There now seems to be a trenchcoat war brewing between journalists over the Climategate whitewashes and the recent “blacklist”. For example, the WSJ recently ran a story on the folly of the Muir-Russell inquiry, and is being lambasted for taking a stand on the skeptical side. One journalistic camp accepts the blacklist and inquiry decision without question, the other camp sees through it and questions why such basic things as why the inquiries never talked to the plaintiffs (skeptics) and why climate activists need such a list at all except to isolate people.
One such war of words is taking place in an unlikely place ; on the pages of the Financial Post in Canada.
Two columns, two opinions. One in my opinion, ugly, the other matter of fact. You be the judge for yourselves which is which.
First excerpts from Jonathan Kay, titled “Bad Science: Global Warming Deniers are a Liability to the Conservative Cause.”
Followed by excerpts from Terrence Corcoran: Bad politics The politicization of climate science reaches new low with the development of a deniers blacklist
Jonathan Kay:
Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se: Those aforementioned 2% of eminent scientists prove as much. I personally know several denialists whom I generally consider to be intelligent and thoughtful. But the most militant denialists do share with conspiracists many of the same habits of mind. Oxford University scholar Steve Clarke and Brian Keeley of Washington University have defined conspiracy theories as those worldviews that trace important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal; and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their hypothesis, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society. This describes, more or less, how radicalized warming deniers treat the subject of their obsession: They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society. And whenever some politician, celebrity or international organization expresses support for the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community, they inevitably will respond with a variation of “Ah, so they’ve gotten to them, too.”
In support of this paranoid approach, the denialists typically will rely on stray bits of discordant information — an incorrect reference in a UN report, a suspicious-seeming “climategate” email, some hypocrisy or other from a bien-pensant NGO type — to argue that the whole theory is an intellectual house of cards. In these cases, one can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon-landing photos, or the “umbrella man” from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.
In part, blame for all this lies with the Internet, whose blog-from-the-hip ethos has convinced legions of pundits that their view on highly technical matters counts as much as peer-reviewed scientific literature. But there is something deeper at play, too — a basic psychological instinct that public-policy scholars refer to as the “cultural cognition thesis,” described in a recently published academic paper as the observed principle that “individuals tend to form perceptions of risk that reflect and reinforce one or another idealized vision of how society should be organized … Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”
======================================================
Terrence Corcoran:
The reason for noting all this is that “Expert Credibility in Climate Change” was the spring board for a piece in yesterday’s National Post by Jonathan Kay, titled “Bad Science: Global Warming Deniers are a Liability to the Conservative Cause.” The paper, he said, shows that only a tiny sliver of fringe opinion held skeptical views of climate science, and that fringe smacks of right-wing conspiratorial craziness. “One can’t help but be reminded of the folks who point out the fluttering American flag in the moon landing photos, or the ‘umbrella man’ from the Zapruder film of JFK’s assassination.”
One of the first principles of good science and even in life is that before you start jumping up and down on the diving board to do a cannonball into the pool, it is best to first make sure there is water in the pool. This is especially true if the pool is maintained by the scientific mop-and-pail crew that produced “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.”
The paper was cited on Green blogs such as desmogblog as the work of “Stanford University researchers” and by Mr. Kay as “scholars” from Stanford University and the University of Toronto.
Let me introduce the scholars.
James W. Prall, a system administrator and tech support contact for all research computing at the Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) at the University of Toronto. That’s his day job. When not doing that, Mr. Prall spends his free time developing and maintaining a list of some 2,100 climate scientists and ranking them according to whether or not they are climate deniers. Mr. Prall’s academic background is unclear, although his blog site informs he is a Virgo. His views of climate issues are clear, however. He is “all too familiar with the tiny minority of ‘climate skeptics’ or ‘deniers’ who try to minimize the problem, absolve humans of any major impact, or suggest there is no need to take any action. I’ve gotten pretty fed up with the undue weight given to the skeptics in the media and online.”
William R. L. Anderegg, the lead author of the paper, is a biology student at Stanford who did his honours thesis on wetland bird populations. He is a climate activist and a member of Students for a Sustainable Stanford. His picture suggests a free spirit. Astrological sign not readily available.
Jacob Harold, who holds an MBA from Stanford’s business school, makes his main living as a program officer in the philanthropy program at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, set up by one of the founders of Hewlett-Packard and now a giant $7-billion cash machine for green activism and research all over North America, including Canada’s anti-fish farm movement. Mr. Harold’s staff bio at Hewlett says he spent a year “as a grassroots organizer with Green Corps, where he led campaigns on climate change, forest protection and tobacco control.” There is nothing in the postings to indicate whether the Hewlett Foundation funded the black list paper or Mr. Prall’s research. Nor is it clear what role Mr. Harold played in the research.
Stephen H. Schneider is the only member of the four co-authors who can claim status as a scholar. He is Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, author of 450 scientific papers, and a genuine climate scientist, including a lead author on the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Without Prof. Schneider as a co-author, it seems doubtful the prestigious National Academy of Sciences would have published “Expert Credibility in Climate Change.”
Prof. Schneider is also notorious for his views on how climate science should be conducted. Climate scientists, he once said, are like most people. “We’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. “
That’s the scholarly science team that’s maintaining the pool that Jonathan Kay is jumping into, the only scholar being a man who believes in scary scenarios and avoiding doubts.
UPDATE:
While both articles are presented here for readers, over at Climate Progress, Joe Romm doesn’t have the integrity to put up excerpts and links to both sides of what’s going on at that newspaper, only the side he likes, while at the same time bashing WUWT saying it has reached “peak traffic”. Heh. Will he post excerpts or links to Corcoran’s essay to give CP even a thin residue of balance? Doubtful.
Heratland compiled a list of papers that dispute AGW, is that also a blacklist?
REPLY: So you are saying all bibliographies compiled to support your points made in a book, article. website or scholarly paper are now black lists? The difference between what Heartland did and what teh PNAS paper did is simple; one compiled the quality of all citations, then scored the authors by name, Heartland did not.
I read the Post everyday. Jonathon Kay is one of the least respected writers at the paper. I think he’s published by the editors as a journalistic pinata for the other writers to tee off on. It’s certainly not for his opinions.
the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.”
That’s what it’s about – not co2, not weather.
“The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by … flatulent farm animals.”
Hmmm. The gentleman is confused for sure.
Maybe the frustrated climate bards and Blockwart[1] types can get together with ‘educator’ Ian McEwan who complains that ‘Americans are profoundly bored with climate change’ (they didn’t want to read or buy his new book)
See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7895747/Ian-McEwan-says-Americans-are-profoundly-bored-by-climate-change.html
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockleiter
I was most disappointed to see I was not on the blacklist. I’ll have to see about getting on there.
