![smuseal[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/smuseal1.jpg?resize=334%2C311)
Yesterday, I happened upon the press release below posted at Eurekalert, bemoaning the lack of 100% certainty about climate change in California textbooks. While that was amusing enough, what really caught my eye was the subtitle:
Textbooks from different major publishers give climate deniers equal weight as vast majority of climate scientists who cite scientific evidence of human-caused global warming
This wasn’t a fluke, as the “d-word” also appears in the body of the press release:
“We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions,” said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. “Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts — even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number.”
This labeling of people as “deniers” seemed to me to be an indication that the author of the paper was engaging is exactly what he claims the textbook authors are doing – substituting an opinion in place of science.
Speaking of a minuscule number of “scientists who refute global warming” perhaps lead author Diego Román might benefit from an actual analysis of the famous “97% agree” meme:
Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
– 7,054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 scientists surveyed did not believe man is responsible for climate change
– Only 157 of the remainder were climate scientists
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.
I called the press officer for SMU, Margaret Allen, left a message and she returned my call. I asked if she understood that use of such terms like “denier” was offensive, and asked if this was the sort of ethical standard that SMU wanted to present. I also asked if she was responsible for the language (or letting it through) and if she realized that the Associated Press has abandoned the term because it was deemed offensive. She seemed clueless about all of this (she had no idea what WUWT was or who I was) and kept asking if I wanted a copy of the paper rather than answering my questions. She then asked for my email address to send it to, which I provided. I thanked her and the call ended cordially. About an hour later there was no email from her, so I sent her one as a reminder as the paper is paywalled and costs $40 to read. This morning, there’s still no email from her so I have to assume that she’s taken the same position as the author of the paper, that “deniers” must be shunned. I wonder if she realizes she’s engaging in what amounts to scientific racism?
And I wonder, as result of this ugliness that SMU has proliferated, will we see book burnings of books that offer alternate views on climate like this one from San Jose state University?
The full SMU press release is below.
From Eurekalert via SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
California 6th grade science books: Climate change a matter of opinion not scientific fact
Textbooks from different major publishers give climate deniers equal weight as vast majority of climate scientists who cite scientific evidence of human-caused global warming
If American teens are unsure about climate change or its cause, some school textbooks aren’t helping, says teaching expert Diego Román, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, co-author of a new study on the subject.
Studies estimate that only 3 percent of scientists who are experts in climate analysis disagree about the causes of climate change. But the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the evidence of 600 climate researchers in 32 countries reporting changes to Earth’s atmosphere, ice and seas — in 2013 stated “human influence on the climate system is clear.”
Yet only 54 percent of American teens believe climate change is happening, 43 percent don’t believe it’s caused by humans, and 57 percent aren’t concerned about it.
The new study measured how four sixth-grade science textbooks adopted for use in California frame the subject of global warming. Sixth grade is the first time California state standards indicate students will encounter climate change in their formal science curriculum.
The researchers examined different textbooks, each published in either 2007 or 2008 by a different major publisher. They found and analyzed 279 clauses containing 2,770 words discussing climate change.
“We found that climate change is presented as a controversial debate stemming from differing opinions,” said Román, an assistant professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School. “Climate skeptics and climate deniers are given equal time and treated with equal weight as scientists and scientific facts — even though scientists who refute global warming total a miniscule number.”
The message communicated in the four textbooks was that climate change is possibly happening, that humans may or may not be causing it, and its unclear if we need to take immediate mitigating action, the researchers found.
That representation matches the public discourse around global warming, in which previous studies have shown that media characterize climate change as unsettled science with high levels of scientific uncertainty. The researchers said only 33 percent of the U.S. public believes climate change is a serious threat.
The textbooks misrepresented, however, actual scientific discourse, which asserts climate change is an environmental problem bearing immense risk, where the human impact is clear, and where immediate action is warranted, the authors said.
“The primary purpose of science education is to represent the science accurately, but this analysis of textbooks shows this not to be the case for climate science,” they said.
Co-author on the article is K.C. Busch, a Ph.D. candidate in science education in Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education.
The authors reported the findings in October at the 11th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), held in Helsinki, Finland.
The findings were also published in the Environmental Education Research journal in the article, “Textbooks of doubt: Using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks.”
New national standards align with scientific discourse
An extensive body of prior research has revealed students have many misconceptions about climate change, confusing it, for example, with causing acid rain and ozone depletion, as well as linking it to skin cancer, the authors note.
Now there’s an opportunity to ensure textbooks aren’t part of the problem, by altering misleading language, Román said.
States have begun adopting new national standards for science education as a result of recommendations by the U.S. Next Generation Science Standards. Those standards were developed in part by the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and align more accurately with the scientific discourse.
“As the Next Generation Science Standards become adopted and implemented, publishers are writing new textbooks that include climate change,” the authors said. “This reworking of science textbooks provides a rare opportunity to reflect on how we can create texts that enhance science teaching and learning.” The standards were completed in April 2013.
Specifically, the textbook researchers recommend against stripping out uncertainty, since even well proven theories carry the possibility of a better theory that contradicts one or more postulates of the theory.
Instead they recommend clarifying what exactly is unknown and why.
They also recommend the inclusion of humans as agents and as the cause of climate change. That fact is scientifically supported and not controversial among scientists who study climate from a broad range of disciplines, including geology, geophysics, geography, paleoclimatology, glaciology, hydrology, ecology, evolutionary biology, environmental studies and oceanography.
Textbook language doesn’t reflect science of climate change
To study the textbooks, the researchers applied text analysis to conduct an exhaustive examination of the choices and frequency of language, including the level of uncertainty as well as the agents involved.
The textbooks did promote uncertainty when addressing the causes of climate change by using verbs such as could, may or might. And some passages created the view that global warming could even be beneficial. One textbook wrote:
“Global warming could have some positive effects. Farmers in some areas that are now cool could plant two crops a year instead of one. Places that are too cold for farming today could become farmland. However, many effects of global warming are likely to be less positive. Higher temperatures would cause water to evaporate from exposed soil, such as plowed farmland. Dry soil blows away easily. Thus, some fertile fields might become ‘dust bowls.'”
The texts emphasized abstractions, such as deforestation or the burning of wood, without referencing humans.
When attributing information to scientists, the textbooks used verbs such as believe, think or propose, but rarely were scientists said to be drawing conclusions from evidence or data. There was one occurrence when the noun evidence was used, the authors said, and then it was to suggest the notion that climate change is not new:
“Scientists have found evidence of many major ice ages throughout Earth’s geologic history.”
Less frequently used were verbs that describe scientific practices — such as “find,” “determine,” “measure,” “obtain.” The most frequently used word when scientists were present in the sentence was “think,” which introduces the idea that it was decided rather than observed or found as the result of scientific observation and research, Román said.
Language matters, particularly in California, Texas, New York
The findings suggest that textbooks should be more specific about the facts, should cite sources, and should accurately reflect the methods by which scientists reached their conclusions.
“The work of scientists should be represented accurately rather than saying that scientists think or believe, as if it’s a matter of opinion,” Román said.
As a social scientist who studies linguistics and the impact of words, Román said language matters, particularly in the textbooks in the nation’s three most populated states, California, Texas and New York, which set standards for the rest of the country.
“These textbooks discuss the impact of climate change on the Earth in hypothetical terms, in complete contradiction to scientific research findings,” he said.
The researchers note that while it’s accurate that agreement isn’t unanimous, only about 3 percent of climate scientists disagree about the causes of climate change. “Yet textbooks characterize that with the description ‘some scientists,’ so students can assume its 50-50, which is very different from saying ’97 percent of scientists,'” he said.
Does the language reflect a compromise by publishers as they walk a fine line?
“It appears textbook publishers include discussion of climate change to appease one segment of their market — but then to appease another segment they suggest doubt, which doesn’t reflect the scientific reality,” he said.
Textbooks lack specific language to guide student action
Textbook language should reflect the language used in scientific reports, be explicit about the sources of information and should clarify human cause, with specific actions students can take to produce change, the authors recommend.
Yet none of the textbooks explicitly called students to act to mitigate climate change, the authors note.
Generic information, such as “take care of the environment” or “stop burning coal and wood,” lack specific solutions for action.
“Students think, ‘that’s not me — that’s the people in the Amazon who are burning forests,'” Román said. “Textbooks must draw the connection between specifics, such as turning off lights or driving less, to relate solutions to students and their lives.”
###
Textbooks of doubt: using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science textbooks
- DOI: 10.1080/13504622.2015.1091878
Diego Romána* & K.C. Buschb
Abstract
Middle school students are learning about climate change in large part through textbooks used in their classes. Therefore, it is crucial to understand how the language employed in these materials frames this topic. To this end, we used systemic functional analysis to study the language of the chapters related to climate change in four sixth grade science textbooks adopted in the state of California. The linguistic variables investigated were: types of nominal groups; processes; circumstances; and the modality system. Our findings showed that these textbooks framed climate change as uncertain in the scientific community – both about whether it is occurring as well as about its human-causation. The implications for science education are discussed in relation to how the current political and public discourses of climate change, rather than the scientific discourse, is influencing how textbooks discuss this topic.
Honestly, the higher education bubble can’t burst quickly enough for my tastes.
I have a feeling that the collapse of the AGW cult will help accelerate the burst of the higher education bubble.
Exactly. That’s one reason this thing is such an opportunity. The idiots are way out on a limb and they don’t even know it.
Tarran, RW, rw,
Can we agree to spell it hire education nowadays?
The POTUS that pays the piper calls the tune, and all that, maybe?
Auto
It might be bursting soon. This was in Drudge today;
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html
A nice concise report. Things are a changing.
Education is supposed to teach the facts. “2+2=4”, not “2+2=4 because … (fill in the blank) … and our Cause is out to change that.”
2+2=5, for large values of 2. (old math joke)
I thought that reaching 5 had more to do with the probability that 2+2=4.
But I’m probably wrong. 😎
A bit of basic education is needed for people who think that “refute” means “deny”.
Refute means “prove wrong”.
To use it in any other way creates confusion and degrades a useful word.
Language does matter.
Nah! Will never happen. Too much money involved.
These people are not only offensive, they are completely stupid. They display a complete miscomprehension of the subject matter, and frame it in that classic ad hominem. Basically, propagandists. They don’t even know that they are mouthing lies.
I’ll agree, but, with respect, just make a minor adjustment to how I would have phrased it:
“These people are not only stupid, they are completely offensive.”
These people are not completely stupid. Ad hominem attacks and emotionalism are the modus operandi of the left. Always has been alaways will be. Unfortunately on other issues this has been quite effective. I’m waiting for the terms “climate hate” and ” The war on Gaia ” to start coming into vogue.
Piles of money + publicity machine + compliant media + propaganda + true believers = anything you want
True. The media profits from doom-and-gloom. No media will use the headline “Crops yields improve and weather milder”. Sadly, it is going to have to get awfully cold with horrible effects to change the stories in the media.
Yes, you would never a skeptic using offesinve ad hominems. Those alarmist hoaxers and liars, who are just riding the funding gravy train, should put their house in order.
Re: your first sentence. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Re: your second sentence. I agree completely.
Alarmist is an accurate description of those who claim catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Hoaxers is also an accurate statement for those who manipulate, doctor or misanalyse data.
Liars are those who bluntly falsify or spin incomplete or inaccurate stories.
Did you mention a glass house?
You mean commenters is this blog should use less offensive language and be content to the Big Oil money they never saw, where universities are allowed to use offensive language and are not getting enough Big Green and Big Government money?
I’m astonished. Of course, I’d be happy if people didn’t use offensive language here, but universities usually have a little bit higher standard. Right?
oddly universities like the CRU’s UEA ,as with the IPCC, have seen far more ‘Big Oil money ‘ than any CAGW sceptic has,
seaice,
Take a look at the “dumb-old” comment below. Do you have any advice for him?
OK, dbstealey, I have now read the “dumbold” threads. Not so much advice for DOG, but some having seen the “dumbold” posts, I have no advice, just some observations.
The context of this is that climate change is portrayed as a controversial debate stemming from different opinions, with equal weight given to pro and anti sides. In fact, the experts are mostly on one side, if by experts we mean those that are active in research and publishing results.
The paper refered to in the post and linked in the comments shows a large majority of Earth Scientists answer “yes” to the questions I paraphrase as “has the world warmed?” (90%) and “is man a major contributor to that warming?” (82%). That is a large majority of Earth scientists that support AGW. The dispute seems to be about if it is 82% or 97%. It doesn’t matter that much to me, there is clearly a large majority that agree.
