could this be a way to scrutinize climate science enough for the skeptics

[Jan Van]

his website has interesting factual info on climate theories

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/tim ... ing-nazis/

Does it?

Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

Spencer, Christy, and McNider offer perfect examples of what John Kerry was criticizing – shoddy, biased science being treated on equal footing with solid mainstream science. In reality, there should be an immense credibility gap between the climate contrarians who have been consistently wrong and who deny the inconvenient data, and the mainstream climate scientists whose positions are supported by the full body of scientific evidence.

When a fringe 2 to 4 percent minority - who consistently produce shoddy analysis and compare those with whom they disagree to Nazis - are given equal credibility by the media and policymakers as the 97 percent of scientific experts, we have a problem.

[moda0306]

May I respectfully suggest if the left really wishes to solve or mitigate, they should consider presenting their ideas in a way that the masses will actually want what is being sold rather than perceiving it is being pushed down their throat.  I can't speak for everyone, but it sure seems to me the left is operating without solid science on their side and with the appearance of wanting power and control.  If this is not the case, perhaps the left could do a much better marketing job.  In other words, why do I think the left is, on the whole, just a bunch of corrupt self congratulatory narsisistic egomaniacs that will not look outside of their elitist circle of friends for input?  Convince those of us who see the left that way that is not the case ... what I see when people make statements like I just did is the left trying to deny, divert or otherwise make the oposition look foolish.  Come on people of the left, get us on board with you!

... Mountaineer

What level of consensus in the scientific community would you like to see before you're convinced of man-made climate change?  Are you stating that the scientists arguing for climate change are doing a poor job, or are not enough in numbers?

There's no likely solution that isn't going to feel like it's being "pushed down the throats" of masses who really don't want to pay a higher utility bill or drive a smaller car or less miles.

We can either suggest something that works, or something that sounds nice... Or, put a nice guise on something that works. A lot of "selling" might have to happen, but if "the left" is the only side trying to come up with a solution, I want them to figure out "what works" first, and worry about the masses and their 2,500 sf homes and SUV gas bills later. Frankly, if climate change is a risk worth taking seriously, government ignoring it is essentially theft from those who don't pollute and a subsidy to those that do. I respectfully suggest to "the masses" to acknowledge that if you want government to recognize your assets (most people advocate for government in this role), then properly accounting for un-captured liabilities is the other side of that coin.

I don't mind the debate, and skeptical attitudes towards new ideas, but this straw-man attack towards "the left" is a bit much.  But one if the core issues here is risk-based property recognition. This is one huge point people make against advocates of the Non-aggression Principle.  There's no proper accounting for risk. You can say your property is yours til your blue in the face, but if you're polluting, you are aggressing against others. If you're polluting in ways we don't 100% understand, one could very reasonably assert that the risk of loss being created by activity is aggression of well.  Any attempt to avoid being held accountable for those costs is "pushing pollution down the throat" of others.

Very few of the masses are interested in anything close to the truth. About investing, economics, risk, pollution, religion, and the list goes on. They're more interested in making their lives as comfortable as possible in the short-term, and appealing to that may be politically necessary, but by no means is it something I enjoy (or will enjoy) listening to as part of the overall discussion. They've made up their mind based on convenience... A lot of nauseating polishing of difficult decisions is going to need to be done before action is palatable to "the masses."

I perceive your response is what I sterotypically expect from the left:  "You are all to dumb to manage your own destiny so we smart people will have to do it for you".  A very elitist view of humanity.  "Global warming" or climate change or whatever the latest buzzwords are, is merely a symptom of a much broader problem as the epic disaster list points out.  Needless to say I am extremely skeptical when it comes to one more program where big government (and its often well paid for scientific minions - grants etc.) is going to save us from ourselves.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I am sort of an elitist in some ways.  I want the fed chairman to understand economics, the Secretary of State to under stand foreign policy, and my accountant to understand taxes. I also want supposed owners of property to understand the affects of their actions.

I am skeptical of government actions.  I am also skeptical of the assertion that us all burning fossil fuels and manipulating ecosystems isn't going to cause some huge problems.  There is no way, in my opinion, to explain some complex things to 51% of the people. I'm not advocating for dictatorship. I'm just stating an observation.  At some point, we have to move beyond advertising, and talk about science. If there is a measurable cost to someone's muscle car emissions that's not getting accounted for, I suppose I'd like his support of it, but first and foremost I want him paying his due. His support of said policy is ideal, but by no means necessary for fair policy.

That's why I enjoy conversations here.  For the most part, they can stay pretty intellectual.  I love dearly my friends and family that may not be very intelligent in certain areas, but I can't stand trying to converse with them on those subjects sometimes.

