Appropriate Skepticism

Follow the money.

If the left would just have the intellectual honesty to say - "yeah we want to reduce American GDP by 25%" I could talk to them. But they are liars.

President single handedly worked economic magic. I have a little bit of that magic dust left. Wow! fantastic. No wonder 900 billionaires are on our side. Free turkey withdrawn. Since it has been a disaster since 1980, you should exclude all the years since then, but I wont tell anybody. Also, I wont bring it to anyone's attention that democrats were always in charge of spending when republican was in the white house during those years.

Mmmmmmwwwwwwaaahhhhhh

Love you man, you are my hero. On our way to first billion

Any adjustments for GOP congressional control muirbot? The 1993-2000 boom happened mostly under a GOP Congress. 1981-1987 under a GOP Senate. Oops, INCONVENIENT TRUTHS FOR muirbot.

You should know by now, that if the President is a Dem, then he gets all the credit. If the President is GOP, then the Dems in Congress get all the credit.

China, India, South Africa and Brazil have stated that they will not cut their carbon emissions in half by 2050. Legislation to create a carbon trading system in Australia was defeated today.

The Chinese are a lot smarter than the egoistical West gives them credit for.

Yes that's why they are advancing technology and manufacturing of solar and wind technologies leaving us in the dust when we could have had an economic renaissance and energy independence. But the thumb sucking knuckle-dragging dopes on the right have sold us out long ago.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5...

You obviously missed my snarkiness. No surprise though.

Well said muir...China's advantage obviously is that they are energy independent. On our way to first billion. THe free turkey offer on carbon offset is withdrawn.

We have Ku Klux Klan members like Senator Byrd, and patriots like Bernie Madoff on our side. Yes, we have all the right people with us.

Mmmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhh

Skepticism is warranted because we’ve seen this game before. Periodically someone comes up with some impending disaster, bolstered by a vague “consensus” of scientists of one stripe or another, which inevitably requires a large intervention by the government on behalf of some aggrieved party; that is to say, coercion. We’ve had the pandemic of heterosexual AIDS, “Silent Spring”, assorted cancer epidemics, an impending ice age, artificial additives in our foods, top-soil erosion, the death of the family farm, the death of the oceans, the Population Bomb, “Peak Oil”, various bleatings from the Club of Rome, etc., etc., etc.

It’s become standard operating procedure, so whenever the U.N. announces that they have “science” that proves that the majority of the members of the General Assembly are owed huge wealth transfers from the West, it makes sense to grab your wallet and examine the “science” with a jaundiced eye. When the science doesn’t measure up, as is the case with AGW, it is perfectly reasonable to tell them to hush up and get back to us when they have something solid.

The problem is this obsessive nature for people to blindly believe anything is a "Scientist" says it. Hell all you need a "scientific" sounding name or organization and people come in droves, take Union of Concerned Scientists for example.

I'm not sure if it's people that think they are smart or people that want to think they are smart, that latch onto anything sounding scientific. You see it all the time in language, when people try to use words that are way above their heads, to try and show off.

Mr Harsanyi,

How many degrees of cooling do you think this scandal will take out of the warming trends?

Healthy skepticism is not what we've had. We have seen hard working honest scientist doing the work of societies future broad-sided by an industry and media blitz and a downright witch hunt ever since the messenger, James Hansen, told congress 25 years and 0.5 C warming ago that we would see a warming trend.

"To many of these folks, the science of global warming is only a tool of ideology."

Yes, this IS about ideology. It's about an ideology on unfettered markets that has proven itself fallible now in two major economic crashes affecting the world over the last 80 years. It's about THAT ideology not liking the inconvenient facts of climate change and what it implies for this ideology. It's about an ideology that thinks money can by everything including the laws of nature that regulate the climate system.

Your ideology will not effect the climate system. Media blitz, ClimateGates, attacking messengers and Rush Limbaugh will have nil effect on the climate trends caused by increasing anthropogenic atmospheric greenhouse gas. None of this will change the spectrophotometric properties of the carbon dioxide molecules.

>>How many degrees of cooling do you think this scandal will take out of the warming trends?<<

That's the wrong question. The question now becomes, can the climate models still fit the reality of current and future climate change movements? In other words, the correlation between greenhouse gases and the tempertures may have always been spurious and just a fluke that the greehouse increases had coincided with warming trends. This means everything! It certainly would mean that mankind has VERY LITTLE to do with changing the climate.

You certainly have the progressive left dialog down.

"Your ideology will not effect the climate system."
Neither will yours.

You keep referring to the spectrophotometric properties of the carbon dioxide molecules. How can you understand those properties and not be skeptical of catastrophic AGW claims?

