John Abraham panics, apparently he and the AGU are forming a "Climate rapid response team"

acementhead says:
November 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Religion, all religion, is applied ignorance..
More exactly, they PROMOTE ignorance and prohibit knowledge (Agnosticism: You do not need to know anything, you only need to believe in our SETTLED SCIENCE-Dogmas-)

Perhaps – “Climate VAPID response team”? Ha ha ha!

acementhead
November 8, 2010 at 12:41 pm
You need to learn some real history instead of the anti-Christian propaganda that is taught in school. It also might do you some good to learn about the Christianity you have been taught to despise so much, before you spout off in ignorance. The same people who used false religion to control people are now using false science for the same end. So according to you, we should do away with science also.

It’s interesting that the “hundreds” of scientists at the top
of the Chicago Tribune story gets whittled down to just
“39 scientists agreed to participate”” as you read on down.
See:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

Djozar says:
November 8, 2010 at 9:53 am
” I’ve seen a chemist try to remove the stopper from a flask of acid by heating it”
Not unreasonable as long as she did it correctly(brief high temp localised heating outside the stopper). But then when I was eight my favourite experiment was to melt about 5 grams of potassium chlorate in a test tube and drop in a crystal of pyrogallic acid, so maybe I’m not a reasonable judge of laboratory safety.

Milwaukee Bob –
AGU update is interesting. however, Neela Banerjee’s misrepresentation has been already been picked up by all the usual MSM gatekeepers.
Climate scientists gear up to fight climate-change skeptics – USA Today
Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change – The Guardian – John Abraham
US scientists unite against climate sceptics – The Guardian
US scientists to speak out on climate change – AFP
best (or worst) of all:
7 Nov: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Scientists Join Forces in a Hostile Climate
The news was first reported by Neela Banerjee of the Los Angeles Times (a former colleague)…
This came up when I taught a graduate seminar at Bard College on communication and environmental policy in 2007, the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rolled out its fourth report.
I divided the class into two groups. One had to defend the presentation style of Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the climate panel’s science report team. Solomon rebuffed reporters trying to get her to interpret the findings and said her job was to lay out the science, not discuss how to respond. The other group defended James Hansen, the NASA climatologist who has become a passionate advocate for a quick end to coal combustion…
If a scientist wants to join the policy fray and retain credibility, a vital step is to distinguish between assertions supported by data and those framed by personal values.
Nobody explained this better than Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University, who passed away this year after decades of work on climate science, communication and policy…
There’ll be more from my Schneider files on uncertainty and climate down the line.
[*The post has been corrected to reflect that Scott Mandia teaches at Suffolk County Community College, not Stony Brook University. It has also been updated to clarify that the “rapid response” team is separate from the American Geophysical Union’s project; the team is being organized by Mandia, Abraham and colleagues.]
[3:13 p.m. | Updated * I intended to convey irony with the term “Schneidergate,” in that these e-mails are the antithesis of what anyone searching for clues to a climate conspiracy would want. Steve would have chuckled (here are his thoughts on “Climategate”), but some readers have complained, so I’ll be dropping that term going forward.]
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/scientists-join-forces-in-a-hostile-climate/?partner=rss&emc=rss
andy drops “schneidergate” at the first criticism – which can’t be found in the comments – yet “deniers” is liberally sprinkled throughout the comments of the faithful.

James Allison November 8, 2010 at 3:06 pm
See my suggestion above.
Also, WUW the “$50” million visitors? RU an accountant? 😉

acementhead
November 8, 2010 at 2:58 pm
So, you were schooled during the fifties? Or somewhere outside the US or Europe ( because of your sentence structure, I was assuming you were educated in the US)? The socialist anti-Christian spin was already becoming pervasive in public schools even in conservative areas of the US by 1965. It was pretty subtle as to not unduly alarm the parents. Most victims of indoctrination do not realize it. Kind of defeats the purpose. Sorry to hear that you turned your brain off at such a young age.
Your very words betray your irrational hatred of Christianity. You had to have learned, somewhere, that it is OK to hate that which you do not understand. And you had to have been that anti-Christian version of history you believe in so religiously. My guess would be school. I could be wrong, but that’s where most of you anti-theists get such strange notions, like that nonsense about Christianity meaning not thinking for oneself, or that rejecting GOD somehow equals wisdom. Being a Christian is all about thinking for oneself, but being as ignorant of the subject as you are, you would not know this. You are so blinded by your preconceptions, you probably have no idea what I am talking about.
BTW, I was taught the Scientific Method by my dads boss, who was a pioneering High-Energy Physicist at Argonne National Laboratory, when I was four. She had shown me that truth is not a thing or a point, but a process. I am fifty and I can still remember exactly how it felt thinking about it. A couple of weeks later I figured out that infinity and the opposite of infinity ( I did not know the use of the word negative) were the same. These incidents happening right on top of each other changed my life. Ever since, I have had a thirst for truth and have applied the Scientific Method in pursuit of it. It was an act of intellect that led me into belief in GOD. Thous who do not recognize the existence of GOD are sort of short sighted, kind of like those who have difficulty thinking past infinity.
I find it ironic, that all of you Anti-Theists railing against religion, do not recognizing that your Anti-Theism is a religion. But as Christianity is founded upon the LUB of mankind, and your religion is based on random white noise, I think I will stick to my Christianity.
[Please explain: “LUB of mankind”? Robt]