From 82% of the wide category “Earth Scientists”, if we drill down to narrower catagories that the authors identify as having more expertise in climate science, the figure rises. By the time we are at the “active climate experts” category we have a pretty small sample, and the figures are likely to be a bit uncertain, but they find about 95% agree.
If we drill down to the areas of expertise least likely to answer “yes” we get economic geologists at 47% (48 from 103) and meterologists at 64% (23 from 36). Economic geologists are those that study coal and oil. I draw no conclusions here, but it is an interesting finding.
These figures broadly agree with others obtained by different methods. People have criticised these figures. They may have a point. Maybe it is not 97%. Maybe it is only 95% or 90%. Even if these criticisms are valid, no one has come anywhere close to refuting that a large majority of “experts” believe that temperatures have risen and that man is a significant contributor to that rise. (Or have they? If they have, can you point me in that direction? ) Given these facts, it is misleading to present the argument as finely balanced and a matter of opinion.
The only valid criticism is that those that have been labeled as “experts” are for some reason in a worse position to know about the reality of climate change than non-experts (or to tell the truth about it). If this is true we should give the non-experts more consideration.
This is not impossible. Medical doctors were guilty of preventing and delaying the introduction of life saving hygeine measures, and they were supposed to be the experts. The only way to become a doctor in those days was to join the club, so to speak. Your opinion had to align with the profession to be included in that profession. There are many other examples.
The situation with climate change is different, because the doctors of old did not use much evidence, whereas the climate scientists make a great point of using evidence. Whilst it is possible that certain amount of bias is distorting the picture, it is very unlikely that a closed shop of falsity could be maintained in the absence of real evidence. Remember, if a scientist could prove AGW wrong they would become famous. Who would turn down the chance of being the modern day Galileo?
Meanwhile, on the other side, Anthony says:
– “The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 subjectively identified “specialists” or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of 10,257 invited. What’s interesting is that 3% of the invitees didn’t think the earth had warmed since the Little Ice Age.”
He says 3% of the invitees didn’t think the Earth had warmed. This is wrong. In fact, we do not know how many of the invitees thought that. Since 10% of the respondants thought that, it is a reasonable first estimate that about 10% of the invitees thought that too.
I do not know why this wrong information should be used. One reason might be to juxtapose the 2.4% (the expert figure) with the similar magnitude 3% (the incorrect “no warming” figure.) The use of “since the little ice age” (not used in the question) is also curious. It might be a way to signpost to the reader that the author believes that of course temperatures have risen since then, so those 3% are a bit barking. And since that 3% is similar magnitude to that 2.4%, perhaps they are barking also. Or that because they are both similar magnitude, they must be of similar importance. Since the 3% is of no importance, the 2.4% must also be of no importance. Perhaps someone could terll me another reason for this error.
I will close for now.
seaice says:
In fact, the experts are mostly on one side, if by experts we mean those that are active in research and publishing results.
Yes, the most esteemed international expert, Prof Richard Lindzen (very active in research, having published 20 dozen peer reviewed papers on the climate… oh, you meant another expert? Bill Nye, maybe?
And:
The dispute seems to be about if it is 82% or 97%.
Wrong again, which is what you get for reading dumbo comments. They’ll warp your mind. Instead, take the advice of other commenters, and read the peer reviewed paper that totally debunks those phony percentages. You will believe what you want to believe, seaice. But it’s not true.
Next:
no one has come anywhere close to refuting that a large majority of “experts” believe that temperatures have risen and that man is a significant contributor to that rise.
As usual, seaice is forced to turn the Scientific Method upside down to support his failed argument. See, skeptics of the “dangerous AGW” (DAGW) conjecture have nothing to prove. The onus is entirely on those making your claim. But you’ve failed miserably in trying to prove that DAGW exists, because you lack the one thing required: verifiable, credible measurements. Thus, every DAGW claim is no more than a personal opinion; an opinion which Dr. Lindzen’s research refutes (source provided on request).
Next:
Medical doctors were guilty of preventing and delaying the introduction of life saving hygeine measures, and they were supposed to be the experts. The only way to become a doctor in those days was to join the club, so to speak. Your opinion had to align with the profession to be included in that profession. There are many other examples.
Thanx for that exact analogy with current mainstream ‘climatologists’ (ie: astronomers,chemists, etc). You excuse those charlatans by saying:
The situation with climate change is different, because the doctors of old did not use much evidence, whereas the climate scientists make a great point of using evidence.
As if. Their “evidence” is so questionable they refuse to debate it any more, and none of them will write an article to post here, because their “evidence” will be ripped to shreds. They are only convincing to the lemmings who accept their assertions, without any skepticism at all <–(lookin' at you, seaice).
You add:
…it is very unlikely that a closed shop of falsity could be maintained in the absence of real evidence. Remember, if a scientist could prove AGW wrong they would become famous.
Two fallacies in two sentences: first, you once again have the scientific method backward. Try to pay attention: skeptics have nothing to prove. DAGW is your conjecture. But the alarmist clique has never been able to show that the present ‘climate’ (meaning temperatures) are any different than past temperatures, or rates of change. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. Skeptics are under no obligation to do anything other than to show that your alarmist scientists have never produced evidence proving that human CO2 emissions are the cause of “climate change”. At this point, that is just a failed conjecture.
You finish your baseless rant by reverting again to the bogus ‘97%’ claim, which has been thoroughly debunked. It is simply not true. But it must bother you greatly that it was falsified so easily, since you keep trying to maintain it on life support. If John Cook (one of your ‘experts’) had used common sense, he would have used a bogus number that was at least believable. But by claiming ‘97%’, he blew it. Now it’s left to the lemmings to try and keep that silly nonsense alive, when rational folks know better.
You need to step back, seaice, and realize that you’re beating a dead horse. But since you picked the losing side of a science debate, I am happy to set you straight whenever you post nonsense like you did here.
Say ‘Hi’ to dumboldguy for me. We miss him…
…not.
dbstealey. This is an important point, so pay attention. I explained the context of this particular debate. It is not about whether the experts are right or wrong (although that is important), it is about on which sides the experts are. I do not have the scientific method upside down, because I am not arguing that they must be right because they agree. As you would see from my post if you read it attentively.
I do not believe that someone should not be listened to simply because they use evidence from particular sources, as you do.
“Instead, take the advice of other commenters, and read the peer reviewed paper that totally debunks those phony percentages. You will believe what you want to believe, seaice. But it’s not true.”
The paper to which you refer is the exact one that I described in my post. It says exactly what I said in my post; 82% of earth scientist that reponded believed in AGW. I feel sure that you must have put the wrong link in, since this one exactly makes my case and refutes yours. Otherwise I presume you did not read the paper.
“Prof Richard Lindzen (very active in research, having published 20 dozen peer reviewed papers on the climate… oh, you meant another expert? Bill Nye, maybe?”
Richard Lindzen is indeed a prolific author. This does not alter the argument that the great majority of scientists publishing in this area agree that the temperauture has risen and that man in a significant contributor to that rise, since Richard Lindzen is but one person. Citing one exception does no alter the facts.
I asked for a reference on the “debunking” of the position that a great majority of experts believe in AGW. All you posted was a paper that demonstrates my proposition. Please support your claim that it is debunked. Otherwise can we please accept that most experts think this is the case, and focus on discussing why they may be wrong?
seaice says:
This is an important point, so pay attention. I explained the context of this particular debate. It is not about whether the experts are right or wrong (although that is important), it is about on which sides the experts are.
It’s very clear which side the experts are on: they have stated, in writing, that human emitted CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. Pay attention to this, Mr. Anonymous ‘seaice’:
More than 31,000 professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences, have co-signed a statement to that effect. That number is far more than anything you can produce contradicting the OISM statement. I doubt that you could find even 10% of that number who disagree. In fact, I don’t think you can find even one percent of that number, by name, who contradict the statement. Thus, your argument is “debunked”. Thoroughly.
But please, prove me wrong. IF you can. Produce the names of even 300 alarmist scientists who have contradicted the OISM statement in writing. If you can, you’ve met my challenge, and I lose the argument. If you can’t, you lose. Simple as that. I don’t think you can come anywhere close to 300 names, so instead, you will emit more pixels trying to parse what you wrote into something credible, when it’s not.
Finally, I reject any argument made on the basis of vague words like “significant”. That term can mean almost anything, so it is worthless. You cannot quantify “significant”. It sounds impressive to the uneducated, but it’s just a lame argument, used because you’ve got nothing more convincing.
Writes dbstealey:
Quoting from the Global Warming Petition Project’s FAQ page:
With it understood that further developments have occurred since the formulation of the 2007 review paper, one wonders what might be gotten from a reiteration of the survey, including tabulation of opinions to be gathered from what is effectively a new generation of observers who are educated and experienced in the hard sciences and therefore qualified above the layman level to speak with reliable expertise in critique of the anthropogenic global warming – er, “man-made climate change” – or is it “climate fragility” again this week? – contention.
It should be noted that an updated review to be provided new petition participants (and those who decide to renew their own signatory participation in the project) will inevitably run a good deal longer than the 12 pages of the compilation prepared in 2007, addressing as it must the research reports published since 2007 and examinations of the information gained in the three tranches of the Climategate exposures (beginning 17 November 2009).
As I myself have observed in comments on this Web site and elsewhere, there are disturbing deviations from standards of practice (I’m a physician; such deviation effectively defines dereliction of duty and therefore malpractice in the medical profession, so I’m going to use this expression quite pointedly) in the methodologies employed by the nominal scientists comprising what the AGW alarmists call “the consensus in climate.” Ceteris paribus, people with undergraduate and graduate degrees in the “hard” sciences are familiar with scientific method and thereby meet a high minimum standard in terms of ability to determine if the error-checking functions of scientific method are being scrupulously implemented in work conducted in any scientific discipline.
One does not have to be a chicken to tell when an egg is rotten, and the pal-reviewed works of “the consensus in climate” have never passed any sort of “sniff test.”
I’ve considered the Oregon Institute’s petition project to have been a properly conducted and tabulated survey. Partisans of the AGW fraud have failed throughout to set forth anything resembling an acceptable critique of the survey’s methods or results, their efforts at dismissal replete not only with suppressio veri, suggestio falsi but also with fallacies of logic strongly indicative of failure to approach the subject of countervailing opinion among great numbers of scientifically literate critics with even the minimum standards of lucid reasoning to be demanded of a high school debate team member.
Tucci78. I am staggered by either your chutzpah or your lack of understanding. To claim that a petition is a properly conducted survey is amazing. They are two very different things. The paper that dbstealey kindly linked to is a survey. They ask a group of people questions and collate the results, both agreeing and disagreeing. It allows you to asses how many of the group you asked agree or disagree with certain statements. the majority (82%) of the group asked (earth scientists) agreed with AGW.
A petition is totally different, because it only asks those that agree to respond. As such you do not know how many disagree with the statement.
dbstealey has not claimed it is a survey, yet still believes that a petition can debunk a survey, or actually several different surveys.
The petition contained a paper pretending to be a review article about global warming. This was published in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That might raise an eyebrow, since this is a climate paper. Even more doubt should be sowed when you learn that “The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed or the Web of Science. The quality and scientific validity of articles published in the Journal have been criticized by medical experts, and some of the political and scientific viewpoints advocated by AAPS are not held by mainstream scientists and other medical groups.” hardly a ringing endorsement.
Add to this that only 39 (0.1%) of the signers list climatology as their area of expertise, and you start to see that this in no way debunks the other published surveys.
You are still failing to debunk the statement.
So, ‘seaice’, you cannot find even 300 named scientists (just one percent of the OISM’s 31,000+ co-signers) who can contradict their statement?
Didn’t think so. I expected deflection, and that’s what we got from you.
How ’bout this: go find one-tenth of one percent of named scientists with degrees in the hard sciences who state that the OISM conclusions are wrong. That’s only 30 scientists. Versus thirty thousand scientists and engineers.
Take your time. I’ll wait here…
Finally, you say:
A petition is totally different, because it only asks those that agree to respond. As such you do not know how many disagree with the statement.
Well then seaice me boi, you just get the names of every scientist or engineer who contradicts the OISM statement. Go get ’em, and report back here.
But you don’t have any names, you say? And your only lame response is to those “published surveys” that you canveniently refuse to cite? If they’re published, where are they?
