-normal “science” is totally in tune with and accepted by the AGW proponents, consider the list of recommended blogs in the blogroll at Post-Normal Times. Post-Normal Times is the main website espousing post-normal “science”, and Dr. Ravetz is listed as one of the Editors. Here are the blogs that they think represent good, honest science:
Science & Policy Blogs
A few things ill considered
Al’s Journal [Al Gore]
CEJournal
Climate Progress
ClimatePolicy
ClimateScienceWatch
Deltoid
deSmogBlog
Dot Earth
EcoEquity
Effect Measure
Environmental Economics
Hybrid Vigor
James’ Empty Blog
jfleck at inkstain
maribo
Neverending Audit
Only in it for the gold
Rabett Run
RealClimate
Resilience Science
Skeptical Science
Stoat
The Intersection
Other Science & Policy Links
Network for Ecosystem Sustainability and Health (NESH)
NUSAP Net
Real World Economics Review
SciDev Net
Stephen H. Schneider, Climatologist
Union of Concerned Scietists [sic]
We have Steven Scheider’s link, and links to RealClimate, Rabett Run, Skeptical Science, Stoat, deSmogBlog, Deltoid, and the rest of the un-indicted co-conspirators. Many of these blogs ruthlessly censor opposing scientific views, in what I suppose is the best post-normal fashion. We have the blog of the noted climate scientist, Al Gore.
But not one blog which opposes the AGW “consensus” is listed. No Watts Up With That, which was voted the Best Science Blog last year. No ClimateAudit, voted the Best Science Blog the year before that. Not one real science blog, just dissent-suppressing apologists for AGW pseudo-science. Color me unimpressed, that is as one-sided a list as I can imagine. How is that scientific in any sense?
So while Dr. Ravetz may disavow any responsibility for the AGW debacle or the CRU malfeasance, it is quite clear that the concepts of post-normal “science” are central to the anti-scientific philosophy espoused on those AGW blogs, and by the AGW movement in general. Coincidence? You be the judge …
Yes, I agree that Dr. Ravetz did not, as he says, “personally and intentionally [lay] the foundations” for the nonsense that passes for science in the AGW camp, from the CRU on down. But his philosophy has most certainly and quite consciously been used as a guiding star by those who would prefer that we do not look at the man behind the curtain … and that is no coincidence at all. Like Marxism, post-normal “science” is a perfect philosophy for those who would propound their own ideology while hiding behind a pseudo-scientific shield of “Quality”.
Finally, you may have noted that I have called it post-normal “science” throughout this essay. This is for a very good reason.
— It may be post-normal … but it is not science by even the most expansive definition of the word. —
Let me close by saying that despite my (obvious) distaste for Dr. Ravetz’s philosophy, he has my highest admiration for putting his ideas out on this forum. That, to me, is real science. Science progresses by people making claims in a public forum, whether in journals or blogs or other media, and other people trying to falsify the claims. At the end, what is left standing is “truth” … at least until it is falsified at some future date. In this manner (if in no other), Dr. Ravetz is following the scientific method, and has my respect for doing so.
Willis Eschenbach (18:58:21) :
R. de Haan (17:38:53) : edit
From Joe Bastardi
Something from my pro site, but I thought you would like to ponder this:
SOME PRETTY COMPELLING EVIDENCE ON WHAT IS DRIVING CO2
I would like to ponder it, but not on a thread about Ravetz and post-normal science … please post it to a relevant thread.
Thanks,
w.
Well since he has it completely backwards and I for one would like to rebut it can you tell us where that can be done?
Willis is now blaming Ravetz for Kyoto. On this evidence I find it impossible to take him seriously any longer. It’s like mad hatter’s unbirthday party.
vigilantfish,
This is a quote from Bill Joy from the article linked above (on how and why the situation has changed / is changing in the 21st century):
“Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology – pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once – but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.” – Bill Joy
davidmhoffer,
You read your own pre-conceptions into my comments. I said nothing about government labs. The threat is potentially coming from the private sector as you say, and as has been argued by Bill Joy and others. We need to restrict the private sector for that reason. USA, China and EU are the three key players to achieve that world wide.
As you seem rather poorly informed on these subjects, may I kindly suggest the Bill joy article. Perhaps you could say what you see wrong in it, so you won’t have to rely on your own assumptions on what is meant and what not.
Let me pile on to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Willis E. Thank you Willis for cogently stating what should be obvious!