On top of that, alarmist researchers refuse to share their data and methods (even to the point of destroying data). How could any intelligent person NOT be skeptical?

"Your ideology will not effect the climate system."
Neither will yours.

Not so sure about that just yet... we are trying. But you guys confuse such attempts as the viel for our hidden agenda of a communist take over.

"You keep referring to the spectrophotometric properties of the carbon dioxide molecules. How can you understand those properties and not be skeptical of catastrophic AGW claims?"


The same way I am skeptical of the idea that adding a blanket on top of my sheets won't keep me warmer. I'm guessing you don't wear blankets on cold nights????

"On top of that, alarmist researchers refuse to share their data and methods (even to the point of destroying data). How could any intelligent person NOT be skeptical?"

Again... the data is not destroyed and the alarmist is that guy looking back at you in the mirror.

"Not so sure about that just yet... we are trying.

A rare moment of honesty - you finally admit that you are ideologically driven.

A better version of your blanket analogy would be adding one more blanket on top of the 25 you're already covered with - it just doesn't make a difference any more.

"spectrophotometric"

Nice! Six syllables!

But...what about the heteroskedasticity?! :-)

I think Harsanyi's cautions are justified - it's a much better article than a lot that I've read reacting to "climategate". But I agree - it was pretty jarring to read him talk about ideology as if that was a unique approach of the climate change believers. I don't know if he honestly doesn't realize the demand for ideological purity that animates a lot of the skeptic community, or if he realizes that but doesn't want to highlight it, or what.

The point is ideology drives a lot of this debate. It just needs to be cut out of the equation. And pointing it out in one side but turning a blind eye to it in the other doesn't help matters.

As you say, "none of this will change the spectrophotometric properties of the carbon dioxide molecules". Truth is what it is. Knowing what we know about atmospheric carbon dioxide, we have to soberly evaluate what impact it's having, and how human activity is contributing. There shouldn't be an ideological component to this question.

DK - there is an ideological component from the socialists side that wants to dial down our standard of living.

Arrowsmith there is a an ideological component from the free market side THAT IS DIALING DOWN your standard of living.

You think , assuming you are a middle class person, that your standard of living will persist if our middle class is forced to compete with labor in China, India, Africa with no work standards and no environmental standards. WHAT THE HELL are you thinking? Our standard of living is going down the drain... Say goodbye to the American middle class and hello to wage competition with billions of Asians.

America Without a Middle Class
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/...


Here's the writing on the wall fella... and you are just happily following them along down the primrose path.

American Wages Out of Balance

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/business/11vi...

By EDWARD HADAS, MARTIN HUTCHINSON and ANTONY CURRIE
Published: November 10, 2009
American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.

Arrowsmith there is a an ideological component from the free market side THAT IS DIALING DOWN your standard of living.

I call BS. There is precious little "free market" extant driving these issues.
The goverment at all levels consumes more of our resources than ever before. The U.S. empire is ever enlarging and costly. And there has been an ever increasing regulatory component affecting the market.

All coinciding with 100+ years of progressive government under both Republican and Democratic regimes.

Whatever problems we suffer, they are not a result of "free market" ideology, but rather a result of corporatist government, an inevitable result of a hierarchical political structure which always obeys the "iron law of oligarchy".

muirbot - welcome to labor arbitrage. There is no such thing as holy, guaranteed union job anymore. If you aren't ready to compete with China and India, then that's your grave.

So true, all 900 billionaires including our hero Bernie Madoff agrees with us. Ever wonder why there is a larger minority of billionaires in places like Hollywood, NY-Connecticut, Silicon valley than all the major right wing metros? Ever wonder why housing ownership/affordability is much lower in these places than any other metros. It is a reflection of the resounding success of our policies.

Mmmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh

But I agree - it was pretty jarring to read him talk about ideology as if that was a unique approach of the climate change believers.

Why? Because there has been a pretense that AGW advocacy hasn't been marked by ideology?

I'm not sure what pretense you're refering to. Most people on here, myself included, acknowledge that climate change advocacy has had some issues with ideological motivations.

What's amazing is that Harsanyi is so good at diagnosing that but so bad at recognizing that it's not unique to the climate change camp.

I'm not sure what pretense you're refering to.

The pretense by "official" climate science.

Give it a rest.
It has long been contended by the AGW camp that the only motivation for skeptics is ideology.
Why should Harsanyi have to delve into it now?

If anything, it's about time someone acknowledged the possibility of sincere skepticism.

Hey there is the ideology on the left and the ideology on the right. The scientist since 1900 and Svante August Arrhenius never had any doubt that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere should cause the climate to warm. Now modern man is running the experiment and the results support centuries old science. The problem is the science and the facts support the lefts agenda and not the rights. Unbridled markets have consequences and externalities that do not get figured into the price of everything.