Tis the silly season, here the weather is cold, there it is hot and somewhere else it’s in-between and politics, “everywhere”. Perhaps these academics and their warmist fellow travellers should be nicely named “Posies” (political scientists ?) (posers?) flamboyant, look at me types, that have lost their way in science – sadly……
Mmmmmm! It looks like science is now operating through consensus. Is this how we get to the truth now in science? Let’s go back 500 years then push the clock forward and start rejecting all the lone scientists who made claims and theories that were against the consensus. Then ask yourself where would we be today? Repeat after me CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE!
First the sceptics found they weren’t being funded by public funds or the fossil fuel sector (BP, Shell fund CRU – carbon credits markets profitable for energy cos. etc.). When the sceptics wouldn’t go away they came up with the idea of a blacklist. When the sceptics wouldn’t go away it’s prison time!!! We are almost there good people.
Warmists aren’t part of a conspiracy – they are just deluded.
They constantly try to “prove” the worst, rather than looking at the facts in an unbiased way. They are cowards who can’t admit what they don’t know and who look with envy at those who have the courage to say: “we don’t know” when there just aren’t enough facts.
There is a war of words which is having some affect for those who read the articles. To me that war it just exposes more that global warming is a political issue. But a cold 2010/11 winter is in the forecast for the NH. Mother Nature and ClimateGate are pulling manmade global warming down more effectively than a war of words. I am enjoying that. 🙂
When did questioning become an atrocity, and who decided to conduct the neo-Inquisition?
Kay links AGW sceptics to conspiracy theorists. Yet one of the most egregious characteristics of pro-AGW zealots is an obsession with conspiracies by oil companies, etc. I believe psychologists call it ‘projection’ – assuming your opponent has the foibles of yourself. Kay has not grasped that although most people, including me, expect some warming from AGW, they differ much amongst themselves as to the amount of warming.
“feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by … flatulent farm animals.”
How did we get the blame for that one?
“…In their paper, our pool crew first created a list of good scientists, those who “support the tenets of [anthropomorphic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change….” Terence Corcoran.
The pedant within wishes to point out that “anthropomorphic” should be anthropogenic.
In the wake of the elite media proclaiming the climate scientists to have been ‘completely’ cleared, exonerated, and vindicated by ‘prestigious’ panels in two nations, I think we can expect them to mount a renewed vigorous campaign to make the public aware of the impending climate disaster that they seem to believe has now been confirmed by all these pro forma investigations. The only fly in their ointment appears to be the recent unscheduled unusually-cold winter weather.
Jimbo July 17, 2010 at 1:56 am
Jimbo, we know that science is not about consensus but Joe Public doesn’t and that’s exactly who these articles are aimed at, not us. Cynical and disingenuous propoganda at its worst.
Pointman
“Another stunner about a potential 40% decline in the Amazonian rainforest “appears to have absolutely no scientific basis at all,” according to Roger Pielke, Jr., an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado.”
-Wall Street Journal
Funny how the Sunday Times retracted this very statement and the same thing now appears in the Wall Street Journal.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/amazongate-open-secret/
People like Kay need to simplify and ridicule those that disagree with them because a logical debate quickly runs into the problem that the empirical evidence is insufficient.
And I always get a kick out of journalists who don’t know their dioxide from their monoxide trying to belittle the skepticism of people like Burt Rutan, Ray Kurzweil and Freeman Dyson.
Do they think a guy like Rutan, who designs and builds rockets in order to shoot them into space with people inside, makes a habit of “relying on stray bits of discordant information?”
First article included this:
“entirely independent of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia”
Climactic? Freudian slip or dumbass journalist? You decide.
One day someone from the media will look at the propagada machine and say “Wow, look how high CO2 has risen yet the temperatures are not skyrocketing with them”.
This “climate war” in nothing compared to the war I am having with physicists and Newton’s Law and the assumption Newton made in one of his theories.
No matter how incredibly wrong an area of science can be, the supporting scientists of that field will defend it to the death.
Heh, it looks like they’ve gotten to Kay.
===============
David Elder:
Excellent point concerning projection. The mantra that the denialists are using the same tactics as Big Tobacco and are distorting the science is also never far from their lips. Also, as can be seen from responses to the Guardian debate, pro-CAGWers believe that skeptics should not be listened to and should be demonized whenever possible. It is all familiar and we have Saul Alinsky to thank for writing it down in Rules for Radicals.
Of course, to avoid the similar charges, we need to champion the principles of openness, evidence-based discussions and civility.
Scholars? Right i have seen that before in recent times, it was used by a group that also tried to defend the indefensible. Something about an inside job.
The AGW camp should lea… eh never mind, i never said that okee?
“Mother Nature and ClimateGate are pulling manmade global warming down more effectively than a war of words”
I like that, Mother Nature a sceptic. Put her on the blacklist!
J.M.
Rbateman has coined an apt terminology for the censor science movement with his reference to the ‘neo inquisition’ .
Ian MacEwan ( the novelist) is obviously having problems sorting reality from fiction. He thinks sceptical scientists are OK but the denialists are ‘different and extremely well funded, particularly in America’. How does one engage with MacEwan and people with similar views who give every indication of delusional thinking?
And I see now why I have missed out on my share of the enormous Denialist funding – I am not living in America!
Their conclusion: The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming “comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)…”
So, someone’s “climate expertise” is now ranked by the sheer volume of papers he cranks out, regardless of the quality of work?
Cool. By that metric, I can write 200 three-pagers on helicopter air combat maneuvering and declare myself the leading expert in helicopter-vs-helicopter combat.
*koff*
Shub Niggurath, the retraction was in error.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/retract_the_retraction
In fact, you could have read right here that the retraction was in error.
When you have no proof, it comes down to trust.
It’s almost impossible to get trust back.
and the vast majority of people are tired of being lied to.
The polls are showing that.
Bernie July 17, 2010 at 4:00 am
Beth Cooper July 17, 2010 at 5:17 am
The Guardian ‘debate’? The Guardian’s CIF forum is the most heavily censored blog on the planet! I used to post there until I finally got irritated enough to post the following.
“How strange. I wonder why that comment was censored – sorry I meant ‘moderated’. It was a polite enquiry to another poster who happens to use the phrase “Peace and Love” at the end of each post as does another poster but under another name in the blogosphere. Why’s the word ‘moderated’ being used rather than censored. My feelings won’t be hurt if my post has been censored for immoderate language or content. Is it a spin thing? Of course it is. It’s my fault for being ‘immoderate’ rather than the censors fault for ‘censoring’.
I wonder why? I suppose there’s the central problem – I’m beginning to wonder why. After a while one begins to express oneself in such a way as to avoid the attention of the internet God of ‘moderation’. The first flagstone to conformity on this bastion of freedom of expression called the internet. “Sleepwalking into the surveillance society …”
I believe it was Walter Cronkite who observed that of all the kinds of censorship, the most pernicious is self-censorship.”
