There is a large gap between what the certified appointed experts say and what the public thinks on GM, Climate Change, pesticides, ethics, and sigh, on evolution. The researchers were “surprised” that a collective pool of university educated, largely government employed scientists have a different spread of opinions to the population at large. On climate change half of the public are skeptics that man-made effects are dominant. In the AAAS, 87% of scientists think it is. But despite twenty years of propaganda the public are not buying their message.
UPDATE: Given that 48% of Meteorologists are skeptics and survey after survey shows that two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics, the 87% figure “across the sciences” seems hard to believe. 3748 members of AAAS took the survey — and as A.Scott points out on WUWT in comments, only 7% of the respondents were from the Earth Sciences, and nearly half were “biomedical”. Link to the survey Questions. See TdeF in comment. H/t to Michael for the tip about Scott.
The answer is not more propaganda, it’s open public debate
To resolve the gap, scientists naturally think the public needs more education. But perhaps it’s the scientists who need to learn to start reasoning and stop namecalling instead — “denier”. The public knows that isn’t science.
We never hear a climate scientist pull up colleagues for using a fallacious form of reasoning. Welcome to modern climate science. Was than an ad hom? Well, I’ll cheer you on.
The answer is not to train more obedient citizens to respect official doctrines, but to air these taboo topics in open debate. If the scientists really are right, and the evidence is overwhelming, the citizens will see their questions answered and move towards the settled science view. If science is a bureaucratized sink-hole of groupthink stuck in a dead end hypothesis, some dead-wood will go, and the gap closes toward the public.
These issues are so polarized there isn’t a forum where the best of both sides hammer it out while the crowd watches — so the gap grows. The public know they are not being told the whole story. The Internet is the closest it gets to real debate, but Unskeptical Scientists are running away.
The brand name “science” is falling
The Star of Science is tarnishing fast. Both scientists and the public are feeling down about it. When asked about U.S. scientific achievements, in 2009 65% thought theirs were the best in the world or at least above average. But now it is down 11 points to 54%. That’s a big fall in a short time. It seems a bit devastating that nearly half of all US citizens apparently don’t think US science is even “above average”. The land that put man on the moon isn’t sure any more if it’s better at science than, say, Venezuela.
Four out of five adults say science has improved their life and healthcare, but only 3 out of five say the same about the environment and food (would you like a cholesterol-free climate?) Diet science is up there with long range rainfall predictions. The good brand-name and goodwill of science is being eroded away.
One third say we don’t need the government for science to advance
One response surprised me — about 40% of people don’t think government investment is essential for science. I had no idea it was so high in the US and one third even say “private investment is enough”. In Australia I don’t know what those numbers would be. The idea is so strange, I’m not sure if anyone has even thought to ask. Some 61% say that government investment is essential for scientific progress, while 34% say that private investment is enough to ensure that scientific progress is made.
There is a lot to discuss with these results…
— Jo
——————————————————-
Public and scientists express strikingly different views about science-related issues
Despite similar views about the overall place of science in America, the general public and scientists often see science-related issues through a different lens, according to a new pair of surveys by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
The report finds significant differences in views on 13 science-related issues asked about in the surveys. For instance, there is a:
- 51-percentage point gap between scientists and the public about the safety of eating genetically modified foods — 88% of AAAS scientists think eating GM food is safe, while 37% of the public believes that.
- 42-percentage point gap over the issue of using animals in research — 89% of scientists favor it, while 47% of the public backs the idea.
- 40-percentage point gap on the question of whether it is safe to eat foods grown with pesticides — 68% of scientists say that it is, compared with 28% of citizens.
- 37-percentage point gap over whether climate change is mostly caused by human activity — 87% of AAAS scientists say it is, while 50% of the public does.
- 33-percentage point gap on the question about whether humans have evolved over time — 98% of scientists say we have, compared with 65% of the public.
There is no single direction of differences between scientists and the public. By a 20-percentage point margin, citizens are more likely than scientists to favor offshore oil drilling. And by a 12-point margin, the public is more likely to say that astronauts are essential for the future of the U.S. space program.
“Science is a huge, sprawling cluster of subjects. We knew from the 2009 Pew Research Center study that there could be differences between the public and scientists on at least some issues. But we were surprised by the size of those differences and how often they occur,” said Cary Funk, lead author of the report and associate director of science research at Pew Research Center.
There is agreement between the public and scientists on one core issue: Both groups believe that science, technology, engineering and math education (STEM) in America’s elementary and secondary schools is not performing well. Only 16% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the general public rank U.S. K-12 STEM education as above average or the best in the world. And three-quarters of AAAS scientists say too little STEM education is a major factor in the public’s limited knowledge about science–which an overwhelming majority of scientists see as a problem for science in general.
“Whatever their disagreements, most in the public and science community see STEM education as a concern,” said Lee Rainie, co-author and Pew Research Center director of internet, science and technology research. “When both groups basically speak in the same voice about an issue, it is worth paying attention.”
These surveys find that science holds an esteemed place among citizens and professionals, but both groups are less upbeat about the scientific enterprise than they were in 2009 when the Pew Research Center conducted similar surveys.
- While a majority of the public sees scientific achievements in positive terms, the share saying U.S. scientific achievements are the best in the world or above average is down 11 points, from 65% in 2009 to 54% today.
- A majority of adults say science has made life easier for most people (79%) and has had a positive effect on the quality of U.S. health care (79%), food (62%) and the environment (62%). At the same time, the share seeing a negative contribution of science has ticked up across each of these measures compared with 2009.
- 52% of AAAS scientists say this is generally a good time for science, down 24 percentage points from 76% in 2009. Similarly, the share of scientists who say this is generally a good time for their scientific specialty is down from 73% in 2009 to 62% today. The drop since 2009 in views about the state of science occurred among AAAS scientists of all disciplines, those with a basic and applied research focus, and those working in industry and in academia.
“While the public is still broadly positive about the contributions of science to society, there has been a slight rise in negative views across a number of measures, suggesting some softening in the perceived value of science to society. These patterns will be important to watch over time,” Funk said.
Some other key findings:
- Most scientists believe that policy choices about land use and clean air and water are not often guided by the best scientific findings. Only 15% of AAAS scientists say they believe the best science guides policy regulations about land use most of the time or more often; 27% think the best science frequently guides decisions about clean air and water; 46% think the best science is frequently used in food safety policies and 58% say the same when it comes to regulations about new drug and medical treatments.
- Americans rate military, science and medical treatment among the best in the world. Fully 77% of the public say the U.S. military is the best in the world or above average, while many say the same about U.S. scientific achievements (54%) and U.S. medical treatment (51%).
- There is broad public support for government investment in scientific research. Seven-in-ten adults say that government investments in engineering and technology and in basic scientific research usually pay off in the long run. Some 61% say that government investment is essential for scientific progress, while 34% say that private investment is enough to ensure that scientific progress is made.
- Americans hold mixed views about the degree of scientific consensus on key topics. About four-in-ten adults (42%) say that scientists generally believe the universe was created in a single violent event, often called the “the Big Bang,” while 52% say scientists are generally divided on this issue. A majority of adults see scientists as generally in agreement that Earth is getting warmer due to human activity (57%) or that humans have evolved over time (66%), though a sizeable minority see scientists as divided over each of these issues.
These are some of the findings from a new pair of surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center in collaboration with the AAAS. The survey of the general public was conducted using a probability-based sample of the adult population by landline and cellular telephone Aug. 15-25, 2014, with a representative sample of 2,002 adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error for results based on all adults is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The survey of scientists is based on a representative sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of AAAS; the survey was conducted online from Sept. 11 to Oct. 13, 2014. This report is the beginning of Pew Research Center’s increased focus on science and society research. Several more reports on this topic will be released in the coming year.
“The publication of this report begins a major new initiative for the Pew Research Center,” said Michael Dimock, president of the center. “The center has covered science-related issues in the past, but this marks our more formal commitment to studying the intersection of science with public life. There is considerable interest in the policy community, among scientists themselves, and among engaged citizens to understand how the fast-paced world of scientific inquiry and innovation is shaping our world. We hope to explore that and to understand more fully how news and information about scientific activities makes their way to citizens, how they understand it, and how, in some circumstances, they contribute to it.”
Further information: Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
REFERENCE
A. I. Leshner. (2015) Bridging the opinion gap. Science; 347 (6221): 459 DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa7477
Science, we hardly knew ye.
80
That would certainly explain a lot.
Maybe if you folks spent more time on science and less time being skeptical, hmm?
Just sayin’.
331
All scientists should be skeptical. You need to constantly ask the question, “Why?” If you don’t ask that question, how can science advance?
250
‘Why ? ‘ is enquiring. Once upon a time can give answers.
‘Are you sure’ is scientific….. and even if you are sure I have to see it for myself…. and even then, we might still be wrong.
60
Fine, sure. Yes, even the top scientists are occasionally known to question ideas—including their own!
The problem is when questions are used as a tactic to stifle inquiry.
As any climate scientist will tell you, it all comes down to faith.
It’s fine to ask one or two questions in good faith. But increasingly often, the questioner’s faith is pretty dubious. For instance, most questions I hear from ‘skeptics’ have now been rebutted so many times, in so many ways, that you have to wonder if they’re making any effort at all to believe the science.
327
Indeed. It’s always fine to consult the Vatican when you have faith their line will support your cause, faith in the funding that keeps flowing, faith in the NGOs and politicians promoting it for their own ends, faith in the need for the herd to remain focused & fearful or faith that the planet that has shaped & sustained us for millions of years is suddenly about to lose the ability to cope.
142
It takes more than faith to dismiss the evidence.
The missing Hotspot, that isn’t really missing because it was never there.
The ‘pause’ in warming that has lasted for 18 years now despite the continuing steady rise of CO2 in the atmosphere .
The missing heat, that’s really there because well it must be but we just cant find it
213
“As any climate scientist will tell you, it all comes down to faith.”
Yep, in climate science™, that’s for sure.!
100
You will not find that here, at all.
The typical warmist tactic is to stifle enquiry with ad hominem if somebody is found to not be following the meme.
Take you pick.
While you are here, could you please explain to me, in your own words, exactly how CO2 is warming the planet.
Could you also please explain and show to me the “signature” for CO2 “forcing” in the temperature record.
There, a simple start for you, I am all ears and promise not to obfuscate in any way.
120
Faith in what exactly? This is a very confusing statement, could you please explain it.
AFAIK faith has to do with religion, does that tell you something? Empirical evidence has to do with science, do you have any? Show us something, anything, empirically.
41
Oxymoron. Just show me the evidence bereft of chance, your political bias or unknown confounding.
PS. Let’s be clear. Models don’t count, and neither do temperature data sets with inexplicable, undisclosed adjustments. Please include evidence-based explanations for previous warming episodes (Mayan, Roman, MWP), cooling periods of the 20th century and of course, the non-modeled, persistent trendless interval of 19 years. An explanation of the settled science that accounts for ALL forcing and feedback mechanisms and their interaction would be helpful.
On the basis that your belief science is settled, it is assumed that you know everything. Nothing remains that is unknown. On this basis then, a statement of known climate sensitivity would also be useful.
Finally, mitigation by taxation. Outline the cost-benefit ratio of returning humanity to the caves, without fire.
40
True brother, we might be wrong, but you and the data know otherwise..
00
Appreciate the tautology.
21
Normally I only correct scientific errors, but this is just too egregious. Unskeptical science is a pleonasm, not a tautology!
16
“Normally I only correct scientific errors”
I see no instances of that happening.
31
An’ I thought you were just being clever but I always stand to be corrected.
Shouldn’t ‘skeptical science’ be the pleonasm ? (Not to be confused with the antithetically titled website bearing that name) .
Unskeptical science would be the oxymoron.
20
You seem a bit confused, Eddie. So, once again, I’ll take time out of my busy life as a science communicator to articulate a technical idea to a person or persons currently lacking a full understanding thereof, shall I? Sigh.
Look, nobody is saying scientists are never meant to be skeptical. It’s unavoidable at times. This here article is probably the best exploration I’ve ever seen of the circumstances in which it’s OK to be skeptical in science, but you may need to work through this equally-important essay first.
But ‘skeptical science’—the science of auditing, the science of suspicion, the science of refusing to take the word of 97% of all the world’s authorities—has gotten out of control. Its apoptotic failsafes are broken, its cell cycle is in florid dysregulation and it’s a melanoma in the bloodstream of science itself.
In short, you’ve pretty obviously mixed up the concepts pleonastic and neoplastic.
An easy enough mistake for a layman, and an extremely common one. Totally understandable.
Nevertheless you just lost all credibility and forfeited the right to be taken seriously on any subject for a period not less than 2 (two) years and extensible at my discretion.
Now does anyone else have a burning need to make another schoolboy gaffe? Or may I please get back to my science communication? Thank you. Sheesh.
112
The crux of your problem:
“take the word of 97% of all the world’s authorities”
On top of the appeal to authority (Based on a percentage from multiple shown-faulty studies, no less), science doesn’t “Take the word.” There have been many, many instances where science was dead wrong. There have been equally as many instances of a kernel of scientific truth being politicized and used as a club for what some people view as socially “right.”
Remember Eugenics? That was a fantastic fad that moved from a kernel of scientific truth to some pushing for it as public policy – with even some practicing it until the 1970s in the United States, and then moving to atrocity. But, of course, this isn’t like that….Right? We don’t have many people pushing to make the lives of the third world worse while they get to stay in their comfortable technological wonderlands?
Except, though, here we have a scientific field that’s persisted for about 100-150 years, depending on when you want to stab the earth with your starting banner. Climatology. In that time, there have been multiple public, outspoken cries over at least the last 100 years about how the end of the world is neigh, all based on, of course, science. But those cries follow the pattern of the weather: We will die by fire, then by ice, then by fire.
