Senate EPW Republicans Take a Stand for Academic Freedom
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OKla.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today led all EPW Republicans in a letter promoting scientific discovery and academic freedom. The letter was sent to the same 107 recipients of letters sent earlier this week by Congressional Democrats to universities, private companies, trade groups, and non-profit organizations, asking for detailed information on funding climate science. As explained in the EPW Republican letter sent today, there is a real concern the Democrats inquiry may impose a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and free speech.
“Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the [Democrats] letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry,” said the Senators in today’s letter.
There has been a public outcry in response to the Democrats letters. Noted climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” Earlier today the American Meteorological Society warned that the letters sent by Congressional Democrats send a “chilling message to all academic researchers.”
“At the end of the day, those disagreeing with certain scientific findings should judge them based on whether or not they are sound and transparent,” said Chairman Inhofe.
The full text of the letter is as follows:
February 27, 2014
Dear _______,
We write in regards to the recent request for information on your support of scientific research initiated by several of our colleagues in the United States Congress. At the outset, we are deeply concerned the letter calls into question the importance of scientific discovery and academic freedom. Rather than empower scientists and researchers to expand the public discourse on climate science and other environmental topics, the letter could be viewed as an attempt to silence legitimate intellectual and scientific inquiry.
Federal government-sponsored research is good and necessary, but such funding has limits. The federal government does not have a monopoly on funding high-quality scientific research, and many of the nation’s environmental laws require decisions be based on the best scientific information available—not just federally funded research. At the core of American ingenuity are those researchers who challenge the status quo whether in matters of climate, economics, medicine, or any field of study. Institutions of higher-learning and non-governmental funding are vital to facilitating such research and scientific inquiry. Limiting research and science to only those who receive federal government resources would undermine and slow American education, economic prosperity, and technological advancement.
The credibility of a scientific finding, research paper, report, or advancement should be weighed on its compliance with the scientific method and ability to meet the principles of sound science; in short, it should be weighed on its merits. The scientific method is a process marked by skepticism and testing, rather than dogma. If the work can be reproduced and independent experts have a fair chance to validate the findings then it is sound, irrespective of funding sources. Science the federal government uses to support regulatory decisions should also comply with the integrity, quality, and transparency requirements under the Information Quality Act and Office of Management and Budget Guidelines.
Indeed, science is only one criterion we must take into consideration when developing laws and regulations. Credible deliberation requires thoughtful analysis and an understanding of the economy, policy, and legal framework in which we function. Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.
The letter you received from our colleagues is a wholly inappropriate effort to challenge these well-accepted truths. We ask you to not be afraid of political repercussions or public attacks regardless of how you respond. Above all, we ask that you continue to support scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.
Sincerely,
Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. John Barrasso
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Sen. Mike Crapo
Sen. John Boozman
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Sen. Rodger F. Wicker
Sen. Deb Fischer
Sen. Mike Rounds
Sen. Dan Sullivan
###
Original press release as PDF:
2-27-15_LTE from EPW Republicans to API
We can start by thanking each of the Senators for stepping up!
Please! Take a moment to send each of these Senators a personal note of ‘Thank You!’.
Let’s build on this fragile support….
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Sen. Jim Inhofe, Chairman
Sen. David Vitter
Sen. John Barrasso
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito
Sen. Mike Crapo
Sen. John Boozman
Sen. Jeff Sessions
Sen. Rodger F. Wicker
Sen. Deb Fischer
Sen. Mike Rounds
Sen. Dan Sullivan
Well said Mike Mann.
Friends:
I don’t interfere in the politics of other countries so I am not writing to interfere in US party politics.
The letter from the Republican Senators contains a paragraph that I hope all people of good will would support and applaud whatever their nationalities and/or political ideologies. It is
I repeat for emphasis
Dissenting opinions fostered through the encouragement of all ideas is what truly facilitates intellectual prosperity and political discourse.
Amen! And it needs to be proclaimed loudly and often.
Richard
If any proponent of the IPCC’s fake Enhanced GHE fizzicks can prove to me that the most direct and convincing experimental proof it exists, I will bow down to the Great God Sagan and admit that scientific poseur wuz right.
The proof would be that the mean temperature of the ~30 m atmosphere adjacent the Earth’s surface for 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear Sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ is about 0 deg C. You get this from a simple Stefan-Boltzmann equation 4th root (238.5 W/m^2/0.75/5.6704.10^-8) (assumes 396 W/m^2 surface Emittance).
0 deg C ‘Surface Air temperature’ would be lower than at any time in the past 444 million years. In 2005, Hansen admitted that NASA had set out to measure it, but had discontinued the research, preferring to model it instead! http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
In 1977 Houghton showed that the convection maintaining lapse rate keeps near zero such temperature difference, therefore the Enhanced GHE cannot exist.
AlexM
I assume you mean John Theodore Houghton and the 1977 book The Physics of Atmospheres .
Is he related to the Henry G. Houghton who wrote this paper in 1954?
On the Annual Heat Balance of the Northern Hemisphere Journal of Meteorology, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1-9
The witch hunt, is the end of the end, of the ‘denier’ phase of the climate wars. The next phase in the climate wars will be (the warmist will need to come with a new name) the political response (there will be calls for firings and there will most definitely be a discussion of the ‘new’ climate science) to the public panic concerning the magnitude and rapidity of global cooling. Great just in time for the US presidential election.
