SplatterGate: When Greenpeace is given lemons, they make lemonade

Comment

Comment by Russell Cook on October 6, 2010 at 6:57pm

I'll take the scientifically researched conclusions of people who actually study this stuff first hand over the opinions of a blogger; I hope you're right, and human activity isn't a significant factor.
Opinions about what? Right about what? Notice how the statements here are a deflection away from the fundamental point of my blog, about the accusation by a Greenpeace spokesperson that skeptics are corrupt. In no place within this blog or my articles or other blogs, do I ever claim humans are not causing global warming. I can't, I have no scientific credibility to do so. But I am qualified to know what a contradiction is when I see it about IPCC's and skeptic scientists' assessments, so I ask why the contradiction exists. Anybody can do this, AGW believers can do it to see if their side of the issue holds up or falls apart, just for their own peace of mind.

Why are skeptic scientists said to be corrupt, yet no one presents evidence to prove it? Why do people insist there is a consensus, yet never pinpoint who quantifies it in an unimpeachable way, and why do they insist that consensus itself validates anything? I hate to cite this tragic example, but a consensus of engineers declared the space shuttle Challenger's solid rocket O-rings would be fine under the conditions, over the dissent of a minority. In the end, existence of a consensus proved nothing.

When you have an internationally famous spokesperson on the subject, Al Gore, refusing to debate anyone or answer tough questions about it, when you have the leader of the IPCC calling skeptic scientists "Flat Earth believers", when you have legions of AGW believers labeling others as deniers (when none deny the presence of literal global warming), and when you have people suggesting that the basic source of funding for an expert should be given some consideration as a means to judge their credibility, then you have the appearance of a movement that is insecure about defending its most basic foundation.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 4:04pm

In any case, I hope you're right, and human activity isn't a significant factor. That would certainly bode well for us and our planet in 50-100 years.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 3:51pm

Consensus opinion is not now, nor has it ever been, the way the Scientific Method works.
So, in other words, the vast majority of climate scientists have reached the conclusion that human activity has a significant impact on climate change.

Thanks. :)

No offense, but I think I'll take the scientifically researched conclusions of people who actually study this stuff first hand over the opinions of a blogger.

Comment by Russell Cook on October 6, 2010 at 3:44pm

It seems clear that Russell will not look at [Wikipedia and] any such evidence with an unbiased eye.
I just did in my prior comment, and showed the myriad faults with them. My series of American Thinker articles approached the subject with an entirely unbiased eye, and I continue to do so. I saw contradictions about the AGW issue, wondered why the mainstream media did not identify why the skeptic scientist were wrong, much less give them fair balance in discussions of the issue, and then I tried to find out why it was said that they were corrupted by big coal & oil without supporting proof.

It should not be the default position of anyone to assume corruption of those who reach different conclusions when studying the same data.
Then why is this the central defense of AGW believers across the board, that skeptic scientists should not be debated because they are corrupt?

I agree, but I haven't seen that happen (yet) with regards to ACC.
Perhaps because you do not look at such reports like the NIPCC, or the work by Richard Lindzen, Willie Soon, etc

I'm not portraying scientists as paranoid. I'm portraying people who subscribe to the global ACC scientist conspiracy theory as paranoid.
I stand corrected, I am paranoid....... but I do not subscribe to scientist conspiracy, I point out the concerted efforts to portray skeptic scientists as corrupt, and offer a huge amount of corroborating web links for people to accept or dispute in my A.T. articles.

Likewise, anyone who thinks that every scientists who doesn't believe in ACC is in the pocket of Big Oil, or is a bad scientist, or is fabricating data is equally paranoid.
And so you apply this to Greenpeace, Joe Romm, Ross Gelbspan, George Monbiot, the Union of Concerned Scientists, NBC, CBS ABC and PBS news?

I would be careful about taking the actions of a couple of men and extrapolating that to speak about the guilt of the entire community of climate scientists.
I was referring to those specific ClimateGate scientists.

The only reason I brought up this point in the first place is that it is usually the first thing that gets told to me when I start discussing ACC with people.
That's fine in other discussions. I did not bring up any such meme here, thus Marcotte's initial comment about the tinfoil hat conspiracy takes on the unavoidable appearance of deflecting the point of my blog.

Scientists are continuously doing research to broaden our understanding of climate and climate change. Some of that refutes earlier claims made by both sides, and some of it confirms claims made by both sides.
If this is true, then there is an unsettled debate, thus efforts to regulate CO2 are premature.

Even is it was somewhat lower than the 97% found by the PNAS paper, say it was 85% for example, that would still be strong evidence in support.
Consensus opinion is not now, nor has it ever been, the way the Scientific Method works.

Can you provide any evidence that one doesn't? What percentage of climate scientists do not subscribe to ACC?
No, I simply see unresolved contradictions and discussions of how it falters about the very existence of it. Link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4

and that the skeptics should be ignored because they are corrupt.
I've never said that, and anyone who does (without evidence of course) is stupid.
See my response to the "pocket of Big Oil" comment above. And is there any evidence for someone who "does" say that with evidence?