This last interval, the declarations were accompanied by another strain of thought: Environmentalism that’s been infected with what i call the “human curse syndrome.” In short, we have people who push for the people of the world to disband any form of technology to “Save the planet.” Those same scientists that claim we are going to die by fire, because of humans of course, are members of many of the groups that suffer from “human curse syndrome.” To allay our obvious and rightful fears of the bastardization of science, the public wants more information to see so that we can believe.
And we are greeted by not information, but propaganda. When we ask why records are homogenized on a trendline instead of physical and explicit functions, we get no answer. When we ask why models don’t actual replicate the real world, we get dissembling (55 reasons and/or excuses becomes obfuscation) and no models updated to actually make better real-world predictions. When we ask why the primary solution is to tax us and then forget any actual mitigation and possibly making third world countries life styles worse and potentially drive them to produce more of the demonized gas(ses), we get “Believe us because we believe” as your own post exemplifies.
So, at what point will the scientists communicate science and stop acting like they and their prognostications are infallible and that the entirety of all people, including other climate scientists, that don’t parrot their opinions of the science are beneath them and without merit? At what point should we expect honest discourse about a change as large as the adoption of the automobile to life styles that would be phased in over a single generation?
Further, at what point should the populace that’s told to simply believe not require that those who do the prognosticating actually act like there is a problem? How many of the celebrities, scientists, or the paid environmentalists have gone without? I see only the common folk that are sacrificing for this cause, especially some 5-6 billion of them that aren’t in first world countries who can no longer get the monetary help to build the basic necessities of high technology – much less the technologies that would let them skip the supposedly dirty CO2 producing phase.
70
Indeed, you should probably get back to communicating the Lewandowsky guest posts.
10
” In short, you’ve pretty obviously mixed up the concepts pleonastic and neoplastic. ”
No, I checked them both out. Which leads to the conclusion that Brad Keyes just likes the sound of his own voice, spouting what he must surely know to be nonsense, for the sake of what ?
Not as clever as Adam Smith but same MO. Filling the threads with endless verbiage in the hope of attracting a few faithful followers to his wise words of utter distraction.
51
Science is being sceptical.
Nobody is easier to fool than oneself.
If the results of an experiment are exactly as expected, then that is more indicative of poor science than good.
Science is about figuring out where our thinking is wrong. That’s “re-phrasing” Popper.
Our understanding of the universe and thus being able to predict physical behaviour with some quality is determined by science leading our thinking to be incrementally less wrong.
90
I like to think of science as being our attempt at an explanation of how we think things work.
Always up for revision.
30
Scepticism is essential to science… I thought every scientific mind knew that.
Just sayin’.
31
Brad thinks that being “on science” means to not be skeptical and to believe whatever he is told the “consensus” is.
Bard, you do not know anything about science. Skepticism is at the very CORE of true science. Being a Belieber, as you are, is at the very CORE of ignorance.
91
Brad is a word twister.. you have to read and interpret what he is actually saying.
Treat him as being permanently manically sarcastic and you will get his drift.
He would communicate far better if he didn’t think he was so clever.
100
There is the administrative mind and the inquiring mind. I guess you get both in science , while the administrative type is perhaps more likely to rise to positions of authority it is the inquiring type that makes more inspirational leaders
20
It seems science has taklen on the Soviet model of providing Political Commisars.
Most Red Army units had Political Commisars attached, so that in some cases, the ( clearly “superior” ) Soviet ideology could overrule sound battle tactics. This was so that Soviet ideology was to be show to be superior – as much to maintain the twisted communist view of the world over common sense, as much to the troops as anything else. Never miond they lost the battle, but the ideology was sound….
As such we see much the same in Science now – the Green Commisars are ensuring Green Ideology is spewed forth, subverting sound science, and disciplining those “troops” who would step out of line with professional “execution”.
The Commisars in a Red Army unit were depely feared – they had the power of life and death. Ideology was more important that reality.
We see this today in Climate Science.
“Tell ’em they’re dreaming…”
10
The U.S. political landscape is heavily influenced by a book “Atlas Shrugged”.
When the Tea Party held big rallies a few years ago, some of them held up signs saying “who is John Galt” – a quote out of “Atlas Shrugged”. Everyone knew what they meant.
Atlas Shrugged is a story written by a Soviet refugee in the 1950s. The story describes a culture dying from excessive government – parasites pretending to be friends of the people. Some of the parasites are government scientists, promoting baseless fear to maintain funding for the state science institute. The story is a celebration of libertarian philosophy – it is well known in America, but almost unknown elsewhere.
There are free copies of Atlas Shrugged available online – well worth a read.
540
And in libraries. I tried to read it but couldn’t get past the first few pages. Very heavy going.
100
Its a difficult read, Ayn Rand’s writing style isn’t for everyone, but once you get into it its riveting.
50
I tried twice because friends were so positive about it. The second time I dived in about 100 pages in, got hooked and went back to the beginning to read the bit I had missed. Well worth the effort and made me think again about my received socialist education.
110
I first read The Fountainhead in 1969, and even though I was only 18, I swore that one day I would read Atlas Shrugged.
I ended up reading The Fountainhead twice more before I finally did locate a copy of Atlas Shrugged in a second hand book store in 1992, not long after I got out of the RAAF and was in the relocation and looking for (some real) work, so I had time on my hands. The novel was not available in regular book stores, and the copy I found in that second hand book store was in fact a U.S. printing of the novel, (Signet) because the only price marking on it was on the front cover, and the spine. I found it on the shelf and picked it up, and flicked the pages, for no particular reason and it opened to a page where there was a bookmark, which was a business card for a New York Coffee Shop. I surmised that whoever did have the novel prior to me purchased it probably at the airport somewhere in the U.S. to read on the flight to Oz. That bookmark was only at the page 100 or so mark, so they just dumped the book when they reached here in Australia.
I read the novel, virtually in a white heat, just couldn’t put it down.
I had been reading seriously now for seven or eight years and my bookshelf had around 200 novels, some collected from my younger days which I has held onto, like all the Bony novels, some Asimov, Heinlein, and The Lensman Series.
When I finished reading Atlas Shrugged, I was actually disappointed, not with the story, but mainly because of the fact that I thought I would never find anything to read even closely as good as that, and I even despaired that I had finished with reading, because now, there was nothing really left to read any more, and that took me around six Months to get over.
I still read, (avidly) so my perceived despair was misplaced, but I’ve not found anything as good as that novel.
And good on so many levels.
I sort of smiled when I found out John Galt was working on an electrical engineering project when he finally removed himself from everything.
It’s a novel you actually have to be ….. ready ….. to read, and it’s patently obvious why the novel is perceived as being somewhat dangerous.
There are only certain people I recommend the novel to, and you inherently know them.
I have read it twice since that first time, and I could never tire of it.
It’s a little gift I give myself every ten or so years, because I know that when I finish reading it, I feel just so damned good.
I’ve read so many novels since that Christmas of 1986, and I have a list of the top ten of my favourites. Numbers one to five have stayed the same over the years and occasionally the numbers six to ten may change, but far and away Number One is Atlas Shrugged, and I know that will never change.
Tony.
Post Script – My list. (for what it’s worth)
1. – Atlas Shrugged
2. – Anna Karenina (The Count)
3. – Heart Of Darkness (Józef Teodor Konrad Korzeniowski)
4. – Poor Fellow My Country (Xavier Herbert)
5. – Once An Eagle (Anton Myrer)
6. – Lonesome Dove (Larry McMurtry)
7. – Chesapeake – (James A Michener)
120
Added your list to my Goodreads to-read shelf. Thx.
20
Nice Comments Tony, and others. Yes Atlas Shrugged is a remarkable book and showed so many truths. I wonder if it were edited a bit and issued as a trilogy or something like that if it would reach a wider audience. But still, it is a thoughtful and thought provoking book. Not an “airplane book” you can read in a noisy, wobbling environment, and subject to many interruptions.
A book that I have always loved takes more energy and thought than an airplane book, yes is easy to read and understand, is “A Town Like Alice”.
I have not included the KJV Bible as it would always be tops.
20
I know we are seriously off topic, but this is always interesting.
There’s always talk about the umm, definitive Australian novel.
There isn’t one, and there never will be one, but Poor Fellow comes close.
I’ve read a
fewlot of Australian novels, and the only two which were memorable, well, for me anyway, were Poor Fellow My Country, and Frank Hardy’s Power Without Glory.Poor Fellow is a seriously long read at 1463 pages of fine print, 48 lines to the page, so really fine. It’s way (way) longer than Atlas, but again, is so well worth the effort.
The size alone is what I’m certain puts readers off, as it entails a pretty major time commitment.
My copy is a pristine Fonatana (larger sized) paperback which came with it’s own cardboard box container.
If you can make that time commitment, I urge anyone to read it, as it’s such a good novel. Good luck finding a copy though!
Tony.
20
Rand was said to be very close to the american elite. As such, her vision of what happens whent he lights go out in NYC toward the end of AS is IMHO a blueprint of whats coming.
People like Aldous Huxley who wrote BNW, his brother Sir Julian Huxley, was also a distinguished biologist and eugenics advocate who would go on to charter and become the first Director-General of United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); his unique position in the world council helped provide Huxley with priceless insight for many literary works.
These people who wrote many “brave new world” type novels are in effect revealing the New Age plan for this planet. You just need to know which novesl to read.
Rand wrote quite a distopian bit of literature – there are either geniuses or slaves. Again this fits with the Elites plans for the world as best I can make out.
Its a form of technocracy and meriticarcy all rolled into one.
I think Rand was part unhinged, but associating with who she did sort of confirms it. We see the spirit of Nazism rising across the globe again.
Scary.
00
Steve
This peke your interest. More than likely you already are.
00
Thanks Rod.
Yikes!
Tony.
00
I have a copy of, “Journals of Ayn Rand”, Edited by David Harriman. It is a fascinating insight into the way she worked and thought. For example, while working on The Fountainhead, she made the following notes, in regard to Keating, in Chapter 10:
Chapter 10, Strike. Protest meeting. Sees Dominic.
His restlessness and doubts when left alone and idle. Needs Katie. His fear at her absorption in Toohey. Sees Dominique – and decides to follow it up, even though he fears and dislikes her.
Ayn Rand does the same thing for each of the characters for each chapter, as if she is watching a play inside her own head. Amazing stuff.
00
There is also a movie, in 3 parts, based on Atlas Shrugged. I must find them. I do remember reading some of it a long long time ago and I remember my father talking about it….
50
Ayn Rand is one of the Leftoids’ (many) bete noires
There will be no sensible discussion of the underlying concepts in Atlas Shrugged available in the Aus meeja, thank you
90
When I went to school, in rural Canada, Atlas Shrugged as well as “The Fountainhead”, “We the Living”, “Anthem”, and “The Virtue of Selfishness” were all books on the recommended reading list for the summer breaks. Atlas Shrugged was in fact part of the curriculum in year ten I think. I guess that sort of dates me.
80
Oddly, the first time I saw the cover of Atlas Shrugged it was in the hands of a 70’s vintage pot smokin’ hippy (in the 70’s mind you).
10
I tend to agree with you. The books they read are the kinds of books I never even heard of until I became aware of politics in general. ie: When the Left start screwing up, produce disastrous results, and provided stupid excuses to explain their disasters; I became curious and started searching after noticing patterns of behaviour they tend to exhibit.
AND
Both of these are a direct result of the Left’s relentless infection into a Nation’s culture…
=> In the name of “Global Equality”, America’s own President Obama promotes the idea that America is no better than any other country. In his eyes, we should be ALL EQUAL.
==> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o_YW4Oaehg
=> Post-modern Education is now indoctrinating kids with Left’s issues. They are not educating on the foundations.
(a) Have a good look at their “Common Core” nonsense. It is a convoluted mess that is clearly written by academics and intellectuals. NOT by experienced teachers and principals on the front-line of education.
(b) “Gender Equality” (a mutated variant to include transexuals) is pushed upon kids…There is no boy or girl. Its what you “feel” you are today. So if your kid is a boy and feels like he’s a girl today, we should treat him as a girl and let him go to the girls toilets. (Vice versa). But if he feels like a boy the next day, we should treat him as a boy.
(c) Kids are aware of “Climate Change”, etc and nothing else! They go into college or university requiring make-up mathematics, english, and science courses (Remedial classes) in order to meet the requirements of their degree! ie: They are NOT taught the fundamentals in favour of Leftist indoctrination! The colleges and universities have to take up the slack! The student pays both in time and money. Think about it, there’s only a limited number of hours in a week to teach. If you fill it with indoctrination, what time is there left for fundamentals like reading, writing, etc? When you have people entering into university who can barely form a cohesive sentence or even spell, you have an extremely serious problem.
=> Post-modern science is now corrupt by politics and vested interests.
==> We see this ourselves with “Climate Change”.
=> Post-modern science is now about activism. Where we are supposed to “feel” and “believe” like some drone in a cult. Not question. Not analyse. Not explore. Not look at how the numbers are produced and if they make any sense. (Do the simulations emulate real world with a tolerable threshold of accuracy? ie: within 95%)
==> And if you don’t listen to the BS, they bully you, get you fired, throw tantums, and threats of disobedience instead of debate the merits of their argument like an adult!…Why would anyone buy into the opinions of scientists who behave like this?
