Dr. Spencer’s essay below reminds me of this famous cartoon:
Over at Lucia’s she wrote a post saying I had banged the Godwin’s Law “gong” by comparing the PNAS skeptic list paper as “stasi-esque”. For people that don’t know, the Stasi were the secret police of East Germany, post WWII, and post Nazism. So Stasi-esque doesn’t qualify for Godwins Law. They were famous for making lists of people and their associations, to use later for what could only be described as nefarious purposes. Their list making (like the skeptic list used for the PNAS paper) is what is the parallel here.
As for yellow badges, here’s what I’d like to see all skeptics wear. Maybe somebody can come up with a theme variation specific to climate skeptics.
We don’t need the negativism that is being fostered elsewhere.
Dr. Spencer has some interesting comments in his post below. – Anthony
===================================================
The Global Warming Inquisition Has Begun
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A new “study” has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) which has examined the credentials and publication records of climate scientists who are global warming skeptics versus those who accept the “tenets of anthropogenic climate change”.
Not surprisingly, the study finds that the skeptical scientists have fewer publications or are less credentialed than the marching army of scientists who have been paid hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 20 years to find every potential connection between fossil fuel use and changes in nature.
After all, nature does not cause change by itself, you know.
The study lends a pseudo-scientific air of respectability to what amounts to a black list of the minority of scientists who do not accept the premise that global warming is mostly the result of you driving your SUV and using incandescent light bulbs.
There is no question that there are very many more scientific papers which accept the mainstream view of global warming being caused by humans. And that might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.
As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.
But those scientific studies did not address all of the alternative explanations. They couldn’t, because we do not have the data to investigate them. The vast majority of them simply assumed global warming was manmade.
I’m sorry, but in science a presupposition is not “evidence”.
Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.
So, since we have no other evidence to go on, let’s pin the rap on humanity. It just so happens that’s the position politicians want, which is why politics played such a key role in the formation of the IPCC two decades ago.
The growing backlash against us skeptics makes me think of the Roman Catholic Inquisition, which started in the 12th Century. Of course, no one (I hope no one) will be tried and executed for not believing in anthropogenic climate change. But the fact that one of the five keywords or phrases attached to the new PNAS study is “climate denier” means that such divisive rhetoric is now considered to be part of our mainstream scientific lexicon by our country’s premier scientific organization, the National Academy of Sciences.
Surely, equating a belief in natural climate change to the belief that the Holocaust slaughter of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis never occurred is a new low for science as a discipline.
The new paper also implicitly adds most of the public to the black list, since surveys have shown dwindling public belief in the consensus view of climate change.
At least I have lots of company.
Amused says: “The state of Climate science now is that everything other than the CO2 emissions of mankind has been eliminated and that therefore, unless this is some Divine Plan, AGW is the only possible answer.”
This is the Argumentum ad Ignorantium, the “argument from ignorance” fallacy. It is the fallacy of assuming that a proposition must be true because it has not been proved false. The implication is that climate scientists know everything there is to know about the climate. But as we know, factors such as clouds are not taken into account by computer models, and there may be other ‘unknown unknowns.’
“Amused” also fails to provide the empirical, testable evidence necessary to falsify the CAGW
TheoryHypothesisConjecture. As Karl Popper shows, a conjecture that is not testable is not even science, but merely opinion.There is a reason that the promoters of catastrophic AGW refuse to disclose their data and methodologies: they know that their conjecture would be promptly falsified, and the result would be the derailing of their lucrative taxpayer-funded gravy train.
Mr Amused can frighten himself all he wants, but the fact is that the climate is acting entirely within its past parameters. In fact, currently the planet is enjoying a “Goldilocks climate,” neither too hot nor too cold, but ju-u-u-st right. That not only absolves CO2, but indicates that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
Amused listens only to people with a pecuniary motive for scaring folks like him. But most here prefer to listen to what planet Earth is clearly telling us. Which one should we believe?
“Amused” says with a final two paragraphs in concluding its unisex hilarious un-denier bombast:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“The state of Climate science now is that everything other than the CO2 emissions of mankind has been eliminated and that therefore, unless this is some Divine Plan, AGW is the only possible answer.