PNS does seem to have close ties with Marxism, everywhere I see it. It seems to try to use Lysenko-style “science” to promote statist objectives.
Aargh (15:13:38) :
When you forget what truth is – when it becomes relative –
call it pns or ad hoc or situational or divine revelation – if you can’t correctly define what truth is- you have already lost your grip on reality. This is the historical record. PNS is nothing new; it’s a classic symptom of dereliction.
Wow! That was insightful!!!
Steves (04:19:21)
Please, calling people “evil” goes nowhere. “Evil” is torturing babies. “Evil” is using poison gas on villages. Ravetz may be trying to “change the rules” with PN”S”, but that’s so far from evil as to be disappointingly bland.
Also, calling people “evil” unless they are literally torturing babies just gets your vote cancelled. People will just decide that you exaggerate, that you are OTT, and they will not listen to you any more.
So my free advice (guaranteed to be worth every penny you paid for it) is to stop focusing on the individuals, and focus on what they have said or done. Your point about Ravetz “changing the rules” is a good example. Your idea that Keynesianism survives “because it is never discussed” is a very interesting insight.
Focus on that those, and let the personal accusations go, and you’ll get much more traction in the discussion.
w.
Phil. (11:19:37)
Haven’t a clue, but I’d start by doing a search of WattsUpWithThat (or your favorite blog) for threads that have “CO2” in the title. You do that in google with a search for:
“allintitle: CO2 site:wattsupwiththat.com”
HTH,
w.
Buddenbrook;
The threat is potentially coming from the private sector as you say, and as has been argued by Bill Joy and others. We need to restrict the private sector for that reason. USA, China and EU are the three key players to achieve that world wide>>
Now the truth comes out. Surveillance monitoring and control of private companies and the people who work for them. First you said only the EU, China and the US had the resources and they could “trust” and “understand” and monitor each other, now its only private companies and only within the EU, China, and the US that have to be “watched” and “controlled”. What will you do with some brilliant biologist who decides to move to Iran? Jail him? Or kill him to just to be certain he doesn’t get there? Perhaps you will kill his wife and children too just in case he taught them what he knows? How far are you willing to go? Will you exterminate any students he ever taught? Liquidate his friends neighbours and associates just to eliminate any “uncertainty”? Will you do this with every scientist who wants to leave the country? How about every scientist that someone ELSE said was going to leave the country? Networks of informants to report on each other perhaps? When accusations arise that seem like petty jeaoulosy, will you liquidate anyway just to be “safe”? Will you build a wall around the country not to keep non-citizens out, but your own citizens locked inside? Because if you really want to stop the advance of technology, those are the things you are going to have to do. ARE YOU LISTENING TO YOURSELF?
Do not presume to lecture me about technology, I spent most of my life in technology. My security clearance has long since lapsed but I used to have one that would shock you. I’ve done business with defense and aerospace companies and pure R&D companies and my signature is on a raft of non-disclosures. I’ve seen the stuff that is coming, and some of it is scary, but none of it frightens me as much as people like you, and it would frighten me a lot more if the people who are working on it were suddenly persecuted by people like you and had to escape to Iran or Lybia to continue their work and keep themselves safe.
Do not presume to lecture me either about Bill Joy. I care no more about his politics than I do Einstein’s and you should take your own example on that matter. I respect him as a scientist, and I cashed his checks for five years. I’ve sold his products to people who had code cases handcuffed to their wrists. I’ve been in a command centre when a high level alert was issued resulting in me being locked in a room with not one but two guards armed with automatic weapons until it was over six hours later. I had to p*ss in an empty water jug. I know which country instigated the incident and I know why the coordinated cyber attack failed.
So don’t lecture me about the possibilities because I have seen sh*t that would turn your hair grey and not a single bit of it frightens me as much as you and the people who listen to you do.
Buddenbrook (12:47:28)
I have asked repeatedly for people to quote, not paraphrase, not give your own interpretation, but quote, the claims by other folks that you disagree with. This is an example of why I ask for that. I had said:
Do you see Ravetz’s name in there? I am not “blaming Ravetz”, that’s Buddenbrook’s own interpretation. I am saying that repeated claims that we have to act immediately have pushed people to precipitate, unconsidered, meaningless actions. I have noted that this mantra of “decisions urgent” is part of the core of PNS.
If Buddenbrook had actually quoted me, he would have been forced to admit that both of those statements are true. The push for immediate unconsidered action has led to the waste of billions. The idea that we need to abandon science if (inter alia) decisions are urgent is central to PNS.