=> This is the American culture. (Where the silent majority doesn’t believe the babbling BS of the Left. You can see it with the 2014 Mid-Term Elections). Most Americans know that Govt isn’t the answer. It is the rugged individual with their businesses that attack problems directly with innovation. Not some grand, state controlled, paper pushing bureaucracy. Although, the Leftist infection is creating a next generation of feelings based idiots. (Believe in Govt being the provider, its someone else’s responsibility, etc). Seriously, their colleges and universities have become the “Church of the Left” as they push out any non-compliant
Conservativeprofessors and impose nonsensical rules upon young men and women. (See the ‘Yes means yes’ laws)...Interestingly, the Right is starting to push back. (You can tell by the tantrums the Left is having, as more and more people are becoming aware of the Left’s political games and general BS.)
The one thing I noticed is that Australia is a little confused about Govt involvement in society. What I mean is, when problems start happening, people run to the Govt like it was a member of the community.
I noticed this when Gerry Harvey (Harvey Norman) and other businesses are lobbying the Govt to add GST to imports below AUD$1000. Meanwhile, an individual entrepreneur named Ruslan Kogan (Kogan.com) is thriving in the modern environment of online retail sales. Harvey is dragged kicking and screaming into online sales.
During Election time (See the current QLD State Election), Labor is promoting the idea of handing out money to the tourist industry in order to “create more jobs”. Buying votes much? …This distorts the tourism market. They aren’t standing on their own feet. What happens when that money is no longer available? It will hurt the QLD tourist industry. (Don’t be surprised if that very industry runs back to the Govt for more money, instead of learning the lesson of one shouldn’t depend on Govt when running a business.)
So what about science?
Should we have the Govt fund research? Well, that depends on how you see Govt and its responsibilities.
My personal view is that Govt should be responsible for three things:
(1) Defense => External => Military, Border security, Immigration control and integration into society, etc.
(2) Maintain order => Internal => Local Police.
(3) Settle disputes as a third party. (Law through courts).
It shouldn’t be doing anything else. I prefer charities to look after the poor and to get them out of being poor. Not the Govt handing them benefits and welfare. (As a safety net becomes a safety hammock). One real world issue for this country is the disability benefits are being abused by some dodgy individuals and their doctors.
Instead of science being funded and directed as another Govt branch, I would like to see Govt put out open bids that generate competition. (Say if one is to create a Ebola vaccine or some new form of solar panel or battery technology). The conditions of competition are of restricted budget, openly reviewed by the community, must be able to produce a tangible result for the taxpayer, etc. I rather see university research depts and private industry handle it. Where their money, reputation, and time is invested into it.
Overall, I like to see science be driven by competition. That’s when real innovation happens: under adversity…To be pressured and motivated into coming up with solutions. (Humanity’s best inventions come from competition and during times of war. Technology field is the best example of this.)
What I don’t want to see, is scientists be driven by political agendas such that they discard academic integrity and scientific method. I also don’t want to see pointless, intangible research that doesn’t offer anything in return for what the taxpayer put in. Not to mention the nonsensical depts like the Climate Commission be created! (Its nothing more than a bunch of academic activists who have dunked their snouts into the taxpayer trough! Remember how they were found out to have ordered premium coffee machines on our dime? No other Govt dept has those luxuries!)
50
More people should spend some time thinking about just what IS the legitimate role of government?
Why would defense=>External=>Military, border security, not be handled voluntarily? After all, if a free people live in a free State, why would they be reluctant to voluntarily support a defense for monetarily? Just consider the extent to which volunteer organisations such as the Sally Ann minister to the poor far more efficiently that any government ever has or ever will.
Why should Maintain order=>Internal=> be of necessity a role of government! Surely a free people living in a free State, each responsible and accountable for his or her own actions, would insure themselves against theft, extortion, murder, etc! In such a society, it would be the organisations providing such insurance that would operate and maintain the police force.
That of course, leaves law and order, and settlement of disputes as the only really legitimate role of government. In fact this is at the very core of “governance”.
What I have outlined above is, of course, strict Libertarian ideology. I would cherish a strictly Libertarian society, but it would be necessary for ALL of the members of that society to be rational, reasonable, charitable, and SELFISH individuals. Alas, Homo Sapiens is a species which includes a plethora of individuals who do not fit that description. Such is the issue with any ideological position. Once a person becomes immersed in Rand, and such texts as “A Libertarian Primer” and wander through the immense number of Libertaian blogs on the Internet one cannot help but realise that the human race has completely failed in governing itself; in the case of individuals, as well as in the case of the collective.
11
Eric,
Thank you re Atlas Shrugged.
I had thought that most visitors here would have read it several times. Its lessons are so important.
The other one is The Apocalyptics by Edith Efron.
20
The 87% of scientists believing in man made Global Warming is just not right. Not as bad as 97% but still far too high to be credible. “Don’t know” should surely be a large proportion, over 50%. Frankly the existence of an American Association for the Advancement of Science was itself a surprise, but it is a big country. So 127,000 members and only 13% or 16,500 do not believe. This is half only of the numbers who were prepared to identify themselves fully before internet surveys for the 1998 Oregon petition against man made Global Warming when it was popular, so it must not include half of these people and many more.
It stands out that this Science interest association ranks man made Global Warming much higher than even the general public and does point to this being a special interest group.
So the AAAS departments are agriculture, anthropology, astronomy, atmospheric science, biological science, chemistry, dentistry, education, engineering, general interest in science and engineering, geology and geography, the history and philosophy of science, technology, computer science, linguistics, mathematics, medical science, neuroscience, pharmaceutical science, physics, psychology, science and human rights, social and political science, the social impact of science and engineering, and statistics.[25]
In this there is huge scope for non physical scientists and even activists but it is an opinion on physical science which is meaningful, not sociology or even zoology. Departments like “general interest”, “history and philosophy”, “human rights”, “political science”, “Social impact” are all going to push the story of man made Global Warming. Remember also in the US, a business degree and others are often streamed through the Science faculty and can boost these associations. Then while computer modelling is a critical part of science now, computer science itself does not qualify anyone as a physical scientist.
At a guess based on experience, I would rate most physical scientists as 80% not their field or irrelevant to their non political lives, 10% care but not prepared to say anything publicly and 10% offended by what they see as the corruption of science by science ignorant Greens, the self interest IPCC and endless carpetbaggers, opportunists and big wind and big carbon and the merchant banks.
Finally, it would be nice to see how the survey question was phrased, in case it was a Yes Minister question.
300
And sample size, comparisons with previous samples, perhaps some breakdown of answers against occupation, age, gender, geographical location etc etc
In short, both the precise methodology and estimated or measured demography
140
I vehemently agree, here you have a subset of scientists who have been “trained” to respect other scientists views ESPECIALLY outside their knowledge, and you are comparing this biased subgroup with an unbiased sample of mainstream society. H’mm, what could go wrong. The absence of “Undecided” responses suggests to me a binary quiz, that is do you believe man has contributed some of the 20th century warming , Yes or No?
I think a lot of people in this survey are likely to defer to the consensus, out of fear or loyalty rather than to openly question a consensus outside their knowledge (which can be a career limiting move in some quarters)
I was VERY surprised by fracking – this answer alone makes this survey politically suspicious one would think that a bunch of educated scientists could see that provided the casing and containment is done properly fracking would be relatively safe…..
I’m not at all surprised by the outcome. For what its worth
GM Foods, – Probably safe with reasonable controls
Fracking – Safe if casing and containment done properly, this is another of those political issues though, the miners are NOT paying sufficient rent to the landowners for access to the resources and it’s only fair they get rights to this income stream. For that reason I support lock the gate, lock the gate until they pay a reasonable royalty to the landowner!
Pesticides – Not totally safe but biotolerable and frankly unavoidable, Most are anticholinesterase which have negative consequences for humans suppressing the parasympathetic nervous system, they are like cancer treatments – they just kill insects better than humans
Evolution – Probably viable, but likely needs extension to accommodate spontaneous mutation since some evolutions don’t occur gradually
Astronauts, not essential but very desirable, eventually will be necessary if we are ever to get off this rock so might as well start now.
Immunization – Favour, though never mandatory, the overuse of immunostimulants and germicides are lowering the herd immunity of the human race, it is better to let the
kids play in the mud than to clean them up afterwards with disinfectant.
Low Fat/Cholesterol diets – Pure fantasy
Sunscreens – Very Harmful, most release free radicals damaging skin and contribute in a large way to the epidemic of Vit D deficiency implicated in a number of rapidly increasing cancer genotypes.
cAGW – Complete nonsense, does not stand up to even a casual examination of energy balance, any scientist who’s looked at the energy sums would know that!
PS, I’d wager that the survey was also self selective and thus probably got many more lefty responses than conservative, even scientists hold ideological positions.
PPS: Let’s be clear on this, it is ALWAYS someone in the sceptical camp that is going to make the real “Breakthroughs” ALWAYS! If 97% of doctors said you had an incurable cancer you would certainly look to the 3% for that breakthrough that will save your life.
80
Oh by the way…
One of the interesting observations is that PEW instinctively implies the public SHOULD have opinions closer to the scientists that scepticism should be stamped out — how unscientific is that. That is ridiculous given that fully 68% of scientists supposedly say the pesticides are harmless when most pesticides are very toxic anticholinesterase poisons. An example of anticholinesterase poisons is deadly nightshade in which eating just 2 berries can kill a child and 10 a human adult. Yet those same scientists think a piddling 0.5-0.8 degree rise in temperature over the last 150 years is the harbringer of death and destruction. Something very wrong there, different reasoning standards are being applied to different questions. Are anticholinesterases harmful? Well Yahhh, but the scientists take into account concentration and on balance say the risk is low hence 68% say NOT HARMFUL, (IMPLIED is IN LOW CONCENTRATION) yet with cAGW a small and beneficial warming with low risk of harm is being interpreted as if it’s a threat to all life on the planet with no reasoning of scale is applied, its as if they think ANY WARMING IS HARMFUL. It’s clear that the surveyed scientists are groupthink victims. Something is very wrong with this group of scientists.
Anticholinesterases are harmful IN EXCESSIVE CONCENTRATION
CO2 is harmful IN HIGH CONCENTRATION (meaning > 4% or 4000PPM)
141
“CO2 is harmful IN HIGH CONCENTRATION (meaning > 4% or 40000PPM)”
Ya missed a zero, bobl ! 🙂
51
Oops, you’re right 40000 PPM
30
ps expired air from human breathing is about
78.04% nitrogen
13.6% – 16% Oxygen
4% – 5.3% Carbon dioxide
1% Argon and other gases
Yet mouth to mouth resuscitation still works.
quote from Engineering toolbox.
Extreme and Dangerous CO2 Levels
•slightly intoxicating, breathing and pulse rate increase, nausea: 30,000 ppm
•above plus headaches and sight impairment: 50,000 ppm
•unconscious, further exposure death: 100,000 ppm
110
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that if you push up the O2 concentration with the CO2 concentration (ie less nitrogen)..
.. then the human body can cope with even higher levels of CO2
Its a CO2/O2 balance thingy.
50
Probably a lot of people would be quite interested in this CO2 data in Submarines and its physiological effects during long submarine patrols.
From the ;
US Naval Submarine Medical Center
Submarine Base, Groton, Conn.
THE EFFECT ON RESPIRATORY DEAD SPACE OF PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO A SUBMARINE ENVIRONMENT
[ edit explanation ;
physiologic dead space.;
2. the portions of the respiratory tract that are ventilated but not perfused by pulmonary circulation.
alveolar dead space the difference between anatomical dead space and physiologic dead space, representing the space in alveoli occupied by air that does not participate in oxygen–carbon dioxide exchange (alveolar ventilation). It varies in different parts of the lungs and under different conditions. ]
***********
ABSTRACT
Measurements were made of arterialized capillary carbon dioxide tension and mixed expired carbon dioxide as well as respiratory minute
volume, tidal volume and respiratory frequency on 10 subjects during control periods and following 20 days of exposure to submarine atmosphere on two patrols.
The physiological dead space was found increased by 60,% on the first patrol, and 61 % on the second patrol, in which the average CO2 concentrations were, 0.8% and 0.9%, respectively.
[ 0.8% _ 0.9% CO2 concentrations = 8000 ppm > 9000 ppm
Current Atmospheric CO2 levels = 400 ppm ]
These findings correspond with previous observations obtained under laboratory conditions, showing a 62% increase in physiological dead space, following 40 days of exposure to 1.5% C02.
[ 1.5% CO2 = 15,000 ppm ]
Six of the same ten subjects on the second patrol had also served on the first patrol.
Their physiological dead space returned to control values after the patrol showing that the effect is reversible.
Smoking habits and length of service on submarines did not change either control values of physiological dead space or the values obtained during the patrols.
The significance of these findings for the evaluation of the health hazards of prolonged exposure to the submarine atmosphere is discussed.
[ / ]
Some time ago I also found a couple of advertisements for submarine CO2 scrubbers that can control Submarine CO2 levels to below 5000 ppm ]
The far larger problem found in the first nuclear submarine , the US Navy’s Nautilus was the insidious fumes and vapors from the internal paint which caused a rash of quite severe illnesses in the crew during periods of long submergence until the cause was found and special paints for the submarine service were developed.
70
Similar concept is the “new car smell” which so many people seem to love. Personally I can’t stand it because to me it means the various plastics, synthetics, etc. that go into the interior are out gassing. Gives me a headache.
In my teens I did industrial painting in my dad’s shop. This was in Florida and I learned the hard way why wiping the over spray off your face with a rag soaked in Toluene on a nice 90 degree F day with your pores wide open from sweating is not a good idea. Open air shop so fumes never really bothered me, but I can imagine the hell it must have been for submariners as the paint and other items out gassed in that closed environment.
30
The absence of “Undecided” responses suggests to me a binary quiz, that is do you believe man has contributed some of the 20th century warming , Yes or No?
Or the question could be of the double jeopardy type: “Have you stopped cheating at cards; Yes or No?”
