![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_x97oorE2c9c/S6ahTZCOu6I/AAAAAAAAA6Q/WhO_nWZHN4k/S220/ArizonaMiracle.jpg")
Who are you going to believe? Scientists, or your lying eyes?
The revelations in recent days that prominent members of the scientific community have been deliberately falsifying data to support the political conclusion that man is primarily responsible for "Global Warming" (now commonly referred to as "Global Climate Change," since the planet is actually not getting warmer), has raised a troubling question.
Unlike the social sciences, where agendas and opinions often substitute for "facts," the hard sciences are supposedly pure, objective and rational. Here numbers don't lie, statistically demonstrable trends aren't self-serving conjecture, and the only agenda behind these scientific inquiries is a pure, unfettered, search for the truth. If tree rings and dying polar bears tell us the planet is getting warmer, and an increase in C02 levels tell us man and man alone is responsible for the warming, then by God (or by Gore for those who can't quite fathom the notion that there is a Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe), the science is "settled." Anyone who thinks differently is just a religious fanatic trying to impose his version of God on the rest of humanity, or equally despicable, an anti-intellectual moron who's missing several of his teeth as well as major neural synapses.
And yet, there's this nagging, troubling problem that surfaced a few days ago where these same Keepers of the Truth on Anthropogenic Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change have been shown to be, well, a bunch of hypocrites and liars. Contravening data is ignored, suppressed or destroyed; supporting data is cherry-picked or manufactured out of whole cloth, and overlapping all of this is a political agenda tied to utopian social change and economic redistribution. Other than that, the evidence is pretty clear and convincing that man is the primary agent of global climate change going back hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Now, to those of us imbued with a modicum of common sense, this "Joe vs. the Volcano" scenario where Joe supposedly affects the climate more than nature does seemed a little, well, stupid to borrow a favorite phrase of mine. No one denies that man can affect portions of the planet by setting off a nuclear bomb here, building a dam there, or paving over a field and building a city or highway system. But to claim that all this is more of a reason for presumed global climate change than erupting volcanoes or the presence or absence of sunspots is, well, there's that word again: stupid.
I first posed this question back in 2006, for which I was roundly criticized as a "wingnut" and anti-science flat-earther.
Al Gore tells us that the world is getting hotter, and that man is responsible for making it that way. Unless we take drastic steps now to correct this problem the ice caps will melt, our cities will flood, farmland will dry up and the rainforests will die. Before we get caught up in the same hysteria that thirty years earlier predicted the arrival of a new Ice Age, we might pause for a moment and ask: is any of this true? And if it is, what role did man really play in altering the climate, and if it is getting hotter, what (if anything) can he actually do about it?
. . .
In other words, if there's a big ball of vibrating, pulsating, fiery gas up in the sky that routinely heats the Earth, shouldn't we eliminate it first as the cause of this warming before making me trade in my Escalade for a Mini-Cooper?
When I wrote that piece, I was making an observation that we need to apply some common sense to our understanding of the world in which we live, rather than automatically accept the agenda-driven conclusions of others who use science to further their own venal interests.
If the scientist interpreting the data gets his funding from a government agency, and that agency won't fund the solving of a problem that is nature-made, then what other conclusion can the scientist draw than the problem — and solution — is man-made? Why spend $10 million to fund a research project on sunspot or volcano-driven global warming when we don't have the ability to stop a volcano from erupting, or do anything to affect the sun making its spots? But if man is the culprit, then there's plenty of reason to keep seeking, and receiving, taxpayer support. And if man — not nature — is the ultimate villain in this modern day morality play, then think of all the social engineering, global reparation payments, or just plain nanny-state fun you can have changing society around to promote a "solution" that can't be proven or disproven for decades to come.
All of which leads to the contemporary notions of "consensus science" and "settled science," which is shorthand for "would you shut up and stop asking these kinds of embarrassing questions because we already have the conclusions we want." It's the day real science was replaced with the notion that the consensus of non-scientists and scientists, who gather together in quasi-political organizations, was all that was needed to shut down debate. It is, in effect, the day science died.
I no longer trust "science" to be objective. As practiced today, it's just a different form of the base, venal, agenda-driven bilge we see in the mainstream media, whose purpose is not to educate and inform, but to protect and advance a private agenda. I wrote the following passage several months ago, and these words remain as true today as they were then.
Thirty years ago, if a major study said that the Earth was warming, or that red meat caused cancer, or that Candidate X was 30 points ahead in the polls, I may not automatically believe everything it says, but I wouldn't immediately dismiss it out of hand. Depending upon the degree of institutional credibility the study had (that is, The American Cancer Society vs. some organization I never heard of), I may start with the assumption that it's more right than wrong and proceed from there. If I had any questions, I'd look to see how and why the report arrived at its conclusions, and on this basis form a preliminary judgment about those issues.
Now the problem here is that unless you happen to have a degree in statistics, understand survey and polling methodology, or have an expertise in the scientific area of investigation under study, most people (myself included) can't really do this. So, we look instead for certain obvious clues. Is the study of 100 people, or 100,000? Does it say "will happen," or "might happen," or contain other qualifiers? Is the study peer reviewed, or put out by some organization with a vested interest in the matter?
These were the types of clues an intelligent observer would look to in forming an initial judgment. That opinion would be supplemented or diminished over the coming weeks and months as opposing experts in the field – who actually understood the technical stuff I didn't – would debate the matter. I'd learn about this debate from the press, which would summarize and report their findings in sufficient detail for me to see both sides of the issue.
But today there is no "press." There are newspapers and TV companies that have chosen a side and become advocates, not reporters. We've always had opinion-guided journalism in this country, so this in itself is nothing new. But again we're dealing with a sufficiently different degree of bias that has caused even Hillary (the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") Clinton to condemn the press for its favoritism and prejudice.
This bias doesn't limit itself to swaying elections. Do you remember the last time you saw a debate on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or read about it in The New York Times, etc. that explored the reality of man-made global warming? Don't bother to look it up. There hasn't been.
