Comments on: Something’s (probably) got to give

By: Roger L. Simon » Climategate: Al Gore and the politicization of science

Roger L. Simon » Climategate: Al Gore and the politicization of science — Wed, 12 May 2010 21:41:35 +0000

[...] the last twenty or so years has been the increased politicization of science. Of course, this is far from the first time this has occurred, but it may be one of the most important, because we are at a particularly [...]

By: ROGER SIMON ON AL GORE…”BLOVIATOR… MAKING ABSURD CLAIMS” | RUTHFULLY YOURS

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:39:55 +0000

[...] the last twenty or so years has been the increased politicization of science. Of course, this is far from the first time [1] this has occurred, but it may be one of the most important, because we are at a particularly [...]

By: aclay1

aclay1 — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:17:50 +0000

The safest conclusion is that we don’t know much. Given that, one must conclude that CO2-driven policy decisions are based on faith. Few rational people would be willing to base the fiture of the world economy on faith-based policies.

By: ShrinkWrapped

ShrinkWrapped — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 16:50:53 +0000

Paradigms & Weltanschauung…

Over the weekend, Dinocrat, in an insightful post, considered the conflict between AGW “Warmists” and “Deniers” through the prism of history: Something’s (probably) got to give Perhaps ClimateGate is a flash in the pan, though we view that as unl…

By: Canucklehead

Canucklehead — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:01:56 +0000

Bill, here is a link to Carbon Dioxide and the 800 year lag. This talks about correlation and causation.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/04/co2-lags-temperature-how-alarmists.html

By: bill

bill — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:53:39 +0000

Correlation is not the same as causation. Warmer waters hold less CO2 than cooler waters, so that is part of the equation. That fact alone would indicate that CO2 would correlate with global temperatures, but would give NO indication that they are causal.

A decade of rising CO2 with NO rising temperature would indicate CO2 is NOT a dominant cause (let alone the fact that man made CO2 is a small part, and the portion that could be reduced, even more miniscule).

Add in the contortions by “top scientists” to distort data that might contradict their lucrative AGW theory and their sabotage of real science that reveals their dishonesty, and you have the makings of a fraud.

Add in Rev. AlGore with his messianic movie message “The End is Near” … and you have a new church that adheres “conveniently” to the left’s drive for more control over all things. And Rev. Gore stated the earth’s core temperature is millions of degrees … so perhaps Gore has the earth confused with the center of our solar system, and Al would have us revert to that Ptolemaic universe.

The social science indicates this is another Silent Spring moment, radically popular, but devastating to millions of the world’s poor, who then needed cheap and effective DDT to fight malaria, and now need energy to develop agriculture and industry.

Control of others has been the consistent worldview of the left for decades. It is hardly a coincidence that Obama has radical communists in his administration. This is all about command and control from a scientifically illiterate elite.

By: Norby

Norby — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:46:31 +0000

Some Perspective…

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2009/12/some-perspective-i-looking-at.html

Great post that reveals some light on the subject. Take a gander at the graphs at the top of this article on the temperatures derived from Greenland’s Ice Core. Temps spike up and down all over the place, but one thing is true, as you go backwards in time, we are nowhere near the highest temps* in the last 12000 years.

AGW might be happening on some minimalist level… the hoax is the scale (actually lack of scale) of it and money it’s sucking away from other legitimate scientific projects. I for one believe, that the next 100 years of technology will take care of everything…

* – in Greenland’s regional area of the world, seeing it was an actual scientific project it doesn’t try to speak for the rest of the world.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:49:26 +0000

Saturday morning links…

Dynamite from Krauthammer: The new socialism
Forget CO2 – now it’s nitrogen!
Dino on climategate: Something’s (probably) got to give
SISU on Scott Brown
About time: Britain, Long a Libel Mecca, Reviews Laws
More on the Minnesota Teacher Brainw…

By: Canucklehead

Canucklehead — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:28:26 +0000

BC, that makes sense. Here is a link to an article about an opinion on the historical context of AGW.

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553

By: BC

BC — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 11:20:06 +0000

Canucklehead,
If we really want to get to the bottom of this problem then we need to follow the established scientific process: present your theory with ALL the scientific evidence (including all of the programming required to develop the theory) and have others in a variety of fields test it. That hasn’t completely happened with the AGW group since they have kept their data from others (and now, unfortunately, lost the original data on which they based their conclusions). Only when they did share ome of it (or had it shared for them by others) did we see the fraudulant way in which they went about making their claims.

I’m not a scientist. I am an historian by training. I can look at a variety of facts and give my opinion about what happened or why it happened. But it’s only an opinion. Other researchers can view the data differently depending on the prism though with they interpret the information. Take Steve’s argument. CO2 has risen. That’s a fact. Precipitously? That’s an opinion. It’s also an opinion taken out of context since AGW folks say that CO2 rises when temperatures rise. Unfortunately, temps have been falling (by all independent measurements) while CO2 continues to rise. Casue or effect? Precipitous or just a part of nature that we’ve only been able to measure recently due to the technological innovations we’ve made.

The point being, share the data. Have qualified scientists peer review all of the findings through the approved scientific process (rather than making it into a reality show) and we all will be much better off.

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:32:29 +0000

Government should definitely have limits and modesty, but dealing with potential disasters has always been part of its job, demanded by its citizens. Also, please stop with the specious arguments about “a gas necessary to life on earth” — water is also necessary to life on earth, but floods or drinking too much of it will kill humans. At least you acknowledge that current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have indeed risen precipitously in the past 150 years. The levels certainly began to rise above the long-time maximum of 280 ppm exactly when we starting producing lots more carbon dioxide in industrial activities and transportation, and its isotopic signature clearly demonstrates that the new gas comes mainly from fossil fuels. Still you say this all is “insignificant”. But these levels are now higher than humans have ever lived with, higher than any time in the past 15,000,000 years (ScienceDaily, Oct. 9, 2009), and “The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” said the paper’s lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

By: Canucklehead

Canucklehead — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:00:58 +0000

BC, what are you trying to say? I don’t understand your point.

By: BC

BC — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:12:19 +0000

Both sides could be biased with the views they hold. Some compare the tension that exists in the scientific community today to looking at a half-full glass on a table. Some say it’s half-full while others half-empty. Technically, both are right. The glass is both half-full and half-empty at the same time. It’s when we try to determine what brought the glass to that point that we come into a whole variety of differing opinions. Each hypthosis could be true. But until we follow the scientific method of experimentation and discovery (and all data is available to all researchers) we will always have just that: a number of equally interesting ideas