Snow for all 50 States Forecast in Next 7 Days
Record cold February for Northeast US and Canada. Highest amount of Great Lake sea ice for this week in 40 years.
http://iceweb1.cis.ec.gc.ca/Prod20/page3.xhtml
Record sea ice in the Antarctic.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Recovery of the sea ice in the Arctic.
Record increase in snowfall on Greenland ice sheet. Temperatures are dropping on Greenland Ice sheet.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
You ain’t seen nothing yet, buba.
Lord Monckton wades in…big time:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/28/dr-willie-soon-a-scientist-in-the-humble-quest-for-truth
Hopefully this brings into clear view the absolute criminal nature of alarmist climate change. Stuff is sure unravelling quick!
Ex-pat,
Very interesting link. Thanks for posting.
If you trust this current crop of Republicans with their leadership to have your back, then I have the deed to a bridge in Brooklyn that you may be interested in purchasing.
In my more cynical moments, I see the political parties as “Red Team vs Blue Team.” There is scarcely any principle that they would not cast aside to gain a temporary advantage over the other team.
You don’t think there is actually a principle involved? You are another of the willing throng happy to remain captive to your politically engineered education.
Gary P:
And you are even further off the mark than climate models.
Ed Martin get ready for snow and ice in Arkansas next week.
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5529/1230/1600/Joe%20gringo%2010-31-06.0.jpg
Pardon my ignorance of (presumably) American celebrities , but who is that Mad Hatter?
Whoever he is , he has lovely teeth and nice hair but I would myself not have the courage to wear ear rings in public.
But then : “different folks , different strokes ” as they say .
“…. and your little dog, Toto too!…. Ahhh Ha Ha Ha! Fly, My Pretties! Fly!”
“Dr. Michael Mann spoke of the letters calling them “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” ”
This is like Dr. Frankenstein describing his monster as “heavy handed and overly aggressive.” I suspect he likes the idea of politicians attacking his scientific adversaries, but wishes they were more subtle about it.
He is probably smart enough to realize that Congress demanding to see Climate Scientists’ emails might set up a dangerous precedent.
Since the early 1980’s, the Australian Government has strongly encourage its main scientific group – the CSIRO aka the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization – to enter into collaborative agreements with industry in order to defray some expenditures from the public purse. The tainting of research by corporate sponsors was rarely, if ever, an issue.
Some background on Rep. Raul Grijalva, aka “MEChA Boy”.
I’d say those “Union” donations are from illegals from Mexico working the tomato plantations of AZ.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/Grijalva-Raul.html
Anti-American Rep. MEChA Boy exposed.
It seems that when the Democrats are loosing the science argument for global warming , they now seem to resort to smearing scientists who are only trying to get the facts out in front of the American public . There is little global warming in North America as the data below shows , so why all these investigations about people rather than debating the facts .
TREND OF US ANNUAL TEMPERATURES
The trend of United States annual and seasonal temperature anomalies has been declining for 17 years or since 1998. The only exception is the summer and more particularly, the month of June and regionally , the WEST or California.
Seasonal trend of US temperatures since 1998
3 out of 4 seasons and the annual temperature anomaly show a cooling trend .
WINTER (-1.79 F/DECADE) COOLING
FALL (-0.50 F/DECADE) COOLING
SPRING (-0.06 F/DECADE) COOLING
SUMMER (+0.23 F/DECADE) WARMING
ANNUAL (-0.48 F/DECADE) COOLING
Regional trend of US Annual temperatures since 1998
8 out of 9 climate regions show a cooling trend
OHIO VALLEY -0.9 F
UPPER MIDWEST -1.5 F
NORTH EAST -0.1F
NORTHWEST -0.1 F
SOUTH -0.5 F
SOUTHEAST -.03 F
SOUTHWEST -0.1 F
WEST +0.7 F
NORTHERN ROCKIES & PLAINS -0.1 F
All climate data above is from NOAA Climate at a Glance web page
NORTH AMERICA IS FREEZING
There is a big difference to what is happening in North America and what is happening Globally . There is no “global wide” warming or record temperatures in 2014, but. only regional warming like the extra warming of North Pacific ocean SST which was the prime reason for the extra warmth last year . 2014 was the only the 4th warmest with respect to all or global and Northern Hemisphere land areas . North America has been cooling for almost 2 decades. US was the 34 th warmest and Canada was the 25 th warmest on an annual basis. The Great Lakes and St . Lawrence Valley were 61 warmest or 7 th coldest in 67 years .
Based on winter basis the 2013/14 winter was the 24 the coldest in 67 years for Canada. Some regions like Northern Ontario and Quebec and Great Lakes and St Lawrence valley were 6th coldest and 8th coldest respectively in 67 years. For US, the 2013/14 winter was the 33 rd coldest in 119 years and 2 nd coldest in the last 17 years. US and Canadian annual and seasonal temperatures have been trending colder for 17 years now since 1998. Winters have been trending colder in Northern Hemisphere since 1995 or 20 years . The 2014/2015 winter will even break these records
There is little global warming in North America to speak of . If anything the government should be debating about how to help the public who are freezing their butt off all winter . So why all these investigations ? total waste of public money.