Despite the fact that sea levels aren't rising, that winters are getting colder, that virtually none of Al Gore's predictions have come true and an increasing number of mainstream scientists are challenging the methodology that produced these conclusions, the matter is "settled" in the eyes of the press. This is because there's a lot more riding on this belief than whether we all need an extra pair of summer shorts to add to our wardrobe. An entire economic and political agenda of the Left is built around the premise that man is producing "global climate change" (the new term of choice since the Earth clearly isn't warming like it was supposed to). Challenge the premise, or at the very least allow for reasonable people to disagree, and suddenly the momentum is gone for acting now! Or, acting at all.
If the only consequence was that we could no longer believe our lying eyes (and ears) about what's being said about Republican politicians and global CO2 emissions, it would be bad enough. But the problem today extends much further than this. Because so much of what's being portrayed as "totally, completely, unmitigatedly true" in fact isn't, and adding insult to injury, the so-called truth of the matter may be the exact opposite of what is stated, the only reasonable course of action is to doubt everything.
And yet, not everything deserves to be automatically doubted. Some studies which show that X causes cancer, Y prolongs life, or Z is harmful or hurtful to man or the environment are undoubtedly legitimate. But damned if I can tell which ones are honestly conducted. Given how politics (with a small "p") has been injected into everything from eating beef to exhaling Co2, and that most studies rely on government funds (which means government biases) or private finds (which means private agendas), only a fool would automatically believe everything he's told. And momma Jackson didn't raise her little boy Phillip to be no fool, much like other people in this country who actually think.
Now, instead of accepting what "objective" sources tell me is true, my first reaction is to make them prove it. I don't care if their conclusions or remedy seem outwardly reasonable or not, or the scientific panel seemed wholly legitimate. I don't accept anything on face value anymore, regardless of its source. I rely entirely on my common sense, which is okay for those things I happen to have some direct experience in or knowledge about. But there's a lot more I don't know than I do know, and therein lies the problem. In the absence of legitimate, objective, trustworthy outside sources, I still need to rely on my own common sense to figure things out. Better to trust my gut on an issue I know nothing about, than put my trust in some political hack whose only purpose is to advance an agenda. I may not make the right choice, but at least I'm not a mindless lemming begging to be deceived.
Therefore, if 100 "independent" experts tell me that eating red meat causes cancer, I'll think about it between bites as I put some more Worchester sauce on my steak. If they tell me that more people are likely to die in car accidents if they're driving 75 instead of 55 mph while talking on their cell phones, I'll set the cruise control on 80 while I dial up my brother and ask him what he thinks. I may end up following the experts' advice, or I may not. They're no longer an intrinsic source of information, but rather simply a source of information – to be sifted through with as accepting and questioning an eye as I have for any other report or assessment, from any other source.
When there's no one you can really trust to give you the truth, you trust no one. Or, you make that source earn your trust with every new report they issue, rather than accepting what they say at face value.
Verify, then trust. And in the absence of either, ignore what they say and make your own judgment, as ignorant or informed as it may be.
This is the legacy that modern day "science" has bestowed upon the world. We intuitively understood that politicians were liars. We came to understand that the press covered up and distorted the facts as well to serve their own interests. But we always thought we could rely on science for an unbiased, objective, view of reality.
And now we find out that "scientists" may, in fact, be the worst offenders of all.
No wonder some scientists are atheists. Many of them don't believe in any Truth at all.
Inwood: I am properly chastised, i.e censured (or is that e.g censured?). Can’t be too careful these days. The fate of global warming/cooling/climate change could hang in the balance.
Pat M, giving the business model, zeroes in on a good point: In business, a consensus is formed after much spirited, thoughtful debate (if I may use the term “thoughtful” in such a banausic setting) & a product is marketed. It becomes "settled" Company policy that the product is all good & truly a buy under any cost/benefit analysis. No dissent is allowed from this settled position in the Company &, anyway, there will be no public dissent since that would mean the dissenter if found out will become merely a disgruntled former employee.
Academics (other than Economics or Business Profs, perhaps) tend to find this robotic groupthink or, worse, dishonest & unethical.
On the other hand, the consensus just described works the same when a politician is being marketed. Academics find this also dishonest & unethical when it’s a Conservative pol, but OK when it’s a Lib pol. Not sure if that is intellectually coherent, but let’s move on.
Back to the business model: Sometimes some small-fry local reporter has a discouraging comment on the product (not good for left-handed, tall people). This must be ignored by everyone in the Company, or, if the reporter persists, some press release might be issued extolling the product & denying the validity of any discouraging words. Let’s ratchet it up & say that Consumer Reports picks up the left-handed, tall people issue. Then a Company scientist who designed the product might just find some left-handed tall respected geek who will spin the Company line.
Academics find this dishonest & unethical.
This is why it’s so frightening to see academic scientists acting the way they are here in their e-mails. They are supposed to be pure & above all that.
Right
But, wait, it gets worse. As Pat M points out, there are limits even in the corporate world. For example, Company lawyers & accountants would not let the Company publicly ignore a patent lawsuit alleging patent infringement in the product if the product was material to the Company’s bottom line.
So, pardon us for being skeptical & cynical about the MSM & Big Government types when scientists in this case are found by many to be spinning (a/k/a lying) & it still somehow doesn’t put their findings in doubt in the minds of the MSM & The Administration but it certainly proves that those who cry “spin” are politically motivated hacks seeking to embarrass The One & his team.
And hey, of course the “lies” of the Nixon & Bush Administrations (Bush lied and people died) proved that everything The Nixon & Bush WHs ever said was false, whereas Climategate (Warmergate) does not disprove the “settled science”.
P
I see that it's stopped snowing in Dallas.
Don't you realize that it would've snowed longer if it weren't for AGW, OOPS Climate Change?
Not much point in continuing with Jackson and the "reputation" he wishes to "tag" me with. Ozzie, you're quite right – Dr. Jackson insisted the source of the "moral sense" (what he calls the "Universal Moral Code") had to be supernatural, and my response disputed that.