Stephan Colbert said it best, " facts have a decidedly liberal bias."

But the left is not liberal. The left is decidedly authoritarian anti-human and entirely superficial in economic thinking.

If you think the world can be nicely divided into two groups, then it is no wonder you have such a constrained view.

Stephan Colbert said it best, " facts have a decidedly liberal bias."

Well said muir...Kaching! 900 billionaires on our side, so obviously, facts are on our side.

The problem is the science and the facts support the lefts agenda and not the rights.

*applause* on our way to first billion. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you. You are my hero. Yes, it supports our agenda. Ever wonder why the smart, clever, educated billionaires are overwhelmingly on our side.

Dale Carnegie said "a drop of honey will gather more flies than a gallon of gall". We have got honey, lot of it.

You, my hero.

mmmmmmmmwwwwwwaaaaaaahhhhhhh

Here, I'll do it right now:

"Many in the anthropogenic climate change camp are alarmists that are driven by ideology. Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is a good example. They deliberately use apocalpytic scenarios to scare people into agreeing with them. They use guilt to make people agree with them. Some, like Stern, take the climate science that is out there and use incredibly unrealistic assumptions about the social discount rate to come to the conclusion that his prefered policy should be pursued. There are a lot of problems and they need to be fully owned up to. The recent climategate emails revealed new problems. Some senior climate scientists bully and threaten people they disagree with. Their work can be sloppy. They eschew a cooperative peer review process for an adversarial one."

There. I'd love to hear a similar admission from you. You don't hear it often from skeptics. You hear it all the time from anthropogenic climate change advocates that are embarassed by the antics of alarmists and who don't want to shoot themselves in the foot with a draconian Kyoto-style response.

I'll go you one better: I make no denial of climate warming or anthropogenic warming.
I merely take the position that anthropogenic contribution or serious effects of same have not been proven to my satisfaction.

How in the world is that "one better"? I know roughly what you think about climate change. That doesn't particularly concern me, and it wasn't what I was talking about in the post.

I was talking about the complete absence of introspection and confession to the existence of ideological and pecuniary influences on the skeptical side, paired with the common insistence by the skeptics that the non-skeptical position is practically defined by alarmism and ideology.

There are plenty of people who take anthropogenic climate change seriously and are open to a policy response that think Al Gore goes overboard, disapprove of the antics at CRU, and abhor draconian policies like Kyoto. There's plenty of them. I'm one of them.

You haven't "gone one better" until you start to show a little evidence that the skeptical community has any clue about or interest in confronting it's own ideological elements. You guys act as if they don't even exist.

And maybe I'm missing the boatload of introspective skeptics. Perhaps. I'd love to learn that. But even when skeptics themselves are sincere they seem to be completely oblivious to or apologetic for their ideological peers or the industrial interests that motivate some of their peers.

Daniel, when Mr. Smith says we have to do this expensive thing because of that, and Mr. Jones, asks "Why?, it is incumbent upon Mr. Smith to explain why and offer evidence to support his claim. It it not asked of Mr. Jones why he asks Mr. Smith to substantiate his claim. Mr. Jones's motivations are not particularly relevant to the validity of his question.

I ask the question because I have long tended to skepticism. Does it matter why I ask for evidence? I always require evidence.

I always require evidence too. If you are telling me I should just live with the costs carbon consumers are imposing on me, you need to marshall evidence as well. You don't get off the hook. And as long as the skeptical community in general is telling me I should just live with the costs carbon consumers are imposing on me they need to stop pretending that their potential ideological drivers don't matter or don't exist. That's what this exchange is about (or put it this way - that's what the initial post of mine and all subsequent posts of mine that you've been responding to are about).

I know you enjoy thinking you're a live and let live type, and people that disagree with you aren't, but I just don't buy it. Particularly on this issue.

If you are telling me I should just live with the costs carbon consumers are imposing on me, you need to marshall evidence as well.

Assertion of costs are not evidence of costs. Presuming there are costs, there are benefits as well. We are all beneficiaries of hydrocarbon energy transference.

If you are asserting that the costs exceed the benefits, then you are obligated to demonstrate same, not just speculate. Anyone can speculate about such things.

The claim that CO2 should be viewed as a pollutant requires more substantiation than hypothesis, given that carbon is as much a part of the cycle of life as the water cycle, especially given that the evidence of net positive feedback and a "tipping point" are thus far assumption.

There is as much reason, if not more so, to assume negative feedback as opposed to positive feedback.