The result was immediate banning from posting and the removal of pretty much everything I’d posted there! There’s nothing so intolerant as a liberal blog …
Pointman
Like most Climate bedwetters, Kay talks out of both sides of his mouth. First he says:
“Let me be clear: Climate-change denialism does not comprise a conspiracy theory, per se:” Then, in the same paragraph he opines:
“They see global warming as a Luddite plot hatched by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Al Gore to destroy industrial society.”
So; not an actual conspiracy, just a plot, hatched by the usual suspects. Got it.
Predictably, Kay’s diatribe reads like a laundry list of all the wrong-headed, ad hominem and straw man-laced Alarmist arguments, such as referring to thermogeddonists’ view as “the all-but-unanimous view of the world’s scientific community”, appealing to both Authority and Consensus in one fell swoop.
Fortunately, his is but a last-gasp rallying cry of a dying ideology, and will most likely do more harm to his side than good.
Is it just me or does anyone else see something significant in how the Grauniad has referred to the debate and Steve M?
“Steve McIntyre, editor of ClimateAudit: It was hard to reconcile the much-demonised McIntyre with the open and avuncular Canadian on the stage. Despite being the highest-profile critic of CRU, he pointed out none of the three enquires had asked him to give evidence…”
Hard to reconcile? Much demonised? – who has been doing the demonising, George if not you and your ilk?
And why should it come as a surprise? Is it because you adopted a belief without verifying its truth? Hmmm.
The more I read and learn about the whole question of AGW the more I see the pro AGW side looking like a faith-based belief system (aka a religion).
Bring on more of these debates – and isn’t it telling that open debate is what many pro AGWers seem to be wary of? Spending time (and someone’s money) preventing debate (emails passim) and shouting down those who have questions, issuing lists of those they see as an enemy (when what THEY are doing is asking questions) looks rather like the Spanish Inquisition to me.
And no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition…
I scrubbed down a Microsoft Internet Keyboard, took off the top, popped out all 104 plastic keys, cleaned and dried all 105 pieces, reassembled. Looks almost new. On first test there was a stuck key. Rather than have the rubbery bits between the keys and the circuitry sheets be a one-piece layer as on my Dell keyboard, there are many little rubbery “towers” lightly stuck on the sheets, and some had come loose. By sticking those into the backs of their respective keys before assembly, alignment was assured.
Just conducted the second test this morning, on my Dell P4 with Debian GNU/Linux, modem off. System had some quirks, setting it to “Microsoft Internet Keyboard” helped some, but it was incredibly sluggish. Firefox was very bad, almost unresponsive. I hot-swapped to my old Dell keyboard and reset to “Generic 104 key” then went to Hibernate to make sure the system recognized it. On awakening the browser was still sluggish, I closed all tabs then the browser (which took a while), restarted browser, now everything is normal. I conclude the MS keyboard was sending a high volume of system requests, upon return from hibernate the browser, at the state it was before hibernation, was still trying to process all of them.
The modem was off, no internet access. Was the keyboard desperately trying to phone home to Microsoft? Does Microsoft have some sort of “asset tracking” routine built into the keyboard? Or could there even be a keylogging “virus” in the keyboard trying to upload? Or should I assume something somewhat less paranoid, that Microsoft made sure its keyboard would only work well with a M$ OS?
Remember: “Just because you’re paranoid does not mean that someone is not out to get you.” 😉
I think the thing that intrigues me the most about AGW is the need to shape an opponent’s views in a way that is most easy to dismiss. From Jonathan Kay’s article…
“Have you heard about the “growing number” of eminent scientists who reject the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing the earth’s temperature?”
There are certainly some people that think that man-made greenhouse gases aren’t increasing the earth’s temp. There are some that will read this post. And I’m not sure there is actual evidence to disprove them. But, I suspect, most people that come here agree that CO2 does increase the earth’s temp. The questions are by how much, and will that increase be catastrophic? That is what I question, anyway. What is being rejected is not the science, but the prognostications about the science. So Kay, in his first sentence, creates a straw man he can ridicule, that really isn’t all that reflective of the debate at all.
Conversely, when describing the side he wants to praise, we describes them as such…
“…[about] 97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of [man-made global warming].””
So, to be on that team, you need only agree with the “tenents” of man-made global warming. What that details isn’t clear. But by most reasonable definitions, I suspect Kay would be surprised at the number and the notoriety of the scientists and blogging “sceptics” that believe in the “tenants” of global warming.
So really, he doesn’t disagree with the sceptic’s science. It is their reaction to the science, and their reluctance to raise the alarm with him, that Kay takes issue with. Kay’s sides are not those that accept science and those that “deny” science, although he’d like you to believe that. For Kay, the sides are those that are willing to trumpet the evils of capitalism and consumerism, even in the face of uncertainty about the science, and those that aren’t. And that’s just regular old politics.
Jonathan Kay showed great courage in his column. Clinging to bad or nonexistent science in order to justify big cars, mansions, and gubmint-out-of-my-life could make the conservative movement irrelevant.
We need conservative ideas, and government is often not the solution. Hitching wagons to paid propagandists and sunset industries who make baseless claims about climate science is not a good idea, and many conservatives privately agree with Kay.
As for Corcoran, he questions the credentials of authors who have performed a routine journalistic investigation. He does not bother to dispute the fruits of that effort, because he cannot.
REPLY: “Clinging to bad or nonexistent science in order to justify big cars, mansions… ” Wait, are you talking about Al Gore’s bad science, mansions, cars etc?
From Corcoran:
“Mr. Prall spends his free time developing and maintaining a list of some 2,100 climate scientists and ranking them according to whether or not they are climate deniers.”
And how does one rank “denialists” after they’ve been put on the list? It’s easy to pick one of the familiar names and put them at the top. How does one go about deciding if “denialist #637” really, REALLY should be ranked ahead of “denialist #638”?
And when the trials start, is it fair to sentence “denialist #419” to 6 months less gulag time than “denialist #377”? Are we just let going to let “denialist #1776” off with a slap on the wrist and 2 months of re-education?
I’m sure Mr. Prall does it all very scientifically, don’t you know. The reprisals will be fair and balanced. Someone ought to use the FOI Act and make sure Mr. Prall is using proper, objective criteria.
(Sigh… to /sarc or not to /sarc? That is the question.)
I think we should all have weather by consensus. Every day hand out a ballot as to what that person wants the weather to be. Count up the ballots and ta da that is the weather. It takes a good liberal arts education to even conceive that consensus means anything in the physical sciences. Accepted working hypothesis and simplifications are used all the time in science and engineering, but with the knowledge that they are a hypothesis and not a fact, and a simplification, not a truism. About the only science in which a consensus is even remotely valid is medicine. You may have a patient present with symptoms that may come from one of several diseases and the only way to find out which it really is would be an autopsy. Fortunately those type of diseases are getting fewer and fewer, but still you reach a consensus between several MDs as to how to treat the patient when such patients present.
The alarmist creed..