[moda0306]

you are almost making the point i was trying to get across, all of these "5 year plan" style social engineering projects come with a steep and uncounted price, sure poverty is "less" if you count far more people being dependent on money taken from somebody else as OK, and don't worry about the food and toilet paper shortages that come when this type of thing runs into its inevitable conclusion. the housing bubble was "in part" caused by loan rules, a ton of other economic factors also went into it, but the poor poor who bought houses because the rules changed got hurt.. so much for the great ideal of forcing change to help them..

I am living right now in a house whose previous owners were a poor family of five (two parents and three kids) who bought the house with a super-generous loan from HUD. According to our new neighbors, the parents were morbidly obese alcoholics. After 12 years, the parents lost their jobs due to their alcoholism and couldn't make their mortgage payments, at which point they literally began destroying the house. Thankfully, they were pretty bad at that too. Nonetheless, as a result of the damage, I got the house for a lot less than its pre-bubble sale price 12 years ago. So the result of this "compassionate" government policy was that a fundamentally unfit couple lived in a house above their means to afford for more than a decade then walked away with nothing after intentionally damaging it, simultaneously reducing the house's value and blighting the neighborhood.

It's nothing more than one single anecdotal example, but it's mine and I'm sticking with it. It's awfully hard to take anything more than an extremely dim view of the government policy that caused this mess when I am literally living in its result.

Just curious, how do you know HUD provided the loan?

So they lived there for 12 years, and only lost it once they BOTH loss their jobs due to a "condition" that I've never see a loan underwritten for, subsidized or not? 

I have no doubt they were all-around shitty people, and probably shouldn't have chosen to be home-owners, however, it appears at the very least that they made the payments for quite some time.  I don't see anything in this case that would indicate with much certainty that a bank wouldn't have given them a loan. Especially since they can sell those loans away to a third party who will chop them up and do the same.  That mortgage hot potato is "liberty," not government, at work.  They just hope the final owner of the loan is either uneducated or disinterested enough to not fully analyze what it is they own. 

[Mountaineer]

What level of consensus in the scientific community would you like to see before you're convinced of man-made climate change?  Are you stating that the scientists arguing for climate change are doing a poor job, or are not enough in numbers?

There's no likely solution that isn't going to feel like it's being "pushed down the throats" of masses who really don't want to pay a higher utility bill or drive a smaller car or less miles.

We can either suggest something that works, or something that sounds nice... Or, put a nice guise on something that works. A lot of "selling" might have to happen, but if "the left" is the only side trying to come up with a solution, I want them to figure out "what works" first, and worry about the masses and their 2,500 sf homes and SUV gas bills later. Frankly, if climate change is a risk worth taking seriously, government ignoring it is essentially theft from those who don't pollute and a subsidy to those that do. I respectfully suggest to "the masses" to acknowledge that if you want government to recognize your assets (most people advocate for government in this role), then properly accounting for un-captured liabilities is the other side of that coin.

I don't mind the debate, and skeptical attitudes towards new ideas, but this straw-man attack towards "the left" is a bit much.  But one if the core issues here is risk-based property recognition. This is one huge point people make against advocates of the Non-aggression Principle.  There's no proper accounting for risk. You can say your property is yours til your blue in the face, but if you're polluting, you are aggressing against others. If you're polluting in ways we don't 100% understand, one could very reasonably assert that the risk of loss being created by activity is aggression of well.  Any attempt to avoid being held accountable for those costs is "pushing pollution down the throat" of others.

Very few of the masses are interested in anything close to the truth. About investing, economics, risk, pollution, religion, and the list goes on. They're more interested in making their lives as comfortable as possible in the short-term, and appealing to that may be politically necessary, but by no means is it something I enjoy (or will enjoy) listening to as part of the overall discussion. They've made up their mind based on convenience... A lot of nauseating polishing of difficult decisions is going to need to be done before action is palatable to "the masses."

I perceive your response is what I sterotypically expect from the left:  "You are all to dumb to manage your own destiny so we smart people will have to do it for you".  A very elitist view of humanity.  "Global warming" or climate change or whatever the latest buzzwords are, is merely a symptom of a much broader problem as the epic disaster list points out.  Needless to say I am extremely skeptical when it comes to one more program where big government (and its often well paid for scientific minions - grants etc.) is going to save us from ourselves.

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

I am sort of an elitist in some ways.  I want the fed chairman to understand economics, the Secretary of State to under stand foreign policy, and my accountant to understand taxes. I also want supposed owners of property to understand the affects of their actions.

