John Mashey points me to a video of Naomi Oreskes’ talk on “The American Denial of Global Warming”:

The first part (“TRUTH”) outlines the history of climate science
research, and the unpoliticized acceptance thereof that lasted until the
early 1990s. The second part “DENIAL” describes the George C. Marshall
Instiute’s role in creating confusion and politicizing the issue, using
tactics from the cigarette wars.

Naomi knows her topic well, and is a lively speaker – I heard an earlier
version of this about a year ago, and this talk is well worth watching.


TRUTH

00:00 Introduction

02:00 Frank Luntz

04:00 2001 IPCC TAR, but many decades of science before

10:30 1957 Suess & Revelle; “Big Greenhouse” in Time Magazine

14:00 1964/65 NAS Science Advisory Committee; President’s Science Advisory Committee “In those days, politicians listened to scientists”;bipartisanship.

17:30 1970s NRC; JASON; “Charney Report”

23:30 1988 IPCC formed; US National Energy Policy Act; George H. W. Bush

DENIAL

26:30 Why is there denial? Where did it come from?

29:15: 1984 George C. Marshal Institute founded by William Jastrow

Added William Nierenberg, Frederick Seitz; S. Fred Singer later.
Original goal: Cold War, support Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative
from other physicists)
Tactics: threaten PBS stations with lawsuits under “Fairness Doctrine”
Create uncertainty

36:00 1990, cold war over, switch to other areas [global warming, CFC-ozone,
tobacco] No Greenhouse problem, as long as free market allowed to solve!

39:00 1995 IPCC SAR, personal attacks on Ben Santer

42:00 1995 Connection with tobacco, Seitz, tactics
Create doubt, do not publish science, but in popular literature, op-eds,
Wall Street Journal

53:30 Why? In each case, political views [NO REGULATION, EVER] masked as arguments about science. [People can have whatever political views they want, but the proper place to discuss them is in politics, not by fudging science.]

Comments

  1. #1 climatepatrol
    February 11, 2008

    #93 Nothing.

    In other words, the paper doesn’t even begin to refute the AGW hypothesis, so what exactly are you arguing about here?

    Sometimes, different questions are asked and differentiated answers given, not black and white, good, intelligent supporters of AGW and stupid or evil skeptics. Maybe you check the motive of your questioning while I present facts. This is the case here. I suggest you read the papers and judge by yourself what are the questions asked and if the AGW theory has much to do with this particular tropical remnant of an icecap. Ask Naomi Oreskes. She will tell you how many papers that contain AGW, do neither refute nor explicitly support the AGW theory as a whole. We just talked about some of these papers.

    Anyway, my suggestion is simple: Reforestation of the kilimanjaro area.

  2. #2 trrll
    February 11, 2008

    Sorry, the video does not answer the basic criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick

    I think that it does so rather well. “Auditing” supposed errors in specific measurements or analyses, without providing a balanced, rigorous analysis addressing the impact of those errors on the overall conclusions relating to the reality of global warming seems clearly designed to create doubt rather than to advance knowledge, very much illustrating the central point of Dr. Oreske’s address.

    The recent brouhaha over whether 1998 or 1934 was the warmest US year is an excellent example of this. Those two years have been long conceded to be indistinguishable within the statistical margin of error, yet McIntyre made a big production over a scientifically meaningless correction that was well below the statistical margin of error and hence irrelevant to the validity of global warming. What is the point of this, if not to create the illusion of doubt?

    Similarly, why the obsession with the old “hockey stick” analysis, which is essentially insignificant next to the modern evidence supporting the reality of global warming? Why continue to pick on this one old analysis, unless the intent is to create an illusion of doubt?

  3. #3 Hans Erren
    February 11, 2008

    Heck, any paper that just discusses climate sensitivity is already pro-AGW in Oreskes’ view.

    How many papers of the Oreskes analysis support Alarmistic Global Warming?

  4. #4 Lance
    February 11, 2008

    trrll,

    Having been on this site (and the first to post here on the issue) and ClimateAudit the day Steve McIntyre announced the 1934/1998 discrepancy, I can tell you that Steve made no “big production” of the incident. I would say that pro-AGW sites like this one made a much bigger deal of attacking Steve for exposing Hansen’s error.

    Steve never claimed it overturned AGW theory or that it was statistically significant. He just caught an error and reported it. What should he have done, quietly emailed Hansen and apologized for finding Hansen’s goof?

    The fact that you, and other AGW supporter, still fail to acknowledge the problems with Mann’s hockey stick and other incestuous proxy studies, that use much of the same data series and techniques, shows either a lack of scientific objectivity, a deficit of intellectual curiosity or both.

  5. #5 z
    February 11, 2008

    and, for the “gee it’s cold, those climate guys are crazy with their agw” folks, this is a lan nina year, therefore we’d expect cold in the american prairie and pacific northwest, and dryness in the southeast and southwest. hey, look, that’s what we got. gee.