There is no conspiracy; it’s a conspiracy by big oil to promote the myth of a conspiracy
Mr Kay is the offspring of a talented and erudite lady by the name of Barbara Kay; a fine and distinguished woman of letters, who also happens to be an opinion writer at the National Post. I think it is clear just why Mr Kay has a job where his mommy works. And try as he might, he never quite manages to rise beyond his childish need to hurl invective where argument is needed, nor use thoughtful reasoning in place of his favored hyperbole. Poor wee Johnnie. Always resorting to vitriol and slander in his need to be seen out of the shelter of his mother’s skirts. Conservatism is well served by the likes of Mrs Kay. I’m not quite sure just what Mr Kay claims to bring to the game, but conservatives continue to manage just fine without him.
It’s surprising they don’t talk about money, who gets it, who spends it and who benefits. The basis of the AGW hoax is the dividing up other people’s money … In other words politics wrapped in a science veneer. Maybe the real science people would like to form up a breakout group and pursue truth.
There is nothing in the whole process that says otherwise. It’s as if collective salivation, Marxism, will save all people on planet earth, with few exceptions. It’s surely not about science, for if it were, wouldn’t Africans have DDT to save them from malaria … Just as an aside.
It would be far better for people on earth if we allowed Africans to build coal plants too. Think how much better and improved their lives would be with just something like electricity.
Even though I only agree with one of the columnists (Terrence), I think it’s great the paper can have these completely opposite viewpoints! That makes things interesting. I wish more papers would do that.
Mr Kay is as much a scholar as Mary Kay of cosmetics infamy.
One can laugh at Kay’s presenting Jim Prall the IT tech from University of Toronto as a “scholar”especially when one knows how he assembled his database…
If Jonathan Kay cannot even informed himself on the key paper he articulates his argument upon then what the heck is a news organization paying this clown for? Agit prop?
HMMMmmm,
Seems we struck a nerve. I guess Jonathan Kay does not like the fact some commenters at the WUWT article on July 6th, Sustainability Teaching: “lack of ethical dimension” traced CAGW to a CRU e-mail that referenced Global Governance.
One of the scenarios actually referenced in the Climategate e-mail, 4. Sustainable Development (B1) traces back to UN Agenda 21 the e-mail even mentions Global Governance.
Here is the actual connection between Sustainable Development (B1) and Agenda 21.
“* Sustainable Development ====================
B1] 13th session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development
(Source: Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 5 No. 218, 11 Apr 05)
The thirteenth session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-13) takes place from 11-22 April 2005, at UN headquarters in New York. CSD-13 is the second session to be held since the new multi-year programme of work was adopted at CSD-11 in 2003. The new work programme restructured CSD’s work on the basis of two-year “Implementation Cycles.” Each Implementation Cycle is comprised of a Review Year and a Policy Year, and focuses on a thematic cluster of issues. Building on the outcomes of CSD-12 (which was the Review Year of the first cycle), CSD-13 will focus on policies and options to expedite implementation of commitments in the areas of water, sanitation and human settlements, as contained in Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation and the Millennium Declaration. Various cross-cutting issues will also be addressed. “
If you do a bit of digging you find the UN sponsored Commission of Global Governance and the Father of Global Warming Maurice Strong. Dig further and you find Strong presented a paper to the UN UN REFORM – Restructuring for Global Governance
My computer does not support youtube but useless eater recommended:
AGENDA 21 FOR DUMMIES
NWO / CLUB OF ROME DEPOPULATION & AGENDA 21
Here is 4. Sustainable Development (B1) as depicted in the Climate Gate E-mail.
The central elements of this scenario family include high levels of
environmental and social consciousness, successful governance including
major social innovation, and reductions in income and social inequality.
Successful forms of governance allow many problems which are currently hard
or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of government and
other organisations. Solutions reflect a wide stakeholder dialogue leading
to consent on international environmental and social agreements. This is
coupled with bottom-up solutions to problems, which reflect wide success in
getting broad-based support within communities.
The concerns over global sustainable development, expressed in a myriad of
environmental and social issues, results in the eventual successful
management of the interaction between human activities and the biosphere….”
Sounds like a lovely green utopia doesn’t it.
Who is Ged Davis? (straight from the guy’s mouth)
“Ged Davis is the global energy assessment co-president at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), an international research organization conducting inter-disciplinary scientific studies on environmental, economic, technological, and social issues in the context of human dimensions of global change. Until March 2007 he was managing director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos, which brings together 2,400 corporate, government, and non-profit leaders to shape the global agenda. Before joining the Forum, Ged spent 30 years with Royal Dutch/Shell, which he joined in 1972. Most recently, he was the vice-president of global business environment for Shell International in London, and head of Shell’s scenario planning team. Ged is a member of the InterAcademy Council Panel on “Transitions to Sustainable Energy”, a director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited, a governor of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa and a member of the INDEX Design Awards Jury. He has led a large number of scenario projects during his career, including the multi-year, multi-stakeholder scenarios on the future of sustainability for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and was facilitator of the last IPCC emissions scenarios.”
No connections here it is all a Denialist Conspiracy Theory – move along nothing to see here.
“jcrabb says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:35 am
Heratland compiled a list of papers that dispute AGW, is that also a blacklist?”
T.C. asks…
What is Heratland? A tiny nation on Atlantis?
I have been a subscriber to the National Post for quite awhile now. Jonathan Kay has always stuck out as different from the rest of the editorial staff (like a big pink and green thumb). I imagine he thinks he brings a “balanced perspective” to the pages of the NP. But really, it is just the same tired liberal-left green tripe you see parroted in every other Canadian newspaper. Back when the NP was first introduced to the Canadian market, Canada’s other newspaper, The Grope and Flail, er, The Globe and Mail, a liberal-left green newspaper that spewed out pablum to the masses, was eliminated from the market in Western Canada. For years afterwards The Globe and Mail was given away in banks and bus depots. Nobody would buy it. I imagine Jonathan Kay sees it as his duty to bring a little something of Globe and Mail’s perspective back to the ignorant masses in these markets.
History will judge these people as fools who wanted to jump ship and abandon the dream of human liberty and progress over a trace gas.
jcrabb says: July 17, 2010 at 12:35 am
Heratland compiled a list of papers that dispute AGW, is that also a blacklist?
As you are no doubt aware, crab, Stanford Professor Naomi Oreskes published a paper titled Beyond the Ivory Tower in SCIENCE which purported to demonstrate that there were no articles challenging AGW in the professional literature. Her claim made its way in Gore’s film. The Heartland Institute list is a rebuttal to that canard.
The next position out of Stanford was, of course, Expert Credibility In Climate Change which now admits, essentially, that Oreskes was wrong, there really are papers in the literature written by real scientists that challenge the AGW position, but they really don’t matter because they are not as intellectually sharp or well-informed as the vast, over-whelming majority of credible climate scientists.
Notice a pattern here, crab? Both papers were unbelievably shoddy. i am also intrigued by the way Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus seems to be gaining traction. I was rather appalled the first time I read it and promised myself I’d write a review… it’s better than ECICC, but not by much.