40
I believe that man has contributed to most of the change in the calculated value of the average global temperature. 😉
30
Great! Baby steps.
Now:
Do you deny, or do you accept, that our activity is responsible for more, or less, than 50% of the millions—possibly billions—of people who will die due to climate change if we don’t act?
Simple question. Yes or no.
111
“Do you deny, or do you accept”
Cannot be answered with a yes/no answer.
Actually.. the answer is YES. 😉
“more, or less, “
yes, more or less.
“if we don’t act”
Sorry, I’ll leave that up to Hollywood starts.. or someone who can act.
60
OK—no wriggle room this time:
Do you deny, or do you reject, what we know about human responsibility for climate systems disruption due to human activity, which we now know demands urgent human action?
One or the other. Which is it.
Tick tock.
No pressure or anything, but the survival of the planet literally depends on your answer.
38
You keep talking about “human responsibility” when “everyone” knows humans are irresponsible. Loaded question.
20
Yes;
The human failure to take any action to ensure that all the essentials are in place such as energy, food , medical supplies . mobile energy supplies such as oil and gas and etc in the event of a rapid decline in global temperatures leading to very much colder conditions and consequent possible food shortages, severe hypothermia in the older population, disease outbreaks of immense size and other serious societal disasters all of which was seen in the LIA and all of which are a potentially very serious situation created directly as a result of the fanatical insane global warming cult ideology’s concentration on what by paleo geological standards is a minute increase in temperatures over a period lasting some two decades followed immediately by the present 17 year long period of no statistically significant increase in global temperatures.
A total failure to prepare for such a potentially very serious and damaging cold period as solar activity declines has the probability of being very costly in human lives .
If such a situation arises those immense human costs will be laid directly at the door of the alarmists and the green cult peopled by such as the likes of Brad Keyes who will be held fully accountable for the human cost of the failure to prepare for circumstance..
______________
And Griss ,
Such self styled communications consultants are without doubt very proud of their ability to twist and distort words and sentences into some sort of verbal pretzel that others can make little sense of.
This characteristic makes those personality types feel ever so intellectually superior to others they think of as of a much lower status than themselves .
And leads them to think and believe that they are so much smarter and so much cleverer than those they consider, when measured against their own intellectual superiority and cleverness, just skeptical idiots and fools.
Generally to be polite, such a psychology is rather slippery to deal with in just about every way imaginable as some of that slime can easily rub off.
100
“climate systems disruption”
Has there been any climate systems disruption ?
I have yet to see any proof.
“Climate” seems to be going along pretty much as it always has.
So, your question is pointless and meaningless.
—–
ROM, I find his attempts amusing at most.
Certainly not very robustly worded.
One could easily misconstrue what was being asked or said.
I can’t see anything he should be particularly proud of. 😉
50
Show us all the science, including the required empirical evidence, which shows this.
You see, just a hypothesis is not enough. You must first progress to a theory, which does require empirical evidence, before you can say anything other than “OH, I have a hypothesis….. let’s invesitgte it”.
Waiting…………
60
The Griss @ 3.1.1.2.5
You should have seen my first couple of drafts.
They were sufficiently loaded with utter contempt for the likes of the aforesaid personality types that seem to infest the alarmist scene, as above, that had I been posting on attacking Skeptics instead of very arrogant and slippery alarmists those draft comments of mine would have easily made it into the letter columns in the Guardian and the Conversation and SkS and quite a number of other alarmist cult following sites.
Although as the “Guardian” clearly condones letters calling for the beheading of skeptics, my drafts might not have been extreme enough to make it into the Guardian’s letter columns.
However we are here at Jo’s pleasure as guests on her blog so we have a duty of care to Jo aqs guests to try and maintain the decorum and standard she requires and demands of us in our posts so I modified my post accordingly
50
Thing is, ROM, I am reading his posts as a purely tongue-in-cheek poke at the warmist/alarmist agenda.
I may be wrong.. His writing is so incoherent and full of “I’m a smart-arse” type comments, that its hard to tell.
10
Thing is, ROM, I am reading his posts as a purely tongue-in-cheek poke at the warmist/alarmist agenda.
I may be wrong.. His writing is so incoherent and full of “I’m a smart-a**e” type comments, that its hard to tell.
30
ie, I think is trying to be clever.. but not succeeding.
30
“Pesticides – Not totally safe but biotolerable and frankly unavoidable, Most are anticholinesterase which have negative consequences for humans suppressing the parasympathetic nervous system”
Sorry, you are a bit out of date. The majority of pesticides in general use these days are synthetic pyrethroids, with a generally low mammalian toxicity (and no anticholinesrerase affects) and a reasonably short half life. Oregano phosphate use is now relatively minor, even in horticulture. Apart from that I agree with the comment. (I have been in pest management all of my working life).
60
Sorry, ORGANO phosphate – damned auto spell! I wonder what oregano phosphates smell like!
40
Wow,
Thanks Peter.
So much knowledge here.
I was not sure if I wanted a nice apple, with maybe a bit of pesticide, or an apple with a worm eating it before me!
You have helped make up my mind!
10
Depend on how much Protein you want!
Whether its organophosphates or pyrethroids they have SOME effect just like CO2 which undoubtedly has “Some Effect” pesticide treated food (No qualification on which type) – safe, CO2 unsafe do you see the dichotomy here?
PS from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=786&tid=153#bookmark05
How can pyrethrins and pyrethroids affect my health?
Pyrethrins and pyrethroids interfere with the normal way that the nerves and brain function. Exposure to very high levels of these compounds for a short period in air, food, or water may cause dizziness, headache, nausea, muscle twitching, reduced energy, changes in awareness, convulsions and loss of consciousness. Changes in mental state may last several days after exposure to high levels of pyrethroids has ended. There is no evidence that pyrethrins or pyrethroids affect the ability of humans to produce children, but some animal studies have shown reduced fertility in males and females
Doesn’t sound harmless to me.
10
It made me laugh! The oregano bit I mean.
10
“Fracking – Safe if casing and containment done properly, this is another of those political issues though, the miners are NOT paying sufficient rent to the landowners for access to the resources and it’s only fair they get rights to this income stream. For that reason I support lock the gate, lock the gate until they pay a reasonable royalty to the landowner!”
In Australia the mineral rights have never been a property right of the land owner. Miners only have to pay compensation for access and not the mineral royalty, which goes to the States/Federal. Aboriginal Land rights has introduced royalty payments to the Aboriginal Land Councils but the public at large does not get a piece of the action and it reduces the funds that States receive. The “Lock the Gate ” campaign, from what I read, is just a bribe by the Greens to get the land owners on side. If you go down that path without being hypocritical you need to support increased property rights (-mineral rights, and use rights such as land clearing) for all land owners. That would be a very long process. In the meantime the restrictions on fracking by both governments and Greens/local campaigners is a disservice to the public – both directly due the monies not available to governments which might reduce other taxes and the price of fuel and all the flow-on effects.
30
Surely the law doesn’t oblige miners not to pay more than the minimum compensation? You’d think they could win a greater level of support by voluntarily offering more to land owners … who wouldn’t then entice the “lock the gate” rent-a-crowd rabble to swing by … Alan Jones may never even get to hear about the site … and extracting of the valuable resources could quietly get underway.
00
I love the way the generic blanc mange of “scientists” is used to compare with the lumpenproletariat as though there is some sort of equivalence between empirical scientists in hard sciences and any number of peripheral hangers on in the ever widening definition of science, most of whom have not only no idea about climate (and therefore are no more informed and often less so than any member of the public) but even have a very limited understanding of what even constitutes “science”.
It merely represents just how many sheep exist within the mainstream, and that few if any venture out of whatever narrow subspecialization they hide within to apply methodical thinking to any subject not within their ken. As such, their whole premise is fundamentally flawed, and deceptive to boot.
160
I would bet dollars to donuts, that the generic term “Scientists”, includes a significant number of Political Scientists, Social Scientists, and Computer Scientists, not to mention Behavioural Scientists, and Epidemiologists … especially Epidemiologists.
90
Whakaaro. I wonder if we were to take a subset of “science/scientists” and form a few groups such as. 1) Medical scientists, Geological scientists, Engineering scientists, Chemical scientists, etc. and left out all the soft scientists such a Social sciences, Art history, Environmental Science (mostly replaced sociology as easiest A on campus), etc. And took the polls. then reversed it to exclude the first group of hard sciences and include all the social and other soft sciences. Then compare the results. That would be fun.
And the second part is the distrust “bleeding” from “climate scientists” to other physical sciences is really worrying. There is nothing fun about this. And I wonder if there is a causative link between distrust of government in general and the global warming hoax and lies that are hammered onto us everyday.
40
It does. If you peruse the IPCC and other organizations’ list of “contributing authors” etc, you will find legitimate (real) scientists are in the extreme minority. English & other language teachers are considered “scientists” by them.
00
Yes, the figures are probably very inaccurate. What’s more to the point is the percentage of scientists who either don’t care or can’t be bothered to follow their own principals and reject AGW outright and publicly. I believe that percentage is extremely high.
31
Of course I meant principles, not principals, although one could suggest they all follow their principals who did follow the proper scientific approach to research and investigation, such as Issac Newton. If they did they would have rejected AGW even before it took hold.
10
I’ve said as much for years.
The damage that has been done by the liars in climate science and to science across the board.
Simply cannot be repaired.
Why?
In support of their lies they have changed the official temperature record of the planet to suit those lies.
That is not science.
We know it but there is nothing we can do about.
And still the alarmists and liars persist ln inserting changes, adjusting and homogenising.
All under the protection of governments that fear the global warming “monster” they so willingly created.
A fear that if they don’t comply and accommodate the global warmists they’ll be kicked from the gravy train that is politics.
At every level governments and scientists are falsifying global climate records to fill their collective pockets.
And at every turn we are forced to comply and succumb to the ideolygy that is global warming.
From polar bears to climate amergedon, we are being lied to.
Pussy footing around it simply won’t cut it anymore.
Blogs and individuals must call them at every opportunity in language as strong as these liars use to denagrate those who question.
Knowing what they they do in propogating their ideolygy, why would I not treat with disdain any branch of science?
420
We are trying to shine a light in to a dark place!
Concealment brings out the worst in human behaviour.
Some people at the BOM have been adjusting the climate records. Thanks to careful and patient work by Ken Stewart and others and by the exposure by Jennifer Marohasy, and also on this blog, we know what they have done.
But we do not know exactly why they have been doing it, or how they do it, or even how often. Most importantly we do not know who they are. BOM management is protecting these people, whilst also condoning their activities. So is the Minister, and ultimately, the Goverment.
When people can act anonymously, we can expect bad behaviour, in this as in other areas.
As we now know it is not just the BOM.
310
Understood, but as demonstrated by this association, science is a very broad brush. IN this group you have linguists, psychologists, philosophers and who knows else in this ostensibly science organization. Yes, science, like religion, is a philosophy and encompasses a very large number of people. Physics used to be called “Natural Philosophy” and in Melbourne University, that is still over the main door of the old Physics building.
However you also have Scientology as an extreme case of how many outwardly reasonable people can be caught up in extreme and manipulative pseudo science. Some religions too are based on a premise which others would find laughable, but still attract countless numbers.
So I think people can discern between those who are physical scientists and those who pretend to physical science and those with no science at all, like the Green parties who speak of science and fairness and caring, but whose policies are extreme communist and aim to destroy Western society completely. After all, who really reads policies and manifestos and articles of Association? Green is such a nice, gentle friendly colour. They must be nice people.
Science will survive and will continue to massively improve life on earth. There have always been doomsayers, opportunists, profiteers, carpetbaggers, merchant bankers and scum sucking bottom feeding low life poisonous reptilian types and with a fair degree of overlap.
180
TdeF I feel you miss my point.
It is the scientists versed and taught in other disaplines.
That can see with greater clarity than the “average mug” just what is being sold to those mugs.
They know exactly what the climatologist scientists are doing.
How do I say that with such certainy one would possibly ask?
Simply because I, a ninth grade dropout of the sixtys can see what they are doing with “crystal clarity”.
Their collective silence for fear of rocking their own boat is doing an enormous amount of damage.
All the while with inaudible mutterings about how little their chosen field receives in research funding.
Jo is a classic example of what they SHOULD be doing if they have concerns about their “brothers” methodology.
180
Agree Leigh. Having worked at a senior level in two universities I can confirm that most scientists I’ve seen are plodders who would do anything to avoid rocking the boat. A few are noisy plodders while fewer still are competent, honest and open.
160
Let me add that, of the scientists I’ve known, by far the majority will never in their whole careers add anything of value to the sum of human knowledge. And, for those who think the physical scientists necessarily are superior, two of the dullest people I have ever known were Rhodes Scholarship winners in Physics.Both were 40 plus when I met them so perhaps they burned out early. Or just maybe we should face up to the fact that the majority of our university “scientists” may be useful for undergraduate teaching but that’s about all.
50
And there are many other scientists like Jo who have stood up to be counted, even as far back as the Oregon Petition and its successors, many others who have protested at the corruption of science. You would think 32,000 qualified US scientists meant something, but what you and others see is only what is expressed in the media and the media is controlled largely by non scientists who naturally love disaster stories. So you get a view of the world which is not the view of scientists.
It is left to a few journalists and bloggists and those very few scientists with good communications skills and the time and the interest and the financial independence to try to tell the real story solo, but do not think that all scientists are quiet. Yes sometimes they are quite disinterested and many are plodders as you say and most are poor communicators in narrow fields anyway, unworldly people. So it is left to Science Fiction English graduate Giant Dead Wombat specialist Tim Flannery to write the books and tell his view of science and to journalist James Delingpole, another English graduate to take him to task.
