John Kerry: Secretary of Mis-State?

kerry_muslimsGuest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The Washington Examiner headline says, “John Kerry calls climate change deniers members of ‘Flat Earth Society’.” It typifies all reports about US Secretary of State John Kerry’s head-on attack on scientists trying to practice properly skeptical science. I challenge John Kerry to produce a single person who studies climate who denies climate change. Apparently everybody, except John Kerry, knows that climate changes all the time, it always has and it always will.

In statements made to support his political agenda, Kerry manages to perpetuate a series of errors, myths and slurs. One is the claim Al Gore made before the US Senate in 2007 that the “science is settled” and the “debate is over.” Kerry said,

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”

Kerry displays further ignorance by marginalizing those who question the science.

“We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”

These are frightening words and a disturbingly narrow position from one of the most powerful statesmen and diplomats, in the world. In the land of “free speech,” he believes no venue should be allowed, and thus people denied their free speech rights. Whatever happened to Voltaire’s view that I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? Apparently this is too liberal for this liberal. It confirms George Will’s trenchant observation that,

“When a politician says, “the debate is over,” you can be sure of two things: the debate is raging, and he’s losing it.”

He clearly doesn’t know the history of science that determined centuries ago that science is never settled. As Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) wrote,

Another error is a conceit that the best has still prevailed and suppressed the rest: so as, if a man should begin the labor of a new search, he were but like to light upon somewhat formerly rejected, and by rejection brought into oblivion; as if the multitude, or the wisest for the multitude’s sake, were not ready to give passage rather to that which is popular and superficial, than to that which is substantial and profound: for the truth is, that time seemeth to be of the nature of a river or stream, which carrieth down to us that which is light and blown up, and sinketh and drowneth that which is weighty and solid.

By participating in the denigration of scientists who dare to practice the scientific method Kerry displays more ignorance and a purely political motive. He calls them climate change deniers, with all the holocaust denial connotations of that phrase.

The scientific method requires that all scientists are skeptics, so it was a correct designation. Kerry clearly doesn’t understand that, but knew the term achieved the marginalizing of those who opposed him.

Scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of East Anglia hired to create and prove the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis knew they had a problem. Thomas Huxley identified it over a century earlier.

“The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

The ugly fact developed after 1998 when CO2 levels continued to increase as temperature stopped increasing, in contradiction to their major assumption. We learned, from an email leaked from the CRU (IPCC), that it prompted reaction from the Minns/Tyndall Centre on the UEA campus that said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

To which Swedish Chief Climate Negotiator Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

Proper science requires they consider the null hypothesis that something, other than human CO2, is causing warming. Instead, they opted to defend the political objective, and the mantra shifted from global warming to climate change. At the same time, they raised the emotional stakes by saying some scientists moved from questioning to denying.

Thanks to the work of the “flat-earthers” who Kerry scorns, people began to learn that climate change is normal. Increasingly cold winters reinforced their doubts and prompted another shift begun by President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren. He recommended the switch from climate change to climate disruptions. In 2014, the White House formalized the idea with the 840 pages, “National Climate Assessment.

CBS News explained the transition in an article titled,

Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”

Climate change’s assorted harms “are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond,” the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming.

Kerry is behind the times using climate change and “flat earthers” as epithets. Get with the program John. I suggest you call me a ‘climate disruption disrupter’ because I still know the science does not support the political agenda?

John Kerry is the third most powerful cabinet member and the most powerful statesman and diplomat in the most powerful country in the world. His words and actions on climate and attacks on some scientists are ignorant and shameful. He uses personal insults because he doesn’t understand the science. Worse, he denies scientists free speech, the primary tenet of the US Constitution to which he swore an oath of allegiance.

It is our duty as skeptics/deniers/disrupters to practice T.H Huxley’s creed;

“The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
389 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 8:50 am

John Kerry got a “free pass” from the Democrats on his lie about his Purple Heart wounding …. and he will get another “free pass” from the Democrats regardless of what he says or does as US Secretary of State. “Free passes” just like his predecessor is now receiving.