The geological evidence indicates that the climate has cycled between a minimum of about 12°C and a maximum of about 22°C, with an average higher than the mean and the current state well below both.

I think it safe to assume there is some anthropogenic contribution to the climate and I think it reasonable to suppose that this contribution is relatively insignificant based upon current understanding of cliate input factors.

I think this so-called "climategate" confirms that there has been some effort to exaggerate the anthropogenic contribution and to preclude critical examination of those claims.

I see no basis at this time to view CO2 as a pollutant.

The percentage of anthropogenic CO2 is insignificant relative to the ocean/atmospheric/biomass exchange.

By far the major determinant of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is ocean temperatures. After that, biomass. An increase of atmospheric CO2 will promote biomass growth and hence storage of carbon in bioamass. The same effect occurs with increasing temperatures.

The main driver of ocean temperatures is not atmospheric temperature, but rather solar absorption as moderated by cloud cover.

Well of course I have to make my case. The case is made every single time this comes up here, and it's made every day in other venues - so I know you're not ignorant of it, you're just not convinced. I'm not going to remake it here right now just because the subject came up again. I just hope you realize that the fact that you're skeptical doesn't get you off the hook of justifying your imposition as well. Libertarians often have this sense that they don't furnish evidence because they're passive. You're not passive actors and you have the same obligations anyone else does.

Sorry DA, but the case has yet to be made - I can't help that you are convinced otherwise by extremely flimsy evidence. The "cost imposed on you by carbon" is a myth, so (as far as CO2 is concerned) there is no imposition.

"The "cost imposed on you by carbon" is a myth"

It's also highly subjective and unquantifiable.

As I said elsewhere, there is no evidence available that proposed reductions in CO2 emissions will offer benefits greater than the costs.

You are proposing that costs greater than benefits be imposed.

I am proposing that costs should be imposed only if they produce benefits commensurate with the costs. That does not seem the imposition you support.

I can't talk about many skeptics, because I am not familiar with them. The few I've mentioned and a couple of others have been my main references in hearing about the various argument.

I'm sure there are a lot of dingbats on the skeptic side, but I don't pay much attention to them. Certainly they are presented in mainstream media as dingbats, but then, so are serious, authoritative skeptics.

You saw how muirgeo has dismissed such skeptics.

MThe main cause of my skepticism is founded in the behavior of the many AGW catastrophe proponents. I have read their attacks on the likes of Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg, among others.

They''ve a long way to go before I will accept any claims from them without the utmost skepticism.

RE: "You saw how muirgeo has dismissed such skeptics"

I did. He sounded an awful lot like brotio, but for some reason nobody piles on brotio. To reiterate, you don't have to keep telling me about the misbehavior of non-skeptics. I already wrote a paragraph highlighting that misbehavior. THAT'S not what we're arguing about, Sam. THAT'S not where the disagreement is.

I did. He sounded an awful lot like brotio, but for some reason nobody piles on brotio

You have said it here before that you don't go to some left wing blog and pile onto a left wing commenter. So what do you expect us to do, to someone we largely agree with?

I've made attempts to promote civility here before, but that has proven fruitless, even for Don and Russ.

I address muirgeo because he seems to be making statements for the benefit of passers-by rather than addressing arguments honestly (such as suggesting that the government has been directed by libertarian sentiments from Reagan on).

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Are you serious? It's been contended that the only motivation for SKEPTICS is ideology? Are you even aware of what gets said about climate change scientists???

Look - there's a lot of animosity to go around, and a decent portion of both sides doesn't trust the other. But don't try to pull this victimhood thing. I've never argued that climate change alarmists should be given a free pass - I don't spend my time on here defending Al Gore. I know there are alarmists. You all complain about ideology 24/7 on here. I've never denied it. I just think it would be nice if there was a little parity and introspection at some point. Don't play dumb, Sam. How many skeptics are there out there, really? How much media attention do they get? They're a minority but they get a disproportionate platform and they get treated like equals. Don't even try to play victim. I've seen people that believe that anthropogenic climate change is real stand up and say "let's not rush into Kyoto or Copenhagen". I have yet to see a skeptic stand up and call out the ideology and corporate interests driving much of their side. Don't even try to play the victimization game.

... a decent portion of both sides doesn't trust the other.

Everything proposed bt the Church of AGW to combat "climate change" (an incredibly stupid phrase) starts with, "Surrender your liberty to the State, and get ready to pony up some cash." So you're damn right I don't trust them.

Since my hand isn't in your wallet, and I'm more interested in your liberty than you are, I don't see what there is to distrust about me.

Re: "Everything proposed bt the Church of AGW to combat "climate change" (an incredibly stupid phrase) starts with, "Surrender your liberty to the State, and get ready to pony up some cash." So you're damn right I don't trust them."