Here is the comparable trend data for Canada to illustrate why there is little global warming in NORTH AMERICA
Trend of Canadian regional ANNUAL TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES from 1961-1990 AVERAGES for the last 17 years or since 1998
The trend of Canadian annual temperature is declining in 7 out of 11 climate regions. It is also declining on a country wide basis.
REGIONAL PATTERN FOR ANNUAL TEMPERATURE TREND SINCE 1998
ATLANTIC CANADA – FLAT
GREAT LAKES & ST LAWRENCE -DECLINING
NORTHEASTERN FOREST –DECLINING
NORTHWESTERN FOREST –DECLINING
PRAIRIES – DECLINING
SOUTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
PACIFIC COAST- RISING ( RISING DUE TO EXTRA WARM NORTH PACIFIC LAST FEW YEARS)
YUKON/NORTH BC MOUNTAINS – DECLINING
MACKENZIE DISTRICT- DECLINING
ARCTIC TUNDRA-RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010
ARCTIC MOUNTAINS & FIORDS -RISING ( ANOMALIES HAVE DROPPED 3 DEGREES SINCE 2010)
TOTAL ANNUAL CANADA – DECLINING
SEASONAL PATTERN FOR CANADA AS A WHOLE SINCE 1998
Winter trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Spring trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE DECLINING
Summer trend RISE IN TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES
Fall trend TEMPERATURE DEPARTURES ARE FLAT
All temperature data comes from the Environment Canada web page .
The melting Arctic has shifted the Jet Stream, so warmer up there, colder down south. No idea how this will play out. http://phys.org/news/2014-02-jet-stream-shift-prompt-harsher.html
SHF,
Get with the program! You say:
The melting Arctic has shifted the Jet Stream…
Your pals have it right, listen to them about the jet stream:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/jet-stream-manipulation-is-fueling-weather-extremes/
For Sir Harry Flashman and the jetstream:
I think there are a lot of things at play – some open water in the arctic may have and effect, or it could be heat transport from the tropics, or it could be a shift in the Aleutian low, or any combination of 100 things. If you read a little more on the Jetstream, Stadium Waves, Rossby waves I think you will find that no one really has developed much in the way of predictive skills on what the jet stream will do. We can look at low and high level atmospheric pressures and say where it is going, maybe for a week (Weather forecasting). But why it goes where it goes and guessing at long term locations No one KNOWS (Climate Forecasting).
This is from another post on this blog:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What causes the change in the jet stream and or Rossby waves, Stationary wave – is of great debate. I may be confusing terms here but I think people get the idea.
(someone) said … a warming eastern Pacific may influence the current configuration of the jet stream causing it to go up into Alaska before turning south on the eastern side of the Rockies.
Below is an article that suggest the EXACT OPPOSITE based on a review of data and North American Temperatures over the last 46 years. It suggests that recent COOLING of the eastern Pacific is causing the drop in temperature in central and eastern North America.
It seems that under current conditions, the jet stream is going north through Alaska, turning east across the Canadian Arctic north of the Rocky Mountains, then streaming down through Saskatchewan and Manitoba into the high plains of the US before turning North East up the eastern seaboard of the continent.
Now, this article is from November 10, 2014. What is really interesting, is that NOAA predicted a warmer than usual winter for the Central and Eastern US. AccuWeather, on the other hand, hit the nail on the head.
I think this is a very good link, written in understandable language. It has a few good points though I am sure people here will disagree with some items (especially the part from Trenbeth) but at least it does show people thinking about what is going on and trying to figure it out. I give them all kudos for that, even with the known biases.
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/13043/burning-questions-about-winter-cold
Now as for the science of Rossby Waves and Hadley Cells and all the rest – I think if you read the conclusions of the articles below, the best we can say is: ” We don’t know.”
But maybe some of you do.
http://www.public.iastate.edu/%7Etmchen/PDF/JAS_2005_winter_stationary_wave.pdf
http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/clim1.html
Gobbedlygook – choose whatever answer you want:
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/amete/2012/980816/
Uh – ok – we just don’t know:
http://people.su.se/~rcaba/publications/pdf/caballero.anderson.2009.hadley.eddy.enso.pdf
More paywalled papers:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/showciting?cid=1510703
Wayne – your civility is refreshing, and the first article you linked very interesting. I’m in agreement that there is a great deal we don’t know about the jet stream, and indeed climate in general, and we should exercise caution before jumping to conclusions. My current view is that this complexity is why the trend of overall warming is very consistent with localized cooling.We’re a long way from understanding what a warming world means to us, however given that we’ve optimized a technologically dependent society of 7 billion people to a relatively stable climate, I’d be wary of any major changes.
I think this will play both ways.
The bigger conflict of interest is the Government funding scientists who perpetuate the belief in CAGW. Get rid of all scientists who have received funding from Green groups or Govts. that believe in CAGW, and then we’ll talk.
This is what makes me laugh. On the one side of the AGW “debate” you’ve got all climate scientists, except for a handful that could be counted on the fingers of both hands, along with grassroots environmental organizations and some noisy hippies. On the other you’ve got the richest most powerful lobby in the world, the oligarchs of the fossil fuel industry, and their bought politicians who control the legislatures of the English-speaking countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia),as well as the energy-hungry BRICs. Even politicos who pay lip service to combating climate change, like the current US President, are careful not to follow up with meaningful action, which is why we’re not so much as suppressing our farts to stop it, let alone contemplating draconian or economy-killing action.