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 9:12 am

Those ‘free passes’ are nothing compared to the Pardons that Obama will issue when he leaves office!

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 9:58 am

IF he leaves office…

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 10:51 am

Mark,
I had almost included that in my comment.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 1:16 pm

dbstealey said:
> Mark,
> I had almost included that in my comment.
I think it is a serious concern.

Mike Henderson
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 3:30 pm

…lie‘s about his Purple Heart wounding…
There were three splinters received for three Purple Hearts. This makes him our first splinter hero. Only one visit to sick bay to pull the splinter from that episode.

Knutsfordian
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
March 15, 2015 5:45 pm

In golf it is called a Mulligan.

mebbe
March 15, 2015 8:55 am

AGW surface area of planet pi r squared
Denier surface area of planet 4 pi r squared
Deniers are flat-earthers times 4

petermue
March 15, 2015 8:55 am

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”
Is this the beginning of an inquisition?

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  petermue
March 16, 2015 2:07 am

I didn’t expect that.

Jimbo
March 15, 2015 9:01 am

John Kerry is married to Teresa Heinz. Teresa is a philanthropist and great funder of environmental and radical leftist groups. She is also a board member of the Environmental Defense Fund. I hope there is no undue influence on John Kerry.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/heinz.htm
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/TeresaHeinzKerry%5B1%5D.htm
Beans Means hot air.

The Heinz Endowments, with assets of $1.4 billion, is ranked the 49th largest foundation in the United States. It dolled out $75 million in grants in 2012, including $16.8 million to environmental programs. Founded by members of the Heinz food empire, it is no longer formally connected to the H.J. Heinz Co.
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/city/2013/10/28/Heinz-Kerry-offers-insight-on-upheaval-shale-center-connection/stories/201310280048

trafamadore
March 15, 2015 9:18 am

Since all of your philosophical arguments suggesting climate “skeptics” are a legitimate part of science also apply to flat earther’s, I would argue that Kerry’s categorization is quite accurate. After all, Pratchatt’s disc world must have a basis in fact.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 15, 2015 10:53 am

Why the quote marks around ‘skeptic’?
Scientific skeptics are the only honest kind of scientists. Is that what bothers you?

trafamadore
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 2:59 pm

Ha

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 3:59 pm

Then why? Or are you just trolling as usual?

RockyRoad
Reply to  dbstealey
March 16, 2015 10:30 am

Around here, someone trolling just makes a fool of themselves.

March 15, 2015 9:19 am

It amazes me how people like Gore, Kerry, and McKibben, constantly lecture us on the science of global warming, get that wrong more often than not, and constantly say we should listen only to scientists, and not to say viscounts, yet none of them have a degree in the hard sciences.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 11:18 am

They indeed say to listen to scientists, yet others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’. So which of the non-scientists is more likely to get the science right?

Jimbo
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:40 am

warrenlb, will you listen to the science? How many years of no surface warming will it take before you agree with the warmists below?

“The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

“A single decade of observational TLT data is therefore inadequate for identifying a slowly evolving anthropogenic warming signal. Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature. ”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

“The LLNL-led research shows that climate models can and do simulate short, 10- to 12-year “hiatus periods” with minimal warming, even when the models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol particles. They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere.”
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2011/Nov/NR-11-11-03.html

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

ferdberple
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 12:15 pm

yet others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’.
===============
No. We say “listen to the evidence”, because in science that is all that matters. And in science there is only one kind of evidence that matters, the contrary evidence.
We live in an infinite universe. You can always find an infinite number of examples to prove anything. Purple jelly beans cause cancer. If you look for evidence this is true, you will find it. However, the positive examples don’t mean it is true.
This is what separates pseudo science from real science. Pseudo science looks for positive examples, and counts them up as evidence that their science is true.
Real science looks hard for negative examples, and only if no negative examples can be found is this considered evidence that their science is true. If a single negative example is found in the future, this is proof that their science is not true, and everyone goes back to the drawing board to try again.
In pseudo science no amount of negative examples have any significance, so long as more positive examples can be found. In real science a single negative example is all it takes to prove the science wrong.
So today we have record increase in CO2, but the increase in temperature has not been anywhere near as rapid as in the past. This is the negative example that proves CAGW wrong. It doesn’t prove AGW is wrong, only that CAGW is wrong

jones
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:02 pm

Please forgive the question Warren and please please believe me when I say I’m not trying to attack you but are you a teenager or possibly a college undergraduate?
I promise I will drop any such further questions if you feel able to reply to this question.