Then in the middle you have the billionaire non scientist Al Gore pushing his view of science at the UN and the world economic conferences like Davos. Very few politicians are scientists like Margaret Thatcher and even she believed it was true at the time she was fighting the coal miners like Scargill and setup the University of East Anglia, but changed her mind later.
So I would not despair. The world is not warming anyway and what warming has occurred is looking more and more like a disconnected random bump only slightly above the noise level. The scam is winding down, but it will take 20 years to vanish, possibly to be replaced by another one like Global Cooling and the need to tax Carbon Dioxide, somehow. Politicians always love taxes anyway. Only sex and breathing were exempt and now one has fallen.
90
Humanity has to be always scared of something as it never grows up. The next wave of fear is already in motion: the overpopulation. I predict that in 20 years time they will fight for your sexual organ regulation. Communist China paved the way and showed watermelons that it can be done. This will be the ultimate intrusion into our freedoms, but it is coming.
40
It’s called crying wolf. It might take a bit longer for the public to recognise it, with the MSM and others adding to the panic, but eventually they do. More’s the pity if the wolf actually did arrive, as the credibility of the criers would have been lost long ago and with it the sheep.
60
97% of climate scientists believe they need more government support, 98% of real Scientists know climate scientists should be defunded.
310
Only 87% of AAAS believe climate change is mostly caused by human activity – what happened to that 97% consensus?
I would like to see another survey: We can and should stop climate change by reducing human activity such as heating homes, driving cars, manufacturing goods, by putting up prices through government taxes.
100
We get that survey at every election. About 13% vote Green
120
Just stop jetting-off to the next climate conference would help too. Need a paper or two for presentation, e.g. the latest CSIRO/BOM predictions for Paris?
00
‘And by a 12-point margin, the public is more likely to say that astronauts are essential for the future of the U.S. space program.’
The scientists maybe on the money with space exploration, hubots will probably be the first Martians.
http://www.space.com/23929-nasa-valkyrie-humanoid-robot.html
40
Back to the drawing board.
Three of the teams which entered self-designed machines – including Nasa’s Johnson Space Center and its robot Valkyrie – failed to complete any of the challenges.
40
and this “study”, “The survey of scientists is based on a representative sample of 3,748 U.S.-based members of AAAS; the survey was conducted online from Sept. 11 to Oct. 13, 2014”. Big fail right there. They should have randomly chosen scientists from a broad range, not just one association, as birds of a feather then to flock together. There is a far greater probability of like minded in one group (or the fear of being outed and ostracized from the group)
110
Keep throwing enough mud and some of it will stick.
I note the UK Met Office is now saying that 2014 was ‘one of the warmest years in a record dating back to 1850′.
The object being to slip in the word ‘warmest’ to program people’s minds.
Read James Delingpole’s article on manipulating the masses.
100
“one of the warmest years
Is “warmest years” approximately equivalent to “among the hottest years”? Are there shades of meaning in the appendices of the IPCC report that might explain these nuances of meaning or degree? Perhaps “warm” and “hot” have scientific meanings that we haven’t yet been advised of – considering the newly discovered ability of “science” to be able to re-define previously well known terms, criteria, and even mundane daily phenomenon of earth itself.
30
Somewhat OT, but related closely to why people in general just DO NOT TRUST climate change “science”.
Its to do with the lies and deceit of the rabid activists in charge of the temperature records.
People in general are gradually starting to hear about the large issues of zero ethics that abound in so-called “climate science”.
One that particularly annoys me is the maleficence with the past temperature data.
We must keep pointing out that MOST of the small amount of warming has been CREATED by “adjustments” in GHCN.
Its not just in a couple of places either…
Its a WHOLESAL, WORLDWIDE manipulation which INVARIABLY manufactures a warming trend.
Ken and Jennifer have shown the BOM fabrications in Australia.
Steven Goddard has shown just how much the US has been fabricated.
Paul gives us a more worldwide view in these 4 links.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/how-ghcn-keep-rewriting-reykjavik-history/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/cooling-the-past-in-bolivia/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/cooling-the-past-in-san-diego/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/temperature-adjustments-around-the-world/
120
Via Quadrant, and Tony Thomas:
“Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince the public that the scare underwriting its meal ticket is real?
Even the CSIRO’s annual survey last year showed that 53% of Australians reject the official story.”
Warmists Take the Hardest Hits
160
These stats remind me of Hans Rosling and his chimp versus human surveys:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg
So many of the comments in the video speak to the communication issues we encounter in climate science and reporting. It’s not the public’s fault for having the wrong impressions, because they get fed so much BS by the schools and media.
50
37% of the public say eating GM food is not safe, while munching on pizza and swigging beer made from GM ingredients.
28% of citizens say it is not safe to eat foods grown with pesticides while fixing dinner with foods grown with pesticides.
33% do not believe humans have evolved while they do believe in survival of the fittest.
About the need for government investment in science: Government can collect taxes and accumulate amounts that individuals and even corporations cannot. In this sense the government is useful. However, through the process of “Request for Proposals” (RFPs) there is too often a mis-allocation of funds into ideological driven and wasteful activities. The USA’s Senator Proxmire initiated a “Golden Fleece Award” to highlight such waste. For example – from 1975: “The Federal Aviation Administration was named for spending $57,800 on a study of the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardesses, paying special attention to the “length of the buttocks” and how their knees were arranged when they were seated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Fleece_Award#Award_winners
60
With regards to evolution*, there was no backlash to Darwin’s book and ideas about natural selection from the Catholic nor Anglican church. There was an odd priest or two who didn’t like it but most of the disapproval came from those who wanted to worship nature. It didn’t like the depiction of nature being so cruel.
A Pope in the 19th century wrote that there was no conflict between the science of evolution and Catholic teachings, saying that if there were then the teachings of the church were to be followed. It is against extending it to claim that it proves that there is no God but not against the idea that it is the mechanism put in place by God and the story of Creation should not be read literally (from the 5th century).
The protests against it came from the American Protestant churches in the 20th century, well after the book was published, a backlash to using it as evidence that there was no God.
*Personally, I like the explanation for how life diversified. As a theory it is lacking compared to physical theories because its a bit difficult to do an experiment to falsify an hypothesis, so I might not answer in a survey that it is a proper theory. This has lead to some really crap science coming from evolutionary biologists because you can’t easily disprove the waffle with an experiment. I wouldn’t trust any that decided to butt into the physical sciences. They talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.
A Richard Dawkin’s quote from the Guardian “I suppose that by that time the main residual reason why I was religious was from being so impressed with the complexity of life and feeling that it had to have a designer, and I think it was when I realised that Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design. And that left me with nothing.”
Since he wasn’t taught that evolution was not inconsistent with Anglican beliefs, that’s just silly. Worse though is
-In one of the letters that he regularly fires off to newspapers, he suggested that child sex abuse in the Church “unpleasant as it is, may do less permanent damage to the children than bringing them up Catholic in the first place”. –
I suspect that the backlash against evolution is really a backlash against people like Dawkins.
121
LOL. Oh dear. A backlash against evolution is a backlash against reality. Evolution—like the rest of science—doesn’t work because evolutionists are nice people, or would ever condescend to debate anyone who doesn’t agree, or are the kind of people you could talk to for five minutes without wanting to punch them right in their aristocratic noses. It works because the serious scientists no longer argue about it. Consensus. They’ve moved on. They’re now asking questions like: how fast? How bad? How much time do we have?
Evolution is real, it’s here, it’s happening now, and it’s happening faster than nature can adapt. Look out the window FFS! Oh, I forgot: you folks don’t really do looking-out-the-window, do you?
As Professor Dawkins said at a recent Q&A in Bristol, putting a denialist questioner in her place:
Sigh.
27
What happened to my reply?
” it’s happening faster tha NATURE can adapt” , is just denial of the Theory of Evolution.
As for Dawkins, he has never over come his early religiuos disposition. He is just irritating now as he was then and he is still as certain as he always was, even after changing his mind about God.
80
What is stand on GW? A man of undoubtably ferocious and inquisitive mind or he has suspended the law logic like David Attenborough?
20
What is “his” stand…
Apologies for omission.
10
Good question. Dick and I actually go way back. As a climate communicator, much of my approach (e.g. avoiding debates, treating non-scientists as intelligent adults/equals, and other mistakes at all costs) was inspired by his unique success in drawing the community together at last on the question of evolution.
But as for his take on GW… well, I’d never presume to speak for Dick, but the answer is yes. He’s definitely pro-science, like on every other question.
37
What in the World are you talking about??? Evolution is a hypothesis with zero empirical evidence to back it up. All that you have are ASSUMPTIONS made about fossils. This is NOT empirical evidence. You cannot show empirically a single change from one species to another, and in fact the empirical evidence is that such a thing is impossible.
54
I’ll show you the evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection, and there is plenty, once you show some evidence that you understand the terms, “speciation”, “evidence”, “empirical” and that you can see why “natural selection” is an attempt to explain an observation. It is quite impossible to demonstrate to you that a “species changed into another species”, since that is not postulated by any evolutionary biologists as a thing to observe. Maybe start with speciation it is actually a tough one.
20
Well, looks like Brad specialises in incoherent garble.
11
Utter BS. I pointed out how ignorant of evidence Richard Dawkins is when coming to a conclusion. Good scientists find faults in their own work.
As I said, I think that Evolution and Natural Selection are good hypotheses. They have a lot of evidence going for them. I don’t agree with Backslider about there being zero empirical evidence but its impractical to even predict exactly what sort of fossil will be found. All you can do is a hand waving prediction that you will find a dinosaur like fossil with bird like feathers or down. Its just not on par with Physics. You can’t even show fruit flies with a 24 hour life cycle have evolved into different species because 100 000 generations is a few hundred years and what is a species is subjective.
It is clearly the best explanation going around but is it true? A good scientist doesn’t have a choice but to follow the best explanation until its shown to be faulty. Creationism has been shown to be faulty (not that the world was created but all species at once is) but that does not make evolution correct (and still accepted my main stream churches since the 19th century). Its just the better one to explore in science.
Climate science does the complete opposite of good scientific practice. Its forbidden to find fault because of consensus. How stupid is that?
Please, quit your job as a climate communicator, grab a toilet brush and do some real work because you clearly do not appreciate how rigorous you need to be in physics.
62
I think that many people misinterpret Darwin’s theory. After all, it is the “Theory of Evolution AND THE RACE FOR SURVIVAL”.
So far as I can tell, Darwin never proposed that new species are created from scratch. Rather, his theory is that each species adapts to its environment using the process of slight genetic mutations and natural selection. This appears to be remarkably different than the idea that Dorkins seems to propagate.
70
From Brad’s blog
Do you want to fess up Brad?
30
Weird.
Is the Internet malfunctioning? Why is everybody who visits my coming back with that one same quote?
I did type other words on my blog, you know. Climate Nuremberg is more than just a paragraph long, you know. You can click on the titles to navigate to all sorts of subpages within the blog, you know. You do know how blogs work, right?
11
Because its stupid and very unscientific?
10
ummm.. I’m pretty sure that was the intent 😉
00
LOL.
I must let Dana Nuccitelli—respected blog scientist—know you found his guest post “unscientific.”
01
People who are unsure of their knowledge, tend to feel threatened, and become aggressive when questioned.
There’s a saying in horse training circles ‘Anger kicks in, when knowledge runs out’
In short if you’re getting angry with the horse, it’s because you don’t know what you’re doing.
The single biggest problem with ‘climate’ is ego. You have to get university educated people to admit, that non-university educated people saw something they didn’t. If you really want a battle – Try to get a group of ‘educated’ people to acknowledge that a group of ‘Uneducated’ people are smarter than them.
120
“People who are unsure of their knowledge, tend to feel threatened, and become aggressive when questioned.”
i suspect you are right.
I really began to wonder when I was searching for the info that vaccinations did all the things they were claimed to do – safety, efficacy and herd immunity in particular. I couldn’t find any info to satisfy me and whenever I asked it was assumed i was one of the anti crowd, which I wasn’t to start with. It was the pro vaccination crowds incredible anger and name calling that has made me very suspicious. All they would do was to refer me to authorities who said “trust me” of course we are right. We are scientists and doctors who only want the best for our children. What are you accusing us of, etc, etc. I’m still waiting for references that actually prove safety, efficacy and herd immunity. I am eminently persuadable if the evidence is there. I’ve just not seen it yet and if if is so well known it ought to be freely available without spraying anger and name calling about.
60
The horse training saying is a good one and follows closely to my early apprenticeship lesson of “Less haste, more speed.”
“Try to get a group of ‘educated’ people to acknowledge that a group of ‘Uneducated’ people are smarter than them.” Oh snap, this one has plagued my entire ‘uneducated’ career, the anecdotal pinnacle of this would be the genius PhD lecturer who was highly offended when I dared to offer advice on safely using a nail gun, 10 minutes later he was en route to emergency with the piece of wood to which his finger was nailed to.
40
In these politically correct days when all ‘opinions’ are given validity there appears not only a tacit encouragement of ‘belief’ over critical thought, but respect for uncertainty. In post modern precautionary science uncertainty is fashionably mitigated by political consensus. So, the observation of a substantial disconnect between “expert” opinion and “public opinion” is unsurprising, with devaluation of the former and ‘belief’ in the latter. Homeopathy, crystal swinging, needle prick practitioners and climate modelers are all doing very well thank you.
Generalising within this discourse across the breadth of what is considered ‘science’ seems likely to be potentially misleading. Maintaining focus on the individual issues and their science practitioners is I think, central. Moreover, as TdeF #3 alluded to higher-up, we need to define “science.” We all understand the truly galactic difference between the science practiced by most basic scientists and that practiced by a majority(?) of
social“climate scientists.”Perhaps we now reap what we have sown for the last thirty years?