All that remains to discover that is of consequence is how soon and how serious. There is little argument among scientists that the bad is coming soon and that it will be bad. The long term, without serious action, is unthinkable. Some of the bad is here now and unstoppable.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I presume that “it” (i.e. unisex “amused”) is assuming, absent “some Devine Plan,” is that there is no other possible explanation for “it’s” inescapable conclusion that global temperature variations, whether hotter or colder, are unquestionably man-made.
Well, how about the good/bad Sun? And thank goodness that even with any future “serious action” by the un-deniers, the Sun will remain unstoppable!
James Sexton says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Mr. Prall’s efforts were so comprehensive that he actually included a dead person on his list. Perhaps that wasn’t the criteria, but then if that were to be true, how far back does he go?
Well, if we are going to include those who have crossed to the other strand, then we may include Sir John Herschel and Michael Faraday to the skeptics list!
‘“We stand on the verge of a vast cosmical discovery such as nothing hitherto imagined can compare with.”
—Sir John Herschel in 1850, upon the discovery of a link between magnetic storms on Earth and sunspots, to Michael Faraday, the vaunted experimentalist who was investigating the links between electricity and magnetism.’
“Our Misunderstood Sun”by W. Thornhill
“And that [consensus] might account for something if those papers actually independently investigated alternative, natural mechanisms that might explain most global warming in the last 30 to 50 years, and found that those natural mechanisms could not.”
“Courtillot and Jean-Louis Le Mouel, a French geo-magneticist, and three Russian colleagues first came into climate research as outsiders four years ago. The Earth’s magnetic field responds to changes in solar output, so geomagnetic measurements are good indicators of solar activity. They thought it would be interesting to compare solar activity with climatic temperature measurements.
Their first step was to assemble a database of temperature measurements and plot temperature charts. To do that, they needed raw temperature measurements that had not been averaged or adjusted in any way. Courtillot asked Phil Jones, the scientist who runs the CRU database, for his raw data, telling him (according to one of the ‘Climategate’ emails that surfaced following the recent hacking of CRU’s computer systems) “there may be some quite important information in the daily values which is likely lost on monthly averaging.” Jones refused Courtillot’s request for data, saying that CRU had “signed agreements with national meteorological services saying they would not pass the raw data onto third parties.” (Interestingly, in another of the CRU emails, Jones said something very different: “I took a decision not to release our [meteorological] station data, mainly because of McIntyre,” referring to Canadian Steve McIntyre, who helped uncover the flaws in the hockey stick graph.)”
source
Amused. says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:04 am
Given the evidence of the suffering that many areas of the world are already experiencing due to the Climate Change, the smallest amount of conscience would lead you to take the path that every unbiased scientist; every scientist who is not beholden to some financial or ideological interest, says is essential to the preservation of this Planet in a state in which humanity can still flourish.
“Suffering due to climate change?” You can’t be serious. By far, most suffering is due to human greed, arrogance, and stupidity. Weather events, of course enter into it as well, as in Hurricane Katrina. I suppose it is just easier to set up a nebulous (man made) “climate change” bogey man as a convenient scapegoat for all of society’s ills. Some of us though, like to face reality, and deal with actual problems and actual solutions.
…every scientist who is not beholden to some financial or ideological interest… Unfortunately that pretty much rules out every grant-grubbing, government job-dependent CAGW/CC “scientist” pushing your Alarmist ideology.
It is, in fact, the Alarmists who need to check their own consciences about the completely unnecessary and costly panic they are causing about a non-existent “problem” that we humans supposedly have caused. Yes, it warmed a bit last century – a measured .7C, of which possibly 2/3 is due to UHI, poor placement, and station drop out. Wait until we start cooling, a process that may have already started. Then we’ll have a real problem, and one which will certainly require the use of the plentiful and relatively cheap fossil fuels Warmists so much want to replace with expensive and unreliable energies, which would actually cost lives. In fact the question is, how do you people sleep at night?
Wow…quite the late blast from “Amused”, but oh so naive. Good response Smokey.
Anthony is really on to something with the smiley face as the badge for the skeptic/denier. I don’t think it should be changed at all. Subtle, recognizable, and no copyright infringement. Ready made supply of badges and T shirts which could be made more overt by adding the words “Climate Change Realist”. Reflects both an optimistic view on the environment and humanity,
I hope the idea gets real legs.
The comparison to the inquisition is unfair… To the inquisition. The inquisition was supposed to be dealing with matters of faith, the NCAS is supposed to be dealing with science. Instead they too are dealing in faith.