In spite of this rather self-evident state of affairs, the folks at WUWT bleat about the Great Green Conspiracy as if it were about to storm into their driveways and confiscate their Hummers.So for God’s sake stop whining like a bunch of toddlers who don’t want to go down for naptime – you’ve won, and the next 20 years will determine whether you’re right or not. Good luck to all of us,
SHF,
Have you been talking with warrenlb again? Let’s just forget about the Appeal to Authority fallacy. It’s nothing but a version of “My dad can beat up your dad!”
Stick to facts. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site — not the internet’s “Best fallacy” blog.
‘K? Thx bye.
Please feel free to point out anything I’ve said that’s factually wrong.
Logical fallacies are factually wrong.
They’re fallacies, see?
Sir Harry Flashman, what is wrong is the idea that Big Oil is pro-coal.
Coal is the cheapest form of energy generation. Newsworthy AGW is very damaging to coal and less so to oil and gas (you know the chemical composition of the fossil fuels).
So Big Oil funds the UEA CRU. Does Big Oil also fund politicians too? Well, they need favourable tax systems and planning permissions to operate so, of course they do.
But does that mean they also put pressure on Governments to back their dogs in the science fight?
Well, it seems logical, doesn’t it?
Sir Harry,
It’s pointless to try and get an answer out of dbstealey once you’ve painted him into a corner. He will evade and obfuscate until the thread dies out.
@chris:
What is it that you cannot understand about a FALLACY? A fallacy is a failed argument. SHF posted a fallacy as his argument.
You have all the makings of a troll; a content-free post: no facts, no evidence, no thought.
Just another comment by someone motivated by impotent hatred.
@dbstealey,
Impotent hatred? You give yourself far too much credit.
Do you really think anyone is fooled when you trot out phrases such as logical fallacy without bothering to explain why that is the case? Take SHF’s comments above. He was pointing out that there is a substantial amount of money, influence and media which takes a skeptical position on AGW. Take media, for all the talk about how the mainstream media is rabidly pro-AGW, look at the largest media outlets. Largest newspaper by circulation? The WSJ.Biggest cable news network? Fox. #1 radio station? Rush Limbaugh. For influence, the $140M per year the oil and gas industry spends on lobbying dwarfs that spent by any green group.
I’m not sure which is sadder. Sir Flashman’s belief that the majority of scientists believe in CAGW or his belief that the politicians of the entire free world, both left and right, are in the back pockets of a single industry.
One thing you left out on the AGW side is that they pretty much have the media and US Federal Government on their side. This combination dwarfs the influence of the “the richest most powerful lobby in the world” you mention.
How powerful? Maybe back in the day, when Senator Kerr of OK was a big wheel defending the oil depletion allowance.
Since then that allowance has been cut back, IIRC.
Govt. regulations on auto MPG levels have cut demand for petroleum
So did the 55 MPH speed limit.
The alcohol percentage required in gasoline has risen to 10% and a recent ruling has allowed up to 15% to be sold. This also cut demand for petroleum.
Lead was banned from gasoline over industry protests.
Bans on off-shore drilling remain in place.
Drilling restrictions on federal land have gotten stricter. No fracking there, or very little, has been allowed.
Expensive new standards for railroad tank cars are in the pipeline.
Drilling rights in the Gulf were curtailed in the wake of the BP disaster. I doubt if they’ve been lifted much.
Obama foolishly listened to a utopian advisor (since departed) and encouraged the development of electric cars instead of natural gas vehicles.
That’s off the top of my head–I know little about the industry. So there must be more evidence of the industry’s failure to command the government to dance to its tune.
Gentle People of WUWT,
Don’t attempt to wrestle logic or reason with a pig. The pig will never understand….. and you will achieve nothing of lasting value. The pig oinks and grunts the same piggish message that it has oinked and grunted all it’s life. It knows no better and never will. It is a pig. Reason and logic are beyond it’s ken.
Don’t deny it food and water and humane treatment…. but realize, it is just a pig.
That’s what I say when I lose an argument too.
SHF:
You have lots ‘n’ lots of practice losing arguments here. Don’t you?
Chris
I suggest you again read the reply to you from dbstealey. Contrary to your assertion, it gives himself no “credit” of any kind: it only – rightly – reviles you.
Richard
Why do you need to “revile” someone for posting a view different from your own? Chris’ point and my own is that there is no logical fallacy in my post. The “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authority referenced is wrong. Otherwise every single post here referencing work by Curry or Christie, would also be prima facie fallacies.
SHF says:
The “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authority referenced is wrong.
They are wrong. They are wrong because they have been corrupted. Do you really believe that each and every professional organization — including those that really have nothing to do with the question of MMGW — have just by chance all come to exactly the same conclusion? Really? If so, you are beyond being naive and credulous. They all have a diversity of opinion on many things — EXCEPT on something for which there is no verifiable measurements at all! What are the chances of that??
Yes, it’s true that an appeal to authority might not be a fallacy. But in the case of professional organizations all jumping on the same bandwagon, it is a fallacy. Prof. Richard Lindzen shows this, chapter and verse. He names names. Therefore, your appeal to corrupt authorities is a fallacy. Further: the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is busy debunking your ‘authorities’. Which one is right? The planet? Or a small committee of un-named ‘authorities’ who won’t allow their membership to vote on their position?