You lose, seaice. The fact is that tens of thousands of scientists and engineers have signed their names to a statement that remains unrefuted by you or any other climate alarmist. The best you can do is imply that there *might* be others who disagree. But you can’t name them.
No wonder the alarmist cult has given up debating skeptics of the DAGW scare. When it comes to facts, just like you, they’ve got nothin’.
Let me explain the difference between a survey and a petition, and why you are totally wrong. Imagine an impending election. The polling organisations conduct several polls, and the results come in at 80:20 for the Orange party. It is looking like it will be a victory for Orange.
Dbstealey sends out series of letters asking anyone that intends to vote Pink party to send in how they intend to vote. Dbstealey declares that the result will be a landslide victory for the Pink party because he has the names of 30,000 people which will vote Pink. On being challenged that his petition means no such thing, and the surveys, not petitions, are a proper way to assess the numbers of votes expected, dbstealey responds that since the pollsters cannot produce the names of 30,000 people intending to vote Orange, he is confident of a landslide Pink victory.
Dbstealey is stunned and amazed when Orange romps home with a landslide.
About 30,000 scientists and engineers gain a PhD in the USA every year. Given 40 post-doctoral years, the petition represents less than 1% of PhD’S in the USA, even if we take it at face value. It is meaningless.
seaice sez:
Let me explain… why you are totally wrong.
LOL!! Still got no names, eh, ‘seaice’? Only name-free, lame arguments that don’t stand up to any scrutiny.
You’ve got nothin’, seaice. Post names that contradict the 31,000+ OISM co-signers. Then we’ll have something worth discussing.
Until then, it’s 31,000+ to …one: you. And you’re just a fake name, so you don’t count..
dbstealey – I am sorry you were not able to follow the arguments.
Another illustration of the value of petitions. One third as many people as signed the Oregon petition thought that the National Anthem should be swapped for R. Kelly’s “Ignition (Remix) because America deserves a song where Beyonce (or whomever) can belt out “Toot toot/ Beep Beep” at the World Series opener. This clearly demonstrates a majority in favor of this change as I cannot list off-hand 300 people who have expressed the opinion that the National Anthen should not be replaced by Ignition (Remix). Clearly, until such a list is compiled we must accept the conclusion of the petition (/sarc).
I have shown you that petitions do not reveal majority opinion by using election polling as an example. I would have though anyone would see the point. A further demonstration that obtaining a few thousand signatures does not demonstrate majority opinion is above. Can you drop this silly nonsense and face the facts?
dbstealey and everyone else… I am sorry you were not able to follow the arguments.
Could you be any more insufferable, talking down to people like that? That’s irritatiung, especially coming from a know-nothing. And your “Toot toot/ Beep Beep” is the best argument you can come up with — because you certainly haven’t produced even one name contradicting the 31,000 OISM co-signers. Have you? “Toot toot/ Beep Beep”, clown. Drop this silly nonsense and face the fact that you’ve got nothin’.
And:
I am prepared to stand by my claims that it is continuing to shrink.
Then offer 5 – 1 odds like I did. How many times do you have to be told: I don’t bet on coin flips, and neither does anyone else here. As you can see, most folks here have more sense. You say everyone agrees that Arctic ice is growing. You even contradict yourself.
Finally, you ask:
Why not say the ice is going, but that will be a good thing?
I have written that many times here: if Arctic ice disappears the North West Passage will be ice free, saving fuel and reducing transit times, and with warmer latitudes precipitation will increase; more land will be opened to farming. It’s all good. Only in the crazed minds of the climate alarmist cult are those things bad.
Sea Ice, you have a point, but there is a difference in the language expected in an informal blog post and in formal demands and published papers.
What is acceptable in the street is not always acceptable in the courtroom. Similarly, you have different standards for discussion when you are talking with your mates or reporting as a newscaster. There is even a separate section (editorials) to allow for diversions into opinions.
However, the biggest issue is the denial that questions exist.
In your “mind”, a couple of posters are the equivalent of the SMU’s PR department?
there was a time when universities questioned the status quo. students we encouraged to question established ideas. to look for answers that might not have found by previous generations.
clearly Southern Methodist believes students should not question what they are taught. that new ideas are the province of previous generations. this generation must simply follow in the footsteps of those that have come before.
Yes, there was a time when universities encouraged free thinking and alternative views. I assume many still do but toe the line publicly.
@ Ferd, ” says teaching expert Diego Román, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, co-author of a new study on the subject.”
How can you fight an “expert”? (sarc)
I have no idea how students are supposed “to act to mitigate climate change”, really. Turning off lights or driving less surely has a negligible effect, as anything else directly related to students and their daily lives.
CO2 emissions could only be decreased by application of fourth generation nuclear power on a massive scale, there is no other way whatsoever. But that’s not a solution which easily relates to students and even in the long run only a small minority is expected to contribute to its development.
What is more, computational climate models are deeply flawed, but without them no strong link between CO2 emission and climate can be established.
But how on Earth would one bring unvalidated computational models of a single run of a unique physical instance, and one with chaotic dynamics at that, close to students’ daily lives is —
indecipherable.
Not too many grade school kids drive in the first place.
True on the surface, but how many grade school pupils are driven to school by their parents or alternatively catch a bus? In my youth we either walked or rode a bike to school.
Students are supposed to act alright. They’re being trained to act up on behalf of the warmists’ ideology, to act to support all the warmists’ causes, scientific, political, economic, and personal. They are being brainwashed to avoid any thoughts contrary to the warmists’ orthodoxy. They are being manipulated into becoming individual Gore-bots who respond to alarming storytelling instead of hard science.
Yes, in other words, they are being taught to be idiots, by idiots.
Of course, the possibility exists that they are being taught to be idiots by stupid liars.
Climate “science” = religion
So intolerance and stupidity comes as read!
photon
+ quite a lot.
Dozens, for sure!
If it isn’t a religion [and for some, I think it is (perhaps they hate humanity, I don’t know)] it is a supposedly concealed power grab on the grandest scale.
Auto, still with hope that the watermelons have bitten off more than they can chew . . . .
“Systemic functional analysis” does anyone know what this means?
A word string used by academics in an attempt to add credibility when opining on subject about which they lack expertise.
Academics with their heads in clouds of theory, whose feet have never stood in a cow-pat …
Nothing at all, it derives from that old computer joke program where the computer selects random words from three different columns (I think one made up of verbs, one of nouns, and one of adjectives) to generate expressions exactly like the one referenced. Therefore whenever I come across three word expressions like this nonsense they are ignored.
“Systemic functional analysis” = I lack in common sense.
My esteemed Smart,
Systemic functional analysis often – say 20%40% – occupies the central place in a 5×5 array in Bullshit Bingo.
Getitright certainly has the right idea!
GTL & PeterK are also spot on.
A final though:
If at first you don’t succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Auto
“Functional analysis: a type of therapy that traces the sequence of events involved in producing and maintaining undesirable behavior”
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Functional+analysis
In other words, finding an excuse for the vast multitude of character defects that can be grouped under the term “DDD” (Discipline Deficit Disorder).
‘Scientific racism’ eh? Are you sure it isn’t ‘scientific misandry’ or perhaps ‘scientific ageism’?
No, I’ve got it, it’s definitely ‘scientific ableism’.
Kids should be presented with the evidence from history and encouraged to think critically. To do anything other than that is propoganda, it certainly isn’t the teaching of science.
Very true. But todays science text books for school use in Europe treat the whole full blown IPCC orthodoxy simply as facts, without any shadow of doubt. So – teaching propaganda is the normal standard for schools now in Europe. No wonder then, that “heretics” and “dissidents” of the “infallible truth” of CAGW – like French weather specialist Philippe Verdier – are harassed and suppressed in Europe today like once the dissidents in the old Soviet Union.
If the US text books are still less propagandistic and therefore more scientific than in Europe then this speaks for a much higher degree of intellectual freedom there than in the old world. Maybe this missing intellectual freedom there is also the reason why Europeans don’t revolt against the cultural suicide which is going on in Europe just now…
“Textbooks must draw the connection between specifics, such as turning off lights or driving less, to relate solutions to students and their lives.”
=================
consider “driving less” as a solution. what does that really mean to 6th grade student? they haven’t even got a license and Southern Methodist is proposing that they drive less to solve the worlds problems. most of these students long for the day they can get a license and some degree of freedom to control their own lives.
is it any wonder the students don’t believe when the solutions proposed are 180 degrees out of step with reality.
And as for turning out the lights, what does that mean? are the students to be kept in the dark? is this the new dog that ate my homework? Johnny where is your homework? I would have done it Teacher, really I would have, only I had to turn out the lights to save the planet.
Students should turn off lights – but Román switched them off long time ago.
And this is -not- an insult, just an observation based on meaninglessness of his idea.
“consider “driving less” as a solution. what does that really mean to 6th grade student?”
I take it to mean that mommy should stop driving Billy to school and back everyday. Back when I was young, I had to walk 3-miles uphill both ways each school day, whether it was 100+ F or – 20 F with 3-foot snow drifts. We were never coddled like the kids today are. We had to fend for ourselves.
Sounds about right for me in Winnipeg back in the 1940s/50s if you change the lower number to -40F – of course the uphill both ways was only possible because the prairies are so flat that it is possible if you took a different route home. My job in the early morning after I was about 8yrs old or so was to zip down to the basement, shake out the ashes, and shovel on some coal into the tin octopus before the rest of the family got up. Felt boots with toe rubbers pulled on, long johns and heavy woolen breeks, parkas, fur-lined helmet or toque and double mitts and off into the white you went. Summer, sweltering in 90 -105F.
They are being taught to go home and shame their parents.
It is also worth noting that the 97% meme dates back to 2008; a lot has happened in those 7 years to change a lot of minds about a lot of things, particularly about CAGW. In 2008 Obama had a 65% approval vs the 45% he enjoys today (realclearpolitics).
AW – Why do at least 97 percent, and perhaps as high as 99.9 percent of climate scientists say it’s [Anthropogenic GW] real?
-10,257 Earth Scientists were sent an invitation
Please provide all the facts on th 10,257.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth).
[Note only government scientist, private sector need not apply]
Diego – The textbooks did promote uncertainty when addressing the causes of climate change by using verbs such as could, may or might. And some passages created the view that global warming could even be beneficial.
The texts emphasized abstractions, such as deforestation or the burning of wood, without referencing humans.
When attributing information to scientists, the textbooks used verbs such as believe, think or propose, but rarely were scientists said to be drawing conclusions from evidence or data. There was one occurrence when the noun evidence was used, the authors said, and then it was to suggest the notion that climate change is not new:
“Scientists have found evidence of many major ice ages throughout Earth’s geologic history.”
Less frequently used were verbs that describe scientific practices — such as “find,” “determine,” “measure,” “obtain.” The most frequently used word when scientists were present in the sentence was “think,” which introduces the idea that it was decided rather than observed or found as the result of scientific observation and research, Román said.
Silly boy, you are now wanting to put words in the mouths of CAGW Scientist? Read any of their papers or research, that is the way THEY talk.
I’ve got a novel idea . Why not just teach math and physics .
Work thru the classical equations of the 2 forces at work in the macroscopic world :
o Gravity which is asymmetric and centripetal and calculates as a negative energy and therefore to make equations balance must “trap” heat .
and
o Electromagnetism whose laws are symmetric so cannot “trap” heat .
The author decries the fact that that assessment does not have an activist component. What the author seems to want is to use science education for indoctrination and propaganda.
I have seen the education establishment close up in the US. It is not just that educators have no use for science, or even that they do not understand science. In the US, the education system hates science, with their greatest fear and contempt directed to chemistry and physics. I have seen and heard Education professors calling Chemistry professors baby killers, murderers, corporate polluters, and Na*zis. This was done in the classroom. This puts the notion of Academic Freedom in a whole new light. It makes for an interesting campus life when you have one group of majors actively and aggressively harassing another group of majors for no apparent or rational reason at all.
When I got to graduate school, I was able to compare notes with students from all over the US. We found that the anti-chemistry hatred was widespread and ran deep, in colleges and universities across the country.
We often hear laments about the poor state of public education in the US, particularly in math and the sciences. People wonder why this should be so. I know why this is so.
I don’t know what obtains on college campuses nowadays, but when I contemplate the sorts of practical jokes the Chemistry majors used to consider ingenious exercises in japery back when I shared lab benches with those guys as an undergraduate….
Hm. The Education majors who fail to temper their Social Justice Warrior aggressiveness may regain consciousness to find themselves scorched, deafened, stained, blinded, and driven out of their living quarters.