RH
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 2:48 pm

warrenlb said:”others who reject AGW say ‘don’t listen to scientists’. ”
Nobody, particularly frequenters of this blog, said not to listen to scientists. Hell, the guy who made this post is a scientist, but you were so blinded by dogma that you couldn’t see his name and publically called him an anonymous coward. The names of skeptical scientists, many of whom we are lucky enough to have comment on wuwt, is so long that is not practical to list them here.

Tom J
March 15, 2015 9:20 am

You would think that someone who farts out gaseous climate change utterances; if he truly believed in that world governance advancing, science bastardizing belief; would, at least be a little more genteel in the ravenous consumption of fossil fuels that the maintenance of five (or is it six?) mansions must entail? I mean, at least he could show some dignity to his beliefs by converting some of that unnecessary opulence into multiple unit, Section 8 housing units. But, no, I don’t see that happening. So, the only other conclusion I can come to is that maybe our trusty State Secretary doesn’t really believe the disingenuous spitula that sprays forth from that big hole in his head below his droopy eyes. But, then that still begs a question: Why can’t he at least be a little discreet about his Bozo the Clown shoe size carbon footprint.
Aw, what the heck. Not one of the other movers and shakers, not one of the other fat cats, not one of the other well connected, not one of the other truly rich, truly frivolous, truly devious, self centered, power thirsting bench climbers has ever, ever, ever exhibited the slightest proclivity towards acting in a way that reflects their supposed beliefs that gets closer to those beliefs than the distance between the galaxies.

Reply to  Tom J
March 15, 2015 11:46 am

+++++++++++++

Paul Westhaver
March 15, 2015 9:35 am

When I read scientific papers, rarely do I see the word “science” used in the exposition of the work.
Actual scientists just don’t say things like “the science” is unequivocal, The only people who invoke “science” itself as an argument are people who want to borrow science-like credibility to advance something that generally lacks scientific validation or by scientists who, for the moment, are acting POLITICALLY. (ahem, I am guiltly of the latter at times)
So beware, when you read “scientifically” there is likely less science than purported.
Another thing,
George W Bush’s undergraduate scores were higher than John Kerry’s. Not to say that GWB was a scholar, he wasn’t. (Kerry got 61 in Geology, his only science course) I mean to say that John Kerry pretends to be some brilliant, insightful statesman. He isn’t. He is a below average faux-aristocrat that assumed a Kennedy-esque accent, faked military bravery, & bought wealth by selling himself to a Ketchup widow. He is a poser. And he can’t do math.

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
March 15, 2015 10:00 am

I admit I struggled with math, and that held me back in my science classes, but I persevered, learned the math and end up aceing my 2 physics and 3 meteorology classes. I can’t help thinking that if I can learn it anyone can learn it. These arrogant politicians don’t have the basics down and a running around calling the rest of us stupid, it really is outrageous.

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 6:31 pm

About 15 years ago I was headed to D.C. once for an FCC “exploratory meeting.” I just happened to be seated next to 4th term Senator who was looking over his notes, related to Internet policy. I made a statement that set him off, and he lectured me, for a good 5 minutes, about the nuance of the issue. I listened patiently, and when he was done I said “that’s a bunch of b.s.” He went into a moderate rant about “experts.” citing two very important pieces of recent research conducted by bright young PhD’s. His only problem was that I was lead author on one of the publications that he cited. What he had was a 3 sentence summary of a 400 page document that I’d completed with funding and help from 4 major television-video content providers. His aide, who wrote the 3 sentence summary, clearly didn’t understand any of it and “skimmed the text” for a sound-bite take-away, and yet a Senator was “certain” about the implications for public policy.
In my opinion we’re all doomed as doomed can be
[Thank you for your courage. .mod]