NAS is so corrupted by money and lust for power that scientific method is an inconvenience that they can ignore at will. It is a bit like the worst abuses of the inquisition in this way.
Truth is not a democratic process. It’s all very simple.
If you don’t have clear proof you can say “Everyone knows it to be true”. PNAS saying that they have a higher quality population based on statistically higher publishing rate of their CHERRY PICKED group rather than the mean IQ of all AGW proponents is telling…
In every sense I can think of, the “alarmists” are in the majority Vs the “skeptics”. It’s easier to cherry pick a larger group. If you add in the spoon fed public their mean IQ drops to below average (I assume).
Skepticism is Science and positively created the whole idea of Science.
The PNAS article is nothing more than a cheap trick.
As for the Skeptic Badge, how about just adding an arched eyebrow over one eye? What would be the emoticon code for this? 😉
A happy-face is too general; it doesn’t convey anything specific about the climate debate. I suggest a round button showing a horizontal hockey stick with an upward-pointing blade on the right slashed through with a standard red “NO” line. Simple and clear.
How about replacing the U-shaped smile with a hockey stick that is broken in the middle (forming a sort of V-shaped smile)?
Or how about a pair of upraised hands snapping a hockey stick (with upturned blade at the right), in homage to the logo of the War Resisters League, in which the hands are snapping a rifle? That would be wittier and more annoying to warmists than a mere red-line slash.
PS: Here’s a link to the rifle-breaking WRL logo:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.pritsky.net/WRL.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.pritsky.net/bio.html&usg=__yRVFM37HwNKtIptZsFNfyhQFlFY=&h=130&w=200&sz=3&hl=en&start=2&sig2=-fNpo9NZTh2l8GrFUfuEmg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=RixDTj5-rc6X0M:&tbnh=68&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwar%2Bresisters%2Bleague%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=NlkiTJP5AsqHkAXIz6T8BA
Roy: Do you have any supporting evidence of this statement (publications, data, etc.?)
“As just one of many alternative explanations, most of the warming we have measured in the last 30 years could have been caused by a natural, 2% decrease in cloud cover. Unfortunately, our measurements of global cloud cover over that time are nowhere near accurate enough to document such a change.”
And what is meant by most? And is this a global 2% reduction in cloudiness? What about regional importance?
I am genuinely interested…
Hmm, I posted a couple of smiley badge suggestions a while ago, they don’t seem to have passed out of moderation.
here is one:
http://tubettiworld.com/files/skepticface1.png
And here is another:
tubettiworld.com/files/skepticface2.png
bubbagyro says:
June 22, 2010 at 6:27 pm
…..I find it so fascinating that the high priest, Gore, has no degree in science, but in Divinity, and his minion, Pachauri, has a degree in coal steam engine trains.
I find it interesting, also, that the warm-earthers’ methods have and will cause worldwide famines, perhaps causing a second Dark Age, as the earth laughs, and cools.
___________________________________________________________________
I found it frightening a couple of years ago reading:
“….big investors are “hurriedly moving their wealth out of stocks and shares and into farmland….” The Times article suggests that, “Across the world, hedge fund managers, property developers and other investors” are all ready to buy up British farmland. http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/1237.html
AND
“Barton Briggs, one of Wall Street’s most legendary investment strategists, is advising the rich and powerful to buy up farms and stock them with “seed, fertiliser, canned food. wine, medicine. clothes etc.” (and the “etc” would seem to mean guns to keep away the rest of us…)…”
“The key is going to be agriculture”
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph on Thursday was one of the first mainstream journalists to point out the grim corollary between oil depletion and famine. He quotes Jeff Currie of US investment bank Goldman Sachs:
“We have never seen this before when commodity prices were already at record highs. Over the next 18 to 36 months we are probably going into crisis mode across the commodity complex.
The key is going to be agriculture. China is terrified of the current situation. It has real physical shortages,” he said, referencing China still having memories of starvation in the 1960s seared in its collective mind….
One sure sign of the coming world food crisis brought on by environmental problems and increasingly scarce water supplies is the ever reducing major grain supplies – and China’s present trauma.” Warmwell
The cost of producing food is directly related to the cost of oil, as the recent increase in oil prices showed. Farmers can not “absorb” any more of the costs it has to be passed on but the big buyers are not raising the prices they will pay so farmers are forced out of business. Once a farm is turned into house lots or sold to a mega-corporation there is no going back.