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Re: "Since my hand isn't in your wallet, and I'm more interested in your liberty than you are, I don't see what there is to distrust about me."

I'll get my hand out of your wallet when you get your hand out of my lungs and my atmosphere. You're more interested in my liberty than me? Please. Stop kidding yourself. Why do you think these issues concern me? It's precisely because the involuntary imposition of costs by carbon producers and consumers is detrimental to liberty that this concerns me. You libertarians have really convinced yourselves that you're the ones concerned with liberty, haven't you? Incredible.

You imply that CO2 is a pollutant, so some kind of punishment must be imposed for exhaling it, yet you also say that Kyoto and the other proposals put forth by The Church are too much. Well, The Church is the only game in town, Yabbut. It controls the White House, and the House of Reps, and has a substantial grip on the Senate. My statement is accurate, if you'd bother to pay attention to what I wrote (Everything proposed by The Church of AGW to combat "climate change" ...)

It's precisely because the involuntary imposition of costs by carbon producers and consumers is detrimental to liberty that this concerns me.

Where's the proof? And I don't just mean proof of AGW, I mean proof that the warming will be a detriment, and that the punishments you wish to impose will reverse AGW. You are sympathetic to The Church, if not a Believer, so I stand by the second part of my statement as well. You are willing to let The Church tax you and encroach on your liberty on the unproven assertion that human-produced CO2 is damaging Mother Gaia, and you're not even willing to demand that they at least offer compelling evidence that their "solutions" will solve anything.

I'll get my hand out of your wallet when you get your hand out of my lungs and my atmosphere.

I don't exhale any more CO2 than you do.

It's precisely because the involuntary imposition of costs by carbon producers and consumers is detrimental to liberty that this concerns me.

And these costs are what?

There have been no claims whatsoever that CO2 levels, even projected levels, are any threat to our lungs. None at all.

RE: "and these costs are what?"

Are you just playing dumb? I'm not going to repeat a case that we go over repeatedly on here and that I know you know. Just because you're not convinced doesn't mean that you don't know what they are, nor does it invalidate the concern.

Re: "There have been no claims whatsoever that CO2 levels, even projected levels, are any threat to our lungs. None at all."

Understood - I brought up CO2 later, after that statement - sorry for the confusion. I was talking about pollution more generally, but the CO2 falls under "and my atmosphere". The principle behind atmospheric pollution externalities are all the same, no matter what the pollutant and it's particular detrimental effect.

I'm not playing dumb, you are being disingenuous.

Before damages can be awarded or actions quelled, harm must be demonstrated and decisively connected to said action.

On that score, you have nothing but speculation and hypothesis.

Yes, that's how it works in a well defined property rights structure with easy to understand damages.

If we had such a property rights structure when it came to these externalities we wouldn't even be having this discussion! There wouldn't be a problem. The market would take care of it just fine.

Even outside the property rights structure, there needs to be a reasonable demonstration of harm or likely harm.

Thus far, all such claims have been speculative and based on least likely scenarios.

Least likely scenarios? Explain, rather than assert.

I understand your opposition to taxes/intervention in general - but predicated on an acceptance of rewarding or correcting damages I don't see what the problem is. Even if you assume the damages are small, then all you need to do is have a small carbon tax. That can be scaled based on our assessment of the damages. If it's really the "least likely scenario" as you assert, then have a low carbon tax. If you buy into this "it helps the plants grow" argument, then have a negative carbon tax.

The squeeze is on.

If you are going to suppose that carbon consumption should be taxed, I can think of a lot of behaviors that should be taxed as everything we do has some impact on others.

I disagree that CO2 should be defined as a pollutant. It is a natural part of the landscape, unlike automotive NO, or CO emissions.

There is no evidence to indicate that CO2 levels pose a problem.

It is known that costly (harmful to human well being) reductions in CO2 emissions will produce little change in climate trends.

Go ahead, research it and tell me if you can find any currently proposed emission reductions that will have a measurable impact on climate trends. The calculated impacts of significant reduction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions fall below the noise level.

The least likely scenarios are those promoted by Al Gore.

You complaining about the ppm particles that your lungs and body absorb has some merit. It is a little interesting that you turn around and pollute this blog with comments promoting your own brand of ideology that you sometimes let show through while prentending to be a moderate just seeking a debate.

Are you even aware of what gets said about climate change scientists???

I'm sure, but I haven't been reading these things in mainstream media.

I'm sorry, that's just the impression I've gotten after years of reading major media outlets such as the San Jose Mercury News, Scientific American, Time, Discover, etc. I've written in to the paper to take issue with assertions made in articles, and was just basically dismissed.