I am skeptical of government actions.  I am also skeptical of the assertion that us all burning fossil fuels and manipulating ecosystems isn't going to cause some huge problems.  There is no way, in my opinion, to explain some complex things to 51% of the people. I'm not advocating for dictatorship. I'm just stating an observation.  At some point, we have to move beyond advertising, and talk about science. If there is a measurable cost to someone's muscle car emissions that's not getting accounted for, I suppose I'd like his support of it, but first and foremost I want him paying his due. His support of said policy is ideal, but by no means necessary for fair policy.

That's why I enjoy conversations here.  For the most part, they can stay pretty intellectual.  I love dearly my friends and family that may not be very intelligent in certain areas, but I can't stand trying to converse with them on those subjects sometimes.

Well Moda,  I actually agree with much of what you said.  I also highly value truth and science; but I do get my knickers twisted when hypothesis is presented as fact.  For example, take a look at a middle school science test and read the questions carefully.  The test writers have presuppositions that are not fact but they treat them as such.  The tests are aimed more at brainwashing to make the students fit the culture rather than presenting truth - my observation.  Just one sad example of how our culture is losing value for truth.

... Mountianeer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

What kinds of things are in those tests that you disagree with?

[Benko]

his website has interesting factual info on climate theories

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/tim ... ing-nazis/

Does it?

Nazis, shoddy science, and the climate contrarian credibility gap

Spencer, Christy, and McNider offer perfect examples of what John Kerry was criticizing – shoddy, biased science being treated on equal footing with solid mainstream science. In reality, there should be an immense credibility gap between the climate contrarians who have been consistently wrong and who deny the inconvenient data, and the mainstream climate scientists whose positions are supported by the full body of scientific evidence.

When a fringe 2 to 4 percent minority - who consistently produce shoddy analysis and compare those with whom they disagree to Nazis - are given equal credibility by the media and policymakers as the 97 percent of scientific experts, we have a problem.

Alinsky would be proud, but Dr. Spenser has credentials and is an actual climate scientist who inconveniently disagrees with your views. 


2. Credentials of Dr. Spenser:

--Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981.
--Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

--Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mo

3. deny the inconvenient data,

I'm sure you have wonderful excuses, but the people who are putting forward global warming were caught suppressing data which did not fit their theories. 

[Pointedstick]

I am skeptical of government actions.  I am also skeptical of the assertion that us all burning fossil fuels and manipulating ecosystems isn't going to cause some huge problems.  There is no way, in my opinion, to explain some complex things to 51% of the people. I'm not advocating for dictatorship. I'm just stating an observation.  At some point, we have to move beyond advertising, and talk about science.

I'm so glad you agree with me that electoral ignorance dooms the prospects for intelligent representative governance!

Just curious, how do you know HUD provided the loan?

HUD took possession of the house after they defaulted, and I bought it from HUD. HUD is a bag of dicks to work with, FYI. Not that it surprised me, but just for anyone else who ends up going this route.

So they lived there for 12 years, and only lost it once they BOTH loss their jobs due to a "condition" that I've never see a loan underwritten for, subsidized or not? 

I have no doubt they were all-around shitty people, and probably shouldn't have chosen to be home-owners, however, it appears at the very least that they made the payments for quite some time.  I don't see anything in this case that would indicate with much certainty that a bank wouldn't have given them a loan.

That's a reasonable point. I don't know the history, but I just kind of doubt they were going to qualify for a non-HUD loan. I mean, why would they have gone through HUD if wasn't a better deal than anyone else was willing to give them--or even the only deal? But it's true that I'm speculating here. I'm just going by what actually happened--they turned out to be irresponsible jerks who didn't merit the subsidy and reacted with spite and violence to a bad situation of their own making. They were the people who fit the stereotype and feed the narrative of the government program hurting rather than helping. Regardless of whether BOA would have given them a mortgage (I suspect no), the point is that HUD did as a part of their mission to promote home ownership among the poor. It didn't work here, and at great cost. HUD lost a lot of money on the house. It was a negative sum game where everybody lost.

…Everybody, that is, except for me, who got a fixable house at a great price. But if we're going to say that the true benefit to this government program is that it transfers wealth and real estate from the poor and stupid to the clever and well off, well, again I'm going to make the point that we don't exactly need a government if we're okay with that outcome.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

What kinds of things are in those tests that you disagree with?

Two science related items quickly come to mind: 

1. Age of the earth and age of the universe.  Consider that 2000 years ago man thought they knew the answer as fact, 100 years ago man thought another answer was fact.  Today man presents another answer as fact.  In reality, there is only one true answer and that we do not yet know.  That does not even take the religious answer into account.  My point is there are many differing worldviews that mankind holds.  Presenting one of them as fact instead of hypothesis, is in my opinion, disengenuous and does not teach children to think critically.  For example (not science related), my worldview believes that Christianity best explains how we should live and treat each other, why we are here, where we go when we die; it leads me to live a peaceful life, sure of and unafraid of the future.  Others have a different worldview with different outcomes while they are alive and perhaps fearful of what happens at death.  I cannot prove my worldview is best.  I try not to present it as absolute fact.  I believe that I can share my worldview with others, but they have to critically examine it for themselves and make their own conclusion about their religion.  Helping others to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to distinguish fact from theory is the key in my opinion, whether dealing with science or religion or any other topic.  This is what I see we are losing in our schools.