Phil
March 15, 2015 9:50 am

In my opinion, John Kerry is easily the stupidest Secretary of State this country has ever had.

asybot
Reply to  Phil
March 16, 2015 12:11 am

After hillary that took some doing!

ozspeaksup
Reply to  asybot
March 16, 2015 4:05 am

shes venal and power tripper , hes plain stupid,and a power tripper- hard to know what ones the biggest global danger in the long run. like to see both of em slide of the edge of Discworld 🙂
and NOT get caught by the circumfence:-)

sonic
March 15, 2015 9:55 am

It seems ‘climate disruption’ leads to ‘weather cherry picking’- that is to say– ‘can you find some nasty weather somewhere?’
Can anyone tell me the difference between ‘climate disruption’ and ‘weather cherry picking’?

mikewaite
March 15, 2015 9:59 am

I have noticed that both “warrenlb” and “Barry” use the 10,000 papers refrain to attack sceptics (despite : “nullius in verba”) and talk as if they were familiar with the contents of each and every paper.
This fact fills me with awe of these 2 correspondents. My thesis (on spectroscopy) contains 176 references, each of which I read thoroughly (in case quizzed on them in the visa) and that was condensed from about 300 useful articles. That took me about 3 years hard work, and admittedly it took longer than it would today because there was no Adobe reader, I had to find a library with a relevant journal and some kind of copier and of course had to acquire some rudimentary knowledge of German and Russian (no Google translator). Fortunately knowledge of Mandarin was not needed, as it might be today.
Even so , to master 10000 articles commands our greatest respect of these 2 contributors.
Perhaps they could be persuaded to write a summary of the conclusions for WUWT, pointing out how, over the course of time, the science has become more refined and the conclusions more indisputable.
[And, between 1/5 and 1/4 of those “10,000 papers” were given to the IPCC by writers paid by Greenpeace, the WWF, etc. .mod]

Reply to  mikewaite
March 15, 2015 10:12 am

Warren Lib didn’t even read the first line below the title of this post. I doubt he’s read the title of 10,000 articles. The idea that shear volume means anything is ridiculous. The ACA is 2,000 pages and has 20,000 pages of supporting regulations, and it nothing but a huge mess. I am sure that the lifelong Reagan Republican, Warren Lib, would agree with that.

PiperPaul
Reply to  mikewaite
March 15, 2015 10:51 am

Doing “science” these days for some people is a simple button-pushing affair. Who has time for all that tedious hard work?

rh
Reply to  mikewaite
March 16, 2015 7:11 am

Their talking points come straight from the laughably named skeptical science website, which is cheap knockoff of the snopes website, and written by a failed cartoonist.

John West
March 15, 2015 10:23 am

“The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand,”

Invoking this long debunked metaphor merely confirms his propensity to accept myths uncritically.
http://www.livescience.com/33196-why-do-ostriches-bury-heads-in-sand.html

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  John West
March 15, 2015 11:08 am

John West
Yet the Autralians who DID bury their heads in the sand ARE just that blind, that prejudiced that they refuse to see the facts once presented and explained to them.
But the head-burying zealots blindly and willingly accept the propaganda that’s fits their quasi-(crazy ?)-religiously-distorted world view.

Joe Chang
March 15, 2015 10:24 am

Kerry quote circa 2000? in Newsweek “I can’t believe I am losing to this idiot”. So who is the bigger idiot?

zemlik
March 15, 2015 10:30 am

you have to look at things in the right time context.