In any event post-modern science and the precautionary principle are institutionally installed and the last thing the Progressive backbone of the UN/UNEP/IPCC et al. would wish for is the wide encouragement of critical thought. They appear to be successful for the moment…
Most governments throughout the World seem to have happily adopted the precautionary approach as a mechanism of governance and one by which they have applied far greater legislative control and regulation ‘in your best interests, which we know best’. They have also applied a greater number of taxes and they have been cushioned against the removal of pointless legislation, all without electoral understanding of the change that has taken place in the philosophy of governance, which appeas well described in Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects (2006)
1. The principle is to be applied in cases of potential adverse
impacts on the environment or human health with serious consequences (thus implying that these consequences are unacceptable if true, see for the normative dimension concerning this‘seriousness of these consequences’, further below).
2. Governmental action should be taken even though ‘complete’ scientific evidence is not available, there is ongoing scientific controversy, and/or there are disagreements about the lack of (scientific) knowledge. These circumstances are referred to as instances of scientific uncertainty. Scientific uncertainties arise because of controversies over the possibility of adverse effects to the environment or human health, their scope or their degree of seriousness. The precautionary principle establishes a rationale for action: it substantially lowers the (threshold) level for action of governments (and possibly, depending on its national implementation, makes it easier for governments, when citizens or interest groupsappeal to the precautionary principle in socio-political or judicial controversies). It represents a departure from the previous state of affairs where political actors could use or abuse a persistent dissent among scientists as a reason (or excuse), for not taking action at all.
And so it goes.
How to
pushpunch back is the question.40
A gentleman from the Climate Institute was just on the ABC stating that the tennis players at the Australian Open were being threatened by 40o temperatures, that they were likely to suffer extreme heat related issues, and droughts and floods.
Has this bloke been outdoors in the last two weeks in Melbourne, to see people wearing jumpers as they watched the tennis?
And they can’t understand why no-one believes them.
I think he needs a big injection of a dose of reality
120
The cold is the weather but the hot is climate a well proven scientific reasoning he would say.
In Perth we had an unusually cold November to January period but I do not cry the ice box is coming. On the other hand anything more that 34 deg is often accompanied with the word catastrophic, scorcher, extremely dangerous, disastrous etc.
Thank god I have emigrated to Australia to enjoy this catastrophe that most Europeans have to pay when going on holidays and put themselves in danger.
110
On Watts Up there’s a table.Out of N=3,748 total responses just N=270, or 7.2%, were identified as having “Earth Sciences” as their primary discipline. The vast majority of respondents N=1,802, nearly half, were from the “Bio/medical sciences” primary discipline.
40
Though many in science are wise,
Who deserve a Nobel Prize,
I can think of a few,
Of the climate change crew,
Who need to be cut down to size.
130
Sweeeeet !! 🙂
40
I hope you are saving these little poems.
I expect an illustrated booklet at some stage. 🙂
40
Has anyone looked at the disclaimer that covers all CSIRO scary reports?
Here is the disclaimer page that allows the CSIRO, (BOM etc?) to legally cover their collective backsides. What a fraud and con.
http://www.csiro.au/Legal-Notice-and-Disclaimer.aspx
60
That should accompany/precede every article written on climate change.
especially this -•is not professional, scientific, medical, technical or expert advice
and this -•should never be relied on as the basis for doing or failing to do something.
80
Binny, maybe all scientists who take public money or operate a business or non-profit organization should be licensed and subject to lawsuits as are physicians, etc. or subject to lawsuits, wrongful death suits, and prison as are registered engineers.
Oh no! Did I really just suggest bigger government? I hope there is some solution requiring these licenses and registrations that is operated in and from the private sector that would include all those supported by public money.
Oh no! Did I just say we need more regulations?
Aw forget it, let someone smarter than I am figure it all out. Disregard my above big government, more regulations suggestions. Goodnight, time for bed, my head is swimming.
10
Neville!
I especially liked this bit:
If only we could get the media to quote that, whenever they take a quote from the CSIRO!
40
What I would like to see is CSIRO remove this disclaimer..
Then become LIABLE for every WRONG thing they say.
Hopefully financially and legally liable. !!!
20
???
29 Jan: Greg Laden: The Climate Change Tide Is Turning
Here are two more pieces of evidence that the tide is turning on climate change, with denialists losing ground and the science gaining ground.
House panel agrees to prioritize climate change
From The Hill (LINK):
“The Republican-led House Natural Resources Committee agreed to put climate change on its agenda over the next two years.
The panel, led by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), voted unanimously Wednesday to include climate change and its impacts on natural resources as a subject in its oversight plan.
Thanks to an amendment sponsored by ranking member Rep. Raul Grijalva (R-Ariz.), the committee said it will “conduct oversight of global climate change and impacts on federal lands and resources and the strategies for using federal lands, oceans and other resources to mitigate harmful effects.””…
STUDY: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2014
From Media Matters (LINK):
“The total coverage of climate change on ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox continued to increase for the third consecutive year, according to a Media Matters analysis, yet still remained below the level seen in 2009. Coverage on the networks’ Sunday shows reached a six-year high after a group of senators demanded they provide more coverage of the issue, but the Sunday shows still infrequently interviewed scientists.”…
http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/climate-change-deniers-on-the-ropes/
28 Jan: Media Matters: STUDY: How Broadcast Networks Covered Climate Change In 2014
Broadcast Networks Provided The Most Climate Coverage In Five Years. During 2014, the major broadcast networks’ evening and Sunday news programs aired a total of 154 minutes of coverage of climate change. This was an increase from the previous year’s 129 minutes and was significantly above the six-year average of about 108 minutes, but remained below the 205 minutes of coverage in 2009….
ABC And Fox Significantly Increased Their Climate Coverage, But Still Lagged Behind CBS And NBC…READ ON
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/01/28/study-how-broadcast-networks-covered-climate-ch/202232
20
Pat,
Regarding the vote in congress regarding climate, see:
Republicans outfox Democrats on climate votes
The GOP accepts the notion of climate change – but not the way Democrats wanted them to.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/senate-climate-change-vote-114463.html
30
The Science ™ brand is pretty tarnished these days. Throw her a few bucks, and she’ll come up with whatever answer you’re paying for.
Pointman
240
Bravo. Yes, science not only works, but is surprisingly affordable.
I’m pleasantly amazed that someone in this bastion of contrarianism is able to admit it!
Kudos to you, “Pointman”—may you be the first of many. Doesn’t it feel good to crawl back into the light of respectable academic inquiry a.k.a. the science?
512
Amazing! 2 green thumbs.
This I agree with:
31
Brad, you clearly do not have enough active brain cells to understand what Pointman was actually saying. Keep commenting, your lack of cognitive ability is very amusing for everyone else.
81
prophesying again:
30 Jan: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: Met Office puts high odds on the next few years being warmer than 2014
Expect to see more global temperature records tumble over the next few years, suggests the Met Office’s new forecast. Global average surface temperatures during 2015 to 2019 are expected to stay high, with a good chance of beating 2014 for the hottest year on record.
Every year the Met Office releases what’s called a “decadal forecast”. It’s designed to give us an idea of what we can expect in the next few years.
It’s new forecast, released online this week, says global temperature out to 2019 is expected to be in the range of 0.18 and 0.46 degrees Celsius above the long-term average.
This means we’re likely to see the mercury climb higher than in 2014, which saw a global temperature of 0.26 degrees Celsius above the long-term average…
The Met Office predicts global temperature over the next five years will be between 0.18 and 0.46 degrees above the 1981-2010 average. That’s 0.76 to 1.04 degrees above pre-industrial temperature…
Dr Doug Smith, head of the Met Office decadal climate prediction team, tells Carbon Brief the scientists used the same basic model as last year, which includes current and expected levels of greenhouse gases, aerosols and changes in the Sun’s activity…
The maps below show how the Met Office forecast for global temperature over the next few years plays out across the globe…
Forecasting global temperatures in the near term is a difficult task, Smith tells us…
But while there’s still a fair amount of uncertainty, on the whole, these forecasts have predicted similar rises in global temperature to those we’ve experienced…
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/met-office-puts-high-odds-on-the-next-few-years-being-warmer-than-2014/
Met Office: Decadal forecast
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
30
are u reading this, ABC/Fairfax?
31 Jan: CarbonBrief: Simon Evans: Nuclear power additions ‘need to quadruple’ to hit climate goals, IEA says
The world needs to quadruple the rate it is adding nuclear power capacity to the grid by the 2020s if it is to meet climate targets, according to a new report from thinktank the International Energy Agency (IEA).
The 2015 technology roadmap for nuclear energy, published jointly with the Nuclear Energy Agency, suggests nuclear power capacity needs to more than double by 2050 as part of cost-effective efforts to limit warming to two degrees.
Carbon Brief takes you through the roadmap’s findings and its recommendations for securing a nuclear contribution to avoiding dangerous climate change…
The IEA says the global growth rate set out in its report is “formidable”. Achieving this growth rate would cost an estimated $4.4 trillion between 2011 and 2050.
Ambition has been scaled back by around 20 per cent because nuclear newbuild is estimated to be a fifth more expensive since the previous report…
If the IEA’s formidable ambition for nuclear power is achieved, it would make a major contribution to cutting emissions.
It could avoid 2.5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year, the IEA says, against current annual global emissions of around 50 gigatonnes. While that’s a sizeable amount, it goes to show that nuclear can only be a small part of the solution to climate change.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/nuclear-power-additions-need-to-quadruple-to-hit-climate-goals,-iea-says/
***just ignore the “arctic” drilling bit!
29 Jan: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Shell bows to shareholder demands on climate change
Royal Dutch Shell has bowed to shareholder pressure to be more open about how it is tackling climate change — on the same day it said it would press ahead with plans to drill in the ***Arctic.
Shell’s board has agreed to support a resolution filed by the Church of England and more than 150 other investors urging it to explain how it is managing its greenhouse gas emissions and investing in low-carbon energy…
Shell’s action puts pressure on BP, which the shareholders have also targeted ahead of the UK company’s annual meeting in April…
The development comes at a time of rising public debate about the future of fossil fuel companies in advance of an international summit in Paris…
Some countries taking part in the negotiations are pushing for emissions to be all but phased out by the end of this century or even earlier…
Elspeth Owens, a lawyer with ClientEarth, a UK environmental legal group that helped organise the Shell and BP resolutions, said Shell’s move marked a huge victory that demonstrated the power of shareholder engagement…
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/097b3be8-a7d8-11e4-97a6-00144feab7de.html
30
28 Jan: Nature Climate Change: IAM helpful or not?
The inner workings of Integrated Assessment Models need to be made more transparent.
Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are increasingly being used to inform policymakers about the likely societal and economic consequences of climate change. An example of such a study is the Letter in this issue by Frances Moore and Delavane Diaz (page 127), which uses a widely applied IAM called DICE to show how the effects of climate change on economic growth affect estimates of the social cost of carbon; see also the accompanying News & Views article by Andries Hof (page 99).
IAMs are potentially powerful tools, and results from them have already been incorporated into IPCC Assessment Reports. But just how generally reliable and informative are the projections emanating from the present generation of models?
A typical IAM combines a simple model of the Earth’s climate system with a social science or economic model. IAMs necessarily include assumptions — and simplifications — about how the physical climate system works as well as the interaction of demographic, political and economic variables. It is essential, if IAMs are to effectively help shape climate change policy, that these underlying assumptions as well as model inputs are made explicit. Only then can experts probe the robustness and meaningfulness of their outputs…
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n2/full/nclimate2526.html?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=218a599748-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-218a599748-303439889
20
In years gone by, science was pursued by people who asked “Why is it so?”, as Professor Julius Sumner Miller used to say. It was, then , literally, a search for truth and nothing more. And clearly humanity advanced as a result of the discoveries these earlier scientists made.
Now, increasingly, science has been co-opted to primarily find solutions for humanity’s problems, and if there is no practical outcome evident for any particular piece of research, funding is that much harder to come by.
So, naturally, if global warming disappears as a problem, so does funding. It’s almost inevitable that the scientific method will become corrupted.
130
The irony of that Peter is that solutions for problems were actually found more readily when it wasn’t co-opted by government to find those solutions. They occur as a natural consequence of invention, trying to force it only provides an obstacle through mal-investment and misallocation of resources.
Government has a history of either:
a) finding/providing solutions to non-problems
b) failing to find solutions to real problems
c) diverting funds away from areas where solutions to real problems are actually occurring, and investing those funds to investigate solutions for new non-problems
d) failing to find solutions to non-problems.
Climate falls in the latter category, in that the non-problem of CO2 accumulation has led to a litany of failures (wind and solar technology fails to reduce CO2 accumulation over their brief lifetimes, and fails to provide competitive base load energy to outcompete coal thereby it doesn’t solve the problem it is meant to address) to provide non-solutions. Who would have thought that failure would be so amply rewarded?
101
“Now, increasingly, science has been co-opted to primarily find solutions for humanity’s problems”
Science, in the past, was mistakenly thought to be a stand-alone methodology, an attempt to gain objective knowledge of physical phenomena. We’re more enlightened now, understanding it’s just a cultural artifact, a sub-branch of the social sciences.
/sarc
20
Oh dear. Naïve and passé: an unlovely combination, but not a rare one in skeptic circles, I find.
This Sumner/Miller fellow (which is it?) appears to have fallen for a variant on the naturalistic fallacy.
What we understand now is that the science can never say what is, it can only tell us what to do.
If your friend, let’s just call him Prof Julius, seriously hopes to be taken seriously by serious scientists, he might want to read some Oreskes or—if her work is too demanding—Feyerabend’s complete oeuvre at least. Then maybe he’ll stop asking about Truth, Beauty and other things science can’t answer, and start pulling his weight. We need all the help we can get to solve the real problems (Policy, etc.).