"How many skeptics are there out there, really?"

Using that statement your already throwing your bias and ideology into the mix. You always want people to give Krugman the benefit of the doubt (aka Don's "apology") Why don't you do the same?

Wait a minute, a wait a minute. I think I see where you're misunderstanding me. When I asked "how many skeptics are there really" and declared they were in the minority, I meant out of the total population: ie, skeptics vs. non-skeptics, I don't think it's controversial to say that skeptics are in the minority. And yet they usually get 50-50 coverage in news, etc. (ie - two opposing op-ed columns, two opposing talking heads). They get a great deal of deference.

I wasn't saying that the minority of self-proclaimed skeptics are really skeptics (and that the rest are ideologues). I was saying that the minority of all people are skeptics.

Yes Yes. that's the position I had you pegged for, so you see why I wanted you to keep a consistent position.

I do agree that the minority of all people are skeptics but probably not for the same reason as you. The AGW version is pushed so heavily, it's almost funny. I really don't see how you can say with a straight face that AGW and skeptics get equal face time. It would be interesting to see the actual statistics, all the time AGW is mentioned vs skeptics.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Skeptics are clearly in the minority - I don't think that's controversial. In every media outlet and debate they are given an equal platform with non-skeptics, despite their minority status. The idea that skeptics don't get treated respectfully or fairly is a joke. People go out of their way to provide exposure for them. What bias or ideology is involved in that observation?

"In every media outlet"

Okay Dan, if you say so.

You didn't address my point though. By you saying that you think most of the skeptics are not really skeptics just ideological hacks...your throwing your own bias and ideology in there...which is what you keep saying you are not doing.
You should have said, "I don't know how many are truely skeptical and how many are ideological driven, but I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are true skeptics, because that's what I always tell everyone else to do."
That's what you should have said, not "well I want to think that most of the skeptics are just ideological hacks so I won't give them any benefit of the doubt, even though I kept bugging Don to do give Krugman the benefit of the doubt."

Everyone sees what your doing, why can't you?
Where's Gordon Ramsay when you need him?

RE: "You didn't address my point though."

I didn't understand your point and gave it my best shot. What exactly was your point?

RE: "By you saying that you think most of the skeptics are not really skeptics just ideological hacks"

I said nothing of the sort. I said ideology influences the skeptical community, just as surely as it influences the non-skeptic community. Would you deny it? I never said most are ideologues.

RE: "That's what you should have said, not "well I want to think that most of the skeptics are just ideological hacks so I won't give them any benefit of the doubt"

Alright, before I say anything else, you really have to clarify why or where you think I said that. My whole point was not all non-skeptics are ideologues but some are, not all skeptics are ideologues, but some are, but the non-skeptics seem to point out the ideologues in their community voluntarily a lot more often.

Daniel,

It's all about swiftboating. It's the dispicable ability for the right wingers to find conspiracy in every little detail. And it's so hypocritical in lightof the things their party has done while in power... literally suppressing the reports of agencies like the EPA and getting the head of the IPCC fired... it's unreal.

I had completely forgotten about those incidents.

I'm sure if we look back in the archive, we'll find posts from Don and Russ expressing outrage over it - and strong claims that we should all think twice about trusting skeptics as a result.

You still simply divide the world into to camps?

Having trouble with greater ideological complexity than that?

You entertain flawed premises.

you go boy ----dispicable ability for the right wingers to find conspiracy in every little detail. ----LOL

Let's not tell anybody that you wrote this a couple of hours ago

Media blitz, ClimateGates, attacking messengers and Rush Limbaugh will have nil effect on the climate trends caused by increasing anthropogenic atmospheric greenhouse gas.

many similar posts on corporate conspiracy against climate change. But they are not really conspiracy theories - because Al Gore has a heart that bleeds billions of dollars a second.

Of course, the spectrophotometric properties of CO2 molecules has never been a part of the debate. I wonder whether Muirgeo threw this out because he wanted to deflect the debate or because he really doesn't know.

Precisely, which was my point in saying that the debate has to be "soberly evaluate what impact it's having, and how human activity is contributing"

And what do we "know" about atmospheric CO2?

Perhaps the question isn't about what is known about CO2, but about all the other factors about which less is known.

Face it Dan, you are a "believer".

RE: "Perhaps the question isn't about what is known about CO2, but about all the other factors about which less is known."

Isn't it about both?

I believe lots of things - sure :)

"Gallup recently found that 41 percent of Americans now believe global warming news reports are exaggerated — the highest amount in over a decade, despite this time frame coinciding with concentrated and highly funded scaremongering."