Editor
March 15, 2015 10:43 am

“Report Uses Phrase ‘Climate Disruption’ As Another Way To Say Global Warming.”
Climate change’s assorted harms “are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond,” the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming”.
A gold-plated turd is still a turd whether you call it sh*t, cr*p or by its scientific name “faeces” (think the US spelling is different to ours!) The CAGW is still a crock of the former, whatever you call it.
As for consensus:
1) Blood cholesterol from eating saturated fats in meat and dairy products causes heart attacks and strokes. WRONG
2) A diet for infants devoid of nuts will prevent nut allergies. WRONG
3) A diet based predominantly on carbohydrates will prevent obesity. WRONG
(In fact in all three of the above, the very opposite is true)
4) Lead in petrol causes mental retardation in children living in cities. WRONG
The Earth is at the centre of the Universe was also the consensus for many hundred’s of years and led to trials and executions for heresy for those that questioned it. That together with the Earth being flat was also wrong.
The consensus that a lot of money is there for the taking if we can fool the people for long enough, is the only one that is correct in AGW.

ferdberple
Reply to  andrewmharding
March 15, 2015 12:27 pm

4. margarine is better for you than butter. WRONG.
heart disease in the US took off right after WW2. the same time margarine (trans-fats/ hydrogenated vegetable oils) were introduced into the US diet in large proportions.
the evidence for this is the US war dead. In WW2 the service men show almost no evidence of heart disease. In the Korean war even men as young as 18 showed signs of significant heart disease.
Something changed in between the 1940’s and 1950’s. What changed was the widespread introduction of artificial, mass produced food, without any health testing. In effect the US undertook a massive experiment on the population, feeding them untested foods on a massive scale, developed largely to overcome wartime food shortages and storage problems during WW2.
the problem with trans-fats / hydrogenated vegetable oils is that they don’t easily rot. which is great if you don’t have refrigeration, but this ignores the fact that humans may not be adapted to eat foods that don’t rot.
that quite possibly if the foods are not readily edible by microbes, they may not be the best thing to feed the microbes inside of humans, the same microbes that make up 90% of the cells in a human body.

BFL
Reply to  ferdberple
March 15, 2015 2:40 pm

Or…. maybe this has something to do with it:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/
Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria. Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut. Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements. Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosate’s known depletion of these amino acids. Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure. Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate. Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America.
http://www.realfoodhouston.com/2014/11/14/is-glyphosate-monsantos-roundup-used-on-wheat/

Reply to  ferdberple
March 15, 2015 3:13 pm

Put a tab of butter and a similar tab of margarine on a plate and set it out in your garage and watch what happens to them over time. Butter is food. Margarine, not so much.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  ferdberple
March 16, 2015 4:59 am

that quite possibly if the foods are not readily edible by microbes, they may not be the best thing to feed the microbes inside of humans,

And that is the primary reason I do not eat cucumbers. I figure that iffen the microbes and other garden vermin will not eat cucumbers …… then its probably best that I don’t eat them either.

RB
March 15, 2015 10:44 am

The suggestion that Kerry is ignorant is to let him off responsibility. He knows exactly what he says and what he is doing.

Langenbahn
March 15, 2015 10:53 am

The Flat Earth Society is a modern contrarian phenomenon, some thing that would likely never have flown in any other time.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
If you want something better than Wiki on the matter:
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/russell/FlatEarth.html
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-Flat-Earth-Columbus-Historians/dp/027595904X

March 15, 2015 10:55 am

Folks, you’re letting warrenlb frame the debate. Note his continuous and repeated use of the term “AGW” coupled with an appeal to authority. On these grounds, he is pretty much correct, What his careful choice of words obscures is that “AGW” is not the subject of debate here. The subject of debate is in regards to AGW being catastrophic or not, or even dangerous, or even given the last 20 years of data… measurable. There is little to no consensus among the science community on either side of the debate on this, and even the most ardent of alarmist scientists are now admitting that it may the last category (is it even measurable?) that is most prevalent. Coupled with the “how much is it and is is dangerous?” lack of consensus, is the debate regarding mitigation versus adaptation. These are the core matters of the debate, not warrenlb’s over simplified and frankly mind bogglingly obtuse attempt to frame it in his terms rather than the actual matters at hand.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 11:12 am