And this was made quite explicit in my essay:
I went on to point out that the sole "physical" explanation he entertained was 'genetics' (the whole "i.e." quote; though now he apparently
">says he meant "e.g."? Even if that were true, he did not in fact tackle any other possibilities in his actual essay). Then I pointed out a different "physical" basis he hadn't considered. (And, so far as I can see, still hasn't.) Seems pretty straightforward to me: Dr. Jackson himself says he has to eliminate "all possible physical explanations". I point out he hasn't done so, and go on to make a positive case for an actual different "physical explanation".
But apparently that's "absolutely dishonest". Ah, well. Compare my actual essay with Dr. Jackson's characterization of it, and reach your own conclusion regarding dishonesty.
Now Dr. Jackson protests about linking to emails and code snippets; I wasn't aware those were broadcast on T.V. or radio… though even if they were, one can at least identify the name of the program, and the time and channel. Since the evidence is so compelling and all.
(It is amusing that Dr. Jackson claims to be confused by people commenting on "God and evolution" when he's the one who brought up his own essay discussing that, but I'm getting used to that sort of thing by now.)
Not one word to address, y'know, the question about whether he's actually right about "consensus science" and all that.
Mr. Mulligan – the first two bits aren't anywhere near a "smoking gun" for "Publishing one conclusion when privately you are discussing with your colleagues why the data do not support that conclusion" or "Withholding data to disguise a trend" (especially when there's question about that 'trend' anyway – "cold-ish" indeed.)
The one that does bug me is the FOIA stuff, and I'm glad Dr. Jones has – at least temporarily – resigned. Wanting to retain the data doesn't have to have a nefarious motive when you've spent much time and effort gathering it, though. Attempting to get around FOIA requests by deleting information, based on that motive, is a serious issue, however. But it's not a scientific issue, it's a legal issue. And it doesn't appear to be "destroying data used for forecasting", but deleting emails, a rather different subject.
Raymond: No wonder even Ozzie is confused. You've got to pick a version of your story and stay with it.
You can’t say you limited your entire response to one issue: the “key mistake … [of] using the phrase i.e. … instead of e.g” And then say
(a) you were actually discussing “genetics” (and then “metaphysics”) too, instead of the great i.e. vs e.g. “phrase”. And then say that
(b) even though you discussed genetics and metaphysics as well, that you didn’t address any other issues because “[Jackson] did not in fact tackle any other possibilities in his actual essay” — when the 10th paragraph in my 60,000 word essay said: “This suggests only two broad options. It must either involve a purely physical explanation (such as culture, society, genetics, etc.), or a metaphysical one; which is to say a morality based on the existence and purposeful actions of God."
As I’ve always suspected, you never actually read beyond the opening few paragraphs of my essay. You saw the word God, and as an avowed atheist stopped there to offer your own theory. Like I said, there’s no problem with this — as long as you’re not pretending to analyze my work. Had you actually read what I wrote, you’d see that I spent well over half of the essay discussing society, culture, politics, genetics and other factors that might account for the content of a moral code.
Now, you may disagree with my conclusions, which is fair game in any debate. I disagreed with your analysis in a point-by-point refutation of your remarks http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/ But to sit there with a straight face and say “[Jackson] did not in fact tackle any other possibilities in his [Jackson’s] actual essay” is just an outright lie, and an easily checked one at that! http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/25/what-kind-of-car-would-jesus-drive-to-take-his-girlfriend-to-an-abortion-clinic/
This is why no one takes you seriously, and why I and others routinely use the word “dishonest’ in association with you. The only way you can make your point is to assign things to me I never said (your discussion about “divine command theory, multiple gods, etc — none of which appear in my original essay, but are things you attribute to me).
I took your words and honestly debated them, instead of lying about what you said, or attributing things to you that you never said. But then again, that’s just me (and a lot of others who’ve had similar experiences with you) I suppose, which is why you have no idea that this could possibly be an issue when people judge the words you say.
Oh heck, Dr. Jackson, I'm not any more confused than usual. Scanning Mr. Ingles's responses to your essay, they seem overwhelmingly concerned with the natural, materialistic alternatives to the supposedly God-instilled Universal Moral Code. Punctuation issues (e.g., "i.e") don't seem terribly central to his basic critique.
Your entire WWJD essay is predicated on the notion that an alleged universal moral code is instilled in us by God (at conception, I think). But in 60,000 words, you never really grapple with the obvious rejoinder: that our moral sense is a product of evolution (elaborated by culture and learning), and there's no need to invoke God at all to explain it. It cripples your whole case, right from the start.
Yes, you mention 'genetics' in the essay, but that discussion was oddly off-point, in my opinion, and did not seem to refute the obvious evolutionary/cultural objections in any way. You've not at all ruled out naturalistic alternatives.
Your God-instilled Universal Moral Code doesn't really have any evidence to recommend it, as far as I can see. Perhaps you've come up with some lately that you can present.
Or maybe you could just briefly summarize why you think evolution by natural selection (with strong additional learning and cultural influences)have been ruled out as plausible explanations for certain fairly 'universal' moral ideas (such as non-harm to the innocent young).
I'm sure you'll just want to link to some windy essay or interminable discussion thread, but I would think if your case is strong you could just boil it down to a couple or three well-written paragraphs.
Oz
Hey, we’re making progress. We found something about Climategate that troubles Raymond.
It’s the purely legal issue that some people deleted emails that may have discussed in more explicit detail the scientific fraud that’s referenced in the other emails that weren’t deleted. This is a purely legal issue however, and in no way has any implications for the so-called science behind AGW because, I suppose, the deleted emails may have contained something like, well, recipes for grandma’s cranberry’s sauce instead of critical scientific information or discussions about falsifying scientific data.
As good scientists with a rational mind, the only thing we can therefore conclude is that this whole hulabaloo is a purely legal issue, and in no way contributes anything of substance to the destroying of data and other hiding other information used to perpetuate a scientific fraud. This is just rank speculation. We can speculate about no motives involving Dr. Jones and his colleagues, because the ‘protect the cranberry sauce recipe’ theory is just as valid as the ‘destroy the incriminating data’ theory.