So why not argue with scientific facts, and empirical observations, and verifiable evidence? Because if you confined your comments to those, the debate would be over: there is NO verifiable evidence quantifying the fraction of global warming attributable to human emissions. With no evidence, MMGW is only a conjecture. And conjectures are opinions, which makes for very weak tea when allocating funding or changing national Policy.
So because the alarmist crowd has no verifiable facts or evidence, they use the propaganda technique of appealing to corrupt authorities. Because it’s all they’ve got.
Sir Harry Flashman
You ask and say
Promoters of logical fallacies need to be “reviled” whether or not their views differ from one’s own.
And “appeal to authority” is a fallacy whether or not the authority referenced is wrong.
The fallacy is that a statement is given credence because of its source (i.e. the authority), but a statement should only be given the credence warranted by its supporting evidence because anybody can be wrong.
You attempt to justify the “appeal to authority” fallacy by use of a variant of that fallacy; i.e. the fallacy that information should be rejected on the basis of its source.
Richard
Richard – I don’t understand you. Appeal to pro-Agw science (the overwhelming majority of the literature) is a fallacy, but to anti-AGW science (a tiny minority) is not? Wow, you really aren’t worried about wearing your bias on your sleeve, are you?
Sir Harry Flashman
You write this offensive and untrue nonsense to me.
It is not me you “don’t understand”: you fail to understand what logical fallacies are and why any statement based on a logical fallacy is false. Logical fallacies have been studied for thousands of years, and I suggest you study this before you dig your hole deeper.
My “bias” is in favour of science and trust in the scientific method: I proclaim it.
I don’t appeal to any authority be it literature or anything else: I assess evidence and information from as many sources as I can.
You rely on – and assert – logical fallacies including in this case attack against the person. And that is why your posts are a laughing stock.
Richard
You just gave yourself away. It’s called fascism. Allow me to quote “which is why we’re not so much as suppressing our farts to stop it”. Amazing it’s even considered.
A Libertarian on the other hand, might say “I don’t mind if you suppress yours, but don’t even think about suppressing mine.
Oh, and if you explode, do it where nobody else gets hurt!
I don’t think you understand Fascism or Libertarianism any better than you understand climate science.
Presumably your fictional Libertarian would also say, “Please go ahead and continue to dump cyanide in our shared well, while I will choose not to.” And the technical definition of Fascist isn’t actually “people who say things Glenn999 (or insert name of commenter here) doesn’t like”, although it’s often used that way as a means of shutting down debate. In the way that Fascists do.
In fact, a human being and a grownup might say “I suggest we cooperate to our mutual benefit – it won’t be easy but will produce the best results for all of us.” Sort of like them Founding Father dudes.
oops. Forgot the /sarc tag.
All that is required now to complete the whole farce is a movie “Refrigerator Madness”.
Now that is a case of The Pot calling the kettle ‘black’.
As a screen play… or movie, it would be of little more redeeming value than ‘Up In Smoke’.
It’s pretty far fetched to portray the Republican party as being on the side of “supporting scientific inquiry and discovery, and protect academic freedom despite efforts to chill free speech.”
For example, the House of Representatives floated a bill that would eliminate the peer review process for determining which grants were funded by the NSF, and replace that with Congress deciding which grants to fund: http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/dear-congress-why-are-you-so-anti-science
Chris,
The climate peer review process is a corrupt mess. Haven’t you read any of the Climategate I, II, or III emails? They have almost nothing to do with science — and everything to do with protecting their gravy train. YOU just don’t like it because now your pals are in the minority.
It would be best if Congress stopped ALL ‘climate studies’ grants. Fine with me. Then political partisans like you wouldn’t have much to say.
dbstealy,
My pals? I’m an American living in Asia, I don’t know any of these guys. I’m a believer in fundamental research. Regarding Climategate, the AP reviewed 1,073 emails – and while they found pettiness, there was no fraud. Or is the AP in on this gravy train as well? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34392959/ns/us_news-environment/#.VPMwDPmUeuk
It’s interesting how the accusations of junk science and corrupt scientists do not apply when a paper is published that has conclusions that do not support AGW. Those papers are immediately highlighted here for their accuracy and integrity: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/
You having fun yet?With db, any facts which don’t support his worldview are wrong, Any incontrovertible facts are due to the overarching conspiracy.
@chris:
You are correct. The AP is not credible.
The Ass. Press has been losing money hand over fist, and there are continuous rumors that George Soros keeps it afloat.
The AP has been accused by its own journalists of biased reporting, with one author stating that he was told that all stories about the Middle East must show the Arabs and Palestinians as being “without fault”.
You can believe the Ass. Press if you want. I prefer a much less biased news source.
dbstealey,
What is your reply to my point about scientific papers that do not support AGW being welcomed here with open arms, whereas those that support AGW are immediately criticized?
Chris
Why should the pages and threads here amplify and repeat what Obola’s complete ABCNNBCBS press corpse and the combined printing presses of very newspaper and magazine worldwide already propagandize?