But you already knew all that, didn’t you? Your only purpose here is to distort and dissemble. Must be a satisfying way of life.
Journalism, if not dead, is in a deep coma. Yesterday on CBS radio news a spokesperson for some “climate research data center” or such (did not catch the actual organization name, NCDC?) was put on to tell us that the regional summer hot spell we are experiencing is due to “greenhouse gasses” after which the CBS sod noted that we “just need to get used to it”. Not nearly as hot here in WY and the NW as 4 years ago and overall we have had an unusually cool, wet spring. No note of that. Also yesterday NPR (National Politbureau Radio) reported the job losses and economic decline in LA due to the BP oil spill never noting the even more extreme economic decline caused by the moritorium on deep well drilling. Drillers do make and spend more than fishermen or tourists in that economy not to mention the future impact of the decline in oil and gas production.
I thought it was interesting that Kay rails against the internet because it
So lets look at just one of the bits of info I found googling Ged Davis as I mentioned above.
Gee Oen comment from the man himself confirms the Oil – IPCC – Council for Sustainable Development connection. but don’t look folks you might come up with a GASP “Conspiracy Theory”
Who is Ged Davis? (straight from the guy’s mouth)
“Ged Davis is the global energy assessment co-president at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), an international research organization conducting inter-disciplinary scientific studies on environmental, economic, technological, and social issues in the context of human dimensions of global change. Until March 2007 he was managing director of the World Economic Forum, responsible for global research, scenario projects, and the design of the annual Forum meeting at Davos, which brings together 2,400 corporate, government, and non-profit leaders to shape the global agenda. Before joining the Forum, Ged spent 30 years with Royal Dutch/Shell, which he joined in 1972. Most recently, he was the vice-president of global business environment for Shell International in London, and head of Shell’s scenario planning team. Ged is a member of the InterAcademy Council Panel on “Transitions to Sustainable Energy”, a director of Low Carbon Accelerator Limited, a governor of the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa and a member of the INDEX Design Awards Jury. He has led a large number of scenario projects during his career, including the multi-year, multi-stakeholder scenarios on the future of sustainability for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and was facilitator of the last IPCC emissions scenarios.”
Couldn’t stand to read anymore of this condescending crap. Gee! the guy actually knows not one, not two, but several denialists.
So, when the e-mails explicitly show scientists conspired the withhold and/or destroy data to prevent inspection and confirmation, it is unreasonable to believe there is a conspiracy? Wonderful bit of logic, although, Mr. Kay probably hasn’t bothered to read any of the e-mails and simply believed the panels’ lead statements. After have read Mr. Kay’s ramblings, I’m astounded by his ignorance and arrogance. That man has no ability to discern reality.
His springboard statement, “The group that is skeptical of the evidence of man-made global warming comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications)……” Of course this is true, if one isn’t concerned that we are all going to fry in the next century, why publish a paper about it? The only reason for a skeptic to publish is to rebut an alarmist paper. So, by definition, alarmists will be more prevalently published in climatology papers.
Even starting with his title he was in denial of reality. “Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause”……Skepticism (in regards to climate change) isn’t confined to conservative politics. All Mr. Kay would have to do is visit the world’s most popular skeptical site and see that while many here have conservative leanings, many here don’t. Or go to another popular skeptic site, Climate Audit. Mr. Kay goes on later to describe skeptic sites as “militantly right-wing” I guess if you define people that don’t wish to live in mud huts and discard the advances mankind has made in the last 200 years as militantly right-wing and are skeptical behind the alleged science that advocates such actions, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t jive well with commonly accepted notions of militant nor right-wing.
When he states “many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox …” I believe he’s doing a bit commonly known as projection. For example, the Himalayan impending glacial melt, and (as mentioned in the response) the Amazonian disappearing act caused by warming. The hunting of mammoths causing a prior warming via tree growth, and many more that are well documented here and other places, and I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the several studies (going back decades) convinced of the impending doom of the uncooperative polar bear. The alarmists buy into every single psuedo-science study “so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion.”
Mr. Kay later goes on to say “conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals.” Wow, in one sentence he was completely wrong on several points. While I’ll defer to people here and elsewhere who engage in the various solar inputs to our climate to rebut his statement, solar scientists around the world should be very surprised to learn two things; One, they can’t to mathematics as well as other climatologists and two, they are all decidedly conservative. This doesn’t seem to reflect reality, but maybe we can have Mr. Prall come up with another list on solar scientists or astrophysicists. Another point he got wrong on that one sentence is the reference to “flatulent farm animals“. I will take a leap and state that he’s referring methane emissions from our farm animals. I’m not sure how he ties this to conservatives, concern over methane emissions is a decidedly an alarmist concern. As methane in commonly referred to as a GHG, and greenhouse gases is one of the biggest talking points of alarmists worldwide, I’d suggest Mr. Key do a little more reading on the issues before commenting and displaying his absolute ignorance of the issues to the world.
He later goes on to say “ In fact, “climategate” was overhyped from the beginning, since the scientific community always had other historical temperature data sets at its disposal — that maintained by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most notably — entirely independent of the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, where the controversy emerged. This has been covered in great extent in most places of the literate world. Mr. Key, unless he’s been living under a rock in the last year, should have known 90% of the temperatures used by GISS and the CRU are from the same sources and they simply massage, homogenize, and/or alter the readings in similar but different manners. The “entirely independent” is misleading, too. If he’d bother to read the e-mails, he’d seen where members of each body often compared notes.
When he stated “Thus, generally speaking, persons who subscribe to individualistic values tend to dismiss claims of environmental risks, because acceptance of such claims implies the need to regulate markets, commerce and other outlets for individual strivings.” He missed a great opportunity for an epiphantic event. While many disagree with the tenets of the warmist crowd for various reasons, one of the biggest reasons I engage is because of the last two words of his sentence. One of the basic tenets of the warmist crowd is the need for collective (even globally collective) action. The needs nor the “strivings” of the individual are not regarded in this climate alarmism. They are sweep away by the need for the greater good. Any and all dissent is regarded as anathema and is desperately needed to be discarded and discredited by any means necessary. While many have different perspectives on how the individual should be protected, it is a common theme among democratic/republican forms of government that the protection individual freedoms and liberties are paramount. Indeed, this generally meets the definition of the Free World. The Free World is now and have been literally at war with totalitarian governments for no other reason than the oppression of the individual totalitarian governments engage in be it collective totalitarian or religious totalitarian forms of government. Somehow, the alarmists get a pass on their Orwellian view of the future while all other forms of totalitarian views are opposed to the point of military intervention if necessary. Mr. Kay, in my personal view, any advocate, regardless of how altruistic the motive, of totalitarian forms of government is an enemy to freedom and the individual.