112
Read it first in 1973-74 when I was met man at RAAF Pearce. I think it was from the Base Library.
You have to get into it but it is worthwhile.
A few years ago a friend phoned and said “I’m reading this marvellous book. It was written more than 50 years ago and it is telling of what is happening now. It is called Atlas Shrugged.” I just laughed.
I’ve seen the first movie in the Trilogy. Have to say it was a brilliant condensation of the first part of the novel.
50
Wha????
20
Yep, Brad seems to specialise in rambling vacuous garbage.
Its all over his web pages.
31
Added to the post.
UPDATE: Given that 48% of Meteorologists are skeptics and survey after survey shows that two-thirds of geoscientists and engineers are skeptics, the 87% figure “across the sciences” seems hard to believe. 3748 members of AAAS took the survey — and as A.Scott points out on WUWT in comments, only 7% of the respondents were from the Earth Sciences, and nearly half were “biomedical”. Hardly any engineers were invovled. Link to the survey Questions. See TdeF in comment. H/t to Michael for the tip about Scott.
150
I would have thought that anyone with an understanding of organic chemistry and biology would have to be skeptical of the CO2 scare since this tasteless odourless gas is the basis of carbohydrate synthesis upon which humanity is dependent.
70
Yes Robert,
One might sensibly think that biomedical people, which includes both Jo and me, should be the first to defend CO2. It is not just harmless, it is the very GAS OF LIFE, as Griss keeps telling us.
If the CO2 Green House GAS Effect really does exist, which I very much doubt, then that is another reason to be thankful for this wonderful gas, because otherwise (according to them) the Earth would be a very uninhabitable -18C average temperature.
Sadly most biomedical people seem to have adopted the warmist view, including the Australian Medical Association (en masse). My recollection from University is that almost none of my colleagues had any understanding, or interest of the physical sciences. It is therefore, quite unbecoming, for medical people to become cheer leaders for the global warming movement. I am specifically thinking of professor Fiona Stanley and professor Stephen Leeder (editor of the AMA journal)
30
… this tasteless odourless gas is the basis of carbohydrate synthesis …
And carbonated drinks! Why isn’t the Guvmint banning Koka-kola? Eh, just answer me that.
10
Jo, I’m a member of the AAAS – anyone can become one. Once you buy a Science subscription they spam the crap out of you with their mailers and subscription reminders. They spam your email inbox with AAAS policy alerts – which seem to be issued multiple times a week.
Kudos to A.Scott. I did download the full report went looking for their survey methodology, but forgot about it halfway.
10
Sounds good Jo, but BUT one side doesn’t want public debate. They are the ones using propaganda. They aren’t interested in anything less than; their way or the highway. Simply look at the behavior of trolls here. How many are civil or polite? They want to silence. They talk about free speech but they really don’t mean it.
80
Actually I think the trolls stir up quite a bit of debate.
I appreciate that Jo tolerates them, as she tolerates some of our comments.
The Trolls that come here are the ones that will accept some debate, as opposed to their colleagues in the green movement.
20
Me, I luv it
Bring em on !! 🙂
20
Yes, I’ve noticed that too. 🙁 At some point I just filter out the ad-homs they throw at me and scan for any morsels of substance that might actually merit a response, but it’s a beggarly meal more often than not.
Still, if we only succeed in opening one mind in a thousand it’s worth putting up with a bit of abuse, I think.
04
Mark,
Don’t confuse the effect with the cause.
A lot, if not most, of the trolls that come here, are so certain that they are right, and so sure that we are wrong, that they are determinedly driven to correct our evil ways. That is symptomatic of brain-washing, or conditioning.
Conditioning is an outcome. It is caused by constant exposure to propaganda – a warping of the truth, or the creation of half-truths, that eventually influence how the target will interpret what they see and hear around them.
It is best done at a young age, because then the conditioning becomes permanent. This is why the propaganda messages are primarily targeted at children and university students, some of whom go on to become academics or school teachers. Self perpetuating, you see?
10
Now researchers are using BoM’s ‘climate projection data’ to model scary projections for future Australian cropping scenarios, with a modeled projection of reduced rainfall. No fact checking, just an ideological ‘repeat what I say’ effort from a columnist at SNWA.
70
What is this “science” for which the eco-activists grieve?
The term must be defined, science as in applying the scientific method, the art of being as objective as possible, as ruthlessly self honest as one is capable…
Is this what they mean?
The practice of speculating upon “What if,” then exploring the paths to new ignorance, more questions and occasionally moments of enlightenment, taking ones clever conjecture, defining your terms and feeding it through the shredder of sceptical thought, derision of strangers and every doubt you can articulate.
Then explaining your theory to others and inviting them to duplicate, replicate your results.. or not.
Is this the science to which they refer,while lamenting than “Nobody understands me” ?
Or is it the same illusion of science that government worships?
Argument by authority, browbeating out a consensus of confusion?
I think the word they use, does not mean what they think.
We used to call their concept … FAITH.
70
“•33-percentage point gap on the question about whether humans have evolved over time — 98% of scientists say we have, compared with 65% of the public.”
Does the question explain what “humans have evolved” means, and how much time is to be taken into account? People commonly think that “evolving” is a positive term, meaning “becoming a higher class creature”.
If “humans have evolved over time” is taken to mean “modern humans are wiser, more intelligent, gentler, kinder, etc., being than earlier humans, it is not surprising that a large number of people will say “No, no improvement. The same bunch of nongs and a’holes as they always were.”
30
Regrettable lapses in punctuation.
Mea culpa.
10
Human evolution … Scientists think of the changes in us since the era of a few skulls discovered in Africa and all the creatures that preceded those. Lay folk think of romans in togas and The Life of Brian, and yes, our clothes and fridges have improved a little.
10
I should point out that, as far as I can recall, I didn’t write “a’holes”. It looks as though Jo, no doubt with an embarrassed blush mantling her cheek, hastily moderated my original vulgarism so as not to have to pass smelling salts around her delicately nurtured readers.
Either that, or the damned predictive software buggered it up.
20
I think the sceptics problem is that we do try to convince with science. I think the average person I speak to doesn’t read science. When ever I argue CAGW I get the reply that we have to do something, look at the devastation of the Amazon basin, look at the loss of orangatan habitat in Indonesia. They can’t understand that our argument is about the waste of money trying to reduce CO2!. They see those steam stacks from the steelworks and think of pollution, pollution, pollution, industry is responsible for it. They are convinced CO2 is pollution and that the rise in it since industrialisation is the cause of climate change. Even Australia’s Chief scientist can get away with saying “all this extra carbon dioxide must be causing something”. –I never saw anyone challenge him -so it must be true (sarc). As soon as I try to argue science I am asked to produce the science. They don’t need to produce science because they know 97% of scientists have confirmed that CO2 is the problem. Where do we go from here?
80
Why do you want others to agree with you? This might seem an odd question but it’s worth considering – does it really matter what you, I, or your friends or strangers think? Isn’t it in some ways parallel to religion – it doesn’t matter what someone else does or doesn’t believe, what matters is how we behave. Alterations to our personal life that are likely to reduce energy use and ease genuine pollution problems do correlate in many ways with changes promoted by extremist climate cult followers. Weird ideas often cause others to act in ways I approve of, while not holding those weird ideas could leave them with irresponsible actions (according to my understandings).
Even Australia’s Chief scientist can get away with saying “all this extra carbon dioxide must be causing something” And if this is the level of logical thought that imresses the people you’re speaking, then can you be sure that your own ‘correct‘ ideas would be really properly understood.
30
Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.
30
““all this extra carbon dioxide must be causing something””
Yes, its helping the biosphere expand, now that its not quite on starvation rations like it has been for so long.
30
Quite apart from the fact that this survey is obviously not of physical scientists at all, it is all amazingly contrived.
The big phrase change from 2009 to 2014 was from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change“, possibly because people suspect warming is not happening, so the segway to the nebulous Climate Change (and Extreme Events). Better to avoid saying something people know instinctively is not true.
However the questions are also ridiculously leading, for example “The earth is getting warmer mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment”.
Also in the media generally, note the increasing use of associations so that when you read something, you hear something else. This is done
by endless repetition. Even seemingly neutral independent articles carry these common associations, so you can read about endangered Polar bears and drowning populations
and victims of bushfires, all victims of man made CO2.
Here’s a quick list of popularly used associations from Green politics
Climate Change ……… Man Made Climate Change
Pollution ……… Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming ……. Fact. Causes Climate Change. Also extremely dangerous for humans (when the reverse is true)
97% of climate scientists …. 97% of all scientists (This has been used by Obama)
Ocean acidification … accepted fact. Everyone agrees. (too bad the oceans are alkali)
Sea level rises … Fact (most people know this is not true but if all scientists say so?)
Glaciers melting… Fact and means no water supply for India (ridiculous, Glaciers are just dams)
Polar Bears …. Endangered species due to Climate Change
Maldives … Drowning island community due to sea level rises
Hurricanes … Climate Change
Blizzards … Climate Change
Drought … Climate Change
Bushfires … Climate Change
China.. Will consider fighting pollution after 2030. (Huge achievement for Obama)
ETS … Complex commercial system which reduces (man made) Global Warming. Certainly not a tax.
Al Gore .. Caring Nobel prize winning scientist and humanitarian
Even the Australian Newspaper uses the word pollution, as in to “reduce pollution” as a synonym for Carbon Dioxide, the stuff you breathe out.
24% of the air you breathe out is CO2.
So we are all evil polluters warming the planet dangerously, causing hurricanes and drought and bushfires, wrecking the Great Barrier Reef, killing Polar bears and drowning populations because we refuse to trade in emissions and copy China’s brave move. Nice story.
Every idea is actually wrong but after 28 years of repetition, it starts to sound like the truth. That’s media brain washing for you, brought to you by
the same marketing people who gave you the pleasures of smoking.
60
In case of misunderstanding, fact here means a fact established simply by endless repetition, not by any evidence based science.
30
Wasn’t constant repetition the invention of Herr Goebbels the Nazi propagandist; if you say something often enough it becomes an established fact.
40
And of every religion in the world. Changing conjecture into accepted fact by repetition is key. Chant “yes, we are all polluters and Al Gore is our leader.”
30
Over @dotearth.nytimes …
Andy Revkin, who’s goal is “to clarify how to fit our seemingly infinite aspirations on a finite planet”, has a new contribution from Ruth DeFries, a professor at Columbia University in the department of ecology, evolution, and environmental biology, who’s on sabbatical in Madhya Pradesh, India, titled: A Scientist’s View of ‘Planetary Boundaries’ from the Ground Up – in Rural India
~ ~ ~
Whoa, cowboy!
Theguardian, 15 April 2012:
“Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony.
Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases … The latest allegations centre on the states of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, both targeted by the UK government for aid after a review of funding last year.”
UKtelegraph, 11 Nov 2014
Ten Indian women die and dozens critical after mass sterilisation
Dozens of women fall seriously ill after receiving state sterilisation to control growing population
On Wednesday, it was reported that some of the women had been forced to undergo sterilisation.
. . .
I Have posted these links before @dotearth, but have been moderated.
I have posted again.
40
Say, I know that this is an awful thing to even contemplate but what handjive wrote here gives thought for some (perhaps) lateral thinking of why these journalists write such claptrap.
The U.S. and Australia, and in fact the remainder of the already Developed World has electrical power available at the already maximum amount where it is available to everyone, so keep that in mind.
For many years now, I have been saying that we have all these people who say we need to cut back on emissions to save the Planet, effectively meaning we have to cut back electrical power consumption to less than 5% of what we have now.
That just will not happen.
So many parts of the World do not have that access to electrical power.
So, rather than we go back and live like they do, let’s solve ….. THEIR PROBLEM ….. for them.
If the U.S. Australia, and the Developed World has the electrical power to cover every need, then all we need do is cut back the population in every one of those still Developing Countries so that everybody has equal and ready access to all their electrical power needs.
So then, all we need do is cut China’s population down to that of the U.S. as China now has similar total power to the U.S. So that’s one billion less people in China.
Cut back India’s population to that of the U.S. and they’re getting their electrical power total a little part of the way there, so there’s another Billion gone from India.
Same for Africa, and there’s another Billion people gone, and similar for all other still developing Countries, and there’s another Billion gone.
So, all we need do is cut back those 4 Billion people and we can all live relatively comfortably with power for all.
MUST I really say that this is most definitely NOT the answer, but I can now see where those journalists are going.
Watch the outcry at a suggestion like this.
But, really, it’s either that, or we go back and join them.
What a disgusting scenario these people (oh so very suggestively) put before us.
Tony.
30
As you well know Tony, many have thought population reduction to be of paramount importance for humans to exist comfortably into the foreseeable future, and these ideas have come from many different areas of society, but you touch on an insight I’ve also had.
To think of the ways people like this would go about cutting back (Culling) the population of those unfortunate enough to find themselves in a vicious cycle of poverty straight away warfare would come to mind, but think again, just like the theory of popular warfare the old school revolutions or border crossings have become smaller, more politicized on a global scale and often involve some form of activism or cause that appeases the developed nations populace, so actually not effective enough to reach the numbers you mentioned.
So now other plans might be made that are more subversive in their disguise as some form of aid or solutions with the possibility of large numbers of these unfortunates falling victim to a ‘tragic turn of events’ or ‘unexpected problems’ that occur from the good intentions of the lucky nations, when the POTUS is still more concerned about Africa’s potential earth crippling emissions than the real risk of a dangerous mutating disease you know something’s not right.
