Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Environment

The Tree Ring Circus

By now, I assume everyone has read about the leaked emails showing that some scientists pressing the cause of global warming have acted more like advocates than like scientists.

I thought it would be worth linking to this piece which brings into question the famous "hockey stick" graph showing warming increasing over time.  A sample:

Categories > Environment

Discussions - 14 Comments

Awww. Does this mean that Al Gore will have to give back his Nobel Peace Prize?

It should mean that, and that cap and trade is scrapped, most of our government ends up in jail for defrauding the public, and that advertisers wasted tons of money on green campaigns that can now be greated with nothing but scorn(don't blame capitalism, its corporatism).

If none of the above happen, how can anyone dispute that the country is simply broken beyond repair through right/left electoral means. The best part is, that gore and company will run for cover when they all knew all of this was a sham for decades. So, that begs the question of what was it really all about. This is the key question that will define our times and if fails to get into the heads of enough people than all this was for not. If the corporitists are allowed to move forward with their plans claiming they are for the good of the earth even after this....insert your own doomsday cliche.

"...some scientists pressing the cause of global warming have acted more like advocates than like scientists."

Whereas, on the denier/minimizer side, the non-scientists (such as NLT's own Steven Hayward), have acted like... well, what they are - activist-advocates for... the corporations that fund them, such as Exxon:

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/02/exxonmobil-continues-funding-denier/

When can we see those e-mails? Between AEI and Exxon (among others)...

Oh, never mind, resume driving your Hummers from one steak joint to another... Everything will be fine if we just pray, cheer on Glenn Beck and Sarah, and submit to free-market fundamentalism.

And just for the heck of it:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Your piece from the Financial Post is by Ross McKitrick, who is himself far from any kind of reliable source on the climate issue:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/ross-mckitrick

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

You can find more here about how Exxon has funded AEI and the homes of various deniers and minimizers:
http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870

Craig, exon or standard oil is one of the biggest pushers of climate change propoganda. Its not about money or the earth its about how to get a planned society.
Exon is Rockefeller who is the biggest global carbon credit control system pusher there is. It does not matter who funded what, it matters that they are making it up.

Craig. Your links, for the most part, don't really say anything about the science. They just complain that the don't like the people making certain claims or who is funding them. One does claim that the hockey stick graph is, indeed, accurate, but it does not explain the nature of the critique or the reply. In short, there's no reason to believe either side here.

One thing I will add, however. One thing history teaches us is that it's often prudent to doubt new sciences. Their claims tend to be shaky. That does not, however, mean they're wrong. It only means that they might be. Only time will tell.

One other lesson. It's often prudent to doubt people who think they're doing God's work. Sometimes they are fooling themselves. That's how the Left saw much that Bush did (at least those on the Left willing to allow that his motives were not corrupt).

The trouble is that such skepticism, if taken seriously, is irreconcilable with the whole Lefty project going back to 1789 for it suggests that the world cannot be remade. That "there is a time for war and a time for peace" is a council that applies to every generation, and not a description of the past (war) and the future (peace) is unacceptible to many people today.

I suspect that's why geo-engineering is so unpopular with many on the Left. If we can use technology to combat pollution, that does not fulfil the religious impulse which animates many environmentalists.

Mr. Adams your argument there went in so many circles (so Bush's CRITICS, not Bush himself, thought he was doing God's work?) that your point was swallowed somewhere in the vortex, I'm afraid.

You start out noting that "history teaches us is that it's often prudent to doubt new sciences" but by your last paragraph you appear to endorse geo-engineering technology - a science considerably newer than that of climatology, to say the least - and scoff at the Left (lefty scientists) for being too... religious? Okaaaaaay. [Is the critique that they're too religious or too religious in a non-Judeo-Christian way?]

I don't believe that you, nor Mr. Hayward, are the least bit interested in the science of the issue. In the spirit of Limbaugh & Co., you take it on faith that mankind is not even capable of altering the climate or damaging the planet in any significant, long-term fashion. And regardless of the percentage of highly-trained scientists in the relevant fields who say that we can/have/will (be it 51% or - somewhat closer to reality - 99.99999%), you will choose to believe otherwise (and find the handful of bought-off scientists and wonks from irrelevant fields to provide you with some reassurance). It's more comforting. That's understandable, to some degree.

"One other lesson. It's often prudent to doubt people who think they're doing God's work."

I will remember that "lesson" (thank you!), especially if Palin runs for office at some point. After all, she has described the war in Iraq and construction of natural gas pipelines in such terms:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html

Craig. It is always amusing to see how a partisan reads. The only contradictions grow from your assumption of bad faith on my part, which you admit.

"And regardless of the percentage of highly-trained scientists in the relevant fields who say that we can/have/will (be it 51% or - somewhat closer to reality - 99.99999%), you will choose to believe otherwise (and find the handful of bought-off scientists and wonks from irrelevant fields to provide you with some reassurance). It's more comforting. That's understandable, to some degree."

They all get their grants from somewhere and no one is without an agenda when they give away money. You point out this idea of science being about consensus though....is that what science is? Al gore believes that, but I seem to remember that science was about truth, testing things over and over, questioning the dogmas.

Today, science is the consensus of scientists. Truth is a side issue. Questioning dogmas is such a waste of time.

“Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?” Steyn plays with the question and made me laugh, so I am sharing --
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjAxYzA3NmI0N2Y1MDVhYzdmM2JkZGIyMjE5ZWU2OTI=

If deniers are being "bought off" by Exxon and company, then they sure haven't checked out the real money end of the business. For every right-leaning dollar available for "denier science" there must be a million for green orthodoxy -- Federal sources alone amount to billions every year. I guess we shouldn't be shocked by the Left's egregious double standards in this regard.

Craig, you're just benighted...what else can I say?

Mr. Adams, please do elaborate on the contradictions that grow from my (entirely reasonable) assumption of bad faith on your part. You, of course, are not a partisan of any sort, I suppose?

Kate - Science has always been about consensus, and remains so. We can find a relatively tiny minority of people with some scientific training in relevant or semi-relevant fields who believe that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. There are at least a couple of Creation museums (and suchlike "institutes") that support these dissenters and create, ironically, a veil of scientific legitimacy to essentially crank, bogus, pseudoscience, which in turn attract audiences eager to accept the conclusions regardless of their inability to stand up to serious scrutiny. I'm waiting for you to brush off the scientific fascists who believe that the Earth rotates around the Sun, as mindless followers of "dogma."

Climate Change Cover-Up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24

Redwald, the elitist ad hominem guy, said:
"For every right-leaning dollar available for "denier science" there must be a million for green orthodoxy"

Big assertion. Any facts to back it up?
Yeah, there "must be"!!!

Craig, are you saying that in modern science consensus trumps fact? Your denial of the facts in "Climategate" would indicate that was the truth. You are a true-believer in man-made global warming and that the statistics are well-cooked or falsified apparently makes no difference to you at all: a "mindless follower of dogma"?

If you cite other true-believers do you expect to change our minds? Scientific American magazine is heavily invested in the current consensus and I would not expect them to do otherwise than publish Beito's defense. I do understand the compulsion of faith, even if I think yours is misplaced. I hope you joy of it while not seeing the truth of it, myself.

"Science has always been about consensus" no. no. no. It is about having a hypothesis and proving through tests. evidence and fact, results. Consensus has nothing to do with legitimate science. That logic is the flat earthers as al gore brings up.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/14602