And if the Biology majors get involved, the teachers-to-be will spend the rest of their college careers pissing green (sometime orange, just for the sake of variety), vomiting recurrently, and suffering uncontrollable diarrhea.
Not to mention what they’ll be discovering in advanced states of decomposition under their beds.
Science majors tend to have a sense of humor that trends toward the outré.
As I electrical engineer major my practical jokes used to be of the high voltage variety.
I never have met or heard of an “education” major that had the math ability and aptitude and drive required to obtain a hard science degree. I’ve met many hard science majors that could have obtained an “education” major degree with part time effort.
Electrical engineers have been known to direct an EMP towards the frat house with 5000W of subwoofers going full blast during exam week.
Writes exSSNcrew:
Besides the fact that the Education majors had been harassing Chemistry majors (without mention of matriculants in other disciplines), I felt it would be a stretch to assume that even the clowns pursuing their baccalaureates in Education would be stupid enough to take on the Engineering guys.
I mean, granting that the teachers-to-be are dunderheads, you’d think that they would know about the pranking traditions widespread among engineering students (so spectacularly instantiated in the “Ditch Day” antics at Caltech every year).
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
I’ve got a Brother who teaches science in pre-college schools.
When he goes job shopping seeking to upgrade his employment place, he gets an interview almost immediately. At the same schools considering hiring teachers, those people with the non-math or science degrees, e.g. education would have lines with waits of an hour or more to ‘drop off’ their resumes and answer a few questions.
How does one ‘direct’ an EMP pulse? Short of major shielding, e.g. lead, faraday cages; EMPs tend to be indiscriminate when shutting electronics down.
I do know that the police sought directed EMPs for use against vehicles. The major stumbling block used to be that the EMP pulse shut down the police car too. Or have they solved that problem? Can I build one?
The target of the EMP is not the sub woofers. It is the electronics of the amplifier that power the speakers. This is a guess, mind you, but I have seen videos of people taking out radio controlled model helicopters with EMP devices, if they weren’t faked.
I’m new to WUWT, but I’m starting to see a pattern in some posts.
1) Post on a topic in a way that seems “fair and balanced”, and often DOES include much true and valuable information.
2) Slip in some distractions, distortions, and obfuscations early on, like the tired old “not 97%” argument that has been debunked to the point of it being dust in the wind. (I don’t even recognize the “10,257” survey, and I’m pretty familiar with the whole train of argument. Got a link so we can refresh our memories? it’s now 99.99%, by the way) This was also evident in the biased “shadow organization” opening, where the object seemed to be to stir up the troops.
3) Since many WUWT-er’s seem incapable of understanding the science involved but DO respond in a Pavlovian way to the BS, we are then off and running.
4) People like terran and Mike Bromley start spewing irrelevant and nonsensical opinions and soon the thread is inundated with a Gish Gallop of rants about everything a certain segment of the population is angry about. Although at a far higher level of intelligence, it’s the same thing Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Faux News do—-reinforce and enable certain types of thinking. In the case of WUWT, which purports to be a “science” site, it’s rather shameful to be engaging in such psychological manipulation..
5) Whatever intelligent discussion may have taken place without the “priming” is now buried, and the motivated reasoners and cognitively dissonant are reinforced in their BELIEFS rather than educated about truth.
Goebbels would be envious.
look in the mirror. your post follows the exact same pattern you complain about.
+10^10
Dumb-old,
The “pattern” in your own posts shows that you are a crank. Rather than trying to support the CO2=DAGW conjecture underlying all of climate alarmism, you parrot the nonsense found on the crazed blogs you usually inhabit.
That is because you cannot credibly support the ‘carbon’ scare, which has been thoroughly debunked by skeptics, using science-based logic. So instead, you attack skeptics who ask the uncomfortable questions that alarmists cannot answer.
Here ya go. Readem and weep. Add the Cook 97% too. Both are debunked entirely and worthless from a statistical standpoint.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf&ved=0CCsQFjADahUKEwjVjMfC84jJAhWFQSYKHWQeA1w&usg=AFQjCNFW7gAEg5cN1_dx1xWE7Cpqu81x4Q&sig2=PbaCF34-3WZXBhYChliGEQ
Thank you for providing the link. The key sentence in the whole paper is “Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists”, which shows that Anthony is indeed trying to mislead us. The survey was sent to “geology” folks, and I seem to recall that a large number of respondents were employed by oil and mining interests. Or was that another debunked survey?
Mislead us? No, if the MSU press person had made good on the promise of providing the paper, I could have written specifically about the claims, and so could you. So, I cited a similar survey. Unfortunately, she seems to have decided that because I hold a viewpoint contrary to her university, I’m not worthy of her keeping that promise. You seem to agree with that sort of behavior.
dumboldguy: “I seem to recall that a large number of respondents were employed by oil and mining interests.”.
No you don’t.
Stop making stuff up.
This peer reviewed paper in a top class scientific periodical might enlighten you a little (although I doubt it).
Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1547.html#/f1
catweazle666 quotes Kahan, Peters et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks, Nature Climate Change 2, 732–735 (2012), emphasizing:
Interesting. Supports the assertion of Dr. Jeff Glassman in “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument” (December 2007), where he observes:
dumbguy, the key is that only those who are already making their living off of the climate warming scam have the authority to decide who is allowed to express an opinion on the climate warming scam.
So it’s hardly surprising that those who agree with the insiders largely agree with the insiders.
dumboldguy:
Classic bait and switch.
Bait with a false question and then jump to attack in response. Just how were ‘climate scientists’ actually identified? Somebody inferred or guessed their occupations. Just how many actual jobs out there are ‘climate scientist’? How many colleges offered degrees specifically in ‘climate science’ prior to 2007?
You claim to have read the research linked.
a) Two very subjective questions.
1) How many people can compare today’s temperatures to temperatures back in the 1800s?
Pure subjective answers.
2) No specificity in human activity?
Another purely subjective opinion. No matter who answers it.
Classic bait and switch, D.O.G.; you have proven yourself to be just a troll vermin.
(Deleted. Banned commenter. ~mod)
DOG, regardless of the %. You have a survey (Doran) that has a 77 individual unit response being used as an aggregate for a global position. Not really usable. The sample distribution was over 10k, regardless of who it was, 77 used responses of 10,000+ requests is a meaningless sample rate. Let alone this was done by a grad student and no professionals were involved. Think about that,…. Grad student, not Gallup?
Now, lets talk about the Cook 97% and discover that the entire individual papers (12,000 referenced), used in the sample, were not actually read. Were they?
Did we really allow a POTUS to cite a study that didn’t really study in depth that of which it claimed, and has global implications? Shame on you news media!
Better yet, has the White House ever referenced the exact justification for the POTUS to espouse a 97% consensus of scientists in support AGW?
Should they not provide the justification for such statements? Who is checking this stuff?
Why do the press folks not ask for a citation for such a consensus statement?
That should be easy, no?
Politics, or Science, in play?
And you didn’t try to troll? Congrats.
You call yourself dumboldguy and while many here might agree, you thought yourself smart enough to hide your true identity by posting your rant(s) without using your real name.
To the astute reader, you’ve previously shown yourself to be just another anonymous propagandist- a troll- and now, you’ve completely outed yourself.
Yes, Alan, I am not a moron like you who seems to think it’s a badge of honor to expose his real identity on a site like this that is populated by so many crazies. Even that whackjob Tucci78 has done it. He is really DOCTOR (if you can believe that) Richard Matarese. Why don’t you take him to task for that? Oh, I forgot, you like what he says, so it’s OK for him to do so.
[now you have descended into name calling – you are on permanent moderation now due to your rude behavior -mod]
Posts dumboldguy:
Am I supposed to be intimidated by this idiot’s claim to have Spoken My True Name (as if such an incantation will invoke an exorcism)?
*Snicker!* This jackanape’s antics are ever-more-demonstrably proven to be driven by the religious faith of the True Believer, emphasis on his wonderful obsession with magical words in lieu of lucid reason, substantive argument, or correlation with factual reality.
“Am I supposed to be intimidated by this idiot’s claim to have Spoken My True Name (as if such an incantation will invoke an exorcism)?” Says Doctor Rich?
Is not using the “I” word pejorative and an obvious case of name-calling? And should it not result in the “m” word? I have been placed on “pemanent moderation” here because i used the word “moron” along with one of Tuuci78’s favorites—“whackjob”. I detect a double standard here on WUWT..
And of course Doctor Rich is not “intimidated” by some truth about his identity—-as one who appears to suffer from a rather severe case of NPD, he actually revels in any attention he can get, and uses it to self-inflate even more, as in “Spoken My True Name”. Although Doctor Rich may also be infected by the Weriko, an exorcism is likely to be ineffective.
If moderation permits a response to dumboldguy:
…not when it’s a diagnostic descriptor, for the term “idiot” has particular meanings both in political philosophy and in clinical psychiatry.
In the latter sense, Goddard used the term “idiot” to characterize individuals with a mental age of less than three years (or a Stanford-Binet score lower than 30). An imbecile rates next-level-up while the moron was considered to have a mental age range between 7 and 10 years.
In the former, the root idiōtēs denotes (among other things) a person lacking professional skill, and certainly someone laying claim to postgraduate studies, including a Master’s degree in Biology really ought to display a level of lucidity in public discourse indicative of intellectual skills superior to those demonstrated in posts that this self-admitted ‘viro had appended to this thread.
Are the indicators present to justify use of the term “idiot” in this case? I’ve got a three-year-old grandson in the household, and I’ve certainly experienced more fruitful exchanges with young hopeful than with old-and-busted.
Oh dang, got M-ed for using two mild “pejoratives”—-here’s the cleaned up message.
Yes, Alan, I am not someone like you who seems to think it’s a badge of honor to expose his real identity on a site like this that is populated by so many crazies. Even the highly esteemed Tucci78 has done it. He is really DOCTOR (if you can believe that) Richard Matarese. Why don’t you take him to task for that? Oh, I forgot, you like what he says, so it’s OK for him to do so.
[it seems that this poster is quite familiar with the identity of some posters, which suggests his claim of “I’m new to WUWT” is false -mod]
Tucci78
It is for this reason Morlocks never apologize, never retract a false statement, never correct themselves. Morlocks always double-down on a bad bet. To apologize or to admit wrong would be to grant power to the truth, their enemy, and to admit that a lie is powerless — yet lies (according to their sick thinking) are their friends and saviors.
AHEM
michael 😀 (grin)
With regard to the posted excerpt from John C. Wright’s essay “Barbarian, Troglodyte, Morlock” (3 November 2016), Mike the Morlock remarks:
Parody nickname?
Personally, I’d consider it much more insulting to be called “Eloi,” but there are reasons and reasons for choosing an online ekename.
By the bye, didja read that essay of Wright’s? I keep getting steered to the man’s Web log by various writers (Ex-Army, Vox Day, etc.) and while I do not by any means agree with all his positions, he’s a helluva prosodist.
Hi Alan Robertson!
I’ve been talking to P.J. O’Rourke (last night in my dreams). Anyway, he referred to me as TJ. For efficiency, lots of people refer to me as TJ.
Well, I’ve been thinking (difficult job, that) that, it gets laborious to constantly type out ‘dumboldguy.’ So, in the same spirit in which people shorten my name to TJ, may I recommend we shorten ‘dumboldguy’s (DumbOldGuy) name to DOG.
That should increase the efficiency, and thankfully, enhance the brevity of any dialogue with the …
I think “dumboldguy” is about the only thing you got right, dumboldguy.
. . . . Pot , meet kettle !! LOL….
Dumb Old Guy
I come here for entertainment. I suggest you relax and do the same.
Yes, dumb-old, do what Simon does, and provide some entertainment! Or, you could get up to speed on the ‘97%’ nonsense.
Do you ever notice how the trolls no longer even bother trying to defend the AGW scam. They just declare how gauche every one else is for not worshipping at the same alter that they do.
Observes MarkW:
First, even the trolls know that the premise of AGW – uh, “climate change” – er, “climate fragility” – oh, damnit, whatever! – is utterly indefensible. Reality done caught up with ’em, the blithering idiots. Blessed Algore invented the Internet, and that has r’ared back and bit ’em in the kishkas by enabling the dissemination of critique they can neither dispute nor suppress.
Second, in order to be a troll committed with high emotional fervor to the preposterous bogosity of this apocalyptic free-floating fallacy, one must be obtuse in the extreme.
I mean, we’re talking about cement-headedness obdurate to the point at which a jackhammer’s not going to do more than vibrate the mass and get a little spalling on the underside.