Wasn’t this the same kind of logic used in the Nixon tapes coverup of the Watergate break in? After all, instead of talking about the break-in on the 18 minute gap, I’m sure all Nixon was doing was reciting poetry to his daughter.
I said Ozzie would be incapable of actually remaining on point. Some things are not difficult to predict.
***
My purpose in raising the matter in this thread was not to again discuss and defend whether or not there is a God-given universal moral code, but to point out that someone who dissembles about what they’ve done (or in this case, haven’t done) is not an honest debate partner. If the person cannot be honest about how their position came about, then it makes little sense to debate the substance of it.
If you want to tell everyone about your feelings about an evolutionary-based moral code, I’ll be happy to facilitate getting your article published with IC — as long as you just let everyone know that it’s your ideas you’re discussing, and not mine. :) Other than that, if you have anything to actually contribute to the subject of the recent disclosures about falsifying and destroying data on AGW, this is the forum to raise those points. This again assumes that you can focus on this issue, rather than telling us once more how you feel about the subject of “supernatural (God)” which — although employing some of the same words I used — has little to actually do with the content of what I wrote.
All I ask is that you actually try to be serious this time when you offer a comment on AGW. The code system will be a real help to all of us.
***
And the code-system is still a vital necessity in understanding his comments.
Dr. Jackson huffs:
My purpose in raising the matter in this thread was not to again discuss and defend whether or not there is a God-given universal moral code
after he previously said:
To save Raymond the manufactured angst of saying “did not”, go to the comment section in Raymond’s essay on “Universal Morality And The Morality Of The Universe” was billed as “A Response to Phillip Ellis Jackson”.
It doesn't make any difference to me what your purpose was. You raised the thing by way of making some of your usual intemperate name-calling attacks on folks who don't happen to agree with you. Hard to see how you can object when those attacked say, "Well, speaking of that…"
Howz about supporting with some evidence your contention that I am predominantly relying upon 'feelings' in this discussion? You just say it over and over and over, and yet, when asked to provide an example, you always fall curiously silent. Ah well. Maybe this time you'll support one of your accusations. I am nothing if not a cockeyed optimist, Dr. Jackson!
By the way, that coding thingy WAS pretty funny. I can't find it right now, but it's worth a link! As I recall, after you proposed providing a coding system to make my admittedly inarticulate remarks intelligible, I proposed one for yours:
Let's see, it was:
NC – for fits of froth-mouthed, childish namecalling
SM – for illogical straw man attacks
and…
I guess that should about do it, eh?
Sorry to repeat myself, Dr. Jackson, but hey, that was some of my best material. Glad you brought it up! Now you do mine, 'kay? It really was quite hilarious.
Cheers,
Oz
Mr. Mulligan – the first two bits aren't anywhere near a "smoking gun" for "Publishing one conclusion when privately you are discussing with your colleagues why the data do not support that conclusion" or "Withholding data to disguise a trend" (especially when there's question about that 'trend' anyway – "cold-ish" indeed.)
I don't know the definition of a "smoking gun" in your lexicon, but those particular quotations, as well as other emails exchanged in the 60 MB of data released (you can read some more quotations in another article right here at Intellectual Conservative, or if you care to actually read them yourself, the emails can be accessed in full, with no "quote mining", here), do very clearly establish dishonesty. As far as the non-existent cooling trend that doesn't need to be disguised by manipulating data, you don't need to convince me – address your assessment of the issue to the above-quoted researcher who plainly confessed to leaving data off of a chart used during a lecture because it might skew the conclusion of a long-term warming trend.
And it doesn't appear to be "destroying data used for forecasting", but deleting emails, a rather different subject.
I guess you didn't bother clicking the hyperlinked text of the final quotation I posted. The quotation wasn't from any of the leaked University of East Anglia CRU emails, but a news story reporting on the admission by UEA researchers that they did, indeed, destroy the raw (that is to say, non-statistically-adjusted) temperature data used in their climate modeling. You can read the story here. Perhaps they were mistaken. But again, that's an issue you would have to raise with the people who made the confession. I didn't make the accusation they confessed to – I just read about it.
In answer to the question in the original article, "Who are you going to believe? Scientists, or your lying eyes?" I think it's clear which side Mr. Ingles has come down on. Discussing the issue any further is obviously futile. I have no defense against the assertion that what someone has written, or said, or some action they have performed either did not mean what it said or did not even take place.
Ozzie: This is where reading comprehension becomes indispensible, as well as a modicum of honesty.
There are those little dot thingies (you know, the …) that you normally put at the end of a sentence fragment to show that you are not quoting a full sentence. Compare your representation of my words [in bold] to what I actually said
“Raymond only read parts of the essay, and just filled in the rest with a general exploration of the issue. In doing this he rejected many of the things that I had also rejected, but made it appear as if it was my thesis he was objecting to. That’s when I began to understand who and what he was. This is absolutely dishonest stuff, and unfortunately has become typical of the way he operates. To save Raymond the manufactured angst of saying “[I] did not [do that]”, go to the comment section in Raymond’s essay on “Universal Morality And The Morality Of The Universe” which was billed as “A Response to Phillip Ellis Jackson”. … Now, maybe it’s just me, but when someone says they are “responding” to my essay, I assume that they are responding to my essay; not just a couple of paragraphs of it. But then again, with Raymond words never quite mean what they seem.”
This is what is meant by:
“My purpose in raising the matter in this thread was not to again discuss and defend whether or not there is a God-given universal moral code, but to point out that someone who dissembles about what they’ve done (or in this case, haven’t done) is not an honest debate partner. If the person cannot be honest about how their position came about, then it makes little sense to debate the substance of it.”
There’s no contradiction. If you want to understand the specific arguments I made about morality, go re-read the paper. This aside was a discussion about the intellectual honesty of someone’s supposed scholarship.
Why is it that the people on the Left like Ozzie and Raymond cannot support their position without resorting to dishonesty?
