Bishop Hill has yet another amusing entry on the post facto revisionism going on over at the oxymorinically named Skeptical Science blog run by John Cook. Add to that, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. also has an entry where he says he’s given up trying to have a dialog on science with that very website.
While this may be humorous, maybe even satisfying to some, it really illustrates the sad polarization that we have today over climate science. The polarization is so intense, that it almost precludes any rational communications.
Of course we skeptics can argue that we’ve been treated badly, and we’d be right. AGW proponents tend to argue that we are simply too stupid to communicate with, and that they have the moral high ground, and thus the means justify the ends. Here for example is a response to a commenter by Grant Foster, aka Tamino:
Espen | November 4, 2010 at 4:45 pm
I’m not sure why you need to be so rude, and I should probably leave and never come back … [edit]
[Response: I’m not sure why you need to be so stupid. Please leave and never come back.]
In some cases, like above, we can’t even get a word in. Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. seems to have the same problem over at Skeptical Science, he writes:
I have been commenting for the last several days on Skeptical Science in their post
SkS Responses to Pielke Sr. Questions
While there have a few constructive interactions, many of the comments are not only not constructive, but demeaning. I also spend considerable time repeating myself in answering their questions. I am disappointed as I was hoping that Skeptical Science was a weblog where a diversity of views can be discussed constructively. However, the moderators on that weblog failed to adequately police the comments.
After reading myself at SkS how grubbily Dr. Pielke has been treated in the dialog there, is it any wonder he’s chosen not to try anymore?
At Bishop Hill, he’s pointing out a timeline regarding Cook’s revisionism of posts and moderator response to posts. Again we see the same sort of problems.
But, hasn’t it always been that way since the very beginning of the issue? The combination of perceived moral high ground mixed with the educated liberal mindset, combined with a dash of anonymity, in my opinion, leads AGW proponents to revert to tribal mannerisms in dealing with others whom they perceive as inferior in intellect and creed.
On the plus side, this very behavior, which seems to be omnipresent in AGW proponent circles, (though skeptics have a few bad examples too) is part of the reason why skeptics are winning the war of public opinion.
Reading both of these posts is instructive:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/21/the-cook-timeline.html
================================================
Note to commenters, on some other blogs the Skeptical Science website is referred to as SS.com with the obvious violations of Godwins Law immediately applied. Such responses will be snipped here in this thread should they occur. We don’t need to demonize our opponents, as they are doing a fine job all by themselves through their own words an actions.
Interesting to note that John Cook was recently awarded the Eureka Prize here in Australia. See here:
http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/eureka-prize/advancement-of-climate-change-knowledge1
Even more interesting is the fact that the people awarding him the prize are a mixture of employees of various State government agencies of the state of New South Wales (NSW) and science academics from NSW universities.
NSW recently had a change of government from the Labor Party to the (conservative) Liberal-National Party coalition which has numerous AGW sceptical politicians.
IMO this award is partly a reflection of the deep degree of division which now applies within NSW govt. agencies where a bitter internal guerillla war rages between the Department of Planning and Infrastucture (DPI) i.e. the planners, and numerous other agencies who are fighting vigorously the right to completely ban new coal mines, CSG exploration drilling, and numerous other projects now proscribed by the religion of the warmistas who now dominate those agencies.
I wonder just how aware the new NSW State government is really aware of the level of partisan pro-AGW bias and underlying agendas driving those who awarded Cook this prize?
Presumably this sort of thing is going on elsewhere in other developed countries too?
Steve Short,
The fact that the cartoonist who runs Skeptical Pseudo-Science, John Cook, was handed an award by the establishment just means they are trying to protect the status quo, which is crumbling due to grass roots pressure.
The truth is known by most educated scientists and engineers: CO2 is harmless and beneficial – as is testified by over 31,000 professionals working in the hard sciences, who co-signed this statement:
There is no comparable alarmist statement in existence. The handful that have been attempted have resulted in relatively few co-signers; all of them put together come nowhere near 31,000.
People may be reluctant to take the brave stand that the 31,000 co-signers did. But it’s much easier to just decline to sign alarmist petitions by simply saying, “Thanks, but I don’t want to get involved.” The fact is that the great majority of those in the hard sciences know damn well that the CO2 scare is fed by $billions in annual grant money. Take away the grant payola, and people will literally laugh at the peddlers of tha CAGW scare. Because it’s not about science. It’s about the money.