My conclusion from these facts is not that Ravetz is responsible for Kyoto. My conclusion is that the idea that we need to abandon science in situations covered by what Ravetz describes as the “mantram” of PNS, “facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high, decisions urgent”, is a very destructive and dangerous idea. Kyoto is the result of fools following bad pseudoscience. I have never said that Ravetz was to blame for Kyoto, that’s a fantasy from Buddenbrook’s unbirthday party …
Phil,
You will not find many threads with CO2 in the title on WUWT.
CO2 is kind of off topic around here!
REPLY: we have plenty of articles with the tag CO2, see the category selector at right. What is off topic is your repeated attempts to use WUWT as a vehicle for promotion of your own pay per download article on the topic. I’ve warned you several times, yet you persist.
I’m tired of your attempts at exploitation followed by blaming me for your own inability to see your own misdeeds. So I say this: get the hell off my blog and stay off! – Anthony Watts
MODERATORS TAKE NOTE: This commenter is permanently banned.
davidmhoffer,
The topic is PNS. I don’t see your life story as a credible argument in any way. I mean if we go back to the first steps in western knowledge Socrates didn’t argue “I saw some shit in Syracuse you wouldn’t ever believe, and therefore I’m right and you are wrong”. It’s just pointless. The dangers inherent in futuristic technologies and the complex challenges posed won’t go away just because you have done A or B. Argue your case, in terms of logic and substance.
Willis,
“Do you see Ravetz’s name in there? I am not “blaming Ravetz”, that’s Buddenbrook’s own interpretation.”
Willis in his previous post commenting on Kyoto: “billions and billions of dollars poured down a rathole, for nothing. I lay that at the feet of Ravetz and PNS.”
Yes, I do see Ravetz’s name in there. And it’s a mad hatter thing to say, to blame Kyoto on Ravetz. It’s so devoid of all realism, built on mere couple of references to Ravetz in tens of thousands of climate science papers, articles and columns. I mean I can’t believe someone would actually claim that seriously. It’s surreal.
“Please, calling people “evil” goes nowhere. “Evil” is torturing babies. “Evil” is using poison gas on villages. Ravetz may be trying to “change the rules” with PN”S”, but that’s so far from evil as to be disappointingly bland.
Also, calling people “evil” unless they are literally torturing babies just gets your vote cancelled. People will just decide that you exaggerate, that you are OTT, and they will not listen to you any more.”
Steve happens to be using the word correctly. That which destroys good is evil.
The definition of ‘definition’ is the set of distinguishing characteristics, not a list of elements in that category. Failure to properly define the word is the epistemological failure that makes a sincere person doubtful of judgement.
As far as having an adverse effect on persuading someone to one’s cause – it’s been proven to be effective and enduring. The notion that you were born that way has been a keystone in the architecture of perhaps the longest lasting of these. Your evil destruction of the planet by living and breathing is keystone in the architecture of this one.
If something is evil, sane men hate it. That’s why it’s in the interest of post normal ethics to make the idea subjective and mutable by consensus. The benefit of the doubt has been an industry since the world’s oldest professional got an unsolicited manager.
I hope you enjoy the article I have written about gate-keepers Anthony.
You feature quite prominently in it.
I do not have a pay per download article on my site and it is extremely dishonest of you to imply that I do.
I have had your moderators messing around with my free speech all day and I don’t take that kind of thing lightly.
You have always had a problem with me Watts and we both know why.
It is because I can see through it all.
I can see through the AGW scam. I can see through the “greenhouse fraud”
and I can see through your gate-keeping site.
I know what you are and what your purpose is and I intend to let as many of your readers know as possible. I have saved the links to all your regulars and I promise you this. By the time I’ve finished you won’t be able to sleep in your own fucking bed you despicable little worm.
How dare you accuse me of misdeeds you gate-keeping pice of shit. Who the fuck do think you are?
You will rue the day you fuck with, mark my words.
REPLY: I’m leaving this up so that others can see just what kind of person you are. Read my policy page if you think you have been treated unfairly. Note that I clearly do not allow links to commercial websites. When you first started posting here, you linked to an article for money for your booklet, on a commercial website that sold your other wares also. For example, the current page link you keep trying to post to WUWT contains links for your other commercial ventures which include:
Music | Video Samplers |Synthesizers |Other_Stuff |Quit_Smoking
Free speech is one thing, expecting me to promote your commercial works within the same page even after being warned about it is something else entirely different. I’m not required to link to your website by any law. Further I have a policy posted on it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/policy/
An appropriate approach for you would have been, “Anthony, that booklet I wrote is no longer on a “for pay” website, would you please consider giving me a boost? Instead, you’ve tried to sneak it in, even after being warned, also posting under the other names:
Victor Volcano
xxx@nospam4.us
Sophistry in politics
xxxxx@madasafish.com
Your actions have not been up front, nor even with the most basic of courtesy.