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 2:40pm

I don't think it's worth debating the merits of wikipedia and it's underlying sources, or of digging up more evidence of the scientific consensus on ACC. It seems clear that Russell will not look at any such evidence with an unbiased eye.

Marcotte completely fails to acknowledge that funding has no bearing on any side making a science conclusion where it cannot be proven that the conclusion was a direct result of the funding.
What? Did you read my post? This is what I said:
It should not be the default position of anyone to assume corruption of those who reach different conclusions when studying the same data.
Maybe what you're getting at is that we should assume innocence in the absence of proof, and I agree. My only addendum is that we should look for that proof. Of course, solid proof is unlikely to exist. All we will usually have is circumstantial evidence, and we should be careful to draw conclusions from that.

Long held acceptance of a theory can be wiped out by a single person, if the new theory disproves the old one.
I agree, but I haven't seen that happen (yet) with regards to ACC.

since it is an effort to portray skeptic scientists as paranoid?
I'm not portraying scientists as paranoid. I'm portraying people who subscribe to the global ACC scientist conspiracy theory as paranoid. If a scientist happens to subscribe to that theory, then he would, as an individual, be labeled by me as paranoid. Do you see the difference?

Likewise, anyone who thinks that every scientists who doesn't believe in ACC is in the pocket of Big Oil, or is a bad scientist, or is fabricating data is equally paranoid.

but as was proven in the ClimateGate emails, the AGW believer scientists DID seek to do exactly that.
I would be careful about taking the actions of a couple of men and extrapolating that to speak about the guilt of the entire community of climate scientists.

Marcotte and others may make all the points they want about skeptic scientists "believing" there is a conspiracy to promote AGW,
The only reason I brought up this point in the first place is that it is usually the first thing that gets told to me when I start discussing ACC with people. It's not me that is perpetuating this meme. It is those that don't believe in the ACC theory.

AGW believers continuously fail to embrace this golden opportunity to prove the skeptics wrong,
Scientists are continuously doing research to broaden our understanding of climate and climate change. Some of that refutes earlier claims made by both sides, and some of it confirms claims made by both sides.

they instead insist that consensus rules scientific inquiry
I can't speak for everyone, but when I bring the consensus I do not hold that up as proof that the theory is correct. Rather, it is evidence that the theory might be correct. For example, if we look at String Theory, which is the idea that all matter is at it's base small vibrating "strings" of energy, we see that there is a wide variety of opinions. Some physicists don't believe it at all. And among those that do, there is something like 5 or 6 different flavors of String Theory. So I don't put a lot of credence in that theory - there is still a lot of work to be done. Conversely, there is not a lot of disagreement among scientists on the subject of Germ Theory. I personally don't know a lot about medicine, but the fact that just about every doctor says the Germ Theory of Disease is right makes me believe that they are correct. The ACC theory is not as widely accepted as the Germ Theory, but it is nearly so. It's not as if 50% of climatologists disagree. Even is it was somewhat lower than the 97% found by the PNAS paper, say it was 85% for example, that would still be strong evidence in support.

that a consensus exists
Can you provide any evidence that one doesn't? What percentage of climate scientists do not subscribe to ACC?

and that the skeptics should be ignored because they are corrupt.
I've never said that, and anyone who does (without evidence of course) is stupid.

Comment by Russell Cook on October 6, 2010 at 2:05pm

In response to Marcotte's latest comment:
Wikipedia, a.k.a "Wikipropaganda", an unreliable source of information subject to utterly arbitrary alterations at any given time. In the #1 post in the comments section of the American Thinker article I cite in my blog, I note how the Wikipedia entry about fake names in the Petition Project has been altered to portray the Petition in a positive manner, yet it is an incorrect alteration of a 1998 magazine quote. For some inexplicable reason, Wikipedia has let it stand, and worse, bunches of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) believers reproduce it elsewhere because they didn't take time to read it. But worse, this particular Wiki is nothing more than an appeal to authority. As Richard Lindzen pointed out in his paper on the general topic, scientific bodies are prone to make statements against the scientists within their group, "...where a handful of individuals (often not even scientists) speak on behalf of organizations that include thousands of scientists, and even enforce specific scientific positions and agendas. The temptation to politicize science is overwhelming and longstanding."

On the PNAS paper, that one was also known as the "blacklist of skeptic scientists". Among other criticisms: "The paper is poorly done.... They used Google Scholar instead of an academic database. They searched only in English, despite the global nature of climate science. They got names wrong. They got job titles wrong. They got incorrect numbers of publications and citations.". Prove all those criticisms wrong, and there is evidence of paranoia. If they are proven correct, now that paper looks every bit like an attempt to smear skeptic scientists.

Regarding the fallback position for those who believe in man-caused global warming, Marcotte completely fails to acknowledge that funding has no bearing on any side making a science conclusion where it cannot be proven that the conclusion was a direct result of the funding. The science conclusion or assessment is what it is, either it withstands scrutiny or it doesn't, and is yet another reason why scientific consensus does not validate a theory. Long held acceptance of a theory can be wiped out by a single person, if the new theory disproves the old one.