Should the realists demand “newspaper equality” and force the world’s printing presses to spend 1 column inch per column inch and TV minute they spend propagandizing for their religion now? The Obola administration has now taken control over the distribution of the web – for the specific reason that they cannot afford competition in propaganda. Oh wait. Obola’s feudal lords have refused to publish the very 900 pages of rules the democrats voted themselves ruling the internet with, didn’t they?
@chris:
My reply is the same as usual: the climate pal-review system has been thoroughly corrupted, as anyone who has read the Climategate emails knows.
This site is the internet’s “Best Science” site, therefore it sets the standard for what papers are good, and which ones are NFG.
Sorry you don’t like the fact that papers trying to argue that AGW means anything significant are no good. But… they’re no good.
Why not?
Because there are no measurements of AGW! There is not a single measurement of AGW that is generally agreed to by mainstream scientists. Thus, AGW is ALL speculation. It is a conjecture [ie: an opinion]. There may be something to it. But no one knows if, or how much, AGW matters.
If science progresses to the pount that AGW can be quantified as a percentage of total global warming, then the question of the climate sensitivity number will be answered, and we can see if there is any need to take action.
But after many decades of searching, by many thousands of scientists, they still cannot quantify AGW — thus, it must be pretty damn minuscule. That’s Logic 1A, and QED.
The climate pal-review setup is simply cashing in on the man-made global warming HOAX. Because although there might be someting to AGW, nothing justifies the enormous misallocation of resources into ‘climate studies’. Thus, it is a hoax on the taxpaying public.
Finally: it is the DUTY of scientific skeptics to try and deconstruct any conjecture presented. I understand that you don’t like it. But that is the Scientific Method — whether you like it or not.
Any more questions?
“This site is the internet’s “Best Science” site, therefore it sets the standard for what papers are good, and which ones are NFG.” Based on an open internet poll that was so gamed by “skeptic” sites begging for votes that the category had to be discontinued. Yes, that is totally how science works; it’s basically American Idol for crazy people.
SHF says:
Based on an open internet poll that was so gamed by “skeptic” sites begging for votes that the category had to be discontinued.
The ^words of a loser.^
Nothing was ‘gamed’. Everyone had exactly the same opportunity to vote, and as pointed out above, several alarmist blogs advised their readers to CHEAT by voting multiple times…
…while Anthony insisted that his readers must NOT cheat, but only vote once. You could look it up.
The fact is this: skeptics far outnumber the pathetically small alarmist clique. The traffic numbers prove that. But the Flasherman cannot even admit that to himself. A search of the archives shows that is what happened: cheating was advocated by alarmist blogs, and repeatedly discouraged by Anthony Watts in no uncertain terms.
So the alarmist cult cheated as much as possible. But they lost anyway! WUWT readers played fair and square, and they repeatedly won the “Best Science” category. And the fact that the name was changed after WUWT won it twice does not matter, because WUWT won it again after the category name was changed.
Also, in 2008 WUWT won the internet award [Climate Audit — another skeptic site — had won the previous award], which anyone can see here. Realclimate did extremely poorly, and they have done even worse since: in the past couple of contests they couldn’t even make the playoffs! [But Greg Laden did even worse; he got a measly 300-odd votes, out of a half-million cast.]
So keep arguing, Flasherman. I am enjoying shoving this one up your fundament.☺
Your side lost because the alarmist cult is composed of a bunch of losers, who couldn’t even win by cheating. That really sucks, doesn’t it? But it is indicative of everything about the climate alarmist clique. They have no ethics; they lie about the “consensus”, and as time goes by, more and more readers see what pathetic losers they are.
dbstealey,
I’ll repeat my point again. You say the peer review process is corrupt – yet when papers are published that do not support AGW, those papers are highlighted on WUWT as proof that the AGW premise is flawed – even though those papers arose out of the SAME peer reviewed process as the papers you call junk science. Here is one example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/yet-another-significicant-paper-finds-low-climate-sensitivity-to-co2-suggesting-there-is-no-global-warming-crisis-at-hand/
If all climate science is corrupted, why are papers such as the above not questioned on this site?
To your point about WUWT being the best science site on the internet, that is incorrect from an awards standpoint. WUWT has won several awards as the best web blog. That is not the same as a web site – you do understand the difference between a web site and a blog, don’t you? The weblog awards, also known as bloggies, are reader voted awards for blog sites. The awards for web sites are called the Webby awards – for example, some of the winners in 2013 were JPL and National Geographic. The Webbys have both judge selected and reader selected winners in various categories, including Science.
Chris says:
You say the peer review process is corrupt…
I do. I say that frequently, because I have read the Climategate emails. It appears you haven’t. I would also reccommend reading Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the right sidebar]. It is very well sourced, and it will open your eyes. No one who reads that and the Climategate emails would ever again argue that the climate peer review process is honest and aboveboard.
Next, you say:
To your point about WUWT being the best science site on the internet, that is incorrect from an awards standpoint.
It is interesting that the alarmist crowd tries to denigrate awards that they have been unable to win. We can be absolutely certain that if an alarmist blog had won, there would be non-stop crowing by the same people. But when WUWT wins fair and square — multiple times — then the nitpickers come out of the woodwork trying to split hairs and badmouth the winner. You still don’t get it: People don’t like sore losers.
Next:
WUWT has won several awards as the best web blog. That is not the same as a web site – you do understand the difference between a web site and a blog, don’t you?