– Anthony
Willis,
Ravetz is a smart guy. He is perfectly capable of realizing the results of the policies he is advocating in his AGW and PNS support. This easily has the potential to destroy western civilization which feeds, shelters medically cares for and gives huge life opportunities to billions of people and which for all its imperfections is the best us poor humans have managed to do so far.
I think evil is not inappropriate, as if western civilization collapses there will be more than enough baby torturing and other things which meet your definition of evil to go around.
Buddenbrook needs to read Larry Niven’s “Known Space” series. Besides being highly entertaining it shows a glimpse of a hi tech world where technology development has been suppressed and is in the hands of the UN or rather its executive mechanism, the ARM(Association of Regional Militia).
It should be plain that this puts an uncertain person at a disadvantage.
Having to substitute consensus that ‘judgement is evil’ (which resolves to a self contradiction, as usual) the doubtful but sincere person forbids himself to use the word- yet he must wear it before all his oppressors and suffer the shame.
That’s why you need proper definitions. Logic can not be done without them.
That’s why post normalism seeks, as it has in its various guises though history, to deprive you of definitions – it renders you unable to evaluate things properly.
Reason is your basic tool of survival. If you can’t do critical thinking, you are easy prey in the post normal ecosystem.
Orwell knew. He had very keen definitions and did fine critical thinking and he knew what was evil. You don’t need to make a mess to destroy a human being. It can be done methodically by hacking their psychology. First you destroy their epistemology, then their metaphysics. Then you eat them.
It’s all very civilized. Fraud accomplishes the same goals as looting with a fraction of the shooting.
You are so full of it Watts. I have never promoted my book about CO2 on your website for money and you know it.
The fact that I also have another book on another page of my site has nothing to do with you and you just use that as an excuse. You have plenty of others here who link to their commercial products and you don’t have a problem with them.
You know damn well my CO2 book is free of charge because you have fucking read it yourself so don’t play word games with me you prick.
I have always known what you do here from the first time I posted on your threads it was obvious to me that you are operating a gate-keeping operation. Out of all the articles you have on CO2 you do not have one that even comes close to challenging the so called “science” behind the greenhouse effect. In fact quite the reverse.
Never mind what kind of person I am, lets talk about what kind of person you are.
You have gone out of your way to be hostile to me and we both know exactly why. You are gate-keeping this issue and deliberately keeping people focused in the wrong direction.
That makes you a very despicable dangerous character. If you had concentrated as much effort on the subject of CO2 as you have on temperature for example we would not even need to have this conversation.
Instead it falls to a non-academic like myself with meagre means to step up to the plate and try to avert Global Tyranny and 80% population reduction. While the whole time you try to distract everyones attention away from the one topic that can kill this bullshit once and for all.
That is the sort of person you are Watts.
We both know it.
Your reaction to my post about CO2 say’s it all. You will never justify that and it just confirms that quite obviously, CO2 is a very touchy subject for you.
I don’t give a shit how you selectively leave up my posts to discredit me. I expect nothing less from a despicable little fucker like you and you can be sure as hell I will do everything in my power to do the same to you.
Your excuses and bogus justification for hostility towards me are pathetic and unconvincing. I have been in this game for too long not to know what I’m dealing with where you are concerned.
It is simple. CO2 does not cause global warming.
You know it, I know it, and anyone with half a brain who’s livelihood doesn’t depend on this fraud, knows it. For those who have lived a rather sheltered life, that is about six+ billion of us who know it.
I have spent the last two years gathering all the evidence I need to verify my findings. I have a solid case against AGW fraud with regards to CO2 and that is a threat to your little caper here at WUWT that much has always been obvious.
If you think I will allow a weasel like yourself to get away with treating me with the level of disrespect you have shown me, think again.
You have been on the wrong side of me since I first discovered WUWT and saw it for what it was. I have kept that knowledge pretty much to myself so as not to make too many waves while I fished around for clues.
Well I’m all done fishing. I’ve got what I came for which is why I have deliberately not avoided speaking my mind today.