In business life is centered around the good products and the good customers .
Talking dirty about your competitors is a kind of behaviour which is punished in the market-place . The AGW – crowd is showing a lot of faith , but badmouthing others will only harm their cause in the eyes of the public . So by applying all sorts of primitive behaviour a sound reasoning person will start to think : Who needs this ? Let them call us names and let us stand up as grown men and show our persistence without loosing one syllable on judging their behaviour .
@villabolo
‘It seems that many are wallowing in a persecution complex.’
Who’s wallowing you say?
Lets see:
‘As far as real persecutions are concerned there is Senator Inhofe trying to criminalize 17 Climatologists. Also, Virginia’s Attorney General Cuccineli and his strong arm tactics against Michael Mann.
Then there are the real psychos like Lord Monckton who accuses those who believe in Global Warming of being responsible for the genocide of millions in Africa who have died from famine as well as 40 million African children who have died from Malaria. He keeps referring to AGW’s as Nazis, Fascists, Goebbelian etc. ad nauseum.’
.
I’m sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, obvious as it is, but you’re the one that’s wallowing in his persecution complex. Lesson to learn: Less projecting.
Oh and lets see about this, the Nazis, Fascists, Sovs, STASIs, Rumanian Securităţii Statului, all had a common ingredient–“great” list builders and list keepers the lot of ’em, just like the Catholic Church, hence the parallel to AGW proponents who create lists of people “good” or “bad”.
A list builder is always either building his list for violent reasons or for security, but the foundation is the same: Paranoia. See it doesn’t matter whether it’s a no-fly list or a guest list, it’s compiled for security reasons. And it doesn’t matter who’s creating a list of targets because it’s for violent reasons and compiling a list of opponents can been seen as for violent reasons, psychological violence, when the compiler can be defined as stalking people by keeping track of ’em.
In all of this, I am wont to compare the ‘government climate scientists’ to the Tories of old, of whom Samuel Adams addressed in his monograph. It has disturbing parallels:
“Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say ‘what should be the reward of such sacrifices?’
Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!”
~ Samuel Adams~
More scaring: Absence of sunspots make scientists wonder if they’re seeing a calm before a storm of energy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062104114.html?g=0
Gail Combs says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Just tear down Wall Street and turn it into a farm.☺
Here are some of the button/badge ideas listed on the “Ugliness — The blacklist of climate science” blog.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/4728363118_e89d7247a2_b.jpg
Let me know if I missed any suggestions.
I personally like the Not CO2 because it represents both sides of the debate and is thus promotes conversation without being negative (something Anthony mentioned above).
The other that seems to work well graphically is the data with the question marks.
Ken Finney says:
June 23, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Hmm, I posted a couple of smiley badge suggestions a while ago, they don’t seem to have passed out of moderation.
The lifted eyebrow is a fun idea Ken.
[Please re-post, I don’t know what happened to that comment. ~dbs, mod.]
I wonder if the release of the names and affiliations of “skeptics” isn’t leading towards some type of “payback” for all the nasty emails, death-threats, dead skunks etc. that were hurled at Phil Jones, Michael Mann & company?
The RealClimate crowd were furious about such treatment of their heroes, so I wonder if they are not now empowered to conduct e-campaigns of their own?
Last time I commented on loose language on Watts Up With That it set off comment and debate on another site:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-holding-a-belief-unscientific/
I think that lift was more of a peg to hang a different hat on than a serious exploration of the issue of trying to tightly define what is meant without opening the door to the possibility that the scientist is a not dispassionate observer and open equally to any outcome.
Roy says here:
“Instead, anthropogenic climate change has become a scientific faith. The fact that the very first sentence in the PNAS article uses the phrase “tenets of anthropogenic climate change” hints at this, since the term “tenet” is most often used when referring to religious doctrine, or beliefs which cannot be proved to be true.”
The point is well made that it is the use of language of religion and faith that has diverted the scientists involved away from a dispassionate position.
It is not that you cannot both be a scientist and hold beliefs, it is that the use of the wrong verbal and conceptual toolkit leads inevitably to confusion and error.
The equivalent perhaps of trying to use AF spanners on Metric nuts.