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.
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”.