Anthony Watts you are threat and a danger to humanity. Good luck to you, you will need it when I am done.
REPLY: Well Another post we’ll leave up from you. But you really do have it all wrong. I’ll try to explain without further exciting you.
My only objection is that your links go to a commercial website, in violation of the site policy. That’s it, nothing else. You’ve been pushing hard to get your stuff on WUWT, I’ve told you why, the policy says why, but you insist its all my fault becuase you haven’t adhered to policy.
If for example you put your writings on Blogspot/blogger, a free service which costs you nothing. I’d have no issues. But you have them with your other wares. I’m not obligated to link to your commercial website. It is that simple.
If for example you put your writings up on https://www.blogger.com/start Then any link is not a commercial site with other wares for sale. And then my objections would be removed, and providing you apologize to me publicly for your nasty display of cussing and labeling here, I’ll allow it then.
As for my issues with CO2 versus yours, this post here may interest you as it is really all you need to know about the CO2 issue.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/25/what-does-a-reduction-to-350-ppm-of-co2-get-you/
Logarithmic response, thus CO2 is not a crisis. Here’s another good post on the issue just over a month ago: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Of course if you want to declare me evil to the world simply because I refuse to allow links to your commercial site, that’s your right too. However it really would be much easier and better for all involved for you simply to move your writings to a non-commercial site like blogger, and thus remove the objections.
Of course if you want to go down the libel path, that’s fine too. But it sure won’t help you get your CO2 message out as I won’t link to defamatory things either and it certainly won’t win any converts when you write as you have done here today.
Think about it. – Anthony
Buddenbrook;
davidmhoffer,
The topic is PNS. I don’t see your life story as a credible argument in any way. I mean if we go back to the first steps in western knowledge Socrates didn’t argue “I saw some shit in Syracuse you wouldn’t ever believe, and therefore I’m right and you are wrong”. It’s just pointless. The dangers inherent in futuristic technologies and the complex challenges posed won’t go away just because you have done A or B. Argue your case, in terms of logic and substance.>>
I have, and you have studiously avoided answering. You suggested (repeatedly) that I did not understand the magnitude of the risk, and I advised that my personal expertise in the area of massively destructive technologies, both ones currently deployed and ones “on the drawing board” vastly exceeds your own. You referenced repeatedly Bill Joy, whose science I am far more acquainted with than you, and I took you to task for accepting his politics on the basis of his expertise in science, while rejecting Einstein’s politics despite endorsing him as the greatest scientist of the 20th century. That you wish to both aprobate and reprobate while accusing me of a lack of logic and substance suggests that your position is either entirely disingenuous, or that any degrees in philosophy or law that have been granted to you should be revoked.
You proposed that suppression of science and intrusive surveillance and control might be acceptable. I pointed out that it is not practical to secure the cooperation of the likes of Al Qaida and Iran on this issue. You retreated to the position that only the EU, US and China were capable of this kind of science. I pointed out that many countries outside of this group had research capabilities that rivaled that of those entities, and that break through innovation tends to come from individuals and small organizations in any event, and thus their research could be conducted almost anywhere, and that weapons of mass destruction were within the capabilities of even very undeveloped nations. You then retreated to the astounding position that not only was I right that small organizations are where innovation comes from, but that this meant that the surveillance, suppression and control you propose be applied only to private organizations in the EU, China and the US. When I gave you your pants back, I had no idea you would wear them on your head while walking blindly in circles and declaring yourself the winner of the race.
I also explained to you that suppression and control of scienctists and their work is not practical without the most extreme and odious practices, an issue which you have avoided responding to. I have provided to you a real world example where repression and persecution caused scientists to flee to another country, taking their knowledge and expertise with them, and quite possibly reversing the outcome of the second world war. Again, you have avoided the point that repressing science and scientists in our country is not just impractical, but that the consequence of trying to do so ensures that any breakthroughs achieved will be delivered into the hands of those who would do us harm. I have explained that getting to the breakthrough first allows one to negotiate from a position of strength and to develope defensive strategies, while getting to the breakthrough late requires surrender to the enemy who may well make the draconiam measures you propose look attractive by comparison. Again and again, you have failed to respond. I made the point that the power associated with the measures you so blithely propose, is unlikely to be relinquished willingly when the threat has passed, absolute corruption being its far more likely outcome. Again, you have studiously avoided responding.