2. Man causes significant climate change.  I don't think I need to discuss this one in this post.  Look at all the discussion we are having about this "fact".

And thirdly (but not a science item), consider how history is being rewritten to either bless or condem past actions that took place in a different context.  We now tend to judge past history by current cultural norms.  This again, in my opinion, does not teach children to think critically.  Alinsky would be proud (Benko quote  ). 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

If you polled 50 of the leading health organizations (AHA, ADA, NIH, etc) you'd find all of them support the Lipid hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease.  If you have followed any of the health threads here (or any of Gumby's posts) you probably question that idea now.  See http://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Lipid_hypothesis

All the leading diabetes and diet and nutrition organization support a high carb diet for diabetics.  Yet, I do the opposite along with any person who is actually controlling the disease/ 

I would bet that, in the aggregate, people's lives have been affected more profoundly and adversely by poor advice from the medical community than by anything any scientist or politician has ever implemeted to date related to climate change.

I expect George Washington would agree with you in retrospect.  I wonder what was going through his mind as he was being "bled" of nasty little critters while sitting in front of a nice warm wood burning fireplace?

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

What kinds of things are in those tests that you disagree with?

Two science related items quickly come to mind: 

1. Age of the earth and age of the universe.  Consider that 2000 years ago man thought they knew the answer as fact, 100 years ago man thought another answer was fact.  Today man presents another answer as fact.  In reality, there is only one true answer and that we do not yet know.  That does not even take the religious answer into account.  My point is there are many differing worldviews that mankind holds.  Presenting one of them as fact instead of hypothesis, is in my opinion, disengenuous and does not teach children to think critically.  For example (not science related), my worldview believes that Christianity best explains how we should live and treat each other, why we are here, where we go when we die; it leads me to live a peaceful life, sure of and unafraid of the future.  Others have a different worldview with different outcomes while they are alive and perhaps fearful of what happens at death.  I cannot prove my worldview is best.  I try not to present it as absolute fact.  I believe that I can share my worldview with others, but they have to critically examine it for themselves and make their own conclusion about their religion.  Helping others to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to distinguish fact from theory is the key in my opinion, whether dealing with science or religion or any other topic.  This is what I see we are losing in our schools.

2. Man causes significant climate change.  I don't think I need to discuss this one in this post.  Look at all the discussion we are having about this "fact".

And thirdly (but not a science item), consider how history is being rewritten to either bless or condem past actions that took place in a different context.  We now tend to judge past history by current cultural norms.  This again, in my opinion, does not teach children to think critically.  Alinsky would be proud (Benko quote  ). 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Regarding the age of the earth, I can't remember exactly what I was told in middle school, but if memory serves, it was something along the lines of "scientists 'think' the earth is 'about' XX billion years old," or "scientists 'think' life has existed on earth for 'about' XX million years."

For some of these things, the only reason I can see that there's any upset customers is because of their religious beliefs, which are based on, usually, much more loose facts than the science of guessing the earth's age.  Scientists are human, so you always have to look out for ego disguised as consensus, but ego disguised as "divine right" isn't any better.

Regarding history, once again, I haven't been in school in middle school for a long time, but I tend to agree with you... however, I think this axe cuts both ways.  Conservatives try to white-wash over the past, and then complain about how bad things are getting.  Slavery was essentially welfare to the whites of the South.  Conscription was, essentially, slavery.  Conquest was essentially property confiscation.  We can't judge today with those terms and not judge the past just because it was popular.  Let's call it what it was.  Yes, let's also admit that it's difficult to judge morality free of group-think. Let's just admit that group-think gets us to think/do things we never could really justify, morally, or logically.  And that maybe we're being affected by that today.  I certainly don't want my kids exposed to a conservative's take on history any more than a liberal's.  They always (generalization) skew history as well.  Personally, history is going to be a messy subject, because most things of significance involved conquest and war.  Those types of acts can always be painted with strategy/heroism (Columbus discovered America!!), or murder/corruption (Columbus slaughtered natives for gold).

In fact, I think what you speak of is a huge lesson of history AND human nature.  Social norms SOMETIMES induce us to do disgusting things.  This is probably the most important lesson that history has taught us about how we should look at ourselves and avoid the mistakes of the past.  It's not about judging Washington and Jefferson as bad people.  It's about seeing the negative traits even they had in ourselves, and learning to think independently.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

What kinds of things are in those tests that you disagree with?