Mr. Kay stated “The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation.” This is one of the most humorous(if one thinks about it in a macabre manner) fallacies of the alarmist crowd. The idea that mankind could or should mandate innovation is astoundingly ….(fill in the blank with your own word). When did mankind stop innovating more efficient ways to do things? At what point did someone decide that mankind has stopped progress in the ways we generate and utilize various forms of energy? Why is it assumed in 100 years we will still be using “fossil fuels” for energy? Given man’s unthwarted progress towards effeciency, from the innovation of the wheel to the splitting of atoms, why do people believe they have to interfere in an otherwise historically proven natural progress of man? I submit, the regulations which have been passed and the taxes implemented and the subsequent societal behavioral changes already occurring have changed and impeded progress in the quixotic mandate for more efficient uses and sources of energy. For an example, how much time, energy, resources,money and lives(yes lives) were cost in the mandate of corn based ethanol? We deprived the world of food sources and raised the cost of food so we could develop a more expensive, less efficient fuel for the combustible engine. Mr. Kay describes this as an “intellectual response“? This kind of insanity is the direct result of the paranoid offerings of people with an inordinate fear of a molecule. The blame lies solely at the feet of warmists such as Mr. Kay and the rest of ilk. Beyond theory, we can go to stated laws, The law of unintended consequences is an adage or idiom warning that an intervention in a complex system invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. But then, as often seen in the climate debate, proper application to established laws of thought, proven by history, is relegated to the trash heap as somehow, climatology is immune to established historical, physical, economic, and social laws of nature.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I thought it needed said.
Howdy, mods.
I’ve still got a comment from 6.43am in moderation. Check the spam bin? It used the d-word several times but not in a context that normally would get one snipped here.
Thanks.
Looks like Kay has escaped the neo-con groupthink of the Notional Post. Maybe his knuckles were sore.
this article is nonsense. i drink liquid globalw arming for breakfest. no idea what any of this means, who care s though, i mean what new knowledge is there except this website gets hits or something. Dont care.
REPLY: Thanks for sharing. May I suggest coffee? – Anthony
RE: Jimbo: (July 17, 2010 at 1:56 am) “‘A few weeks ago, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences published a paper that claimed to have found evidence that scientists who support official climate change theory are vastly more numerous and expert than scientists who do not.'”
Yes, I believe this is more a case of accepting a consensus widely judged to be ‘politically correct’ rather than the result of any independent research or study by the scientists involved. I suspect the same result could be obtained from a survey of night-club comedians, news journalists, or holders of political office. During the last presidential election, I recall strong declarations that Governor Palin was unfit for high public office because she did not even believe in Global Warming. I expect that most university graduates since about 1990 have been taught the NAS official climate change theory.
Crap I should get someone to proof my postings. conspired the, should read “conspired to”. After have read, should read, “After having read”. 6th para…he’d seen should read “he’d see”. 7th para….The needs nor should read “The needs or”….They are sweep should read “They are swept”. protection individual should read “protection of individual”
There are other parts of the post I wish I had stated in a more clear manner, my apologies for the grammar.
I think Kay and his pals need to read again the story of the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ and stop trying to beat up the little boy.
Thanks for giving all your readers an opportunity to comment on the Corcoran and Kay opinions. A main problem with Kay’s position is that climate science offers no set of hypotheses which could explain some of the major claims made by the proponents of AGW and certainly does not offer anything approaching a general theory of climate. AGW proponents offer the hypotheses that describe the properties of the CO2 molecule as part of their science. I accept that as good science. AGW proponents claim that CO2 molecules are distributed randomly throughout the atmosphere. I do not accept that claim because it is not based on experiment and because the important matter, the effects of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere on clouds and related matters, remains an unknown to all climate scientists. However, for the sake of argument, I will accept the claim that CO2 molecules are randomly distributed in Earth’s atmosphere. Yet the only thing that can be inferred from these claims is a warming during this century of 1 degree; that is, all climate scientists agree that the effect of CO2 molecules alone, without the effects of the as yet unknown forcings, is an increase in temperature of approximately 1 degree. Such an increase poses no serious risks.
AGW proponents posit larger increases of temperature and explain that these increases are being caused by what they call “forcings,” the effects of CO2 molecules on cloud formation and related phenomena. However, all climate scientists agree that at this time there is no set of hypotheses which can explain these “forcings.” That is a clear statement to the effect that their science is incomplete in critical areas and that they cannot explain the temperature increases that they insist are happening. As long as climate scientists lack critical elements of theory, I remain unmoved by their reports of increasing temperatures and phenomena related to the increases. In saying that I am unmoved, I am reasoning as the scientist, not the AGW proponents.
AGW proponents have some wonderful hunches about climate changes around the world and some day these hunches might come together as a science or, more likely, as several sciences addressing climate change. However, at this time, climate scientists do not have hypotheses that can subsume all of these phenomena and, thereby, explain that these diverse phenomena are the result of “forcings” caused by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
Instead of theory, AGW proponents offer models. They treat the results of model runs as data and as evidence. In so doing, they are making a conceptual error of the greatest importance. Models are not theories and can only serve as auxillaries to theories. Statements in theories are either true or false and they are held to the standard of empirical evidence. Statements in models have no independent empirical significance because the entire model is solved in a “model universe” created by the programmers. The worst sin of AGW proponents and those who comment on climate science is treating the results of model runs as data. If Mr. Kay is serious in his support of AGW proponents, he might survey those designated as climate scientists on the “blacklist” and ask them if they treat model runs as data and, if the answer is that they do, then ask for a reasoned justification.
The ball has been in the court of the AGW proponents for some time now. If they have a set of hypotheses that can explain “forcings,” good data on “forcings,” and testable predictions about “forcings,” then they should present them. That is a job that NAS should undertake at this time. Sceptics would devour that material. As things are, the best that can be said of climate science is that it is in its infancy and that its maturation is seriously hindered by a few leading scientists who confuse models with theories.
As regards policy, at this time AGW proponents are demanding that sceptics submit to a regime of very expensive economic measures when the sceptics have not been presented with a scientific explanation of why those measures are needed. As a policy thinker, not a scientist, one might ask can we afford the risk of waiting on the science? The rational answer from a sceptic is that there is no evidence for dangerous climate change aside from what is claimed for the science. As someone who grew up on a working farm and has lived a long life, most of it a love affair with the sea, I can assure you that there are no changes here at ground level which indicate that something is amiss.
I would ask Mr. Kay, what if I am not a conservative? And, what if I have never thought AGW is a conspiracy created “to destroy industrial society?” What if my personal lifestyle is not in accord with the capitalist aspirations of our culture? Or if I support measures to regulate markets and the environmental hazards related to industrialisation and agriculture?
I have always asserted the monetization of carbon is being pushed by the rich ruling elite who wisely saw an opportunity in AGW theory to make lots of money. Is there mass collusion on the part of world scientists to fake data and mislead the public? Certainly not. Unfortunately, a few have engaged (at the very least) in unethical behaviour. This begs the question of their personal motivation as it relates to climate change.