The trolls scrabbling and sputtering and squealing all their yammer about how pressing is the need to DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, EVEN IF ITS WRONG! (which might make sense if you’re a platoon leader fresh out of Infantry Officers’ Basic School who’s just gotten his command all the way down the throat in an ambush, but is hardly the strategic posture to be taken when faced by flatly unproven threat not even putatively anticipated to produce adverse effects until some decades – or maybe a century – in the future) are in grievous despair as their greatest hope for the fulfillment of every “Liberal” fascist’s libido dominandi is being blasted to cinders in wave after growing wave of popular disbelief, contempt, and hatred.
Reason – and the factual reality which reason always strives to reflect – has never been the authoritarian’s friend, and the Watermelon ‘viro (an authoritarian “Green on the outside but RED to the core!“) is as incapable of lucid ratiocination as is any other religious zealot.
Just amazing.
If I type “10,257 climate scientists” into Google I get 60,000 hits.
ALL of the first page are references to this specific study mentioned here.
And yet you say “I don’t even recognize the 10,257 survey.”
You could have done that – but you didn’t bother to inform yourself.
Well done for not knowing anything about a topic with which we are all far too familiar.
Congratulations for not having a clue.
And a big pat on the back for letting your ignorance about the topic discussed form the basis for your conclusions about the veracity of the claims made.
Are you sure that your post is not an elaborate satire of the position held by the greater majority of uninformed alarmists.
It might interest you to know that I, for example was formerly a consumer of Monbiot, Hartmann, the Guardian newspaper, the BBC, New Scientist, and all the other alarmist channels.
I know what it is like to be ignorant and biased against the type of criticism often seen here.
Then I woke up.
Maybe one day you may wake up too!!
dumboldguy, Ah you screwed up right from the beginning
” I’m new to WUWT, but I’m starting to see a pattern in some posts.”
Really? If your new how could you have read enough to form a HONEST opinion?
I lurked here a year before I posted for the first time. I found out who the people here were. What their education was.
But do note your post will remain “up” unlike those of the people you denigrate and misrepresent when they post on those sites which you seem more comfortable with.
Next “5) Whatever intelligent discussion may have taken place” Whats the matter you scared to have a real “intelligent discussion”? Kind of tough isn’t it when the other side is not some uninformed high school student who hasn’t been around long enough to learn the science. Right? Oh and you simply can’t have them exposed to critical thinking and logic.
Must be frustrating to you, despite your statement “Since many WUWT-er’s seem incapable of understanding the science involved” they in fact do.
And no, the fellow you referred to being envious, are you really that blind? His type hated people who questioned the “party” line, just as you do.
I betc’h you’d look great in black with Nordic rune tabs
(yeah mod o/t)
michael
right……
The New England Journal of Medicine reports that 9 out of 10 doctors agree that 1 out of 10 doctors is an idiot.’ (Jay Leno)
I rest my case
+1
Dumboldguy, yeah, it’s disgusting that there is no censorship of points of view and shaping of the narrative like the other echo chamber blogs you are used to. Sometimes we aren’t very polite, too. And yeah, although WUWT doesn’t have the purview to stamp out the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks, don’t worry, the rest of the MSM and the education system from K to Graduate School are being trained to work on it. Isn’t this what Goebbels was good at by the way?
Anyway, don’t be faint of heart. You came here hopefully for something different. Stick around, you look like you could benefit greatly from being shaken loose from your reliance on your knowledge graft.
dumboldguy November 11, 2015 at 9:24 am
I’m old to WUWT, and I have long seen a pattern in many trolls.
But I’m too busy to go into that. Instead, since dumb here is so up with all the science, let him here, now, tell me:
What is the scientific evidence that there is now (1) unnatural, (2) dangerous, (3) human-caused, global (4) warming due to emissions of (5) carbon dioxide?
Because all five of those propositions must be true for there to be any point in doing anything to reduce the world’s supply of plant food and starve 600 million people and countless wildlife.
Come on dumb, be the first! I’ve been asking this question for years and no one will give me an answer.
You picked a great user name.
Since climate science has become a political issue, an economic issue, environmental issue, and now threats have been made, people have the right to discuss these issues as well.
At least you picked the proper screen name.
how can driving less and turning out the lights be a solution? here we have a student in school. they are told the solution is to do less of something. so from that point forward, if they drive a car or turn on a light they are causing catastrophic warming to the planet. not to mention using a computer of cell phone.
so immediately they are being made to feel guilty for simply doing what it takes to survive in a modern world. if your time is worth anything, you need to be able to move around efficiently, which in most places takes a car. If you want to make a living, in most places you need electricity.
So in reality, the Southern Methodist solution is that these students should never have been born, because the only way they can really drive less or to use less electricity is for them to never start driving and to never start using electricity.
They need to resign themselves to a life spent very much like the poorest of the poor in the less developed countries. Relying on foot power and public transport, and doing without any electricity.
U.N. Agenda 21 = less Humans is good for Gaia !!!
It may well be that the textbook publishers, looking with clearer eyes at the subject of CO2 demonization as the driver of anthropogenic global climate change, are capable of greater perspicacity than the Watermelon schmucks comprising the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School.
The publishers don’t want their textbooks rendered ridiculously – contemptibly – obsolete as the “pause” continues, year upon year, through the present and subsequent solar cycles, and there is no further acceleration in the gradual, miniscule, more-or-less steady rebound warming experienced by the planet since the Little Ice Age ended circa 1850.
Textbook publishers are in business, and with this in mind they must protect the perception of their brands’ good names.
What good name has the Department of Teaching and Learning in the SMU Simmons School got to defend?
Please do us all a favor and quit repeating the misstatements re Cook et al. 2013 and other summaries of the opinions of climate scientists.
The existence of the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is a reality, as is clear from an examination of the full body of evidence. Naomi Oreskes found no rejections of the consensus in a survey of 928 abstracts performed in 2004. Doran & Zimmerman (2009) found a 97% consensus among scientists actively publishing climate research. Anderegg et al. (2010) reviewed publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting human-caused global warming, and again found over 97% consensus among climate experts. Cook et al. (2013) found the same 97% result through a survey of over 12,000 climate abstracts from peer-reviewed journals, as well as from over 2,000 scientist author self-ratings, among abstracts and papers taking a position on the causes of global warming.
In addition to these studies, the National Academies of Science from 33 different countries all endorse the consensus. Dozens of scientific organizations have endorsed the consensus on human-caused global warming. Only one has ever rejected the consensus – the American Association of Petroleum Geologists – and even they shifted to a neutral position when members threatened to not renew their memberships due to its position of climate denial.
How many government-paid “scientists” can you buy for 92 billion dollars in grants and salaries in just 3 years, if a skeptical scientist can be “bought for life” by $25,000.00 for a one-time grant from a single think tank?
Dumb-old,
You have “proven” nothing, except that you’re a crank.
You denigrate the “Best Science” site on the internet (the blogs you inhabit are close to traffic-free by comparison), which has repeatedly won the internet’s award for Best Science & Technology site. You just don’t like it because it attracts literally thousands of highly educated readers who don’t buy in to your climate alarmism.
And as Luke says above, do us all a favor and quit repeating the misstatements re Cook et al. 2013 and other summaries of the opinions of climate scientists. Those “97%” and “99.99%” numbers are so preposterous they make rational folks roll their eyes.
You couldn’t get 97% of Italians to agree the Pope is Catholic, but you’re willing to accept a fantastic number saying that 97%, or 99%+ of scientists are all in lock-step agreement? As if.
Do a keyword search in the search box here, using “97%” You will see plenty of pushback on that completely bogus number. That’s a week’s worth of reading right there, so if you’re not just being a crank, come back after you’ve finished with your mini-education on the ridiculous and debunked 97% claim.
Writes dbstealey:
Well, he’s a Jesuit. Might could be you won’t get 97% of Catholics to agree that the Society of Jesus is altogether Catholic.
DB,
Now come on WUWT is hardly a “science site” any more. Granted some articles have some science in them, but many now are political right wing slanted opinion pieces. Recognised mainstream climate science is treated very scathingly here, primarily because it doesn’t fit the founders beliefs. And that is fine, it just means you are stretching things to call it a science site. Just saying.
Simon sways:
WUWT is hardly a “science site” any more.
Thousands of people disagree with you. In fact, about 250 million unique visitors have come here to read about the science. That includes 1.6 million reader comments — way more than any other climate site.
What you don’t like having your feel held to the fire. As a climate alarmist, you hate it when someone asks you for measurements quantifying the thing we’re supposed to be frightened about. Because you have no measurements, all you have is your opinion and your fear.
In your case, I guess that isn’t science. But the rest of us enjoy learning about the science posted here. Sorry you don’t.
Writes Simon:
As had been observed by another participant in these discussions, when the matters at hand are of a purely technical nature, and the exacting specification of factual assertions predicated upon valid observations can be admitted to support points of argument, many of the “regulars” on WUWT can be counted upon to hew conscientiously to strictly “scientific” standards of discourse.
With it understood, however, that the “science” behind the anthropogenic global warming conjecture is utterly bankrupt – so much so today that the “climate consensus” cabal have to all practical effect ceased the investigatory gathering of real-world data because the evidence trends with grinding reliability against the alarmists’ desired conclusions, falling back instead on the previously successful tactic of “adjusting” surface (and even satellite?) temperature measurements in order to “cook the books” so as to simulate a global warming trend that’s been absent for more than 18 years – the only aspects of this massive shuck (an embarrassing error force-fed by government officers and other rent-seekers to become first a hoax and then a fraud) remaining to be discussed are the purely political aspects of climate alarmism, emphasis on the graft, how it shall be collected, and to whom it will be disbursed.
With the fillip of “regulation” deliberately crafted to destroy the free-market system of economic production and consumption, which the political left finds intrinsically hateful.
So, yeah, there’s a lot of focus on politics when the discussions go this-a-way. The “climate change” excuse for violating real human beings’ rights to their own lives, their liberties, and their property is all but universally a pursuit of the political left, and therefore opposition to these programs of predation and pillage and willful impoverishment necessarily focus on the machinations of leftists, their motivations, and how to keep these fascisti from destroying the economy, the civilization it supports, and the society in which we live peaceably with our neighbors.
That would tend naturally to be interpreted by leftists as “political right wing slanted,” but then in the binary mindset of the leftist (pickled in cupidity and with a libido dominandi so pronounced that one dare not leave one of these critters unmonitored in the presence of children or even the family dog) any opposition is “right wing” and on “the wrong side of history.”
What is it that the political left is trying to sell that anybody would voluntarily buy?
Simon, boasting that this is ““Best Science” site on the internet” may have been true in the past, but not now. That award has been discontinued. They discontinued voting for that award when the people running that poll discovered the folks here were “gaming” the system.
[Mr. Pitman, I protest, nobody here “gamed” the system. that’s a bald faced lie, and you’ll have to prove it or find yourself in the troll bin. I actually instructed people NOT to do such things. The fact is that as evidenced by our recent 250 million milestone. It was simple popularity issue.
Either prove it or apologize. I don’t intend to tolerate such falsehoods from you. – Anthony]
[Note: Anthony, “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
“Just saying” the political aspects of CAGW hasn’t been about actual science for quite some time now. (Remember Hansen and Wirth?)
Pointing out how the facts have been spun counter-clockwise is somehow wrong? Presenting “unspun” facts is wrong? Presenting another fact-based conclusion that doesn’t support proposed political “solutions” is wrong?
If that’s “right-wing”, then what “wing” is flapping their gums against those conclusions and why? It certainly isn’t the facts of of the matter.
(Of course, if you turn off the AC in a hot room some in the room may not want to hear anymore.)
Simon returns with his usual nonsense. Once again, Simon uses his blinding reading comprehension issues and posts his personal opinion instead of any facts.
There is an incredible amount of real science in any of the recent threads. The true answer is simply, Simon refuses to actually read the articles.
I second all of that. It’s why the “D” word is so fitting—-rather than accept the many well-done studies that reinforce each other’s findings, certain folk continue to make absurd arguments against their validity and nit-pick and cherry-pick around the edges with never-ending “…but….but…” foolishness.
Here’s another citation, and one that shows how rejection of AGW is based on political motives rather than science. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/now-just-001-percent-of-climate-scientists-reject-global-warming
Is WUWT a science site or a political site or both?. Come clean, Anthony. Honesty is a respected virtue.