Two science related items quickly come to mind: 

1. Age of the earth and age of the universe.  Consider that 2000 years ago man thought they knew the answer as fact, 100 years ago man thought another answer was fact.  Today man presents another answer as fact.  In reality, there is only one true answer and that we do not yet know.  That does not even take the religious answer into account.  My point is there are many differing worldviews that mankind holds.  Presenting one of them as fact instead of hypothesis, is in my opinion, disengenuous and does not teach children to think critically.  For example (not science related), my worldview believes that Christianity best explains how we should live and treat each other, why we are here, where we go when we die; it leads me to live a peaceful life, sure of and unafraid of the future.  Others have a different worldview with different outcomes while they are alive and perhaps fearful of what happens at death.  I cannot prove my worldview is best.  I try not to present it as absolute fact.  I believe that I can share my worldview with others, but they have to critically examine it for themselves and make their own conclusion about their religion.  Helping others to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to distinguish fact from theory is the key in my opinion, whether dealing with science or religion or any other topic.  This is what I see we are losing in our schools.

2. Man causes significant climate change.  I don't think I need to discuss this one in this post.  Look at all the discussion we are having about this "fact".

And thirdly (but not a science item), consider how history is being rewritten to either bless or condem past actions that took place in a different context.  We now tend to judge past history by current cultural norms.  This again, in my opinion, does not teach children to think critically.  Alinsky would be proud (Benko quote  ). 

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Regarding the age of the earth, I can't remember exactly what I was told in middle school, but if memory serves, it was something along the lines of "scientists 'think' the earth is 'about' XX billion years old," or "scientists 'think' life has existed on earth for 'about' XX million years."

For some of these things, the only reason I can see that there's any upset customers is because of their religious beliefs, which are based on, usually, much more loose facts than the science of guessing the earth's age.  Scientists are human, so you always have to look out for ego disguised as consensus, but ego disguised as "divine right" isn't any better.

Regarding history, once again, I haven't been in school in middle school for a long time, but I tend to agree with you... however, I think this axe cuts both ways.  Conservatives try to white-wash over the past, and then complain about how bad things are getting.  Slavery was essentially welfare to the whites of the South.  Conscription was, essentially, slavery.  Conquest was essentially property confiscation.  We can't judge today with those terms and not judge the past just because it was popular.  Let's call it what it was.  Yes, let's also admit that it's difficult to judge morality free of group-think. Let's just admit that group-think gets us to think/do things we never could really justify, morally, or logically.  And that maybe we're being affected by that today.  I certainly don't want my kids exposed to a conservative's take on history any more than a liberal's.  They always (generalization) skew history as well.  Personally, history is going to be a messy subject, because most things of significance involved conquest and war.  Those types of acts can always be painted with strategy/heroism (Columbus discovered America!!), or murder/corruption (Columbus slaughtered natives for gold).

In fact, I think what you speak of is a huge lesson of history AND human nature.  Social norms SOMETIMES induce us to do disgusting things.  This is probably the most important lesson that history has taught us about how we should look at ourselves and avoid the mistakes of the past.  It's not about judging Washington and Jefferson as bad people.  It's about seeing the negative traits even they had in ourselves, and learning to think independently.

Moda, as I said before, I agree with most of what you say.  Unfortunately, I do not think the way science was presented to you and me (e.g. scientists "think" ..... ) is what is being taught today, at least in the public schools my grandchildren attend.  My take is that for whatever reason, the public educational system in far more slanted toward pushing an agenda (which in my opinion is very much left leaning rather than centrist) than teaching children to think critically and independently.  That is my main issue whether discussing science, religion, politics or literature.  Discernment is a powerful tool ... one those in power probably abhor if it is the "masses" who display the discernment and critical thinking skills.

Your discussion of history made me chuckle.  "To the victor belongs the spoils" was my first thought and "the winners write the history books" was my second.  I just find it humorous that for some reason, the current crop of history rewriters appear to think they know more about the topic than the author who wrote from an "on the scene" perspctive a couple of hundred years ago - bad example but you probably get my point.  And, I could care less whether the "slant" on history comes from the left or the right, it is wrong either way ... I just would prefer even a small dose of objectivity, truth, honor, ethics, and fact based analysis; yes, I know, that is a pipe dream.

... Mountaineer

[Jan Van]

Alinsky would be proud, but Dr. Spenser has credentials and is an actual climate scientist who inconveniently disagrees with your views. 

Alinsky? Is he a climate scientist?
Not my views, the views of the scientific community. I'm not a climate scientist, so I'm going with the majority of researchers. I'm trusting the scientific process enough that if those 3% are actually correct, their science will eventually convince the others.