I gave Ozzie a chance to have a real discussion about AGW. After 3 attempts it’s clear he has nothing of substance to say. And like the past, what he does say is just “made up” to provoke a reaction.
As Vinnie Gambini says, “I’m true wit this guy”. It’s one thing to bicker with a basically intelligent guy like Raymond who, for some reason, won’t treat us with respect by actually having a real debate. It’s another to pay any further attention to a fool like Ozzie, who in the end never has anything serious to say.
Isn't the Universal Moral Code stuff just a tad off topic, folks? And by the way, wWe certainly don't need to give yet another opportunity for people like Ozzie_m to spout his particular brand of nonsense.
Mountain Man
Good point, but while these guys are, um, dithering, not to worry. The One is going to Copenhagen to, um, well, to fight against the real enemies of our planet: polluters & conservative deniers. There, Victory is needed. Victory first & then the evidence.
P
Speaking of the Mafia, there's been a crack in the MSM code of silence on Climegate/Warmergate. Jon Stewart mocks these scientific frauds for their, well, scientific fraud. See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8
Of course, to keep his bonafides, Stewart had to ritually, robotically (& somewhat counter-intuitive to his just finished bashing of the frauds, but nevermind) bash AGW critics too, calling them deniers.
baby steps….
P
And BTW, Stewart picked up in the e-mails a great Orwellian phrase from the scientific frauds in their e-mail cover-up exchange: “Value Added Data”. This phrase was used to describe the stuff they kept when the dog ate the underlying data, a/k/a, the real scientific data. What is VAD, you ask. Methinks Voodoo Added Data.
As Cole Porter once wrote: "Do do that voodoo that you do so well…."
You do something to me, Something that simply mystifies me …
You have the power to hypnotize me …
Let me live 'neath your spell
Do do that voodoo that you do so well….
MM: I agree with you.
Ozzie is just a clown, and has nothing of any substance to contribute.
Raymond is another case entirely. He's very bright, and he has some legitimate expertise in his own right. The problem I (and other) have with him is the unnecessary dissembling about obvious matters. Just acknowledge the mistake and move on (or tell us it wasn’t your intention to deliberately mislead by doing X), instead of coming up with 20 different versions of why you didn’t do what you obviously did. Then the matter gets put to rest.
My lament is that we’ve found very few people on the “other side” who want to have a real conversation about things. I’m the first to admire a good parody of someone’s position, so no offense is ever taken when a humorous jab is landed. But leading off with silly, irrelevant ‘criticisms’ (you didn’t link to a specific news story even though everyone knows what you’re talking about’) just diminishes whatever else you have to say. If you think there’s a counter point to offer, and you feel the best way to do it is to point to someone else’s writing, link to it and spare us all the phony criticism.
There’s also the constant, unnecessary religion-bashing (“young Earth Creationist” references) that have nothing to do with the subject. It’s offensive. There are countless lunatic references we can all point to from crazy-ass atheists. None of us have resorted to this tactic when addressing Raymond’s arguments. We may criticize things that Raymond actually said, but none of us cite what passes for beliefs in the fringe atheist community to smear Raymond by association.
This is why a real conversation with Raymond has become impossible. There’s always some link or some argument you can make to show the ‘other side’ of an issue. Just pointing out the other side isn’t a debate; it lacks any real analysis of the strength and weakness of that opposing argument in relation to the argument originally presented. This seems like common sense stuff, but it’s amazing how frequently the only real ‘debate’ is yeah, well, here’s a link to someone who disagrees with you, so there!
I don’t automatically accept everything every religious person, conservative, Republican, white male etc. says as true. I (and many of you as well) challenge paleos who think that “race matters”, people who mix science with religion, people who are hyper-partisan or want to go a third-party route, etc. It would just be nice to have the other side show even 10% of the same intellectual honesty instead of conceding only minor, irrelevant points while denying that any real issue actually exists, or diverting a scandal about hiding scientific data into a purely legal issue of failing to comply with a FOIA request.
My goodness, you fellows sure are rule-bound all of the sudden. "Stick to the topic!" "No nonsense!"
Evidently I just lack the Universal IC Code that has been instilled in you all, by God I imagine. Given all the purple-faced, spittle-spewing name-calling and personal abuse that emanates from Dr. Jackson, to general applause, I took IC for a kind of wild 'n wooly frontier site, with no particular boundaries. Certainly not against personal invective, let alone against digressing from the topic at hand.
When Dr. Jackson spirals off-topic to call somebody childish names, it's cool beans…but when somebody pushes back, suddenly you guys get all weepy.
Oz
From a previous discussion, when I vainly tried to drag the discussion back to the actual topic of the essay:
Ozzie. Virtually no one's been talking about the original essay for some time now
—Dr. Phil "Focus, people!" Jackson
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/01/12/theism-vs-atheism-whats-at-stake/
But anyway, now I know the rules. And since I can't do anything half-way, I intend not only to follow the rules, but mercilessly enforce them. I'll be like an ex-drunk turned temperance Nazi.
So, it is with shock and regret that I have to call out Ivan Ivanovich, who in comment #3 flouted the Universal IC Code to spin wildly off topic, discussing matters that have nothing to do with the essay at hand.
I'm not really mad, I'm just kind of disappointed. But rules are rules.
Please all join me in spanking Ivan. Begin.
Oz
My god, the sinfulness is all around us! Check out posts 15-18. Looks more like social networking than a disciplined, rigorous analysis of the topic at hand. What do these people think this is, MyFace? Er, Twitbook? Whatever.
To paraphrase Mountain Man, IC hangs in the balance!
Oz
I made two points:
1) a statement to everyone that The Universal Moral Code is off topic. I was correct.
2) we don't need to give ozzie_m another opportunity to spout his nonsense. And I was really right about that. Nonsense it is.
Dr. Jackson – Just learn to read. My whole response addressed one part of your essay, but it was a critical part. I mentioned Fermat's Last Theorem as a gentle hint before, but let's explicate: Andrew Wiles had been working on a proof, and came out with one in 1993. But it had an error in one step. He didn't whine about how all the mathematicians pointing this out ignored the rest of his proof. Instead he actually went back to the drawing board and found a different – correct – way to prove it, that was finally accepted in 1995.