So 59% of Americans believe Global Warming news rerort are telling the truth or understating it? Nah, 59% consensus means nothing - science is about consensus. So 41% of American believe Global Warming is exaggerated if not outright false? Hurrah! This consensus is proof that Global Warming is a filthy scam and climate scientists should rounded up and put in jail. QED.

It was a multiple choice poll, not an either/or question.

Consensus is a tool of politics, not science.
Science is about constructing a hypothesis, creating a test, analyzing the results, and drawing a conclusion.

Climate science is about reverse engineering the data and experiments to prove a predetermined conclusion that allows the politicians who are funding the research to accumulate more power.

Climate science is not science at all. It's politics.

"Climate science is about reverse engineering the data ..."



That right there is a lie. You can't reverse engineer the warming trends, the melting glaciers and ice caps or the rising acidifying warming oceans.

You can’t “reverse engineer” erased data, either. The data have been erased. Full stop.

No it hasn't been earased. FULLER STOP!

The data have been erased. And answer yetanotherdave's questions. You idiot.

F-R-A-U-D

Please refer to my questions above that you ignored.

What data? They threw it away (if it ever existed).

No they didn't throw anything away. I've posted multiple times multiple links to the raw data.

If these climate scientist were as happenstance and loose with the fact as people like YOU are I would argue they deserve significant criticism...you're simply a member of a mob... you don't even know the facts and you're already to do a lynching.

The problem is by destroying their data it is essentially impossible to validate their process for deriving their "value added" data. The links you posted contain more data than what was used for the analysis. How do we know exactly what portion of the available raw data they used or rejected? How do we know their criteria for rejecting some data and keeping other data? How do we know how they processed the data they used? Any scientist knows you NEVER delete the original data you started with and you keep detailed records of everything you did with and to that data (and DK’s silly population data example is not analogous). Your ideology is blinding you to the sloppiness (or worse) that went on.

The raw data is avaialble for anyone to anylize. Even if CRU was hiding it's methods some one could go from scatch and see what results they gat. But insted of doing that the skpetics just nit pick the results of others.

My point all along is that NO ONE has been able to construct a temperature trend using the raw data that doesn't show something different from the CRU results.

Likewise Manns results are confirmed by multiple lines of indelpendent evidence.

There is little doubt that today the Earth is warmer then it has been in 4,000 years or MORE. And it ain't even close to being done warming.

How do we know exactly what portion of the available raw data they used or rejected?

How do we know their criteria for rejecting some data and keeping other data?

How do we know how they processed the data they used?

You completely fail to address yetanotherdave's points.

BTW, some of the most important (accurate) direct measurement data showing the warming was produced by Cristy.

Thanks for pointing that out, I've been very busy all day. I'm used to it with him - I wonder if he even understood my point.

I don't think he cares. His ideological partisanship requires intellectual dishonesty.

His claim that he comes here to learn is repudiated by everything else he says.

If it were revealed that he is part of a cabal dedicated to neutralizing libertarian appeal to the electorate, I would not be surprised.

"If it were revealed that he is part of a cabal dedicated to neutralizing libertarian appeal to the electorate, I would not be surprised."

Yep! That describes me exactly... a cabal of one. But yeah this libertarian thinking is dangerous especially when policy makers get a hold of it... lots of damage as we can see. And besides I HaTE relgion. It's the root of so many of our problems.

And besides I HaTE relgion.

Opiate of the masses, eh?

You should get checked to see if your brain is getting enough oxygen.
That's such a fatuous claim.

Having identified myself as libertarian for the past thirty years, I assure you that I've not been happy with any regime during that time nor have I been at all happy with the direction of government, the actions of almost all politicians, of either party in any degree.

Upon reflection, I'd suppose Clinton was better than expected and all others have been worse than we could have hoped.

No one with any familiarity with libertarian policy prescriptions could honestly connect them with any extant policy regime.

Thanks to the progressive left, Wall Street has taken over the executive branch from the petro industry. Perhaps better in some ways, worse in others.

To suppose any sizable number of politicians have any interest in following libertarian policy prescription is to participate in mendacity.

What do you expect...you don't actually think he will admit an error on his part do you?

Maybe not. But you can cherry pick data so that your 2000 year global temp series shows much less variability than it should, so that current changes look much more significant than they are. And you can run your data through a program that produces a hockey-stick no matter what you put into it.

talking about Hockey Stick, Steve McIntyre caught my buddy Michael Mann with his pants down. Steve's site ClimateAudit.org was overwhelmed over the last few days, hence he runs a mirror site right now. My enterprise is in ruins, but my buddy Al Gore will get to be the first carbon billionaire.

I'm offering left over turkey from last weekend as a free incentive to those who will buy carbon offsets from my trading firm.