2. Credentials of Dr. Spenser:

--Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981.
--Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites.

--Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mo

<appeal to authority>
And the 97% of climate scientists who come to another conclusion are what???

3. deny the inconvenient data,

I'm sure you have wonderful excuses, but the people who are putting forward global warming were caught suppressing data which did not fit their theories. 

Errors were made, yes...

Climatic Research Unit email controversy

An editorial in Nature stated that "A fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories." It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, with multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using. Nature considered that emails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers.[46] The Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers dismissed the allegations, saying that nothing in the emails proved wrongdoing.[47] Independent reviews by FactCheck and the Associated Press said that the emails did not affect evidence that man-made global warming is a real threat, and said that emails were being misrepresented to support unfounded claims of scientific misconduct. The AP said that the "[e]-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled sceptics and discussed hiding data."[48][49] In this context, John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause."[33]

[Benko]

1.

Alinsky? Is he a climate scientist?

No he provided strategies that "the left" including Obama and CLinton (both fans) use to apply to everything to get what they want.  Though to be fair, I don't think he invented the big lie e.g. if you like your policy you can keep it.

2.  The 97% vs 3% is a talking point i.e. made up and repeated over and over.  Of if not, you should not have any trouble providing the original source for those numbers.

3.  "Not my views, the views of the scientific community. I'm not a climate scientist, so I'm going with the majority of researchers"

How do you know it is 97% and not 60% or 49%"?

4.  I'm trusting the scientific process enough that if those 3% are actually correct, their science will eventually convince the others.

Sorry but that is not how reality works.  max Plank, nobel prize winning physicist:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Max Planck

5.  Appeal to authority is perfectly reasonable if used to say e.g. this guy has good credentials and is worth reading what he says and thinking about it.  I posted it in reply to someone who wanted information on the other point of view.

6. 

deny the inconvenient data,

Errors were made, yes...

By errors you mean getting caught suppressing data?

7. It is not unusual for new data to come along and invalidate old theories.  This is not a problem for real scientists.

Shut up the science is settled. 
This is said or implied all over the place.

You tried to disqualify the reference I provided from even being read.  Perhaps it was CNN that said that viewpoints against global warming were not even worth it being published. Obama said something similar.

As a person who works in the sciences, if I think about it,  anyone in any area who says or implies, "shut up, the science is settled" is on that basis alone likely to be wrong.  WHy?  Because it would be unnecessary if the data really did support their view.  But it is a convenient way to shut off discussion. 

8 "John Tierney of the New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude — and ultimately undermine their own cause."

Of course they would behave this way.  This is expected.  But if the data were more definitive they would not have to.  THis should be a clue that the data is not as definitive as you've been led to believe.

[Tyler]

Speaking of scientific consensus:

Publishers Withdraw more than 120 Gibberish Papers
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-w ... rs-1.14763

Sadly, stuff like this makes the "peer-reviewed" research qualifier pretty much worthless.  Interestingly, it's also evidence of how some scientists stuff the journals to build relevance by padding their references.  Consensus statistics may not necessarily indicate what you think. 

[Lowe]

Peer review is not consistent among journals, and especially among conferences.  From the example given in the article it seems you can only do this in fields which are already almost nonsense.

[FarmerD]

David Freedman wrote a book a few years ago called "Wrong - Why Experts Keep Failing Us."  Very interesting book.  The author points out among other things:

1. The vast majority of medical research has been demonstrated to be non-repeatable i.e. it's garbage

2. Most medical treatment simply isn't backed up by good, quantitative evidence.

3.  "Peer Reviewed" has been proven to mean absolutely nothing

[Pointedstick]

3.  "Peer Reviewed" has been proven to mean absolutely nothing

I can confirm this from my own workplace experience. Often your peers are actually the worst people to review your work since it's not their own area of expertise that they're being asked to review, and they usually don't have the level of knowledge you have on the subject you're asking them about. They might be able to catch simple errors (like missing semicolons in code) but tricky issues are going to totally blow right by them.

Having a computer check your errors is much more robust, but the problem there is that you can't have a computer check for something that it hasn't previously failed to catch; in other words, you can only program in a check for something that you already know how to ask for it to check. So while it can prevent you from making old mistakes, it can't stop you from making new ones. Really, I don't think anything can. New mistakes need to be caught "in the wild" so to speak.

[moda0306]

3.  "Peer Reviewed" has been proven to mean absolutely nothing

I can confirm this from my own workplace experience. Often your peers are actually the worst people to review your work since it's not their own area of expertise that they're being asked to review, and they usually don't have the level of knowledge you have on the subject you're asking them about. They might be able to catch simple errors (like missing semicolons in code) but tricky issues are going to totally blow right by them.