Yes, of course I do: it’s a ‘blog’ when WUWT wins, but it’s a ‘site’ when one of your pals wins. That’s about it, isn’t it? And I note that WUWT was never in competition in the categories you carefully selected. For one thing, WUWT is not a pop culture magazine’s blog. But I suspect that if WUWT was competing, NatGeo would have a damn hard time of it, and JPL would do even worse. WUWT has gone from nothing, to way more than one million reader comments in only 8 years, and there are more than 222 Million unique reader clicks! That’s a lot of votes, no? Anyway, nice try with your apple/orange nitpicking. It didn’t work, that’s all.
dbstealey,
I made a specific point about the peer review process you criticize, and yet the apparent acceptance of peer reviewed papers that do not support AGW. Are you going to answer that very specific question, or continue to ignore it?
Regarding awards, you stated: It is interesting that the alarmist crowd tries to denigrate awards that they have been unable to win. and Yes, of course I do: it’s a ‘blog’ when WUWT wins, but it’s a ‘site’ when one of your pals wins.
Point out where I denigrated the award. I did not such thing. The bloggies are a perfectly fine award, as the title suggests, they are for blogs. Included in that would include blogs such as Judith Curry’s, Real Climate, Jo Nova, PopSci, etc. Web sites such as the ones I mentioned are not eligible for the bloggies, and vice versa. That’s not a plot to eliminate competition, as you imply, it’s simple categorization. You can flap your arms all you want, it won’t turn a blog into a web site. And regarding the 222M unique visitors, that’s false, the site claims 222M page views over its existence.
dbstealey,
Lol, obviously my formatting skills are lacking.
Well, Bevan, above (Bevan February 27, 2015 at 3:29 pm ) sure does reference top notch websites. I followed his link to crooksandliars.com and read some of the comments. Real top-notch stuff, Bevan.
A commenter (Virginia Liberal) had this nugget: “global warming is occurring at 400% higher than the level that the earth can use”. Followed by her appeal to check the science: ” It might be useless to remind you to check the science if you can find your way to”.
Her antagonist, “Nanaknows2” had just made this awful remark: “Try driving your car or taking a bus with no fossil fuels – also how to heat your house in winter – do you have your own wood lot and wont that pollute the earth. CO2 is needed by all plants and trees on earth!”, leading “Virginia Liberal” to respond “What a nut bagger you are Nanaknows2! You’d better go turn your TV back on and tune in Fox News so you can eat more lies.”, and the above “400% higher” comment.
Having never heard that global warming is occurring 400% higher than Earth can use before, I wondered if “Virginia Liberal” had conflated that with 400 ppm somehow… Two posts later: “Now we are at about 400% part per million in the atmosphere which is far over what the planet can process.”
And these people vote.
With some minor edits for space, here are the posts:
Nanaknows2
Try driving your car or taking a bus with no fossil fuels – also how to heat your house in winter – do you have your own wood lot and wont that pollute the earth. CO2 is needed by all plants and trees on earth!
Virginia Liberal
What a nut bagger you are Nanaknows2! You’d better go turn your TV back on and tune in Fox News so you can eat more lies. For one thing CO2 in normal levels is not bad. The planet processes it just fine up to a certain limit. Any idiot knows that. What you can’t get though you empty head is that global warming is occurring at 400% higher than the level that the earth can use. It might be useless to remind you to check the science if you can find your way to.
Nanaknows2
You should broaden your horizons a little and listen to someone besides the Democrats – there are more and more scientists speaking out against global warming – I choose to use my common sense which unfortunately is in short supply in the public these days.
Virginia Liberal
I do listen to a whole lot a people besides Democrats. I’d like to know where you seem to be finding scientists who are speaking out against global warming. The don’t live on this planet. …… Of course global changes are normal to some extent. But how do you explain the rapid global warming that is happening over the whole world at such a fast rate? Just look at the records from over the past 150 years. Ever since combustible engines were invented to use coal and oil, there has been a marked increase in the carbon emissions in the air. Now we are at about 400% part per million in the atmosphere which is far over what the planet can process. It’s no different than only being able to put just so much water into one glass. It over flows after capacity is reached. This is not a complicated process to understand. The signs are everywhere. Just open your eyes.
Bob M,
Those people can vote. Which explains a lot.
Richard Courtney: ‘Logical fallacies have been studied for thousands of years, and I suggest you study this before you dig your hole deeper.’
Thank you for supplying the link to the web page of logical fallacies, Richard. However, while the page provides a number of examples of logical fallacies, I can’t see any mention of the argument from authority.
But if the page is to be regarded as authoritative – and you seem to be implying that – then your claim that the argument from authority is a fallacy does not seem to be supported by the authority you cite.
Brendan H
Please try to not be disingenuous.
You write to me
Firstly, you respond to my comment in a new sub-thread so I only saw it by accident. Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.
Secondly, I explained why ‘argument from authority’ is a logical fallacy when I wrote
I suggested that SHF should study this link before digging his hole deeper. The link provides examples of logical fallacies. I did NOT say the link provides a comprehensive list, and the link does not claim its examples are a comprehensive list.
Another site that deals with logical fallacies provides this page on ‘Appeal to Authority’ and includes this statement which concurs with my explanation
Thirdly, neither of my links was cited by me as being an authority. My first link was a suggestion for initial study of logical fallacies, and my second is provided as evidence that my explanation of ‘argument from authority’ (i.e. “Appeals to authority”) is not unique to me but is generally accepted.