davidmhoffer,
I think the core debate is over the claim that human CO2 emissions cause measurable global warming. If that’s true, someone needs to produce those measurements. But of course, no one can.
Also, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, unless the authority is unimpeachable. But we know there are many climate ‘authorities’ [including presumably warrenlb], and they cannot all be correct. In fact, most of them are wrong.
The only unimpeachable Authority is our planet. Any ‘authorities’ that contradict the planet’s actions is ipso facto a false authority, and therefore citing those false authorities is a logical fallacy. warrenlb does this all the time. It is his primary argument. If it were not for his logical fallacies, warrenlb wouldn’t have much at all to say. He certainly lacks any credible science.
If warrenlb thinks he is framing the debate to his advantage, he can keep on doing it. The rest of us know that it simply makes him out to be no more than a devious propagandist.
I don’t think there is any honesty in him. I was 97% sure of that — until I read his claim that he was a ‘Reagan Republican’. Now I know he is dishonest.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 11:41 am

.
You can intimidate and spout non-science nonsense all you want, but you don’t get to call me, or anyone, a liar when I say I’m a member of any particular political party. I’ve voted Republican in every National and midterm election in my life, starting with Barry Goldwater.
And in my corporate career, I worked with many fine NIST scientists in the Thermal and Heat Transfer Sciences; most were multi-disciplinary scientists as well. Your bio says you worked in the NIST metrology department. I imagine that’s why you’re always insisting on ‘measurements’ as ‘proof’. NIST must never have taught you that Science is about accumulating evidence in support of an hypothesis — proof is for math, not Science. You might consult with some of your old colleagues — many sciences, in particular AGW, are multi-disciplinary. They require more than ‘measurement’ and the skills needed are multi-disciplinary; and intimidation skills, which seem to be your only forte, do not qualify.

ferdberple
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 12:36 pm

many fine NIST scientists
==========
then as a scientist you will recognize the importance of using correct terminology.
Climate Change – not a defined term. it can refer to natural or human causes.
AGW – Global warming caused by humans – may be beneficial or harmful. Undefined as to whether it is something we need be concerned about.
CAGW – Catastrophic global warming caused by humans. This is the only global warming that is defined to be caused by humans that is harmful to humans.
Thus, if you wish as a scientists to talk about warming caused by humans that is going to be harmful, then you should be talking about CAGW.
Climate change may or may not refer to natural or human causes. AGW may or may not be harmful, depending on the degree of warming and your location. Only CAGW defines something that is harmful and caused by humans.

ferdberple
Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 12:38 pm

ps: I note you say you worked with scientists. you don’t say you were a scientist. your imprecise use of terminology suggest you were not.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 15, 2015 6:16 pm

warrenlb says:
…you’re always insisting on ‘measurements’ as ‘proof’.
I’m always what?? You have me confused with others, or maybe with yourself.
All I asked was for measurements of AGW. Just one, for that matter. But as always you change the subject, because you have no measurements. Not a single measurement quantifying the fraction of global warming that is putatively attributed to human CO2 emissions.
You’re always the slippery eel, trying to avoid the question. But everyone can see what you’re doing. You have no measurements of AGW, therefore AGW is nothing more than a conjecture; an opinion.
Now, AGW may exist. I don’t know, but I suspect it does. But if it exists, one thing is sure: it must be so small that no one has been able to measure it, and thus, it is irrelevant.
You continue to argue for something that is so minuscule that it doesn’t matter. That’s what your eco-religion has done to you. You aren’t capable of using the Scientific Method any more, because it contradicts your faith. That’s too bad, but the rest of us aren’t hobbled like that.
And if you could see yourself like others see you, you would promptly stop commenting. Yes, it’s that bad.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  dbstealey
March 16, 2015 6:44 am

warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 11:41 am

And in my corporate career, I worked with many fine NIST scientists in the Thermal and Heat Transfer Sciences; most were multi-disciplinary scientists as well.

One’s association, either personal or work related, DOES NOT automatically bestow credibility upon one’s person. The contents, context of one’s resume is utterly worthless until such time it is proven that one is capable of “getting the job done”.
And “mimicry” of the deeds, actions or commentary by other individuals is not proof of one’s own credibility, …. unless “acting” or “actor” is their “claim of fame”.
Most anyone can purchase a “box-of-tools” (Degree) from a college or university …. but that is not proof that they are capable of using the “tools” that they purchased. It only proves that they were capable of mimicking that which they were nurtured to mimic as a prerequisite to their being awarded said Degree.