Having a computer check your errors is much more robust, but the problem there is that you can't have a computer check for something that it hasn't previously failed to catch; in other words, you can only program in a check for something that you already know how to ask for it to check. So while it can prevent you from making old mistakes, it can't stop you from making new ones. Really, I don't think anything can. New mistakes need to be caught "in the wild" so to speak.

This is a pretty big deal.  I'm not saying governments will do any better, but what does this say about any potential free-market self-regulatory or professional reputation agency if they fail so consistently.

Or is this just a case of their failures being much more obvious than their successes?

[Pointedstick]

This is a pretty big deal.  I'm not saying governments will do any better, but what does this say about any potential free-market self-regulatory or professional reputation agency if they fail so consistently.

Or is this just a case of their failures being much more obvious than their successes?

To me, it says that things as serious as the directed deployment of violence should not be institutionalized. When I write bad code, it's highly unlikely that the result will be death. When government groupthink results in botched intel, hundreds of thousands of humans can get transformed into smoking corpses.

IMHO, it's not that the market makes fewer mistakes. Markets and governments are all populated by people. It's just that the market process itself systematically punishes mistakes and rewards successes in a way that the political process does not, by virtue of its "currency" being profits rather than popularity, and furthermore, the kinds of decisions that governments make tend to be far more literally destructive than decisions made in the private sector.

[Kshartle]

This is a pretty big deal.  I'm not saying governments will do any better, but what does this say about any potential free-market self-regulatory or professional reputation agency if they fail so consistently.

Or is this just a case of their failures being much more obvious than their successes?

To me, it says that things as serious as the directed deployment of violence should not be institutionalized. When I write bad code, it's highly unlikely that the result will be death. When government groupthink results in botched intel, hundreds of thousands of humans can get transformed into smoking corpses.

IMHO, it's not that the market makes fewer mistakes. Markets and governments are all populated by people. It's just that the market process itself systematically punishes mistakes and rewards successes in a way that the political process does not, by virtue of its "currency" being profits rather than popularity, and furthermore, the kinds of decisions that governments make tend to be far more literally destructive than decisions made in the private sector.

While I completely agree PS, it's this argument that I think surrenders the moral high ground. It starts wading into the territory of ends justifying means and the statist will always come up with another supposed end (that will never be acheived) to justify the means. Violence isn't wrong because of the bad results, the results are bad because violence is wrong (violation of human self-ownership).

Obviously we've disagreed on this a lot so I'll leave the discussion to you gentlemen and not take this down that rabbit hole. There are other threads for it.

[Pointedstick]

While I completely agree PS, it's this argument that I think surrenders the moral high ground. It starts wading into the territory of ends justifying means and the statist will always come up with another supposed end (that will never be acheived) to justify the means. Violence isn't wrong because of the bad results, the results are bad because violence is wrong (violation of human self-ownership).

Obviously we've disagreed on this a lot so I'll leave the discussion to you gentlemen and not take this down that rabbit hole. There are other threads for it.

Rather than disagree on which one is best, perhaps we should concentrate on expressing both arguments. Some people seem more drawn to one rather than the other, and I kind of like the idea of having "full coverage", so to speak. In terms of my own personal journey, it wasn't moral principles and recognition of self-ownership that started me down the path of liberty. It was the annoyances of gun control laws that were plainly, obviously pointless and ineffective. All the theory regarding self-ownership was stuff I learned later, and while I think it's compelling, to some people, it's too "out there" to start with, especially when there are so many strong utilitarian and functional arguments that are directly relevant to people's lives and stand a good chance of being your conversation opener.

[Kshartle]

While I completely agree PS, it's this argument that I think surrenders the moral high ground. It starts wading into the territory of ends justifying means and the statist will always come up with another supposed end (that will never be acheived) to justify the means. Violence isn't wrong because of the bad results, the results are bad because violence is wrong (violation of human self-ownership).

Obviously we've disagreed on this a lot so I'll leave the discussion to you gentlemen and not take this down that rabbit hole. There are other threads for it.

Rather than disagree on which one is best, perhaps we should concentrate on expressing both arguments. Some people seem more drawn to one rather than the other, and I kind of like the idea of having "full coverage", so to speak. In terms of my own personal journey, it wasn't moral principles and recognition of self-ownership that started me down the path of liberty. It was the annoyances of gun control laws that were plainly, obviously pointless and ineffective. All the theory regarding self-ownership was stuff I learned later, and while I think it's compelling, to some people, it's too "out there" to start with, especially when there are so many strong utilitarian and functional arguments that are directly relevant to people's lives and stand a good chance of being your conversation opener.

I hear you and hear your argument. I really do. I have never seen the argument from effects do anything to change someone's belief system. At best you can maybe get them to change their mind on that issue but they default right back to their prior setting as soon as you change topics. The moral one is something people are not taught and have never heard.