I have with humour, sarcasm, facts, reason and logic destroyed your position at every turn. You have retreated, backtracked or reversed your position half the time, and failed to address the major points I raised the other half. Now you are reduced to complaining that my life story is not relevant, and whining that I am not making an argument based on logic and substance. On this latter point, I may have identified the problem. I stand before you with my evidence clearly presented, and you, having your pants pulled firmly over your head, proclaim that it does not exist because you cannot see it. My life story is in fact relevant. You have no expertise in the science that you proclaim as horror, nor in the tactics that countries are using right now, today, against each other, and so your pronounce my own as immaterial. This is in fact PNS. The substitution of fact and experience with imagination, the implementation of solutions born of fantasy and horror over what is practical and achievable, the rallying cry of despair and fear as a call to arms against not our enemies, but ourselves. I say the village is safe on the plain. You predict disaster and demand that we move the village to the foot of the volcano to make more efficient the sacrifice of virgins to prevent its eruption.
Frankly when we started this I was having fun at your expense. You said some dangerous and foolish things for which I took you to task. I had no idea that you were such a committed repeat fool, and so even more dangerous than I had at first supposed. I’m not having fun anymore (really, I’m not) but I’m not getting worn out either. You want to keep throwing up drivel, I will keep hosing it down. You can spout your drivel, and I will defend your right to spout it. But the village stays on the plain, and that too I will defend.
Are you threatening me with libel action you silly little man?
You need to see what I have written first before you can start throwing accusations of libel.
Do you think I’m a fool Watts? Do you think I can’t write a piece about your gate-keeping activities without falling into that trap?
Don’t bother trying to mitigate your behavior with more excuses about my site being a commercial site either. Thats just bollocks and you know it. Don’t you forum etiquette me either you ignorant, rude little cunt. You have one rule for me and another for every one else. You single me out for one reason and thats because I am a threat to your little operation.
You have falsely claimed that I had my book for pay for download and that as you know is a bold faced lie.
I’m not writing about WUWT out of spite or revenge. I do it because its the right thing to do.
It is part of what I set to do in the beginning. To break this fraud. You are part of that fraud as far as I’m concerned. You have been complicit in causing those looking for answers, to look in the wrong direction. There I have libeled you again, so fucking sue me.
Finally, I do not need any lessons on CO2 from sophists thank you.
REPLY: Re: libel, No but when you say things like “when I get done with you” (and that’s putting it kindly) related to an article you are writing, it does suggest libel from you.
Your whole point of posting here on WUWT has been to draw attention to your booklet and to get people to give you money for it. It is a commercial site, with goods for sale and a dot com address, so that seems quite clear. Again I’m not required to post links to your website, and your argument that I’ve denied you free speech is pretty flimsy (and funny).
Like I said you could have avoided the whole issue months ago by moving it to a non commercial website. You still can.
I don’t need to hurl insults, four letter words, or threats, reasonable people will be able to see who’s being unruly or writing out of spite/revenge here. The unreasonable ones are unreachable anyway, so I’m not worried about them.
You’ve staked your position quite clearly, and I’ve given you an out. Move your content to a non-commercial website like blogger, make a simple apology for the filthy words, and I’ll give you a link. Your choice will demonstrate what is really important to you.
– Anthony
berniel wries:
“PNS is not Kulnian but post-Kulnian:
Dagfinn and Buddenbook are at risk of confusing PNS with Kuln’s theory of scienific revolutions. Ravetz is not claiming that the post-normal sciences (ie Enviro Sciences) are in a state of ‘revolution’such that we are moving to a new paradigm, as per Kuln. At best we could say that he is doing to Kuln what Trotsky did to Marx, that is, he is proposing a “permanent revolution” with no anticipation of ever settling into a new paradigm inwhich normal science could then start over (as per after Newton and Einstein). This is a departure from Kuln, who defended-to-the-end his ‘realism’ against Post-modernist interpretations that pushed towards absolute relativism.”
The man’s name is Kuhn, not Kuln. It is impossible to be post-Kuhnian. His laughable account of conceptual revolutions admits the interpretation that a change of one term can count as a revolution. This was soon discovered by the people who most need revolutions and flexibility in revolutions. They are art historians. The number of dissertations written on Kuhn by art historians exceeds the number written on artists. Kuhn’s work found its natural home, the intellectual sewer. So, there you have it, not only a logical but a practical reductio ad absurdum of the grandest waste of time foisted upon Anglo-American philosophy in the last 100 years.