20
I’ve also had that thought. If my use of resources is equivalent to the use by 20 in an undeveloped country, then instead of me needing to suffer any reduction, just knock of those 20. They’ll probably die early anyway from war or disease or foul water. Another implication of the too may people proposition is, every migrant from a low development country to a developed country is a further large drain on earth’s resources, and their children. WE should totally ban migration except across countries of equivalent poverty or affluence. The idea that there are too many people on earth is an analysis of a problem that can only lead to ugly solutions that no reasonable empathetic person would contemplate.
Accepting the over-population proposition is either an acceptance that we have an unsolvable problem for ever or that mass slaughter is a reasonable solution.
Our problem is distribution, not numbers of people.
20
You folks are entitled to your own opinions for the time being, but you’re not entitled your own facts. Facts come from science, which doesn’t go away just because you deny it.
The science is as follows:
Unless there is a rapid and drastic reduction in our species’ population, a lot of people are going to die. Fast.
27
Nonsense. This is the alarmist line.
If you care to actually look at population science, you will find that the planet’s population is expected to top out at 9 billion, which is perfectly sustainable.
The only reason that people in this world now starve and don’t have adequate health care or energy is because of people like you.
51
Where but in climate science do predictions get cited as facts ?
50
Thanks for the eco-speak, very true/false and silly.
Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease, it will kill everyone reading this email within the next 150 years.
21
So, who do you appoint as the arbiter of who is fit to live or not? Yourself? Grow up, your alleged facts are not.
10
“The science is as follows:”
and what followed was not science… just meaningless verbal spewage…
… do you have anything else to offer ?
10
There is madness in the contradictions where some like China and India have programs to restrain population growth while in some other places religion encourages growth through abstinence from contraception,, such as that other Clob of Rome. Then there is an evolving third option, to grow your own population while killing the population of non-believers of a particular religion.
If there is growth of rejection of religion – compare Australia’s low participation with the high USA rate, then it is eeasy to understand that people are rejecting it because it causes excessive violence.
People are also rejecting the CAGW meme because it has similarities to state-controlled religion and they are fearful of the long history of religious wars.
How sad it is that the main pillars of religion, like accept it or we will frightn you, are similar to the main pillars of religion, accept it or we will frighten you.
Plus those at the top of both tend to get stinky rich.
30
Real Climate really has a way of NAILING the hypocrisy of the alarmist agenda.
60
If 48% of meteorologists are sceptical of the idea that mankind is changing the climate via CO2, then it’s time for them to stick their heads over the proverbial parapet and say so. I like the term ‘meteorologist’ – so much better than ‘climate scientist’!
Among the books I’ve read in order to form an opinion are a couple by bona-fide old school meteorologists, such as the late Robin Stirling’s ‘The Weather of Britain’.
It’s all in there – the storms of a century ago, rainfall, freak weather and more described in detail. Yet when these occur now, they’re to be ‘extreme weather due to man-made global warming’.
Meteorologists, have the courage of your convictions, stand up and be counted. We need you!
90
I agree namecalling is not effective.
My(our?) side of the isle does it too and it makes me cringe.
Try and correct it and many just reach for the can of whoop ass.
Taboo indeed!
The irony is lost on the practitioners who claim to represent science.
(some on both sides)
The whole mind reading thing that is often implied in insults is a conundrum.
I’ll not give up.
I’ll stand alone if I must.
I do need to improve my methods though because I am not too successful.
I have not even eliminated it from within but I’m making progress.
Bad habits are hard to correct when surrounded by same.
Thank you Jo for championing and ‘demonstrating success’ with a positive approach.
It can be done. 🙂
50
As a realist I can assure you that we on the science side of the debate don’t name-call. Only the confusionist side resorts to pejorative labels—a sure sign of evidentiary bankruptcy if you ask me.
27
LMAO!!!!
You sir are a liar.
Most on your side of the debate learn their tactics from “Rules For Radicals”.
I challenge you. Go over to Skeptical Science and pretend to be an AGW/CO2 skeptic.
Then come back and tell us all how you fared.
62
Pretend? Pretend? I can’t believe what you’re suggesting.
That would be… disingenuous.
No. No thank you. I feel uncomfortable even having this conversation. Good day. Please do not mention this ever again. I said good day.
310
You are also a coward who likes to keep his head in a bucket of sand.
I do notice the crickets whenever I ask you a valid question……
62
Backslider,
I think you are the victim of a joke. Perhaps a joke, in bad taste, but a joke nonetheless.
40
RW, If Brad is so poor at communication that he cannot make his ideas known coherently,
… then he can continue to expect this sort of backlash.
They say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit…
…so it seems to be all Brad has to offer.
32
Look at this BS from his website:
30
Backslider
Did you see the “guest post” from Lew?
20
When even the lowest form of wit goes over your head…. 🙂
15
Read below Mr Keyes…..
20
“goes over your head”
Your ranting is just such poor quality humour as to be “trite” and “meaningless”.
If you weren’t such an incoherent egotist, you might get further.
As it is, your ramblings are basically just nonsense.
12
Dear Mr Backslider,
Is it the word “good” or the word “day” that you’re unclear on, The? (Or both?) Or the space in between? Or is it some other combination of the three? Help me out here.
Good night,
Brad
18
On second thoughts, no…… I am coming to get you, be very afraid.
42
I really don’t care Jo. He may be one of “you”, but certainly is not one of “me”.
He is totally offensive and not at all funny.
22
“He is totally offensive and not at all funny.”
I think that is his intent ! 😉
21
Should we all just head on over to SkS , The Conversation, and ClimateofGavin and become absurd Warmists ?
20
It depends. What kind of Warmists are you currently?
01
my bad, I was laughing so hard I accidently clicked thumbs up, should be a resounding DOWN.
00
So you won’t accept “consensus science” on issues of GM, Climate Change, pesticides, ethics, but you will sigh, on evolution? Why the difference? Shouldn’t they all be subject to the production of physical evidence, falsifiable hypothesis and repeatable within experimentation? Maybe in this issue, as in the others, the public’s BS detector is working as designed.
20
You forgot the ‘sarc/off’ Brad!
11
I don’t think Brad knows what “sarc/off” means. 🙂
70
It’s hard to know where Brad is coming from. I’m not so sure if he knows himself.
31
Sounds like my map-reading.
I always know where I am going, it is just that I am never sure where I have been.
20
Brad Keyes’ style is like RDJ in Tropic Thunder, he’s a philosopher playing a skeptic playing a warmist, and he’s almost forgotten his true self.
It doesn’t always work, but what he’s trying to do is to explain or justify warmist conclusions in ways that are patently absurd while maintaining deadpan delivery. For him, Poe’s Law is not a hazard to be avoided but is a shining lighthouse guiding his rhetoric ship directly into razor sharp rocks of audience cognitive dissonance. Which is fine when you have an unlimited supply of fake ships.
His humour is so cerebral it shows most people here as dumb as a box of rocks, but we already knew that about deniers who all operate under the false flag of skepticism, asking so many awkward questions when they should be thanking the Klima Kommissars for saving us from ourselves.
See what I did there? He’s even more subtle than that.
Everyone who takes it at face value would only have to click the web link on his user name and they would find much more obvious parody that shows his true opinion (or at least reveals his method).
50
And yes, the above got put in auto moderation for my use of the D word, which is fine.
22
Brad’s trouble is that his verbiage is too similar to posters like Silly Filly, BA4, Frunk, Michail the Unrealist, etc etc. 😉
12
John Brookes.
11
Where is he? He seems to have been missing off late.
01
Sigh.
I suppose Mr McRae’s attack on my ingenuity shouldn’t surprise me, but you’ll understand if it does sadden me a little.
You folks can’t take on my science, because I’ve been careful not to express any, so it was only a matter of time before you stooped to impugning my probity.
Naturally, Mr McRae fails to explain the magical leap whereby my utter authorial fraudulence somehow discredits the entire field of science communication, but I’m sure the petro-tobacco-industrial complex’s best-remunerated propaganda men are hard at work on that last jigsaw piece as we speak.
And you people wonder why science communicators have better things to do than speak to your “side” of the population!
Well, there are limits to my masochism too.
Before I take my leave, Mr McRae, I want to tell you the same astute and unforgettable words Greg Laden* once told me:
“You are a nothing but a practitioner of the Serengeti Strategy.”
——————————————————————————
*Readers who don’t recognise Dr Laden’s name—probably the leading climate feminist active in the field—simply aren’t serious participants in the climate science debate.
(There was no way of saying that without sounding elitist, so I didn’t try.)
03
“You folks can’t take on my science, because I’ve been careful not to express any”
As has been noted !
Very typical of the below average troll. !
The climate bretheren have used the Serengeti tactic many times, to oust editors, get people removed from jobs etc etc.
Mickey invented the tactic, and Greg and his crew use it to full intent.
I doubt much will Soon come of their latest attempt, though.
12
To Andrew and Griss, and I hope Dariusz will read this as well.
I apologise for my previous warning to Dariusz where I suggested that Brad’s comments were intended to be read as satire or even sarcasm.
I interpreted Brad’s comments as ridiculous in the extreme and that no rational person would make such comments unless they were intended as satirical. After reading Brads comments since, I realise that I was mistaken, in that I left that line of reasoning too soon.
I should have considered “no rational person would make such comments”. Because he has made further such comments without any humour involved, I must now suggest that Brad is not a rational person.
42
“that no rational person would make such comments”
Methinks you assume too much !! 😉
12
As I have just admitted.
21
🙂
01
A general ad hom to everyone else on the blog !
Well done.
I guess that doesn’t include you, though 😉
20
Agreed, Griss—the “box of rocks” generalisation was totally uncalled for.
And slights against our collective IQ are a bit rich coming from Mr McRae, the only person on this page who seems unable to grasp the dead-serious nature of my comments.
21
Precisely! 🙂
20
I mean, had Andrew taken that arrogant swipe at our intellects tongue in cheek, that would be one thing. I suppose I could forgive that. (Though to be honest, I’ve never been a big fan of smart-aleck obliquity—it just seems onanistic.)
But to say a thing like that with a straight face, the way he did? With absolutely zero indication, before or afterwards, that he was just joshing us to make some broader point? “Offensive” doesn’t even begin to cover it.
I like to think I’m a fairly sophisticated reader. I’m not in the top English stream at school, but I’m damn close. There’s even been some talk of my doing 3-Unit for the HSC.
So if I took Andrew’s snide and unrepeatable insult literally, which I did, it’s a pretty safe bet that he meant it that way.
22
“had Andrew taken that arrogant swipe at our intellects “
Hey, some people think they are smarter than they actually are 😉
Nuff said. 😉
20
I’ve been called a “denier” among other things,merely for pointing out the faulty logic in some arguments,as well as asking questions,as by asking questions,you learn things. Some “realists” don’t seem to buy your reasoning,brad.
20
Sorry Michael, I don’t entirely follow your meaning.
Are you telling me all this as someone who’s on the fact-accepting, “science” side in the climate debate? Or would you describe yourself as more inclined to the delusionist, counter-evidentiary camp?
(I’m not passing judgment either way, just trying to calibrate where your experiences with name-calling etc. are coming from.)
12
“I’m not passing judgment either way”
Oh, of course you aren’t !
60
It would depend what you mean by the
and the
. I demand to see the proof in black and white,and ask questions based on that proof,but if anyone rresorts to any form of name-calling, I then consider there entire argument null and void,as if you have to resort to such tactics,why should I waste my time listening to you?
80
Michael, beautifully put:
My philosophy exactly. Still, no matter how little one thinks of them, trolls do manage to get you down occasionally, by their sheer quantity (you know, the thing trolls use as a quality substitute). At that point all you can do is switch off, go outside and enjoy the beautiful warm day.
12
Exactly Brad. I’ve been forced to contact forum moderators not here,but elsewhere at time,to get them to stop the perpetrators from excessive personal abuse,just for asking questions.
11
Jo, Important please read
When I looked at the detailed survey questions and the compiled answers, the biggest change in the survey period is that the number of people that believe there was insufficient evidence that the earth’s temperature has warmed has almost doubled over 12 months. This was not highlighted in the Pew summary or the media release. It says the public is educating itself and becoming more aware of the difference between the scaremongering and the reality. Good news for sceptics and bad news for the data fiddlers.!
10
Further to my previous point I should have quoted the actual survey results which reported that fewer people accepted that evidence supports claims that the earth’s temperature is warming i.e. 25% of the sample group in 2014 agreed that there is no solid evidence that the earth is getting warmer compared to 11% in 2013. This is the major story out of this survey but it was buried by the media release that played up the difference between the public and the scientists!
10
If someone wrongly takes offence and does him harm I’m sure
we’ll all miss him terribly. We are Brad. Long live freedom to offend in the name of drivel.
21
Ah. See what you done there CJ. You’re not Brad though. Only Brad can pull it off without the /sarc tags.
20
Brad Keyes reminds me of EcoAnnie!
10
When I first saw this post, I looked at the numbers and the sources of those numbers. A group of 19000+ “members” of the AAAS was offered this survey, and only 18.8% responded.
Now consider that carefully.
One can guess that the survey was at least scanned by the selected members, even if they chose not to return it. That’s says that less than 1 in 5 have a strong enough opinion on the subject matter to actually participate.
Putting that in perspective is important. That says that less than 17% of those asked to participate believe strongly enough in global warming as to take the time to respond. That isn’t 87% say yes, that is 17% felt strongly enough to say yes. In general, it seems the public actually has a stronger view on global warming than do those that are driving it.
00
The United States’ demographics have been changing over these past few decades.
Since measured intelligence varies significantly between population groups, this is almost certainly a contributing factor. Further, since these demographic trends are accelerating, I predict the USA’s relative contribution to science will continue to decline.
00