SplatterGate: When Greenpeace is given lemons, they make lemonade

Comment

Comment by Russell Cook on October 11, 2010 at 2:08am

You can only find one scientist who resigned...
Your statement presumes I've done some kind of search and turned up only a solitary resigner. I haven't. This is simply the latest news item to support the assertions made by Dr Lindzen. Regarding such resignations, Chris Landsea's easily comes to mind, though. If only I had the time to find out just how many scientists have resigned from all such groups, it might shed more light into the conflicts between scientists and the organization heads. The blow-up at the American Chemical Society last summer was another indication of dissension among the ranks. It would be quite interesting to find out the extent of the dissent of scientists in all these groups.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 9, 2010 at 4:41pm

You can only find one scientist who resigned because his society to a position in support of ACC? Interesting.

Comment by Russell Cook on October 9, 2010 at 11:22am

Commenter Marcotte places great faith in a defense of man-caused global warming when he claims "every national or international scientific group" supports the theory, in his posts below. But a significant problem arises just with the words "group" or "scientific society" in this defense, as Richard Lindzen pointed out in this paper. Adding further insult to injury is a letter of resignation by Hal Lewis to The American Physical Society, where he essentially reinforces the problems Lindzen discussed. Just two excerpts here: "The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them....... APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?"

Comment by Russell Cook on October 7, 2010 at 1:54pm

..that's the great thing about science. You get to revise the theory as you learn more....There is a value to this exchange of ideas, even if neither of us moves significantly from our original position.
Again, contradictions arise - what revision of the theory? There is no revision by the IPCC that I am aware of about any change of the greenhouse gas theory creating bad warming conditions rather than mere climate change or disruption. Instead, the suggested name changes take on the appearance of deflecting contradictions (about global warming predictions vs. the current cooling situation) as a PR spin campaign. And again, I have no position, as all I see are unresolved contradictions, and what appears to be media manipulation to erase any perceptions that there are contradictions between the IPCC and skeptic scientists, or that there are enough skeptic scientists to listen to. These problem only amplify a perception that AGW believers ultimately have no confidence that the underlying science can be defended on its own, thus prompting a continuing and ever more outrageous assertions that dire efforts must be made to stop global warming.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 7, 2010 at 12:04pm

I'd never heard of the ACC abbreviation before, arguably it undermines the basic idea because we were told on no uncertain terms the planet was heating up due to the greenhouse effect.
Well, that's the great thing about science. You get to revise the theory as you learn more.

Also, let me retract what I said about "ultimately pointless debates." There is a value to this exchange of ideas, even if neither of us moves significantly from our original position.

Cheers.

Comment by Russell Cook on October 6, 2010 at 11:43pm

I like ACC better because "global warming" is a misnomer, even if it was initially adopted by the "believer" crowd. ...though I think any good scientist is always a skeptic...Well, it was an interesting discussion. Thanks. :)
Anytime, thanks for playing. I'd never heard of the ACC abbreviation before, arguably it undermines the basic idea because we were told on no uncertain terms the planet was heating up due to the greenhouse effect. Not changing, not disrupting, heating enough to melt the poles and Greenland in a geological blink of an eye.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a skeptic, in fact, it can be quite educational. We can take what someone says at face value, but if we politely ask how a person arrives at a given conclusion, he or she should have no trouble explaining it. The appearance of something fishy occurs when that person is unable to answer. I could write another 1000 words about the politicians, policymakers and journalists I've personally questioned who can't give straight answers about the justification for CO2 regulation.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 10:55pm

I'm fine with AGW believers or AGW followers and skeptics.
OK. I'll use ACC* believers and skeptics, though I think any good scientist is always a skeptic, even if he/she does subscribe to any given theory. I'm sure their are those on both sides of this issue who couldn't honestly be called skeptics in relation to their own position, but the majority are probably more rigorous in their science.

*I like ACC better because "global warming" is a misnomer, even if it was initially adopted by the "believer" crowd.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 10:51pm

, you seem to be contradicting yourself with these additional efforts.
Yeah, I know. I'm a sucker for this type of stuff (i.e. ultimately pointless internet debates). Well, it was an interesting discussion. Thanks. :)

Comment by Russell Cook on October 6, 2010 at 10:03pm

...you hold the conclusions of anti-ACCers in more esteem than you do those of the ACCers.
Again, I don't, I simply see unresolved contradictory science conclusions, and a mainstream media seemingly unable to inform me which side's assessments prevail.