I know you talked about other possible sources of morality – I even listed them here in my quote from my essay, "politics and culture". I had no quibble with how you analyzed those options. But I stand by my statement that "the sole "physical" explanation [you] entertained was 'genetics'". (Note carefully the word in quotes – "physical". Not social, political, cultural – physical.) Furthermore, you set the standard that you needed to eliminate "all possible physical explanations" [emphasis added].
It's true I talked about other things – like “genetics” (and then “metaphysics”) – but then, as I said before, I needed to present an alternate possibility you hadn't considered, and "I then went on to present that alternate possibility and make a case for it". As I said in my essay, I argue that there exists at least one other possibility at least as plausible as the metaphysical explanation Dr. Jackson proposed.
Dr. Jackson – Andrew Wiles you're not.
Well, I tried.
Mr. Mulligan – The quote you presented here was about destroying emails, not destroying data – which is what I said. You have now pointed to other emails (from 2005) which talk about deleting more basic data – and that's a more serious charge.
On the other hand, the news story you point to doesn't support the chronology you're setting up. It states: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s".
Did Jones have a time machine, and delete the data retroactively?
Now that the whole pathetic edifice of anthropomorphic global warming has come crashing down, Leftist liberals need a new crisis to mine. May I suggest the problem of entropy? Ever since the first primitive man lit his first campfire, anthropomorphic global entropy has been increasing. If this keeps up uncontrolled, by some undetermined date [TBD] in the future, temperatures all over the globe will be the same. Can you die from breathing too much entropy? Will plants and animals die if exposed to too much entropy? Surely these questions should be cause for concern and therefore justification for federally funded entropy studies and eventual government control over all heat transfers.
>eventual government control over all heat transfers
Sedona: The only problem with your otherwise brilliant analysis is that the government is already the primary source of most hot air on the planet (followed closely by the MSM and their pseudointellectuals allies). As such, in addition to being the primary cause of AGE, they already exert de-facto control over anthropomorphic heat transfers.
Phil:
Well, there’s nothing new about selling the same thing twice to a gullible public. A few years ago, I was having an AGW debate with my own “Harry”, and finally he made the astounding statement, “I really don't care if there is global warming or not, if this is the flag that must be waved to clean up our filthy environment, then I am for it.” I say “astounding” because he never mentioned that “cleaning up our filthy environment” was an objective of GW. It was then I realized that words can mean anything to a liberal, and not necessarily what they plainly mean in common convention. The “Hope and Change” campaign is a more recent example of that. So convincing them of the need to reduce global entropy [think about that one!!] should not require any scientific rigor at all.
Sedonaman, good comment and, no doubt, prophetic. Since you are a member of one of this world’s oldest religions, you apparently don’t feel a burning need to defend that upstart religion, Big Science (or BS for short). Here in the land of Perpetual Hustles, we poor California taxpayers are still funding the great embryonic stem cell breakthrough – except we haven’t seen a breakthrough yet; Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan, our state’s leading scientists, have yet to see their “get out the vote” predictions come to fruition. But our state funded scientists saw their breakthrough materialize in glorious living color – namely, taxpayer funding on a massive scale.
The best part of this west coast swindle is that no guarantees were made up front and no cures forthcoming means the money won’t be refunded in the event of failure –plus never having to say you’re sorry. But as long as those modern miracles keep coming from time to time, the true believers in BS will yearn for another promised breakthrough or a “no money back” guarantee we’ll be protected from natural disasters, real or imagined.
Once we believed in the power of various gods to affect the lives of us helpless and hapless mortals, whether it was Zeus's horrible curses bestowed on overly proud sinners or protection from malevolent spirits lurking within the thunderclouds and the deep, dark night. Now we know better, we believe in the power of BS to protect us, we just pass the collection plate, throw in a few billion, then sleep each night in dreamless bliss. But don’t you think suspending the effects of entropy is a tall order even for BS? Or is it merely a matter of a few trillion here and a few trillion there?
Mr. Mulligan – The quote you presented here was about destroying emails, not destroying data – which is what I said. You have now pointed to other emails (from 2005) which talk about deleting more basic data – and that's a more serious charge.
On the other hand, the news story you point to doesn't support the chronology you're setting up. It states: "Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s".
Did Jones have a time machine, and delete the data retroactively?
Raymond,
Since I didn't set out any "chronology" or make any accusation whatsoever, let alone against any particular individual, again, I'm left without any response. Whether Phil Jones was in charge of the department that destroyed the un-adjusted data currently being used in climate models or whether it was destroyed as a result of a conspiracy by space aliens is utterly irrelevant to anything – particularly anything I've said in this discussion. I suppose it's progress though. 2 posts ago that data had never been destroyed at all. Now it's been destroyed but it's not Phil Jones' fault. And all it cost me was losing an argument I didn't make.
>And all it cost me was losing an argument I didn't make.
Patrick: Welcome to the club.
Pat Skurka:
Re: “But don’t you think suspending the effects of entropy is a tall order even for BS? Or is it merely a matter of a few trillion here and a few trillion there?”
It is a tall order because BS, as you call it, might have to explain how the universe got to a state of reduced entropy to begin with. But maybe not since only [non-Leftist politician] man-caused increases in entropy would be the issue. Natural ones and Leftist politician, as Phil pointed out, with the requisite paper shuffling, would be acceptable.
As far as the trillion here or there is concerned, a technical consultant once told me that his company’s policy was, “Given enough time and enough money, we can do anything.”
Sedonaman
What impressed me most about your concept is its undeniable majesty and grandeur. No namby-pamby short term problems with quick, but expensive, fixes – entropy, a real tough nut to crack probably taking centuries to subdue while consuming every available resource not required for basic subsistence. Up to this point, BS has developed a rather basic criteria for defining its “threats to mankind” problems – mainly in recognition of the short shelf life of any global crisis as well as the short attention span of the average taxpayer. Your concept goes beyond the wildest dreams of present day science.