Anthony;
Re Politicians Cost Lives
Gosh. And I worry that some of my stuff is over the top. How you managed a civil response to that last tirade is beyond me. Just in case he is still lurking, and as a way of thanking you for what you are doing on this blog, I have learned here about;
CO2, ice extent, urban heat island effects, statistical analysis, trend analysis, cyclical effects of orbit, moon, sun spots, PDO, ADO, cloud formation, ocean conveyer belt, solar conveyer built, detailed analysis of a dozen or more fraudulent papers, Argo buoys, ocean heat content, sea levels, tolerance, PNS, weasels, half a dozen satellite technologies, tornado and hurricane trends, carbon cycle, clamatology and other reconstruction techniques…
and that’s just off the top of my head over the last few weeks. I know you probably did temperature in there somewhere, but I just can’t read every last post. When there is something scientific I really want to understand, I no longer google, I search WUWT. Its faster, the discussion following is as good or better an education as the article, the links to the evidence are easy to find, and there’s some decent humour threaded throughout to lighten the read.
Thank you Anthony.
Again you accusations are completely false.
Your login asks for my URL and I give it. I know it links to my website because I am familiar with wordpress.
You have painted me out to be something I’m not so that you can discredit me in front of the forum.
When you said I was banned from posting it had nothing whatsoever to do with my website and everything to do with my comment about CO2 being off topic.
But hey if you want to tell lies to yourself go right ahead. If you want to tell lies to the whole forum when they can see for themselves what happened, be my guest. But I will not allow you to try and humiliate me with your lies.
My comment about CO2 being off topic was why you banned me, not my website.
You have a guy who posts here who’s handle links to his site which sells aviation navigation equipment. I can’t find it at the moment I’ll be honest, I’m still raging at the moment and I’m not even going to try.
The point is that your objection to my website is an excuse and a poor one at that.
My website is the only one I have. It was initially meant to be for my music and film projects. When I started out on the AGW fraud path, all that stuff went on hold. You have painted me out to be deviously trying to punt my wares on your site and that is simply a false accusation. As you can see for yourself there is nothing happening there. I have made no money at all through the methods you accuse me of and quite frankly, if I had to rely on such methods to make any money I would have starved to death a long time ago.
As I say I do not solicit money for my book on CO2, and your insistence that I do is deliberately false and is nothing but a smokescreen for your own poor behavior towards me.
Now to save face you have humiliated me by publicly displaying posts which you led me to believe, would not be excepted on this thread.
More deception of which I hope you are proud.
For the record my efforts with respect to my book and website are completely selfless and self funded. I am engaged in this debate purely for my feelings of responsibility to my fellow humans and truth, that is it.
If you find it necessary single me out for that, it say’s more about you than it does me.
As I say, the only reason there is a link to my site is because you have my URL.
The claim you make about me repeatedly promoting my book here is an old issue we had back 6 months ago. I seem to remember apologizing for that once already.
Yes I want people to look at the evidence I have presented on my site, why wouldn’t I? But I make no money at all and I’m out of pocket to the tune of 1000’s with all the time I’ve put in to this.
The fact that you are so keen to humiliate me and discredit me while using such flimsy excuses and deception rings alarm bells and raises my suspicions.
I have no intention of moving my information to another site it stays where it is. Your justification is hypocritical, bogus and only seems to apply to me.
There, I have calmed down enough to stop swearing and start proof reading again.
REPLY: Look you got off on the wrong foot here. You carpet bombed your book promotion across several WUWT threads, multiple times last year. I told you to stop, you did it again. Last night you posted a request for contributions. I’m not here as a revenue source, advertising source, or traffic driver for people that want to exploit the volume WUWT has.
Reasonable people generally ask “Anthony could you give me a plug for this (book, website, paper, article, movie)?” and quite often I’ll do so if the content has merit. But you just started thread bombing. Imagine if you had a party of close friends at your house, and somebody showed up passing out flyers to the guests without even asking. Wouldn’t you tell them to bugger off? I sure would. As stated in my policy page, this is my home on the Internet, so I reserve the right to boot out party crashers, drunks, and door to door salesmen just as I would at home.
Your website offers goods and services for sale, my long stated policy says I won’t link to sites that are commercial in nature, yet you persist. If some guy is advertising aviation parts, show me where and I’ll boot him off too. There’s thousands of comments here, close to half a million now, with volunteer moderators doing work when I can’t, I don’t pretend to have read and approved every one of them.
Your methods though brought immediate attention because they were so many and so persistent.