I'm not trying to deflect anything. I already addressed that point of your post. The conversation has evolved.
As I said before, the point I make has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of real or imagined scientific consensus, my point is entirely about 'viewing the skeptic scientists with suspicion'. I asked what your source was, I pointed out the faults of the sources you provided, and how notions of an AGW conspiracy was unrelated to my main point, which remains unchanged.

You can't quantify how many scientists don't support the IPCC conclusions in the broad strokes. How do you explain that every national or international scientific group either support the conclusions....
Already answered with the four links discussing the contradictions about the quantity, and the prior mention of Richard Lindzen's paper. I do not seek to explain anything, but merely point out the contradictions and the faults of 'appeals to authority' as proof of a consensus.

Here's another report showing a 75% of papers supported the ACC....[From the link above] "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong....928-0: peer reviewed papers from 1993-2003
Thanks for bringing Naomi Oreskes into the picture - in my blog above, a link takes you to my American Thinker article, which shows how AAAS had a direct link to Ozone Action under Jane Lubchenco's 1998 presidency. In a link embedded within one of the articles in my series at American Thinker is this one detailing the the highly questionable manner in which Oreskes cited the source proving the corruption of skeptic scientists. And then, Oreskes' "928 to zero" claim for consensus has been severely question, as seen here and in various other places when anyone cares to look for an opposing view.

11,885 scientists
This ultimately leads to a non-functioning link at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which in another of my aforementioned articles, I detail how they are directly tied to an effort by Ozone Action to thwart the Oregon Petition Project in 1998 through highly questionable means.

500
Notice how the note just above the report about the 500 scientists says "The following report emanates from the Hudson Insitute (sic), which is supported by big business including the oil companies." And their point is???? This channels directly into my blog's basic point about unsupportable accusations of funding corruption once again.

Can you do better?
The Oregon Petition Project is up to 31,487 at last count. Should you decide to challenge "fake" names within that petition, bear in mind that the highly questionable efforts behind that accusation was the primary topic in the American Thinker article I link to in my blog above.

56%-30% with 14% unsure And you are going to dispute that last one then I'm at a loss.
On pg 6 of the report, it says, "there was no consensus regarding the causes of the modern warming period, how reliable predictions of future temperatures can be, and whether future global warming would be harmful or beneficial. Assertions that “the debate is over” are certainly not supported by the survey results." Following the figure you cite, it says, "Interestingly, more scientists “strongly disagree” than “strongly agree” that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes", followed by, "The survey clearly shows that the debate over why the climate is changing is still underway, with nearly half of climate scientists disagreeing with what is often claimed to be the 'consensus' view." I'm not inclined to believe a 55.8 to 44.2 difference indicates any kind of consensus

But for someone who stated in a prior post below, "I don't think it's worth ...digging up more evidence of the scientific consensus on ACC.", you seem to be contradicting yourself with these additional efforts.

I really hate these labels. What are some good, non-pejorative ones we can use?
I'm fine with AGW believers or AGW followers and skeptics.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on October 6, 2010 at 7:42pm

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.
In that case, my apologies. It just seems that you hold the conclusions of anti-ACCers in more esteem than you do those of the ACCers.* shrug.

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.
I'm not trying to deflect anything. I already addressed that point of your post. The conversation has evolved.

Why do people insist there is a consensus, yet never pinpoint who quantifies it in an unimpeachable way,
*sigh* You can't quantify how many scientists don't support the IPCC conclusions in the broad strokes. How do you explain that every national or international scientific group either support the conclusions or takes a non-committal stance? Not a single one expressly disagrees. Not even the AAPG:
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]

Here's another report showing a 75% of papers supported the ACC theory while the remaining 25% only had problems with methodology and did not expressly disagree with the theory. And in they address your next point too.

and why do they insist that consensus itself validates anything?
[From the link above]
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known."

Here are some more numbers on the consensus:
928-0: peer reviewed papers from 1993-2003
11,885 scientists vs. 500 (probably apples and oranges. Can you do better?)
56%-30% with 14% unsure

And you are going to dispute that last one then I'm at a loss. (And for the record, I'd hypothesize the "real" number is probably somewhere between 56% and 95%.)

*I really hate these labels. What are some good, non-pejorative ones we can use?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page