If you would read the reports debunking all of the ‘97%’ consensus papers, you might learn something about being honest.
Dumb&Old says:
It’s why the “D” word is so fitting
Explain exactly what skeptics of the climate alarmist hysteria are supposed to be “denying”.
And don’t say we’re ‘denying climate change’, that’s a loser’s argument.
ROTFLMAO …..motherboard ???? really ???? I bet all ten of their followers are proud of you !!!! snarc…
“Come clean’? Why, you first sir.
You prefer to take potshots from the comfort on anonymity by using a fake name. I put my name to every word here. You should think about your own honesty first before you demand it of others. And, in case you didn’t know, WUWT covers ALL SIDES of the climate debate from politcal to science, just look at the categories. If you don’t like that spread or the way we write articles, then don’t visit – nobody is forcing you to.
And in case you didn’t know, I was just like you in the early 1990’s, I was even what you might call a “climate activist” using my position at the TV station to enact change. Then, I looked beyond the headlines, and found the issue wasn’t anywhere near as bad as portrayed in the media. You should try it along with putting your own name to your invective.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
Listen dummy, when the US govt and others take the politics out of science, so will I (we).
If you value honesty as you say, then give us an honest appraisal of how you think politics hasn’t been injected into this issue by the warmists, when we rarely hear from any scientists publicly on this subject, but we sure do hear about it every day from politicians, the media, and associated hangers-on, don’t we?
No one is claiming there wasn’t about 0.8C warming since 1880. Since I’m not worried about that, nor the “pause” in rising temps, I am concerned that the political-economic action being proposed by the warmists is out of context with the reality of there being NO BIG PROBLEM with temperatures.
Why are you concerned about the very minor warming we experienced? Aren’t you concerned about the credibility of your fellow warmists who’ve failed at accurately predicting even the last decade of temperatures? If you’re so honest, how can you honestly believe what the warmist scientists and politicians say about what the climate is going to be like 100 years from now?
I honestly think you’re very gullible, and have been taken in by the constant drumbeat of alarmist scare stories.
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
They are welcome to. I’ve invited them to write article at WUWT, and in cases of article about them I’ve offered the right of reply. They don’t even bother to respond.
Kent Pitman:
How come you never see men shove their hands into blenders and hit the “Frappé” button?
None of the alarmist quackery promulgated by the “climate consensus” can stand up to substantive challenge, which is why said “consensus” has had to confine their publications and other promulgations to venues in which they effectively pervert the process of editorial and “peer” review and can suppress critique.
Should Dr. Mann, Dr. Schmidt, et alia go on record in this Web forum, they would not only draw the attention of the most knowledgeable and well-spoken critics of the AGW – er, “man-made climate change” – premise but everything posted here would go into instant universal circulation and effectively permanent retention, never to be censored, amended, redacted, folded, spindled or mutilated.
Exactly the opposite of conditions prevailing on [sarc]Skeptical Science[/sarc].
Does anyone – alarmist or realist – sincerely believe that the “We’re All Gonna Die!” charlatans who’ve based their careers on the demonization of atmospheric CO2 would ever expose themselves in such a manner?
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
Well, when you fly overseas to attend a lecture by Dr. Michael Mann, it most certainly is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/24/the-mann-talk-and-travel-day-open-thread/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/the-josh-climate-selfie-and-livetooning-the-mann-lecture-at-bristol/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/
@Kent Pitman
Anthony has explicitly offered them by name to write articles here to counter opposing views. They never have, which is not any fault of Anthony’s.
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
I forgot a couple of items related to that trip
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/28/my-answer-to-the-why-didnt-watts-ask-a-question-brouhaha/
and this one
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/23/an-extraordinary-meeting-of-climate-skeptics-and-climate-scientists-in-bath/
Kent, if you don’t like what we do here don’t visit. At least I make an effort to listen to and meet with the other side, rather than just sit on the sidelines and complain as you do.
Hansen has had a guest thread here. There have been a couple of others too, IIRC.
Kent Pittman,
A stand-up guy would admit that he’s been brought up to speed and set straight. Why won’t you acknowledge that any alarmist scientist who wants to can write an article and submit it here?
That has been Anthony’s offer for years. But they won’t do it, and do you know why not?
They won’t write an article for the same reason that they refuse to debate skeptics: whenever they have debated skeptics, the alarmist side has been slaughtered.
They lost every debate, so they refuse to debate now (I can link to many more debates like this). They lost the debates for the same reason that they won’t write an article: they simply do not have credible science supporting their self-serving climate alarmism. Readers here are not stupid, in fact, most readers know as much about the subject as non-climatologists like Hansen, Mann, Trenberth and others like them. Those readers would rip a Mann or Hansen article to shreds in short order.
So I predict they will continue avoiding Anthony’s open invitation to submit articles. And I might add that you are free to submit an article here yourself. One friendly caveat: you had best have your ducks in a row.
Dumb-old & Luke too, have you ever really looked at the questions of these surveys?
As Legates et al., 2013 pointed out, Cook defined the consensus as “most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.” Cook then relied on three different levels of “endorsement” of that consensus and excluded 67% of the abstracts reviewed because they neither endorsed nor rejected the consensus.
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009 – http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth). [Note only government scientist, private sector need not apply]
This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey
With 3146 individuals completing.
In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
the AMS survey Stenhouse et al., 2014.
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a result.”
Questions –
So answering the questions –
1) most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?
2) When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
3) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
4) Regardless of the cause, do you think that global warming is happening?
5) How sure are you that global warming (a. is /b. is not) happening?
Answers and questions use generalized words of most, think, significant, contributing and no values or significance is asked for. No where is proof or dates or amounts or data of +/- estimates required and did you see CO2 anywhere?
Do these questions really provide the answer that; stopping man-made, catastrophizing, CO2 control knob, ever increasing (global warming / climate change / disruption / weirding ) [pick 1 or more], which can only be prevented by higher taxes, more regulations and a loss of personal freedom will actually keep us all from floating down the River Styx in a handbasket?
You know what is never questioned – or not often? If the objective of the survey was to only have people who were “climate scientists” with more than 50% (or whatever the percentage was) of their peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change, then why send the survey to 10,257 scientists? In my opinion (and yes DoG I said opinion) they moved the goal posts when they saw the results of the 3,146 that did respond. They had to narrow it down to fit the pre-ordained results they wanted. Seems clear cut to me.
Dumboldguy
I can´t see a problem in both being critical about science and being critical about politics.
What I do see a problem with however, is politicized science – like this:
“In welcoming the delegates to the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, hailed the fruitful alliance between WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP. The firm commitment of prof. Obasi, the Secretary-General of WMO, coupled with the determination of UNEP leadership, has resulted in a partnership which is helping to unify the scientific and policy-making communities of the world to lay the foundation for effective, realistic and equitable action on climate change. ”
…
“The Executive director stated that the impacts of climate change and global warming would have serious consequences for humanity.”
…
“It would be desirable for the Panel´s report to be ready by august 1990 for presentation to the Second World Climate Conference and to the United Nations General Assembly. It should be born in mind that both the governing council of UNEP and the executive Council of WMO expected the first report of IPCC to form the basis for international negotiations on a global convention on climate change.”
…
“The issuance of the report would only be the beginning of a far more arduous task. To tackle the problem of climate warming effectively, radical changes would be necessary in international relations, trade, technology transfer, and bilateral and multilateral strategies. The panel´s continued work would be the only guarantee of the concerted response to the global threat of climate change”
…
“In his opening remarks , Prof. Bolin said that the primary objective of IPCC, in making its first assessment, is to produce a document which could provide guidelines for the formulation of global policy and which would enable the nations of the world to contribute to this task”
…
“IPCC´s first report will contain the 20-page summaries for policy-makers to be produced by the working groups and an overall integrated summary of these placed in perspective. Professor Bolin suggested that the integrated summary be written by a drafting group consisting of the officers of IPCC and the chairmen of the Working Groups. He asked that this plan of his be enforced by the panel.”
…
Ref: Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28 June 1989. (My emphasis)
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session02/second-session-report.pdf
(Be patient it takes some time to download even if it´s only 1,7 MB. I got a copy if needed.)
…
There is no doubt that the politics were in place before the science, that the prejudice of the leaders must have had an effect on the “science”.
Imagine the pressure to comply with the prejudice of the leaders.
That is what I call politicized science – as far as it can be called science at all.
That’s quite amusing Kent!
Those cowards refuse to post here. There is no ‘pal-review’ here. People here look up background information, read the research, run numbers and comment back; explicitly.
WUWT does cover their research papers though, and posts what is freely available here. If you check, you’ll find that most of their research, if not all, are pay walled.
Kent, you are welcome to fund WUWT so that Anthony can publicly post their papers. Don’t expect public posting their papers to be cheap, so donate heavily.
[Note: “Kent Pitman” is a sockpuppet name used by a banned commenter. ~mod.]
dbstealey:
You say
I can confirm your point about debates from direct personal experience.
When St Andrews University Debating Society held a debate on anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) they expected pro-AGW scientists would want to attend to promote their science, and there would be difficulty obtaining opponents willing to confront them. But the Society could not find any pro-AGW scientists who would speak in the debate and the first climate realists they asked agreed to speak.
So, in the debate Morner, Monckton and me confronted three activists one of whom was a politician. We anticipated losing the vote in the debate because the students had been exposed to pro-AGW propaganda throughout their young lives, but we consoled ourselves with the knowledge that we could win the argument because all the evidence supports our views.
In the event, we won both the argument and the vote. I am certain this result would have been the same if any pro-AGW scientists had agreed to debate, and I suspect the reason they refused to debate is because they had the same certainty.
Richard
I find it highly offensive, criminally stupid, educational malpractice, to indoctrinate young students in climate alarmism. Climate alarmism, green living and sustainability are political issues for adults, not issues or tools for brainwashing children. Textbooks for primary schools should not mention climate change at all, period. They shouldn’t throw any subjective sustainability issues at children too young to evaluate them.
Secondary school textbooks should not mention these things either, until and unless they can demonstrate that their students are capable of understanding geologic history, the scientific method, falsification and other basic science fundamentals, as well as advanced math, chemistry, physics, some basic statistics, logic, computer programming basics, as well as economics, civics, political history and the roles of dissent and war in various political systems. If our high schools could teach 10% of that stuff, today, I’d probably drop dead of surprise. They’re lucky if they can get a few percentage of their kids to graduate with any algebra or basic science, let alone calculus, trig, physics, etc. The green blob needs climate alarmism to be inculcated into the ignorant, BEFORE they learn how to resist the stupid and the non-nonsensical.
Higher ed. of course, should be free to explore all questions, including political ones, such as global warming alarmism. But the students that enroll in higher ed should not enroll as brainwashed crybabies who are both unwilling and unable to grasp the complexities and uncertainties of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming caused by CO2. And like in any decent analysis, potential benefits of a situation must be part of any discussion of potential risks. CAGW alarmists like you, dumboldguy, never seem to entertain the benefits of increased crop yields, a slightly longer growing season, the disproportional amount of arable land increasing in the higher latitudes of the NH if more warming occurs, etc. With you, it’s cult-like predictions of doom, all the time, and now a very Scientology-like condemnation of us SPs [1], er, I mean climate ‘deniers.’
[1] – Scientology defines it’s critics and detractors as enemies and calls them Suppressive Persons (SPs). The formal dogma of the Scientology religion has specific proscriptions admonishing the faithful to attack SPs, silence them, sue them, ruin them, destroy them. The growing trend of climate alarmists toward silencing and jailing ‘deniers’ mirrors the cultist behavior of brainwashed, psychologically dependent Scientologists. That’s why I sometimes call them Climate Scientologists.
If you ever followed any blogosphere like Curry, Dan Kahan, Tom Fuller, you know what crap the 97% is. If you didn’t, jus’ shu’up.
oreskes only looked at papers cited by the IPCC, and the IPCC *ONLY* cites papers which ostensibly support AGW. FAIL.
Most of the ‘dozens of scientific organizations’ which you mention do not have a single climate scientist among their ranks. Psychologists? Medical groups? Seriously?
And even those groups which DO contain climate scientists have Major conflicts going on within their ranks http://kajm.deviantart.com/art/About-those-pro-AGW-scientific-organizations-501561189
Ah, but the Pope just said we are all going to roast to death in hell, too! Is now flying all over the world telling us that burning energy is going to create hell….oops.