When alarmists equate sceptic’s questioning of these facts with paranoid ramblings of the clinically insane, it is nothing more than a slight-of-hand trick designed to detract attention from sceptic’s legitimate concerns. I would argue that an inability to consider the truth behind a conspiracy theory is a symptom of closed-off mind and barrren imagination.
Mike Roddy says: July 17, 2010 at 6:31 am
“Clinging to bad or nonexistent science in order to justify big cars…”
Was Mike referring to all the limos at Hopenhagen?
Kay actually wrote in the original article- “In a new article published in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, a group…”
Is this brand-new Academy more Earth-friendly, use renewable energy for all of its proceedings, recycle properly, eschew incandescent lighting?
Mike Roddy says:
July 17, 2010 at 6:31 am
“Jonathan Kay showed great courage in his column. Clinging to bad or nonexistent science in order to justify big cars, mansions, and gubmint-out-of-my-life could make the conservative movement irrelevant.”
When did concern for individual liberties and freedom become solely a conservative issue? Mike, I’m a conservative. Both fiscally and socially. But individual liberties and freedom isn’t exclusively the purview nor the providence of conservatives. At least, I hope not. But if it is, I’ll proudly stand as a conservative. Are you stating liberals are now no longer concerned with the rights of the individual or that the collective takes precedence? All they all totalitarians? Maybe we should change the political verbiage. As opposed to conservative/liberal to individualism/totalitarianism. Can anyone name or list a totalitarian government which wasn’t inherently oppressive to the populace? Mike, you should re-evaluate who and what you identify with. As for me? I’ll defend your prerogative to spew gibberish, purchase, drive, and live in what ever you desire. If that notion is “irrelevant” to you, then so be it, but don’t think because you wish it away, it will go away. It won’t.
Jimbo said:
July 17, 2010 at 1:56 am
” Repeat after me CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE! ”
It might not be, but most people use concensus as a proxy for science, on matters about which they have no way of knowing better.
That doesn’t make it right, just a very powerful tool for coercing the masses.
re Mike Roddy- Welcome to WUWT. I am, quite frankly, surprised that you would pause from your efforts at Dot Earth to sully yourself here amongst us denialist dunces and suppurating skeptics. I hope you visit often.
You say- “Jonathan Kay showed great courage in his column.”
Kay revealed his stunning ignorance in that column.
“As for Corcoran, he questions the credentials of authors who have performed a routine journalistic investigation.”
Um, no. Corcoran questions and then eviscerates this claim made by Kay and many others-
“…a group of scholars from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and elsewhere…”
If this bunch passes for a group of scholars, the AGW movement is in bigger trouble than I thought. The reputation of PNAS just took another huge hit, thanks to NAS member and co-author Schneider.
Tom Fuller over at Enviro Policy Examiner summed up the PNAS paper very well, and he is a cheerleader for Schneider-
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m6d24-Global-warmings-Stephen-Schneider-The-Light-That-Failed
“In Schneider’s fight for his cause, he allowed his name to be put on junk science–progaganda, and propaganda that will be used maliciously in the future.
The tragedy is almost Grecian in scope. To sacrifice (or at the very least imperil) 30 years of work and acts of undoubted moral courage for the sake of this shabby little stab brings to mind Sir Thomas More in ‘A Man for All Seasons,’ speaking to the perjurer who betrayed him to his death: “Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world… but for Wales?””
REPLY: Mike doesn’t engage, because it bogs him down with inconvenient facts. His MO here is as “drive by poster”. -Anthony
jcrabb says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:35 am
Heratland compiled a list of papers that dispute AGW, is that also a blacklist?
Your ilk is getting more pathetic. And I like that. You keep making it easier for people to see who and what you really are all about. Thank you so much.
Now it’s not just the science, Mother Nature, and ClimateGate that is eroding away ‘global warming’ but it’s the folk that promote it.
John McKay says:
July 17, 2010 at 5:04 am
I like that, Mother Nature a sceptic. Put her on the blacklist!
J.M.
You have to watch out, she might give out some retribution for it. Maybe she’ll turn up the Gore effect to 11 (‘Spinal Tap’ reference). Now that’s some vengeance from Gaia I could live with 😉
REPLY: “Clinging to bad or nonexistent science in order to justify big cars, mansions… ” Wait, are you talking about Al Gore’s bad science, mansions, cars etc?,/i>
Touché!
REPLY: Thanks for sharing. May I suggest coffee? – Anthony
Thanks for this Anthony. It made me laugh! I’ve been way under the weather for five days. This brightened things!
Grumpy Old Man says:
July 17, 2010 at 9:37 am
I think Kay and his pals need to read again the story of the ‘Emperor’s Clothes’ and stop trying to beat up the little boy.
Well, some might be tempted to continue to beat the little boy with 1 trillion dollars at stake.
HA! Insanity … point to a single librul in our congress now who is working for ‘individual liberties and freedom’ … I see not a one, less I have missed something. Would you care to enlighten us/me on same?
.
Jonathan Kay thinks he’s ok, but the nasty skeptics aren’t.
While Terrence C. agrees with me and thinks Jonathan’s not so smart….
The article by Kay is so bad it makes all warmists look idiotic. And then, we have those like Roddy that drop in and demonstrate their own total lack of knowledge. Let’s face it, anyone who thinks skeptics are worried about cow-farts is so far out in left field they will never return. Those that support this nonsense sully themselves.
F. Ross says:
July 17, 2010 at 8:45 am
…..So, when the e-mails explicitly show scientists conspired the withhold and/or destroy data to prevent inspection and confirmation, it is unreasonable to believe there is a conspiracy? Wonderful bit of logic, although, Mr. Kay probably hasn’t bothered to read any of the e-mails and simply believed the panels’ lead statements. After have read Mr. Kay’s ramblings, I’m astounded by his ignorance and arrogance. That man has no ability to discern reality.
… Mr. Kay goes on later to describe skeptic sites as “militantly right-wing” I guess if you define people that don’t wish to live in mud huts and discard the advances mankind has made in the last 200 years as militantly right-wing….
… But then, as often seen in the climate debate, proper application to established laws of thought, proven by history, is relegated to the trash heap as somehow, climatology is immune to established historical, physical, economic, and social laws of nature.
Sorry for the long winded post, but I thought it needed said.
_____________________________________________________________
Excellent dissection of Mr. Kay’s outpouring. I enjoyed it
James Sexton says:
July 17, 2010 at 10:11 am
When did concern for individual liberties and freedom become solely a conservative issue? …. Are you stating liberals are now no longer concerned with the rights of the individual or that the collective takes precedence? All they all totalitarians? Maybe we should change the political verbiage. As opposed to conservative/liberal to individualism/totalitarianism.…
_______________________________________________________
I think that is a great idea. I have always considered my self as a group of one – an individual.