To illustrate this point, after much careful analysis, the National Academy of Sciences has defined the following criteria for promoting their expensive hustles. The first and most important criteria is the crisis must demonstrate the hope of being solvable in our lifetimes – there is no sense of urgency derived from statements like: “This dire threat to mankind won’t be solved for 200 years, if then”. Taxpayers want a solution they will live to see and can be proud of – a solution that prompts one to say “With my taxes, I indirectly helped avert a threat to all mankind”.
Obviously, the threat to be averted must directly imperil human life, the more humans the better (although a threat to non-human life can be a positive marketing bullet point). No one is frightened by Anthropomorphic Athlete’s Foot. Miracle medical cures fall into this category as well, even though many people suspect they may not live long enough to personally benefit from “The Cure” – still, the hope is there for a quick miracle breakthrough in creating the miraculous breakthrough.
Another criteria seldom mentioned is the crisis must generate various opportunities for wealth among scientists. Certainly there are the basic taxpayer provided research grants, lab funding and stipends to help with daily living expenses. But other opportunities for wealth exist – and, keep in mind, scientists haven’t taken a vow of poverty – there are no objections on their part to helping mankind with a little something in it for themselves. Personal investments, driven by insider information, in the stock of companies that will benefit from producing the technology that leads to “The Solution” are a popular source of wealth. Serving on government boards as regents, commissioners, advisors, etc. is also popular – with appropriate remuneration of course. True believers in BS focus almost exclusively on altruism and a desire to be famous through service to mankind, but, not surprisingly, money is in there somewhere – as the wise old man said: “Money is the root of all science”.
The crisis must also have an appeal to the mass media, the advertising arm of science. In addition to the basic story of threat and salvation through science, there needs to be juicy angles the media can pursue. Take a 6:00 P.M. news story: “The earth is in danger of being destroyed by a rogue meteor, we’ll develop technology to shoot it down before it reaches our atmosphere, end of story”. Simple, basic, but not much fodder for spin-off stories pursuing the all important human interest angle. But mankind created climate change or embryonic stem cell research provides a wealth of follow-on stories. Save the environment vs. destroying our economy, medical experiments on human embryos vs. the Church, cleaning up our environment vs. the robber baron destroyers – a cornucopia of emotional tension to exploit.
In the end, we may not be ready yet for your human caused entropy and science’s solution to that problem – but BS will keep raising the bar as long as we remain human beings with all our deep seated fears and our hope that enlightened science will step forward as the great demon slayer.
Pat Skurka:
I have not encountered the National Academy of Sciences “criteria for promoting their expensive hustles”, but there is one item missing from their list, and that is it must transfer massive amounts of power to the government, which, after all, needs to be rewarded for providing the funding. Paraphrasing Graglia*: “The difficulty with our system of representative self-government, as the intelligencia see it, is that everyone gets to vote, with the result that the views of the unenlightened masses are likely to prevail. The function of the threat to human life is to keep this from happening. These threats have become essentially a device or ruse for the transfers massive amounts of power to elected officials” [besides the funding for BS].
*“Single-Sex ‘Marriage’: The Role of the Courts” by Lino A. Graglia, Professor in Law, University of Texas School of Law, Austin, Texas.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200101/ai_n8934944
In my own career, I did encounter a consultant who, when I asked a technical question during his presentation, admitted that the system he was developing was not really a neural network, but he had to call it that "to get funding."
Sedonaman:
You’re surely right, there is a symbiotic relationship between BS and government. But I see science’s relation to government as similar to artists to patrons in the years from the Renaissance up until now. In earlier centuries, the Church, the wealthy aristocracy and the wealthy non-aristocracy provided the funds for artists to pursue their calling. Raphael, a famous Renaissance artist relied primarily on the Church for funds and employed many talented artists to bring his designs into reality. Later, French artists would labor to produce non-religious paintings to hang in the salons of the wealthy as private entertainment (no television, no radio, just friends discussing and admiring your collection – for hours on end).
The National Academy of Sciences devotes much of its various publications to discussions and debates over source of funds and funding, at least as much as published papers on actual science. But other special interests demand the politician’s attention – so the government must deal with a variety of mendicants from all walks of life. Recently, for example, the UAW received their payoff in the form of Chrysler and GM bailouts. The union was saved, the stockholders and bondholders sacrificed and the mom and pop dealers were thrown under the SUV. And that too resulted in an increase in the government’s power over the citizenry.
Presumably, politicians and their family members can personally benefit from a cure for Alzheimer’s disease or a cancer cure funded by taxpayers, but their political survival depends on a shifting coalition of special interest groups rewarded or not rewarded based on the changing winds of public opinion. In the upcoming Copenhagen conference on global warming, the experts don’t see a massive funding of climate change science – and not just because of the fraudulent nature of scientific claims. A global recession, high unemployment, reductions in personal wealth due to the market meltdown means long term global warming isn’t as popular a focus as short term economic improvements. Better luck next time – and there will be a next time as surely as our weather will continue to change.
Pat Skurka:
Re: “But I see science’s relation to government as similar to artists to patrons in the years from the Renaissance up until now. In earlier centuries, the Church, the wealthy aristocracy and the wealthy non-aristocracy provided the funds for artists to pursue their calling.”
I see that as only roughly similar because most of it involved the wealthy aristocracy who voluntarily commissioned artists, which didn’t make the aristocracy more powerful, and there was no counterpart to taxpayer funding unless you count the aristocracy’s exploitation of the hoi polloi.
P
The quality of debate among consensus scientists:
"Climategate Professor to Skeptic on Live BBC TV: 'What an Assh*le'"
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4292/Climategate-Professor-to-Skeptic-on-Live-BBC-TV-What-an-Asshle
Inwood:
Far be it from me to criticize someone for calling an a-hole an a-hole, but the only requirement is that the phrase actually designate a true condition, and not simply be a gratuitous insult. Objecting to scientific fraud, or daring to question whether there’s any real science behind a scientific consensus, are not the triggering mechanisms for using this phrase.