RE: "Science is about constructing a hypothesis, creating a test, analyzing the results, and drawing a conclusion."

True, but since you can no more have experimental climatology than you can have experimental astronomy all conclusions are going to have their own unique idiosyncracies and flaws. It's much like most economics, in that sense (although there is a burgeoning experimental economics literature). With that sort of empirical milieu, consensus - your ability to convince others that despite the idiosyncracies one conclusion is more reliable than another - is necessary. It's no guarantee (for that matter, neither are experiments), but you can't just dismiss the role of that sort of peer consensus.

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

George Monbiot

Better said then I.

"Climate sceptics have lied, obscured and cheated for years. That's why we climate rationalists must uphold the highest standards of science"

Have they?

And now we know this about certain central figures in climate science.

We know what Sam. What are they guilty of? Have you seen the emails in context?

OK, we now have reason to believe that certain central figures in the AGW camp have fudged data (lied), worked to keep opposing views out of the debate (obscured and cheated), deleted raw data which took them years to gather (obscured).

Back at you with the question: Which climate skeptics have lied, cheated, and obscured?

Have you seen evidence of this or is it an assumption you make about them?

Do you believe John Cristy has lied, cheated, and obscured?
How about Richard Lindzen?

John Christy's data was found to be improperly analyisized leading to MAJOR changes in the results. Nothing in ClimateGate wil change the basic results reported in the IPCC....NOTHING!!!!
Richard Lindzen had a paper published ( on the supposed Iris effect that would cool the planet) in a mainstream peer reviewed article which he subsequently had to retract because it Was BS. Willie Soon published total non-sense in an article that caused its editors to quit.

Now back to you..."we now have reason to believe that certain central figures in the AGW camp have fudged data (lied), worked to keep opposing views out of the debate (obscured and cheated), deleted raw data which took them years to gather (obscured)."

Please show me the evidence that YOU ...YOU have seen to support this claim... and please IN CONTEXT.

Have you done do diligence in making your claims above like you are expecting of the climate scientist or as I suspect have you just jumped on a bandwagon that's going your way???

>>Nothing in ClimateGate wil change the basic results reported in the IPCC....NOTHING!!!!<<

What if the models of greenhouse gas concentration increases no longer show an increase in Earth's temps? Wouldn't that expose the models that the climate scientists, envirowhackos -- like YASAFI er yourself -- and other AWG-religious nutjobs as suprious? Hiding data that harms the predictibility of the model means everything. If pollution increases arcoss the globe and the temps are cooling while that is happening, gullible people like you will be confused until some other snakeoil salesman comes along.

Cristy's data wasn't improperly analyzed, it was pointed out to him that there was sensor drift in the satellite data and he made the corrections.
He did not attempt to resist such critique, he made the corrections and no one has shown that his error was made in bad faith.

So for Lindzen, there's no allegation that he published his paper in bad faith, that he manipulated data to prove his case, etc.

The emails that have been revealed so far appear to be pretty damning. Enough so the make various members of the AGW camp to take exception to the behavior revealed thereby.

Due diligence, eh? So you've been examining those emails in context and are ready to make a report, are you?

What I've been doing all along is OBSERVING how the AGW camp has been consistently resorting to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority. These emails do confirm my original impressions.

The problem for you is the fact that Christy's analysis had a subtle error that was found because he readily shared his data and methods. As soon as the error was discovered, he corrected it immediately and explained the details for anybody who was interested. The corrected data still doesn't show Mann's hockey-stick.

By contrast, the AGW-believer "scientists" refuse to share their data or methods, making validation of their results impossible.

Now exactly who's lying, obscuring and cheating?

You dazzled - citations please - let's settle this for once and for all. cite Cristy, Soon, and Lindzen's combacks and the further replies.

Mmmmmmwwwwwaaaaaahhhhhh,
Al Gore is a saint because he shares ideology with Crook Dodd and former Ku Klux Klan member and sitting Democratic Senator Byrd.

Good point. Who are these climate skeptics who have lied, obscured and cheated?

Speaking of obscuring and taking things out of context, your quote is the subheading of an article entitled "Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away". To his credit, while Monbiot continues to hold the same stance on AGW, he has publicly admitted that the emails are very damaging, and that they reveal unscientific practices. Further, in the same article he calls for Phil Jones to resign.

As far as I know, you have not been as forthright. But sure, let's only focus on Monbiot's subheading...

that's very damaging to Muir and My enterprise. I don't think muir will respond to that. He doesn't respond to any attacks on him that proves that he is wrong or lying.

Can anyone give tell me the most outrageous email in context. I honestly haven't seen them. Have you?

Outrage is a subjective response.