Luke what is this “Climate Denial”? I have never met anyone who denies the earth has a climate, also Luke the globe hasn’t warmed for over 18 years using the only global form of measurement the RSS and UAH satellites. So what does that mean? It means that mother nature itself has proven the CAGW theory null and void. In science if the observations don’t match the theory then the theory is wrong. It doesn’t matter how many people say that they think the theory works, if observations don’t match it is false. Looking at published papers will give a false result because no one will publish anything that doesn’t follow the mantra. So all of those studies mean nothing. Give the Climate-gate e-mails a read and you will understand.
For the argument let us say you are correct and these studies represent the “consensus” of science and science practitioners worldwide.
This is where the problem is. Why? Because throughout history the moment an ideology or world view becomes the “consensus” is precisely the moment it begins to be exposed for the fraud it really is. Once consensus becomes the prime pillar of justification the edifice is doomed!
Well Luke, guess what: I couldn’t give a rat’s tooshie who thinks what about AGW. I care about one thing and one thing only: the evidence. But whereas skeptics have given me a truckload of evidence that the theory is wrong, NO ALARMIST has ever given me even a single serious scientific reason to think that there is any validity to the theory. So stop rabbiting on about consensuses, show the evidence or STFU.
My point is proven. In the time it took me to write my comment, the floodgates have opened. A dozen more comments, all mainly opinionated rants. Only Berényi Péter makes any sense and a real contribution with his comment about how we need 4th. gen nuclear power.
dumboldguy
You state that WUWTers don’t understand the science behind CAGW. Please enlighten us with your understanding of the science so we can be educated.
If you don’t like the group or the group think here, perhaps you should be unhappy with the nut behind the keyboard and stop letting it take you here against your will.
Bob Boder says:
Please enlighten us with your understanding of the science so we can be educated.
Bob, you may have a long wait…
….to reach a dark room.
The topic of this post is largely concerned with politics and society. You might expect politics and maybe some light rants in the comments.
If you like hard numbers and graphs, check out any one of the many posts by Bob Tisdale. He has enough numbers and charty goodness for all.
dumboldguy: “My point is proven.”
That you’re a dumb old guy?
It is indeed, very effectively.
Frankly, this clown is insulting us old chaps, and no doubt still thinks himself a lot smarter than us. A common failing of the believers.
Dumb old troll.
Interesting how the guy who posts goes on and on insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with him, whines when the replies are in the same vein.
I’ve read this guy before at Fox News, he’s actually a kid !!!
MarkW
You may want to look in the mirror.
Simon~ provide proof of your contention.
dumb old guy: You sound like Sou at Hot Whopper. Is that you Sou???
Peterk
Actually that is a very good point. For the record I don’t consider Hotwopper to be a science site either because it is at opposite poles to WUWT and guilty of the same political leanings but in the other direction. In fact it is pretty hard to find a site that presents both sides of this debate with respect and integrity. If any one knows one please do tell.
Simon,
WUWT allows and encourages all science related comments, no matter if they are from climate alarmists, or skeptics of the ‘carbon’ scare (subject to normal site rules such as discouraging bad language, very off-topic comments, threadjacking, spam, and other violations).
What you’re seeing are the comments of thousands (actually, 1.6 million+) of readers, mostly well educated people you happen to disagree with.
You’re seeing what the general public really thinks. But you’re looking for a way to discredit it, because you cannot admit that you’re wrong about the “climate change” scare.
When all points of view are allowed, and your response is that this site is biased, maybe you had better look in the mirror.
DB
OH…Please. You do talk nonsense sometimes. Give me one article here that genuinely said we are in big trouble if we keep dumping CO2 into the air.
Simon,
So tell me, what’s your own position? In your own words, is AGW a big problem, or a non-problem?
Pick one or the other, or be prepared to go into a long screed explaining just where you sit on the issue.
DB
Just one article? That’s all. You made the statement that we One that gives the mainstream view that we are in need of reducing CO2 emissions or we face a host of dire consequences.
Apologies should have read….Just one article? That’s all. You made the statement that WUWT gives the mainstream view that we are in need of reducing CO2 emissions or we face a host of dire consequences.
DB
Can I assume you are struggling?
Simon,
Assume what you like, it will probably be no different that what you already assume.
DB
Come on that’s not the play. You usually have a comeback. Don’t give up.
Simon, try to be not quite so pathetic. K? thx bye.
Simon
Write one yourself then… Submit Story
clipe,
Simon is just frustrated because he can’t produce any credible science to support his climate alarmism. I would love to see him write an article. But we know that will never happen. He embarrasses himself enough with his comments. Can you imagine the fun we’d have at his expense if he wrote an article? ☺
Keating. What’s your story?
Db
“Simon, try to be not quite so pathetic. K? thx bye.”
In the light of what is written above, I can only assume you really do have no comeback (except your kind words above). The world has gone topsy turvy.
clipe
“Write one yourself” I’m not the one saying this site presents both points of view. I’m the one saying it doesn’t. Keep up.
I’m the one saying write your own point of view and submit. Do keep up old chap.
Keating, try to be not quite so pathetic. K? thx bye.
clipe says:
Do keep up old chap.
I don’t think Simon can keep up, after reading his comments.
It’s pretty clear to me: if someone believes both sides aren’t being presented, then quit whining and post your own article. And if you’re an abysmal writer like Keating, hire someone to write one. The alarmist crowd has all the grant money, they should be able to afford a good science fiction writer. ☺
Keating sez:
Stealey, can you imagine the fun I would have if YOU wrote an article here?
Prolly as much fun as you had with your bogus prize offer. I’ll offer you a billion dollars, Keating, under the same criteria. Why be a cheap piker?
(The comments under those ^linked articles^ are a hoot. Keating is exposed as an unethical purveyor of globaloney nonsense. He never intended to part with a dime.)
Don’t forget the Button
It’s mainly for testing formatting but is useful for avoiding stupidity posted in the cold light of day.
DB
“It’s pretty clear to me: if someone believes both sides aren’t being presented, then post your own article. ”
No DB, that is not right and you know it. You seem to think this site gives balance. I say it’s articles don’t, not as a criticism, but as a fact. WUWT is committed (in my view) to promoting the anti AGW side of the argument. I say you are in la la land if you think otherwise. I actually enjoy reading articles I don’t entirely agree with. Sharpens the mind.
I do agree with you however that it allows comments from the other team, but then most sites do. However I also say that climate realists have to play by a different set of rules here. I can be called all sorts of names under the sun (got called a sh*t head once by the good Reverend Richard Courtney… that was a highlight), but I know if I tried it, I would be banned. However I am not complaining, because I know if I don’t like it I can leave. I read Hotwopper and see that she deals in much the same way (tougher probably) than climate realists get treated here… so, like I say I can’t really complain.
Simon sez:
However I am not complaining…
Coulda fooled me. And “climate realists”? Are you trying to steal that label? Skeptics have been using that self-designation for quite a while now because it’s accurate.
And:
You seem to think this site gives balance.
Simon me boi, you keep presuming you know what and how I think. You don’t. This site doesn’t give your kind of “balance”. That would be like a physics site giving “balance” to Scientology, or astrology.
No, this site’s strength is in offering readers different, censorship-free points of view on subjects. You get to say what you like, but you’re upset because most readers don’t agree with you. And most readers here are well educated in the hard sciences. WUWT doesn’t pick its readers; readers pick this site. So the best educated subset of the population has voted; you just don’t like the results.
If you want “balance”, think of it this way: this site is a balance vs the mainstream media, which is busy parroting the climate alarmists’ narrative. But truth be told, what you really want is censorship of views that you are incapable of refuting. If you believe that both sides aren’t being presented here, then you are free to post your own article. But you won’t do that, because you know your arguments would be demolished.
Prove me wrong, if you can. Write an article that “gives balance”. Get together with Keating, and take your best shot. Hey, you can even write a series of articles! That would be very amusing to real climate realists (AKA: scientific skeptics), who outnumber you by about 97% – 3%.
Simon says: “In fact it is pretty hard to find a site that presents both sides of this debate with respect and integrity.”
Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. site is more temperate. It’s at http://judithcurry.com
DB you didn’t understand a word I said did you?
Simon: “DB you didn’t understand a word I said did you?”
It wouldn’t have been worth the bother, would it?
rogerknights
Good try but Currie has sided very much with the Skeptic team. She showed her hand when Muller did the BEST thing and she threw her toys.
dbstealey:
In this thread you wrote to Keating saying
I draw attention to my response to Keating’s bet which I here link to in the WUWT thread you mentioned. I link to that thread instead of the entries on Keating’s blog for two reasons.
Firstly, Keating could delete it from his blog.
Secondly, in the WUWT thread I also wrote
He did “claim a ‘win'” instead of giving me the money I earned and wish to give to charity. And some others also fulfilled what he said was his challenge. But there is no need to ridicule him because his excuses for not paying any of us are ridiculous.
Richard
Thanks, Richard. As another commenter pointed out in that thread, Keating’s ‘offer’ is no different than proposing…
…that “I will give anyone $50,000 of my own money if they can prove that aliens did not help with the construction of the Great Pyramids” and I will be fairly safe in the belief that no one will ever collect.
Keating was hoping no one would notice that he constructed his language so that it would require the winner to prove a negative (aliens/pyramids). And he didn’t realize that the Null Hypothesis has already put him in the position of having to pay. Which of course he never will, because that would require honesty.
dumboldguy November 11, 2015 at 9:31 am
My point is proven. In the time it took me to write my comment, the floodgates have opened.
Really? Hmm. You came here misrepresenting yourself, Starting your day off insulting everyone and you say “My point is proven.”
You Sir have no “point”
You are like the people this article was about, willing to burn books, lie about the other side to the discussion. That Sir is not a point, it is a emotional response, primeval, mindless, beastly; the reaction of an animal.
You pontificate and stand upon your “dignity” , you shall Sir, find that a very false footing.
I await your feeble “Parthian shot”
michael
My 13 year old son is a skeptic.. Already complaining about the awful statistics to everyone in his “science” class. So at least some of us understand.
They dropped catastrophic and anthropogenic, and now change; and they conflated temperature and climate.
That said, there is also a consensus that human life is the product of spontaneous conception sometime around birth. The consensus is social or political and it is frequently wrong.
Yeah, it’s a cult that is overtly opportunistic and noticeably materialistic. It is clearly not about the children or Posterity for that matter.
Aha, make the lessons “relevant”
Drive less. Perfect
I drive to work, and sometimes get stuck behind a school bus. I often see this:
The bus stops in front of a house.
The house garage door opens and a SUV backs out, to the end of the driveway.
A kid hops out of the SUV, walks 10 feet, and gets on the bus.
The bus proceeds 100 feet, and stops at the next house, then the next, and the next. The whole idea of kids gathering at a bus stop went out decades ago.
Teach the kids about Climate Change. Encourage them to take action.
Make the brats WALK to school!
The one lesson they really need.
The universe is a dictatorship. It does not care how many people vote to make it work in some way that it does not do, it still keeps working in the way it does.
ROTFLMAO …….
“Instead they recommend clarifying what exactly is unknown and why.
They also recommend the inclusion of humans as agents and as the cause of climate change. That fact is scientifically supported and not controversial among scientists who study climate from a broad range of disciplines, including geology, geophysics, geography, paleoclimatology, glaciology, hydrology, ecology, evolutionary biology, environmental studies and oceanography”.
The dissonance is astounding. I would laugh if this BS wasn’t so pervasive. Instead I cry.
here is the difference between climate science and true science:
a/c + b/d = (a+b)/(c+d)
there are an infinite number of true solutions to this equation, yet the equation itself is false.
climate science believes something to be true because it counts up the number of true solutions and concludes the equation itself must be true. for example:
a=b=0 solves this equation for an infinite number of values of c and d.
yet true science knows this equation to be false, because there is an example that shows it to be false:
1/2 + 3/4 not equal (1+3)/(2+4)
This is why 97 or 99% “believe” has no meaning in science. Even if you find 1 million examples, that show the equation to be true, the one single example that shows it to be false establishes that the equation is false.
this is the difference between science and climate science. climate science ignores the examples that show something to be false, and keeps on counting the meaningless infinite number of examples that show something to be true.
If c=d=0, all answers will be the same as well.
ferdberple writes with great clarity on a point in logic which helps to explain
There’s a bit of a problem with this argument, elegant and correct as it is, and were the “climate catastrophe” chandala not as the beasts that perish when it comes to reasoned thought – due to causes various, chief among them the fact that political leftism is the product of dysfunctional (say, rather, pathologically disordered) thinking – they might try to meet this simple observation about how “the universe doesn’t give a damn about counting noses” with the argument that when something works so much of the time (“1 million examples”), is it not proper to base policy upon it most of the time?