Slavery was not abolished in the western world (sans US) because people knew free market cotton would be cheaper and better in the long run. It was done away with because people finally understood what an abomination it was.

I was able to learn the reality of self-ownership and the implications of it around 30 but I was very open minded and interested in seeking what is true. Obviously many people will not ba capable of this as adults.

The people who can't get it though.....they'll never learn much from you explaining why min wage is bad. They might get that argument, but they will still assume the government should educate the kids or build the roads or work the control towers and administer "justice".

You will end up having to explain everything to them, and how everything will work. You will end up having to explain who will pick the cotton. Once you do that it's over. You are now on their moral level and have surrendered the moral argument.

The moral argument is the only one that will acheive the next evolution for humanity and the only one that ever does. 
Ahhh...I could be wrong...I just look at the libertarians and all their arguments from effects and nothing but failure.

[Pointedstick]

I hear you and hear your argument. I really do. I have never seen the argument from effects do anything to change someone's belief system. At best you can maybe get them to change their mind on that issue but they default right back to their prior setting as soon as you change topics. The moral one is something people are not taught and have never heard.

Slavery was not abolished in the western world (sans US) because people knew free market cotton would be cheaper and better in the long run. It was done away with because people finally understood what an abomination it was.

Yes. But they didn't come to understand it by hearing persuasive moral arguments. They felt it viscerally as a result of their upbringings, personal experiences, and (IMHO) improved sense of empathy compared to their parents' generation.

I totally agree with you that big things change when peoples' moral compasses swing, but I don't see it happening as a result of being exposed to moral arguments. I see it happening as a result more of feelings and sentiments.

The people who can't get it though.....they'll never learn much from you explaining why min wage is bad. They might get that argument, but they will still assume the government should educate the kids or build the roads or work the control towers and administer "justice".

You will end up having to explain everything to them, and how everything will work. You will end up having to explain who will pick the cotton. Once you do that it's over. You are now on their moral level and have surrendered the moral argument.

The moral argument is the only one that will acheive the next evolution for humanity and the only one that ever does. 
Ahhh...I could be wrong...I just look at the libertarians and all their arguments from effects and nothing but failure.

Yeah. But I don't see the failure of libertarianism as a result of bad arguments. I mean, look at the awful arguments that democrats and republicans make. Most of them don't even make sense on basic levels. Rather, I see libertarianism as a way of seeing the world that's only possible because of the intersection of a certain extremely high level of intellectual and moral development that is incredibly new in the history of humanity.

Simply put, most humans throughout human history have been too ignorant, cruel, or delusional to think in libertarian terms. The fact that any people do at all is IMHO a miracle of human development. Libertarianism is basically a rejection of both the hatred of change and the unknown (the essence of conservatism) and also the desire to control other people for their own benefit (the essence of liberalism). If you really think about it, these have been the default modes of human relationship since the birth of civilization. That we're now rejecting them is totally amazing!

[Kshartle]

I don't see the failure of libertarianism as a result of bad arguments. I mean, look at the awful arguments that democrats and republicans make. Most of them don't even make sense on basic levels. Rather, I see libertarianism as a way of seeing the world that's only possible because of the intersection of a certain extremely high level of intellectual and moral development that is incredibly new in the history of humanity.

Their arguments are awful from a practical standpoint....but they succeed BECAUSE they claim the moral high ground. Anyone halfway paying attention can see how welfare increases poverty. They can see how anti-discrimination laws in the workplace encourage it. They can see how minimum wage laws decrease employment and prevent people from getting on that first rung of the ladder.

The problem is the majority of people are too busy to pay attention, but that doesn't stop them from voting. They are too busy to think, and you will never teach them this stuff. The Dems and Repukes win because they claim the moral highground. "the children must be educated and if you're against the state education you want kids to be dumb!", "the poor must be fed and if you're against welfare you want poor people to starve!"

We can go through a thousand more examples. Libertarians are painted as heartless monsters....which is the exact opposite. The libertarians actually care about the poor and everyone. The Dems and Repukes just want votes and power.

They win because they own the moral argument. You cannot reason against it from effects. At least that's how I see it.

I agree we are better off now...but it's not because people are smarter about economics or the effects of violence.....it's because we are better morally.

I think we're going on repeat or threepeat now.

[ns3]

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... le-crisis/#

We have some Chipotle's in the area but I have never eaten there. In this article they are warning that climate change might force them to take guacamole off the menu.

I especially loved this....

And while the avocado industry is fine at the moment, scientists are anticipating drier conditions due to climate change, which may have negative effects on California’s crop.

For the record, they grow avocados in South Florida so I wouldn't worry too much about it.