March 15, 2015 10:59 am

For those that read the Washington Post, an op-ed this morning by George Schultz on the need for action on Climate Change, and citing Ronald Reagan for his support of the Montreal Protocol. Two of the greatest political figures of our era, now joined by Democrat John Kerry in speaking out for action.
I applaud Shultz’s support, along with Yale Economist William Nordhaus and Brooking’s Adele Morris, for a revenue-neutral carbon tax as the most effective means of addressing carbon emissions:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:07 am

Reagan stopped a research into the value of a certain plant as a cure for cancer. If it turns out effective – and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to that effect – Reagan is a mass murder. Trials are currently going on in Spain with respect to breast cancer.
[We will close any further assumed marijuana-cancer-benefits comments. You abused that subject last week. .mod]

Newsel
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:16 am

Warren, went there and read Step 2: “Give all of the revenue from the carbon fee back to households”. You are delusional if you believe that clap trap for just one moment.

mikewaite
Reply to  Newsel
March 15, 2015 1:17 pm

I also looked at the proposal . Too much to take in in a few minutes , but I noticed that it was proposing the US to be 90% “carbon free” by 2050. Seems a big call . Also no mention of why reducing emissions by the tax in the US , which is seeing its emissions dropping already , would have any more than a minor effect on the global situation, dominated as it is by China’s emissions which are expected , even by Obama himself , to continue to increase for decades to come.

lee
Reply to  Newsel
March 16, 2015 5:30 am

Don’t forget the tithe, approved at Cancun; on carbon taxes.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:26 am

Warrenlb,
I notice that you never seem to have anything of your own to say. You just point out what other people say, or even articles that cite people who cite other people…. Have you ever had an original thought in your head to express?
But let me lend you some wisdom born of years of experience. When a politician says the words “revenue neutral tax” out loud, you should have two immediate reactions. One is to burst out laughing at the absurd claim that such a thing can exist, and the second is to grab tight to your wallet. The order you do things in should depend on how closely the politician is standing to your wallet.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 11:43 am

Laughing is about the only thing one can do when they cannot accept science or economics.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 11:57 am

warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 11:43 am
Laughing is about the only thing one can do when they cannot accept science or economics.

I’m glad to hear you admit that politicians who propose “revenue neutral” taxes don’t accept science or economics and deserve to be laughed at.
I’m reasonably certain that wasn’t your intent, so I will chalk up your response as an obvious Freudian Slip.

highflight56433
Reply to  davidmhoffer
March 15, 2015 11:59 am

People like Warren are insanely jealous of others; turned control monger self serving and hateful of others who are clear thinking individuals who are free in the mind and heart. People like Warren are always easy to spot with their insatiable appetite for controlling, while projecting, deflecting and redirecting their own self image on to others. There is a name for that particular mental disorder. Sad how they seem to rise into power, destroying others who get in their way. Warren is in bed with Kerry, another to be added to the ever growing list of psychopathic liars.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 11:56 am

@warrenlb:
Here is a Washington Post graph of global temperature changes:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/06/newchart.jpg
I challenge you on your assertion that you were ever a ‘lifelong Reagan supporter’. Posting a link doesn’t do anything for your extremely low credibility. And yes, I get to call you whatever I see you as being.
And all your baseless nonsense about ‘evidence’ ignores the fact that there are no AGW measurements, even after a century of searching. If I am wrong about that, then post your measurements. Post them here. Now.
If you can post even one empirical, testable, verifiable measurement quantifying the fraction of AGW out of total measured global warming, then I concede the argument, and the entire debate. You win.
But if you can’t, you lose.

toorightmate
Reply to  dbstealey
March 16, 2015 6:31 am

Warren,
Are you for real?
Or just a party trick?
I have been reading the data and the ever-increasing exaggerations of impending doom and gloom for 30 years.
I am yet to find a correlation co-efficient better than +/-0.5 in the carbon dioxide/temperature “relationship”. In the research establishments in which I worked, you threw the data away if you couldn’t do better than +/-0.8.
There is certainly some warming, but it sure as sh*t ain’t due to carbon dioxide.
You really do a great job as a party trick.