We’re talking about alarmists, who tend, by and large, to fail of understanding that the expression “The exception proves the rule” actually means that said exception provides a destructive test which refutes that rule, thereby invalidating it.
The use of the word “proof” in the sense that artillery pieces are “proofed” by determining how much propellant it takes to rupture and destroy a particular design, and then testing each subsequent iteration of that design with measures of gunpowder or other standardized propellant just short of the destructive amount before accepting that particular weapon for deployment.
Better such a gun blows up on a test range than that it does so with a full crew around it and an ammunition-laden limber close at hand.
The example of Eddington’s “destructive test” of Einstein’s accuracy in calculating the effect of gravitational lensing is something the scientifically literate person certainly knows about. Such a person understands Einstein’s point (“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”) while the scientifically illiterate “True Believer” hears nothing but the name “Einstein” and reflexively equates it to “really smart old guy.”
Thereupon he proceeds to burble: “I betcha if Einstein were still alive, he sure wouldn’t be a climate change denier!”
Pardon my Sicilian, but Oy, gevalt!
Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, teach.
Those who can’t teach, teach teachers.
The rest appear to be assistant professors or PhD candidates in ‘Science Education’ or SkS bots who appear to have lots of time on their hands.
Dumboldguy, you blew your cover by saying ‘I’m new to WUWT …’ and then proceeding to make a generalisation in your paragraph 3 indicating that you are hardly new to WUWT. Maybe your screen name is all that’s new?
a=b=0 solves this equation for an infinite number of values of c and d.
==================
which is exactly what we see in climate science peer review.
1999. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/1 + 0/2 = (0+0)/(1+2)
2000. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/3 + 0/4 = (0+0)/(3+4)
2001. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/5 + 0/6 = (0+0)/(5+6)
…
2015. New paper out today. climate science proves 0/21 + 0/22 = (0+0)/(21+22)
IPCC. climate science 99% certain that a/c + b/d = (a+b)/(c+d)
+emphasis
A more appropriate name for the department would be “the Department of Teaching the Lemmings”
F. Ross,
A more appropriate name for the department would be “the Department of Training and Indoctrination.”
When the current insiders control who is permitted to call themselves a member of the team, is it really surprising that those on the team have uniform beliefs?
Follow the grant money !!!
It is amazing what these climate science contrarians do to expose their ignorance and biases.
When I look back at science itself it occurs to me science is only “settled” for the era in which we happen to live.
A little bubble did burst at the University of Missouri with the resignation of the President and Chancellor. But the “resignation” of the Chancellor, was just a “slide of the hand” as he will become the “Director of Research Faculty Development”. So next year those Faculty who boycotted the President will have retribution knocking on their office doors.
That’s “slight of hand”.
That’s “sleight of hand”.
dumboldguy
November 11, 2015 at 10:26 am
[now you have descended into name calling – you are on permanent moderation now due to your rude behavior -mod]
I found that appended to my comment. And for using the word “moron” and “whackjob”? Do you ever read Doctor Richard Matarese’s diatribes? (He is aka Tucci78 here). I have not seen any warnings to Tucci-Matarese for his egregious “name calling” on WUWT, although Judith Curry has spoken to him more than once about it on her site. Is it “different strokes for different folks here”? Does “permanent moderation” mean I am banned or that you are going to examine and approve every one of my future posts?
[obviously, you aren’t banned. but you seem to be on the path to get there -mod]
(It should also be pointed out that you came here with a very hostile attitude, and started the whole thing with your animosity. ~another mod.)
How old are you, 12 ????
My name’s Tom Judd. For brevity, a lot of people shorten it to TJ. That increases productivity in dialogue. In the same manner I think one should take ‘dumboldguy’ and, for efficiency, rather than continuously type ‘dumboldguy’ (DumbOldGuy), one could simply type DOG.
I think the foregoing suggestion may be useful in having meaningful, but mercifully brief, conversations with the …
He has already said he goes by ‘Dog for short’ (his words). So he’s the short dog.
But now he’s messing with the big dogs, and he doesn’t like it.
I’d call him the chihuahua, but that takes too much typing. ☺
I’m 75 and counting, Marcus, as you might have learned if you had read any of my comments without your perceptual screens tuned to confirmation bias and seeing in them only what you wanted to see. Do you know what is meant by “perceptual screens” and “confirmation bias”. Look them up. While you’re at it, apply some Windex to your Johari Window—it appears to be rather crapped up with WUWT “road grime”.
By the way, how old are YOU? Your question implying that I’m a 12-year-old is exactly the kind of.thing your average mindless TEN-year-old might say in response to my message.
Are you trying to disagree with what I say? Support the little thought-control group that the WUWT “mod squad” seems to belong to? Are you objecting to me mentioning that Tucci-Fucci has behaved badly on Judith Curry’s site? What? The English language is a wonderful tool, use it! (Of course you have to have THOUGHTS before you can express them—-work on that part of it).
Chihuahua,
You came here with an attitude. People are just responding to that, so quit complaining. You brought it on yourself.
Now, if you want to discuss the actual science (or lack of it) that is being sold to the public as “dangerous AGW” (DAGW), then let’s do it. All you need to convince me you’re right are facts, evidence, and most importantly, measurements of AGW.
What’s the fraction of AGW, out of all global warming? Do you have a number? Because without that, all you have is your opinion. And if that’s the case, your’re on the wrong site. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, it’s not a religious or political blog.
[obviously, you aren’t banned. but you seem to be on the path to get there -mod]
(It should also be pointed out that you came here with a very hostile attitude, and started the whole thing with your animosity. ~another mod.)
First, I challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude” and “started the whole thing with your animosity”. Show me where I did that in my earliest posts. In actuality, although I may not have been “worshipful” enough for WUWT, I did attempt to talk about science, particularly with reference to human population dynamics, sustainability, and how they related to AGW. I was met with a flood of mindless “hostility and animosity'” from the likes of Tucc78 and DBStealey, and merely replied in kind, albeit IMO more intelligently and gently.
Now Anthony and minions (how many “mods” are there anyway?) are showing hostility and animosity and making threats? LMAO! I have perhaps questioned the basic integrity and honor of WUWT, yes, but if you can’t deal with me any better than this in defending yourselves, you WILL show all that you inhabit a house of cards.
[Your very first comment was trimmed due to it violating the blog policy, note the end:
===============================
Submitted on 2015/11/08 at 6:14 am
So let me see if I’ve got this straight.
1) A group of “activists” held a conference over three years ago.
2) At this conference, they discussed going after big oil in the same ways that were used against big tobacco.
3) They published a thoughtful and intelligent report that outlined how this could be done.
4) All the above was done in the open and with full disclosure.
5) Three years later, someone has discovered that Exxon has sinned and Exxon is finding itself in the same pickle as big tobacco.
Now you’re whining about the fact that this effort has borne fruit, and talking about some sort of “orchestrated” conspiracy and a small “shadow organization” being behind it all?. Guess what, Anthony? UCS, Greenpeace, Climate Central, Scripps, Stanford, Oxford, and Harvard are NOT “shadow organizations”, even though it suits your purposes to try to ignore their involvement. And the real conspiracy is the one you and the deniers are engaged in—attempts to obfuscate the truth about AGW.
I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net. [trimmed. .mod]
==========================
So there you go, you started out hostile, and remain so. -mod]
Chihuahua,
You say:
I challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude”
You just started posting here a couple days ago. Here are some of your very first comments:
I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net. [trimmed. .mod]…
And:
The real big problem in society is people like you and Watts who refuse to understand… &etc.
And:
For those with a partially open mind…
And:
Why don’t you hit up your friends at Heartland for a few $$$$?
And:
People like DBS never show ANY real understanding of the problem or answers, but they endlessly spout inane OPINIONS and clever bon mots devoid of any factual support or real meaning…
And:
…you need to do a serious review in your “Logic for Dummies” book.
And:
Quoting DeSmog: the unfunny truth appears to be that “big oil” IS chipping in here indirectly. Do you dispute any of this?
And:
Why do so many commenters on WUWT seem to be so in love with meaningless straw men and non sequiturs?
And:
Why can you not quote someone among the 99.99% of climate scientists who are concerned about AGW. Oh, I forgot, you are not interested in truth but merely in continuing to spread and reinforce ignorant AGW denialist BS.
And:
It is hard to know where to begin in the face of such mindless ignorance and cognitive dissonance.
And:
DBS shows his paucity of science knowledge with his “by the numbers” PHD exercise. He quotes from the denier’s BS manual on many of these points…
1. EVERYTHING he says here is WRONG… 2. WRONG… 3. WRONG… 4. WRONG… 5. WRONG… 6. And last but not least, WRONG-WRONG-WRONG on all counts… finish this load of WRONG horsepucky… deluded is what you are, and if anyone has a religion (cliché) here, it’s you and the deniers, because “Science has nothing to do with what you believe”
And so on, every comment from you is full of hatred and bile, directed at people who simply have a scientific point of view that you don’t happen to agree with.
But you still challenge the rather bald assertions that I came here with a “very hostile attitude”. ??
Really? And now you’re complaining because you’re getting push-back??
Dumb-old, if you’re that impotent and unhappy at 75, it’s doubtful that you’ve ever been a happy camper in your long, sad life. This is the internet’s “Best Science” site, but instead of discussing facts and evidence, you came here full of animosity and hatred directed at skeptics of the “climate change” scare.
What did you expect? A kissy-face reception?
I hadn’t noticed the very first comment from “dumboldguy”, as pointed out above, until now. This statement:
“And the real conspiracy is the one you and the deniers are engaged in—attempts to obfuscate the truth about AGW. I sincerely hope that once they are finished with Exxon, the RICO prosecutions will reach down to the level of the denier blogosphere and sweep you and the rest into the AGW denial conspiracy net.”
and coupled with:
“Now Anthony and minions (how many “mods” are there anyway?) are showing hostility and animosity and making threats?”
…says all that needs to be said about the character of this person. We are enforcing blog policy against your disruptive and ugly behavior, clearly stated here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/policy/
Get off my blog. Your’re banned. I don’t need to take your personal abuse and neither does anyone else here.
Anthony,
You and your long-suffering moderators suffered this fool for too long, but it is to your credit that you did.
Intelligent warmists trying to make valid scientific points are welcome here, indeed encouraged, to your credit. Pointless trolls, not so much.
Thanks for all that you do.
Good move Anthony – unfortunately he’ll probably pop up with a new handle, like the piece of scum who falsely signed my name to similar garbage some months ago. Is it possible to insist that posters be logged in to wordpress? That would at least force them to take a small step to validate themselves.
“Textbook language should reflect the language used in scientific reports” . And the language in climate science is full of may, could, would… Especially if the outcome is alarming, what it mostly is.
“The work of scientists should be represented accurately rather than saying that scientists think or believe, as if it’s a matter of opinion,” Román said.
But so they say in climate science, because they don’t know of the future. All the failed alarms prove it.
I’m waiting for the day when skeptics will be claimed to be mentally ill. Maybe they’ll come out with green pill that will cure us?
The arrogant professor in the journalism school, Click, attempts to silence Journalists recording events at the University.
Typical of liberal activists, hide the truth just like SMU representative.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/10/missouri-journalism-school-commends-student-tai-reviews-professors-status/75536062/
“Video of the confrontation with the journalist, Tim Tai, went viral as the school distanced itself from a professor, Melissa Click, who was seen in the video calling for “muscle” to remove another journalist from the protest site. Late Tuesday night, Click resigned her courtesy appointment with the journalism school, although she remains an assistant professor at the university.
“The Missouri School of Journalism is proud of photojournalism senior Tim Tai,” said David Kurpius, dean of the Missouri School of Journalism. “The news media have First Amendment rights to cover public events. Tai handled himself professionally and with poise.””
Well, there are FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS, on the basis of which I wrote the IDIOT GUIDE TO GLOBAL WARMING:
http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/idiot-guide-to-global-warming.html
though not stopping to look for any better guidance and information
PS–And he should have written “reject,” not “refute.”
It only takes one refutation for a theory to be refuted. I thought professors had to be able to put their thoughts into words?
WUWT threads combatting the 97%-consensus claim can be found by clicking in the sidebar’s Category drop-down list. Here’s the link it uses: http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/97-consensus/
See also “99% certainty”
[Reply: just putting ‘97%’ in the search box works, too. ~mod.]