That’s the whole argument. I don’t have any other issue with you. I don’t disagree with you about CO2. Just stop trying to use WUWT as a traffic driver for your website, make an apology for the foul words, and you can post again. If you want to link to your book, fine with me, but it has to be on website like Blogger where you aren’t selling other stuff. That’s been in the policy page for months. If you don’t want to do that, OK, that’s fine too, but I choose what I allow on my own blog, not anyone else.
As for the foul embarrassing foul language, hey that’s all on you. You did it knowing full well that I had the option of publishing it, and then you did it a second time saying “you don’t care”. If I was malicious, I could take your name off your website (since you prominently display it there) and connect it to your words here.
But that’s not my style, I don’t need to be malicious to defend what I do here. However when somebody makes threats, I will do whatever it takes to defend myself and my family, as would most anyone.
– Anthony
Buddenbrook (14:59:54) : edit
NOW do you see why I am saying quote my words that you are responding to? I find what I think you are talking about, I respond that there’s nothing in there about Ravetz and Kyoto, and it turns out that you were talking about something entirely different. Quote what you object to so we know what you are referring to.
w.
Politicians cost lives (18:53:13),
If I were a psychiatrist, I’d prescribe Prozac.
Heh. Post Normal Blogging.
=======
Hey guys,
Does anybody happen to know where I might find information about
CO2 debunked as a “greenhouse gas” backed up by easily reproducible experiments and verified by real data that has been established and excepted science for over half a century?
Just curious. Thanks.
REPLY: Curious, you spelled “accepted” as “excepted” just like “Politicians Cost Lives”. Must be catching. – Anthony
Reply 2: Anthony, I think you are confusing the class clown with the original offender ~ ctm
davidmhoffer,
You haven’t “destroyed” “my position”. The problem is, that you haven’t even begun to understand the argument, but have substituted for it your own pre-conceptions and strawmen. It’s ghosts and phantoms that you have chosen to chase, instead of dealing in logic and substance.
You have failed to understand the crucial difference between 20th century and 21st century techonologies. You make direct analogies between the two, while they are crucially dissimilar for 20th century approach to work in the 21st. Rest of your posts consist of increasingly aggressive and juvenile personalization of what should be a philosophical discussion, which doesn’t make you any more convincing even if you think you are being witty, which you are not.
I’m firm in my position, as it is constructed on substance and logic. Your “solution” of an arm race and free hands for the private sector in techonologies far more dangerous than anything mankind have unlocked so far is irresponsible and unacceptable.
USA, China and EU are the key players to avert this risk world wide. Not just in USA, China and EU, letting others to be free to do how they please as you have wrongly interpreted it. It’s far more difficult for “the Al-Qaedas” you keep referring to, to be making their own nano assemblers in a world where the techonologies are being controlled, than in a world where research in both governmental and private sectors would be non-restricted, competing against each other, spreading like mushrooms.
And again, contrary to your pre-conceptions and assumptions, this wouldn’t halt all research and for an example prevent multinational and supervised joint projects that would develop defenses against the risks and potentially hostile threats. Risks and threats that would now be considerably smaller, when the research would be approached and controlled with the caution and prudence necessary.
There, of course, are no perfect solutions here, solutions without their faults. A 100% tight surveillance network is of course an impossibility. Yet, when the research is prevented from being easily accessible, the risks that are potentially posed by lone unabomber type madmen, which I personally think would pose a bigger threat than “Al Qaeda”, would be less likely to become reality.
The USA of your ideals armed to its teeth in bio- and nanoweapons dictating from a position of strenght is a ridiculous concept in this regard. It would probably only spur on the lone mad scientist, it would do nothing to stop him, but the access to these technologies would be made far easier to him.
And how would you use that position of strenght against any hostile powers either, which now, unsupervised in a world of no surveillance network, would be developing their own weapons in haste?
This is where you go wrong when you fail to notice the dissimilarities between 20th and 21st century techonologies of mass terror. The latter can be developed in single labs, impossible to tract unless societies are opened up for free surveillance.
Today you can notice nuclear facilities which are huge, and it’s impossible of course to make nuclear tests without a notice. And it’s difficult to stockpile vast stores of these weapons for countries like Iran or North-Korea.
But with the 21st century weapons, when you have the technology you can produce billions upon billions of them from basic raw materials. And self-replicators would of course be even more dangerous as they would replicate themselves, a genie that would be impossible to put back in the bottle.
The paradigm, and the narrative have changed. It’s an entirely new framework.
I have tried to get you to see this, but you keep going back to your 20th century cold war paradigms, which are entirely inadequate here.