Regarding Marcotte's comment about tinfoil hats, how could that remark be anything other than an attempt to bolster the IPCC assessment, since it is an effort to portray skeptic scientists as paranoid? The statement "they work together to keep scientists who disagree with them silent" is unsupportable, when in fact they cite AGW scientists' papers in order to show the faults within them. Furthermore, skeptic scientists have no such power to suppress their critics, but as was proven in the ClimateGate emails, the AGW believer scientists DID seek to do exactly that.

Marcotte and others may make all the points they want about skeptic scientists "believing" there is a conspiracy to promote AGW, but this is entirely meant to deflect the general public away from what is actually taking place: skeptic scientists are showing faults in IPCC reports of significant size and demanding debate on the underlying science. AGW believers continuously fail to embrace this golden opportunity to prove the skeptics wrong, they instead insist that consensus rules scientific inquiry, that a consensus exists, and that the skeptics should be ignored because they are corrupt.

When AGW believers efforts are centered on efforts to deflect attention from the central problem of the underlying science conclusions of the IPCC, it only indicates one thing: that they do not believe the IPCC can defend itself against the "plethora of substantial countervailing evidence" found in the assessments of skeptic scientists.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 10:48am

(please tell us, who quantified your 85-90% figure?)
From wikipedia:
With the release of the revised statement[93] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3]

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science:
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

You were right to question my figure. I low-balled it.

If the corruption cannot be proven, what is the fallback position for those who believe in man-caused global warming?
You have a good point here. It should not be the default position of anyone to assume corruption of those who reach different conclusions when studying the same data. This goes for both sides of this issue. That said, we should be cognizant of the funding and/or motives of people who are either pushing for a policy change or providing research or data in support of a policy change. For example, if a lobbyist pushes to shorten the patent lives of brand name drugs, but is being paid by generic drug makers, we should take that into consideration when evaluating his/her argument. Likewise, if a scientist employed by a wind or solar company (which stands to gain if Athropogenic Climate Change legislation passes) concludes that ACC is in fact real, we should take his financial motives into consideration as well. And of course, the same goes for someone on the other side. I'm sure that in the vast majority of cases, there is little or no bias, but it would be dangerous to assume that there is never any bias.

Are you unaware that your own point about tinfoil hat conspiracies does nothing to bolster the man-caused global warming idea,
My comment about tinfoil hats was not meant to be an argument in support of ACC. What I was getting at is that one of the talking points often repeated by the anti-ACC crowd (for lack of a better term - what do you guys prefer to be called?) is that scientists who have come to the conclusion that CC is likely or mostly caused by humans are part of a vast conspiracy. They work together to keep scientists who disagree with them silent, refuse to publish their papers, etc. The EA emails are seen by the anti-ACCers as the smoking gun that proves the existence of this conspiracy. (Indeed, it's very likely that you or someone else will dispute the 97% number, saying that the researchers who did the study are part of the conspiracy to silence the anti-ACC scientists.)

My point is that if someone truly believes that all of these scientists and scientific organizations are wrong, and are actively working to maintain this lie, then they are being paranoid. Hence, the tinfoil hat reference. Are some of the individual researchers wrong on some points? Absolutely. But there is too much consensus for there not to be a very large nugget of truth in the theory. Now, we still have to be careful and continue to do open and honest research. Scientists have been wrong (and in large numbers) before. But like with the idea of corruption, I don't think that our default position should be that a vast scientific consensus is wrong unless we find a plethora of substantial countervailing evidence.

Comment by Russell Cook on October 5, 2010 at 6:38pm

The point I make has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of real or imagined (please tell us, who quantified your 85-90% figure?) scientific consensus, my point is entirely about 'viewing the skeptic scientists with suspicion', and the accusation about them being corrupt. If the corruption cannot be proven, what is the fallback position for those who believe in man-caused global warming? Why do such believers put so much monumental effort into making sure the general public perceives skeptic scientists to be corrupt, but make no attempt to show specific instances where donated money bought specific fabricated science reports and falsified assessments? Why bring up nebulous talk of tinfoil hat conspiracies, instead of telling us why the centerpiece of Greenpeace/Ozone Action / Ross Gelbpan's accusation is based on a 1991 coal industry PR campaign internal memo that literally no one has been able to see?

Are you unaware that your own point about tinfoil hat conspiracies does nothing to bolster the man-caused global warming idea, but instead only adds to growing suspicion about the necessity of such rhetoric to distract the general public from seeing the IPCC is unable to defend its assessments?

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 5, 2010 at 6:04pm

anybody with opposing viewpoints must be viewed with suspicion.
Well, as I a said elsewhere I find the video disturbing and rather stupid. However, anyone who thinks that 85-90% of the worlds climate scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to defraud governments and foundations of their grant money probably needs to take off the tinfoil hat.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page