Sorry, but Godwin’s Law, like many laws of logic and nature, has not applied at all in the field of Global Warming pscience since the first warmmonger used the term “denier”.
Re Smokey:
“as is testified by over 31,000 professionals working in the hard sciences”
Your claim that they are “professionals” working in the “hard science” is wrong.
Anyone with a basic qualification in a number of little-related fields could sign even if they haven’t ever worked in it, let alone as a scientist. So millions would qualify for being able to sign that list, yet they only got 31,000.
There are plenty of medical doctors who are on the list for example. With some feeble excuse that they can review health implications of global warming or something. Also too computer scientists are able to sign. Is computer science a “hard science”? What relevance does it have to expertize on global warming? None, I can tell you, I know dozens of people who got a BSc in computer scientists (but they aren’t working as scientists in any sense of the word) who would be eligable to sign that list yet their background doesn’t endow them with any expertize on the subject over a given layperson.
You might as well argue that plumbers should be able to sign because they can assess the risk of sea level rises.
More damming, there was a “paper” (non peer reviewed) that went along with that petition and it was full or errors, cherrypicking and confirmation bias. What the 31,000 signers have done is sign their reputations to a “paper” full of errors, cherrypicking and confirmation bias. Well done them.
Onion2, you say:
“Is computer science a “hard science”? What relevance does it have to expertize(sic) on global warming? None, I can tell you,”
Well, i’m sure all those people programming those wretched ‘models’ that warmistas love so much would regard themselves as scientists with an expertise in global warming/climate change/climate disruption.
Or have I read your post wrong – are you actually saying that those people constructing and programming those over-simplistic and terribly inaccurate models are not really practising science at all? If I have read you wrong, I apologise.
Just another thought Onion2:
You talk about people signing a document “full of errors, cherrypicking and confirmation bias”
That just about sums up anyone who signed the IPCC report 😉
onion2 says:
“Anyone with a basic qualification in a number of little-related fields could sign even if they haven’t ever worked in it, let alone as a scientist. So millions would qualify for being able to sign that list, yet they only got 31,000.”
onion2 is wrong. He just doesn’t understand what’s going on in the real world.
All of the contrary alarmist petitions together failed to collect more than a small fraction of the OISM petition co-signers, and his [incorrect] claim regarding qualifications is flat wrong. Each co-signer was vetted, and the fraudulent names were weeded out, leaving more than 31,000 legitimate co-signers. Also, a medical doctor is listed only if he has a degree in one of the hard sciences.
onion2 gives no examples of his claim of errors in an un-cited paper, but that is immaterial. No one was asked to sign anything except this petition: click. That unequivocal statement is what they were willing to put their signatures on. And they had to go to the trouble of mailing in their original signature, making the 31,000 number even more impressive.
There is still no convincing evidence that GHG’s are a problem. In fact, we are learning that the added CO2 is on balance entirely beneficial. More is better. And since there is zero evidence of global harm due to CO2, then it is ipso facto harmless.
onion2 hates the plain fact that over thirty thousand scientists and engineers, including more than 9,000 PhD’s, is a much larger number than the total of all alarmist petition signers combined [and the same names appear over and over on all those various alarmist petitions]. The lopsided numbers are real world evidence that makes the “consensus” myth an outright lie. The actual, verifiable evidence shows clearly that the real “consensus” is comprised of the large majority of scientists and engineers who reject the CAGW conjecture.
However, Dr. Pielke who is evidently widely admired on this site, agreed with skeptical science that we need to take action to reduce human emmissions of greenhouse gases…..
DR. ROGER PIELKE: “The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. We do not need to agree on the magnitude of its global average radiative forcing to see a need to limit this accumulation.
The biogeochemical effect of added CO2 by itself is a concern as we do not know its consequences. At the very least, ecosystem function will change resulting in biodiversity changes as different species react differently to higher CO2. The prudent path, therefore, is to limit how much we change our atmosphere.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/skeptical-climate-responses-to-my-questions-and-my-reply/
Truthseeker says:
September 23, 2011 at 6:41 am
Sparks,
“If you like the left-field science of ancient aliens, then I can thoroughly recommend the following site”
What’s not to like about archeology, history and ideas about ancient technology with a little bit of mystery by way the of questioning what is accepted thrown in about technologically advanced humans and civilizations in the past? Like I said it’s food for thought! thanks for the link! 🙂