Placing people in categories and then stirring up a “lets you and he fight” has always been very good strategy and that is what I see here. Get the masses fighting among themselves on a non-issue (climate) while I take their money, their freedom and sometimes their lives… but always for the “greater good of mankind” ( and my wallet) has always been good thinking.
(sorry I attributed a quote from you to the wrong person in my last post – fumble fingers)
Jonathon Kay is little more then a shill for the ultra-conservatives. It makes their policies seem almost reasonable. What concerns me in not what he has to say but who pays any attention to it. Here in “red neck” Alberta, more then I am comfortable with, since much of what he writes seems to distract attention and discussion from the real issues. JQP said it best a “pinata function”.
James Sexton July 17, 2010 at 10:11 am
…
When did concern for individual liberties and freedom become solely a conservative issue? Mike, I’m a conservative. Both fiscally and socially. But individual liberties and freedom isn’t exclusively the purview nor the providence of conservatives.
_______________________________________________________
_Jim says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:08 pm
HA! Insanity … point to a single librul in our congress now who is working for ‘individual liberties and freedom’ … I see not a one, less I have missed something. Would you care to enlighten us/me on same?
___________________________________________________________
The “things” in Washington DC are not Liberals or Conservatives, they are politicians and therefore by definition have sold their souls to the highest bidder and that is NOT the voters.
There are actually some very good hearted caring people of the liberal or Conservative persuasion. Most equate the problems in government they see with either “socialism or “capitalism” when it is actually neither. It is “corporatism” a poisonous collusion of government and corporations that takes on the appearance of either “socialism or “capitalism” depending on the viewpoint of the viewer who is unaware “corporatism” exists. Corporations are NOT in favor of Capitalism because that promotes honest competition. Corporations much rather have regulations they administer through the corporate/government revolving door. This allows the cartels immunity to the regulations while using the regulations to stifle competition.
As long as they keep using the “denier” moniker I refuse to listen to anything they say. By using that they are showing how easy they are to manipulate. How low they will go? All in the avoidance of discussing the technical issue. Sad, pathetic and insulting.
To all people out there who label skeptics as “deniers” I can only say:
I’VE BEEN CALLED A LOT WORSE BY A LOT BETTER!
Richard M says:
July 17, 2010 at 2:29 pm
The article by Kay is so bad it makes all warmists look idiotic. And then, we have those like Roddy that drop in and demonstrate their own total lack of knowledge. Let’s face it, anyone who thinks skeptics are worried about cow-farts is so far out in left field they will never return. Those that support this nonsense sully themselves.
______________________________________________________________
Actually I am very worried about cow-farts Why?? Because East Anglia and friends are recommending to the UK government that the UK wipe out 80% of their livestock herds to help meet their carbon emissions quota. Ad that to the biofuel idiocy in the USA as well as the grain traders convincing governments to cease stock piling grain and you have a real recipe for disaster.
If you are not a farmer, let me make it clear livestock are normally raised on hilly, rocky areas unsuitable for raising crops so cutting the livestock herds DOES cut the food supply, a high quality food supply that can not easily be replaced. Meat supplies the Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and vitamin B12 needed for good brain and nerve health.
Funny how the Winnipegers are rejoicing at DeepClimate… Oh yeah, you know the Maple Leaf guy…
Gentle chide. I think you attribute to me a post which I did not make, though I do agree with it.
Gail Combs writes:
“If you are not a farmer, let me make it clear livestock are normally raised on hilly, rocky areas unsuitable for raising crops so cutting the livestock herds DOES cut the food supply, a high quality food supply that can not easily be replaced.”
A farmer who actually knows farming! Hat off to you. And all those sheep in Scotland exist on what is, for all practical purposes, a desert. How can Greens be so ignorant?
@ShrNfr “About the only science in which a consensus is even remotely valid is medicine.”
Although science is a part, medicine itself is not a science. It is a craft.
For the few people that used my posts and the people that didn’t, thank you for the kindness. After re-reading my posts, I could have and should have been more clear in my writings and better practiced in the English language.(Seeing that it is my first and only language.) In spite of my inarticulate mannerisms, Gail Combs and F. Ross seemed to grasp my meanings.
_Jim says:
July 17, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Jim, as you know, there is not one in congress. While this is supposed to be a republic (representative of the public), I find that it is not. Dogma seems to rule the day, for now. Given the expressed views of some of the espoused conservatives, (witness Mr. Kay) it is my sincere hope that their views are in no way attached to or contrived to be attached to mine.
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the/print
The Washington Post editorialized that the attorney general’s demands for data amounted to “an assault on reason.” The fact that the “hockey stick” conclusion stands discredited and Mann and associates are on record manipulating peer review, the fact that science-by-secret-data is an oxymoron, the very distinction between truth and error, all matter far less to the ruling class than the distinction between itself and those they rule.
==============
If anybody is still around on this thread… This is an awesome article.. Pass it on…
The discussion ongoing above regarding more accurate ‘labelling’ of one’s political views is a topic of much interest in political science, and very important given the popular alarmist talking point of writing sceptics off as “right wing nutters”. Such accusers never seem to be aware that there are some self-identified prominent ‘left’ sites and thinkers that regularly issue sceptical views on CAGW (for example, Counterpunch, Spiked etc).
For those who haven’t already come across it, I highly recommend consulting the political compass, it is one model (amongst several) that move people away from the typically binary political categorisation. The black/white categories are worse than useless because they force people unecessarily into camps, whereas in reality people’s political views can be multipolar and sophisticated.
The first thing I thought of when reading Kay’s piece was Richard Nixon’s: “Let me make one thing perfectly clear…!”
I wonder if Kay will admit that he doubts in the existence of conspiracies? Would that make him a conspiracy denialist?
Heartland’s compilation of cranks is to the actual climate science literature as a reel of Road Runner cartoons is to the law of gravity.
I had time for Johnathan Kay because he has defended individuals by commenting strongly on the behaviour of protesters at the G8-G20 summit meetings in Toronto Canada.
However he seems to commit the “consensus” fallacy in his criticism of skeptics. What matters is the truth, not prevailing opinion. Fundamental advances in medical care that we take for granted today, such as control of infections, were achieved by individuals in the face of groupthink. Essential advances in freedom, such as abolition of slavery in England, were achieved by a small number of individuals who set out to change voters’ minds.
Kay has a shortage mentality, evidenced by his desire to “balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship”, which ignores that humans create and produce for life. He rants against the social system that actually feeds people, individual freedomunlike the fixed-pie ones such as Marxism.
(He also does not see the pattern of behaviour in alarmist actions, both private and public. They are not people confident of their knowledge, rather they use falacious arguments like “consensus” , “the science is settled” (when it is clearly immature – there is much to learn), connive to prevent their opponents from being published , and try to smear intimidate their opponents in public meetings and media appearances.
Kay turns out to be another confused loose cannon – a “green neck”? (There is a mindset about that appears to support police/defense but is paranoid about economics and chemicals – Kay seems to fit that. )