In conclusion, your entire post consists of the logical fallacy known as ‘red herring’.
Richard
Richard Courtney: ‘Firstly, you respond to my comment in a new sub-thread so I only saw it by accident. Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.’
Check the nesting, Richard. It only goes down to a certain level. Facts, please, before jumping to conclusions and invective.
‘Another site that deals with logical fallacies provides this page on ‘Appeal to Authority’ and includes this statement which concurs with my explanation…’
Oh dear, Richard, you’ve done it again. Keep reading on that same page:
‘However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.’
So, as long as the authority is genuine, and the authority is speaking on his area on expertise, no fallacy occurs. The proviso, of course, is that it is only reasonable to accept the authority’s view, since the argument is an informal one.
Brendan H
Your attempt at an excuse for not using the original sub-thread is a falsehood.
And you cannot read.
I quoted the page as saying
Do you see the word “always”, Brendan H? Do you know what it means?
It means that every use of “appeal to authority” is fallacious because it fails in deductive reasoning.
But as you quote, the article additionally explains that in some circumstances “appeal to authority” can also be fallacious because it can also be an informal fallacy although this is not always true. You claim this means I can’t read and the word “always” has no meaning. No, Brendan H, it actually means you are either an idiot or you are pretending to be an idiot.
Richard
Richard Courtney: ‘Do you see the word “always”, Brendan H? Do you know what it means? It means that every use of “appeal to authority” is fallacious because it fails in deductive reasoning.’
I know what ‘always’ means Richard. And guess what? I also know what ‘deductive reasoning’ means. Put them together and it means that, ‘Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious’, just like your link says.
But the key, of course, is ‘deductively’. An informal, or inductive argument from authority need not be fallacious, again just as your link says: ‘However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited’.
BTW, I see you have responded to my comment in a new sub-thread. And yet, about such behaviour you say: ‘Such tricks are not nice but are understandable from trolls who know their arguments are easily refuted.’
Brendan H
You are fooling nobody except perhaps yourself.
Admit that you are wrong and you know you are wrong then discussion can continue. There is no purpose in further attempt at dialogue with you while your posts consist solely of falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Richard
dbstealey: ‘So keep arguing, Flasherman. I am enjoying shoving this one up your fundament.☺’
db, may I offer some feedback? Your post not only reads somewhat tired and emotional, but leaves you open to misinterpretation.
When I am in that frame of mind, I often find it best to set aside my words and allow things to settle before engaging further.
You may find a similar exercise beneficial, to both your state of mind and your text.
BrendanH,
Don’t go all insufferable on me. You’re copying my post from another thread. And you write:
Your post… leaves you open to misinterpretation.
You’re kidding. Right? You can say a lot of things, but when you say I’m open to ‘misinterpretation’, I would like to know how, exactly?
Was I not clear enough in my answer? Or in my examples? Or my links? Or my PO’d attitude? I fully intended to put the flasher where he belonged, when he tried to claim that WUWT had gamed the voting.
He’s just a poor loser who was trying to lie his way out of the fact that WUWT won fair and square. He is typical, and emblematic of the scurvy reprobates who populate the alarmist contingent. They cannot win the debate based on science. They can’t win on logic. They can’t win on superior numbers. And they are, by and large, sore losers. The worst of the worst, really. Many are so despicable that it was a pleasure to set one of them straight.
SHF was completely wrong: WUWT easily won the “Best Science” category without having to cheat, and it is true that blogs like SkS told their readers to engage in multiple voting. Anthony won it by playing by the rules. He deserves congratulations: the loser should jump over the net and shake hands. But instead, we get the flasher accusing him of doing exactly what the alarmist clique did.
So instead of your haughty and misinformed comment, maybe you could try to answer the points I made. The fact that you didn’t tells me you’re just trying to give the flasher some support. Admirable, but futile. He’s a loser who will not man up and accept the voting results, and worse, he accuses the winner of dirty tricks with not an iota of evidence.
dbstealey: ‘You’re kidding. Right? You can say a lot of things, but when you say I’m open to ‘misinterpretation’, I would like to know how, exactly?’
db, this is a family blog which demands seemly language, so I don’t think we should pursue this matter further.
‘Was I not clear enough in my answer? Or in my examples? Or my links? Or my PO’d attitude?’
Your substantive claim would require some time to confirm, but your attitude was certainly clear. And that was my point: the tone of your comments.
In fact, of late, your posts have displayed an unfortunate undertone of irritation and peevishness, and that’s not the db we know. So my feedback was aimed at helping you to regain your usual equanimity and good humour. I still want to offer that help.
Your concerned friend.
I propose we initiate a Kickstarter and purchase db a lovely gift basket to improve his mood.
SHF,
Great idea! But the money can be used more effectively by sending it to Anthony Watts.
Please do. I’m OK, I don’t need it. But thanx for your generous offer.
Nah. If Mr. Watts is getting 2 million + hits on this site every month he’s doing ok without my help.
OK then, send me the loot.
Because as a member of the climate alarmist clique, I know your word is your bond.
[Zero need for “/sarc”, is there?]
Brendan H says:
Your concerned friend.
Ah. A concern troll.