In going to your link I was delighted to find the following paragraph that put the a-hole remark in it’s proper context:
“What an assh*le!” declared Professor Watson at the end of the contentious debate with Climate Depot's executive editor Marc Morano. A clearly agitated Watson had earlier shouted to Morano “will you shut up.”
I love independent verification of something I wrote in my original article above:
All of which leads to the contemporary notions of "consensus science" and "settled science," which is shorthand for "would you shut up and stop asking these kinds of embarrassing questions because we already have the conclusions we want."
Hey, I just stumbled across this amazing story on AOL.com
The Toba eruption, which took place on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia about 73,000 years ago, released an estimated 800 cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere that blanketed the skies and blocked out sunlight for six years. In the aftermath, global temperatures dropped by as much as 28 degrees Fahrenheit and life on Earth plunged deeper into an ice age that lasted around 1,800 years. http://news.aol.com/article/ancient-toba-volcano-eruption-had/802091?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fancient-toba-volcano-eruption-had%2F802091
Can you believe this? Is it really possible that nature can have anything to do with "Global Climate Change"? Should this be factored into our "consensus" that man is primarily responsible for global cooling/warming/climate change?
Naw. There's no grant money in studying vocano eruption prevention.
Time once again to remind ourselves that the issue is not the issue; the REVOLUTION is the issue.
Sedona — you read my mind. I've got another article coming out soon that touches on this very point.
P
When an expert calls a debate opponent who is also an expert & who has argued on point without sidebarring or has not himself used ad hominem, that is generally a sign that the name caller is losing the argument, not just a sign of incivility.
An expert who calls a non-expert an assh*le because this non-expert can't fashion a logical argument, even though the non-expert's heart is in the right place, is just being uncivil to the non expert.
In the latter case, we expect more of the expert, but such conduct alone doesn’t shake our faith in his argument; in the former case, we demand more, like, you know, a substantive response from the expert, failing which, we are entitled to draw our own conclusion about the expert's ability to defend his argument.
P
The NYT Public editor today defends his bosses', er, curious lack of curiosity regarding the content of the e-mails:
"The biggest question is what the messages amount to — an embarrassing revelation that scientists can be petty and defensive and even cheat around the edges, or a major scandal that undercuts the scientific premise for global warming. The former is a story. The latter is a huge story."
So, why isn't the NYT, you know, reporting on what seems to us to be "a huge story"?
Ah, he tells us, "the answer is tied up in complex science that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts…."
But, wait, there’s more: he lets the NYT's environment editor explain:
"We here at The Times are not scientists. We don’t collect the data or analyze it, and so the best we can do is to give our readers a sense of what the prevailing scientific view is, based on interviews with scientists” and the expertise of out science reporters."
Get it? They just interview the consensus scientists and can't, you know, actually try to understand the basis of these scientists' consensus. And now when it is clear to all but the most gullible that these consensus scientists were consensus liars, the NYT still doesn't see the need to say "wait a minute" & do some investigative reporting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06pubed.html?_r=1
Thank goodness that the NYT doesn't take this position when military info is leaked to them. Or when Sarah Palin or Dick Cheney make their assertions. Otherwise you & I might think that the NYT is run by assh*les!
Anyway, I blame Bush 43.
H/T Althouse
Inwood:
The Times long ago passed Through The Looking Glass into that alternate world where everything it prints must be held up to a mirror in order for us to be able to read and attempt to understand it. They have even adopted the character of Humpty Dumpty who said, “When I use a word, it means precisely what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Just consider what it said about the Jayson Blair case: “The decision to advance Mr. Blair had not been based on race.” Now consider what it said about the U. of Michigan affirmative action program: “Any diversity program that failed to take race into account is ‘necessarily flawed’.” The answer to these seeming contradictory statements must be “tied up in complex editorializing that is difficult even for experts to understand, and in politics in which passionate sides have been taken, sometimes regardless of the facts."
That's right, Dr. Jackson, The Toba eruption, which took place on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia about 73,000 years ago, released an estimated 800 cubic kilometers of ash into the atmosphere that blanketed the skies and blocked out sunlight for six years. In the aftermath, global temperatures dropped by as much as 28 degrees Fahrenheit….
Now, the next time we have a volcano erupt with roughly one hundred times the force of the largest nuclear weapon ever tested by humans, we'll have to worry about major climate impacts. Until then, volcanoes will have… somewhat less of an influence.
Saint Helens.
Pinatubo.
Garat.
Karkar.
Sarychev Peak.
Dukono.
Karymsky.
Kilauea.
Nevado del Huila.
Sangay.
Shiveluch.
Suwanose-jima.
And let's not forget Krakatoa.
And the cumulative effect of many smaller volcanoes that erupt within a relatively short period of time.
If, IF… all of us were convinced that two things were happening: (1) volcanoes are having a negative, potentially live threatening effect on atmosphere/climate, and (2) certain things that humans are doing are having a similar effect, then it would behoove us to curtail those behaviors. Since the effect of (2) augments the effect of (1) then (1) strengthens the argument for the necessity of changing what we are doing.
This is not to address the questions of reliable research (for which I am not qualified), just to say that pointing that (1) is true does not mean (2) is not.
Okay, I'll make it comment #100. The purpose it referencing volcanoes (other than the obvious humor of the point) was not to set up an either-or situation. Both nature and man can affect the environment. The question is, is MAN the predominant cause of global cooling/warming/climate change, or are AGW theories underrepresenting the influence of natural phenomenon and the earth's natural cycles.
Whenever "consensus science" posits that man is responsible, I like to point out the obvious things that are being downplayed (sunspots, volcanoes, etc.), in addition to the obvious flaws in collection data (no true world wide global temperature readings were possible until the space age, and 30 years is just as insufficient as 150 years to spot a "trend"), in addition to the motivations for focusing on man instead of nature as the culpret (research grants, other political agendas), as well as the phony assumptions that go into manufacturing a "consensus" that leads to "settled science".
Every time I fart I impact the environment. Just don't tell me we ought to focus on my methane production as the cause of anything when the natural world/sun are impacting it too.