LUB is shorthand for “Least Upper Bound”. The concept is originally from set theory, but has been extended to more abstract systems (I’m working with New Foundations). Think of mankind being a set (really a naive set) partially ordered by some quality, lets call “goodness”. Our intuitive notion of what “goodness” means is good enough for illustration (I am working on a formal definition but it involves math that is still a bit beyond me). Then Jesus, as 100% man, would be the LUB of mankind. I see the world in terms of math. I am an aspie and have some trouble communicating. I should just keep my big mouth shut, sorry. And sorry for clouding this forum with all of this GOD stuff 🙁

DesertYote,
I enjoyed your comments on religion. What many here at WUWT don’t seem to realize is that holding onto a religious belief gives one a separate set of values from the societal ones promoted by governments and (especially) leftist social activists and the mainstream media. By seeing how consistently our religious beliefs – and particularly those of Christianity – are misrepresented or outright distorted by the media, we come to an instinctive distrust of the mainstream media’s relationship with accuracy and truth. Whilst there are many atheists and agnostics who are regular members of WUWT, there are also many theists whose religious beliefs do not cloud their appreciation of how science should be conducted.
@acementhead
Galileo portrayed the position officially taken by the Catholic Church, which was the defense of Aristotelian geocentrism, as being held by a character named ‘Simplicious’. In his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems by essentially giving the defender of Aristotle’s cosmic system the name ‘Stupid’ he was stabbing the Church in the back. He claimed to merely be offering a neutral discussion of the theories of the motion of heavenly bodies, but naming the Aristotelian ‘Simplicius’ was rather like naming skeptics of AGW ‘deniers’. It was insulting.
Remember, there was no concept of inertia or gravity in those days. For most people, the idea of the earth hurtling around the sun was unfathomable, since they could not feel the earth on motion. They could not explain how the moon would manage to stay in place around a moving earth. Had the Church not been contending with the bloody and unfortunately fallout of the Reformation, Galileo probably would not have been challenged. But with the crisis in faith that was going on, the Church did not dare to give fodder to the Protestants, who already accused the Catholic Church of ignoring the Bible.
That being said, the Church did not honour its promise to Galileo when it persecuted him for breaking the supposed ruling of Cardinal Bellarmine in 1515. An illegal document was produced for Galileo to sign that stated that Galileo was not allowed to teach or discuss his theory. Galileo signed, but Bellarmine, who was a friend and who was overseeing his case, refused to sign this document. He had a fresh document drawn up which was signed by both men stating that Galileo was allowed to discuss his ideas as a theory, but not hold or defend them. But the notary who overstepped his bounds and who had drawn up the first document, writing it according to his own notions and ignoring Bellarmine’s wishes, held on to it, and it ended up in the hands of Galileo’s bitter enemy, Christopher Scheiner. Scheiner was an Aristotelian university academic who had forced the Church to deal with Galileo over his earliest discussion of his theory, because Galileo had ridiculed Scheiner’s astronomy.
This illegal document was the basis for the beginning of the prosecution of Galileo after his publication of the Dialogue of the Chief Two World Systems. But when Galileo produced the actual legal document signed by Cardinal Bellarmine, which allowed him to teach his ideas as a theory, the Church then should have backed down, even though Galileo had offered a major insult in naming the defender of Aristotelian physics ‘Simplicius’. Instead, they reneged on their understanding with Galileo. This was to the effect that if he expressed repentance, and proclaimed his theory to be only a theory, he would avoid punishment. The Church went back on its word, put Galileo under house arrest, and thus deserves the opprobrium of history.
——————–
For the Truth says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:04 am
Stop it rednecks, and stop it puppets for oil companies.
Scientists do not do science because of funding nor do they engage the public because of the threat of cutting funding. It is not the way it works. Study the history of science.
It is a history of curiosity and anti-establishment thinking.
—-
For the Truth,
I am responding as a historian of science (professional). You need to do some reading of the history of science, yourself, beyond whatever you might find on Wikipedia. Scientific endeavours are shaped by jealousy, irrational beliefs, and hubris as well as by the quest to understand nature. The history of science is littered with stories of petty feuds or major battles between holders of opposing theories (see above) i.e. Scheiner resorted to setting the Church on Galileo to help preserve his own expertise, because if Galileo were right, the Aristotelians would lose their scientific authority.
It may have escaped your notice, but scientist-supporters of CAGW or even of AGW are on the side of the establishment. They have the ear, support, and attention of governments and most of the mainstream media. If scientists are anti-establishment by definition (which actually is an assertion that cannot be supported by the history of science) then that would automatically make the skeptical scientists the REAL scientists, and the establishment scientists a bunch of posers.