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 12:55 pm

Okay mr climate change (words that aren’t normally capitalized) expert you keep saying there are all these peer reviewed articles out there and yet quote a newspaper article that quote an economist who quotes a politician who supported the Montreal Protocol, which had nothing to do with global warming,how about posting one of those many peer reviewed articles that have something to do with global warming?

Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 1:39 pm

It is worse than I thought, in article that WarrenLb referred to George Schultz talks about the ice core data and CO2 temperature correlation and get it backwards. Temperature rises before CO2 but Schultz and WarrenLB the climate science teacher don’t know that.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 2:25 pm

And we guess you didnt know CO2 is both a cause and effect of atmospheric temperature rise. Better read up and study the data more.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 15, 2015 6:26 pm

CO2 is an effect of changing temperature. There is no empirical evidence that it is a cause of temperature change.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Tom Trevor
March 16, 2015 7:16 am

warrenlb March 15, 2015 at 2:25 pm

And we guess you didnt know CO2 is both a cause and effect of atmospheric temperature rise.

AH SO, another avid believer in “perpetual motion”. So just forget about fossil fuels n’ nuclear power …. and use “CO2 power” to provide all the world’s energy needs.
No doubt a loyal fan and avid believer in/of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also.

Steamboat Jack
Reply to  warrenlb
March 15, 2015 5:43 pm

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
― Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland

asybot
Reply to  warrenlb
March 16, 2015 12:37 am

And in my corporate career, I worked with many fine NIST scientists in the Thermal and Heat Transfer Sciences;
Ah now I remember,.. the janitor. (apologies to janitors).

Dawtgtomis
March 15, 2015 11:11 am

We don’t deny climate change, we just deny any proven ability to predict it. We refuse to let pessimism stir our imaginations when our observation of realty has been optimistic. The climate’s gonna’ do what the climate’s gonna’ do and no amount of legislation, world policy, or mass-retribution will change it. It is apparent that the current popular consensus has too narrow of a perspective and is failing at providing comprehensive, observation proven science.
All we can do IMO, is observe and learn with an open mind so that we can easily adapt to change, and move towards understanding, and (eventually) predicting the periodicity of the cycles that rule what we perceive as climate.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
March 15, 2015 2:32 pm

For the sake of warren’s viewpoint, I will also hope that in the future, an empiric quantification of anthropological climate forcing is revealed, and the speculation can end.

markl
March 15, 2015 11:30 am

Don’t forget to vote….and don’t forget.

March 15, 2015 11:36 am

It doesn’t matter what this guy is saying, I just can’t keep from getting distracted by his ugly features. We have some politicians in the UK who are not exactly renowned for their physical appearance but this guy is so ugly.

Langenbahn
March 15, 2015 11:41 am

Yeah, M Simon, there was that whole “aid and comfort to the enemy” thing. Of course, that may actually qualify him for the State Department, in the minds of many. There’s an old story about a Marine, trying to help a lady tourist find the State Department building. The woman knew she was on the right street, so she asked the Marine,”Which side is the State Department on?” The Marine responded, “Ours, I hope.” .

March 15, 2015 11:51 am

Did anyone mention that Kerry also trotted out the “97% of scientists” consensus, too?
I am curious, is there any classic CAGW incorrect statement he hasn’t used?

Bruce Cobb
March 15, 2015 11:53 am

We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society.

That bit of idiocy was lifted directly from a speech Odummy gave at Georgetown University in June, 2013.
So in addition to being an idiot, and a liar, Kerry is a plagiarist.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 15, 2015 1:25 pm

He’s only following the President’s example of belittling those who don’t buy his dogma

Richards in Vancouver
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 16, 2015 3:06 am

May we please get off this Flat Earth stuff? As a Hollow Earther, I find it personally offensive.