  6. #6 Dano
    February 11, 2008

    Hans’ trying to rewrite rules aside,

    z, Colorado is supposed to be dryer in a La Nina year, and I left work in the snow again and check out the Durango Herald if you want to see about dry. This is not a typical La Nina year in Colorado. Of course, increasing chaos is expected in a warming world, and this year would qualify (please, no chimp chatter about Dano claiming this year’s weather does something that gives the chimps something to screech about).

    Best,

    D

  7. #7 bi
    February 11, 2008

    Looks like, among denialists, Mann’s “hockey stick” now has a status similar to that of Satan, the Evil One, the Father Below, the Prince of Darkness himself: the “hockey stick” is guilty of a crime so heinous, so preposterous, that no words can adequately describe or analyze it ever. To even speak of the details of the “hockey stick” is a crime against the Free World and Capitalism.

  8. #8 climatepatrol
    February 12, 2008

    #100
    Hans, I am glad you bring this up. I doubt if more than 10% of the papers containing “climate change” or “global climate change” or “global warming” support an alarming position.

    Even accepting a climate sensitivity of 2Ā°K is not alarming per se.

    Probably all who post here are familiar with the Oreskes 2004 paper. Climate Change or AGW is added to each paper for classification purposes. Even the strong skeptics like Roy Spencer who neither regards the evolution theory nor AGW theory as settled, uses phrases like this: (paraphrased) This local cooling effect does not nessessarily affect climate sensitivity on a global scale and is thus still in agreement with global warming. Who actually reads the papers, knows what I am talking about. If somebody insists, I’ll find the sources of two examples again.

    I think Oreskes knows very well how much political power she has with her scientific expertise claims. She knows what is settled and what is not settled but she doesn’t mind if the awareness of “the science is settled” in public goes beyond of what is actually settled.

    Yet for some AGW fanatics around here, asking Oreskes about papers that neither refute nor endorse AGW, could already be a cure.

  9. #9 bi
    February 12, 2008

    climatepatrol drools,

    I doubt if more than 10% of the papers containing “climate change” or “global climate change” or “global warming” support an alarming position.

    When does a position truly count as “alarmist”?

    Oreskes made it clear that

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, …

    What more do you want?

    climatepatrol further drools,

    Even the strong skeptics like Roy Spencer who neither regards the evolution theory nor AGW theory as settled, uses phrases like this: (paraphrased)

    Oh great, so not only are you advocating using a totally vague criterion to decide what counts as accepting the consensus view, you’re advocating that we look at a totally vague and undefined source (something other than the paper abstract) to see whether a paper fits your totally vague criterion.

    £reedom $cience strikes again…

  10. #10 climatepatrol
    February 12, 2008

    bi, keep hissing, but keep the venom for yourself. Make a sample of your own, look at the papers we have just discussed and see whether they contain the Oreskes criteria. YOU insist on their AGW relevance. This is just for the records. I will answer no more rhetorical questions from an evil mind.

  11. #11 bi
    February 12, 2008

    climatepatrol:

    look at the papers we have just discussed

    …which, climatepatrol assures us, is very definitely a fair, objective, representative sample. Unlike Oreskes’s sample, which was obtained using a search criterion tainted with Evil Liberal Bias! £reedom $cience rocks the world!

    I will answer no more rhetorical questions from an evil mind.

    Oh, so now I’m “evil”, because… because? Oops, I guess even asking why I’m supposedly “evil” is itself an evil question already! So much for climatepatrol’s “open-mindedness”.

  12. #12 Jeff Harvey
    February 12, 2008

    Climatepatrol,

    On your blog your qualifications in assessing climate science are apaprently down to this: “Climatology and meteorology have been of interest to the author since childhood”. Is that it? An interest? Does this ‘interest’ of yours imbue you with some kind of wisdom that people working in the field for many years, and who went to university and studied for PhDs lack?

    I would like to ask you how many scientific conferences in climate science you have attended in the last few years. You know, conferences in which you have to register to attend, listen to dozens of lectures, interact with scientists doing actual research, that kind of thing. As a senior scientist, but in an unrelated field (population ecology) I think its relevant to ask this question to those who challenge the prevailing scientific views on various fields. Before I went to university and studied zoology, I had all kinds of views – some solid, many purely ridiculous – on how nature worked. Studying population ecology and working in the field for getting on for 20 years has refined the way I think about the rules governing the assembly and composition of food webs, communties and ecosystems. I generally attend 1-2 scientific conferences a year where I can meet colleagues and discuss their research and learn even more about the field. But the foundation of all of this was my education (BSc, PhD) at university in the UK in the 1980s and 1990s.

    I do not wish to demean the contributions made by amateurs, but if someone came up to me and said that they’d been interested in nature and ecology for many years, then started producing arguments challenging what we know about rules governing ecosystem functions, I’d ask them on what empirical grounds they base their views, and how their own research program fits in with this. If they replied they never attended conferences but read some books by David Attenborough and a few online papers, I would not consider this enough. As I said above I am not a climate scientist but having a background in another scientific field enables me to appreciate the immense complexities involved in that field, and to agree with the majority of climate scientists who are in basic agreement over the causes of the current warming episode (meaning anthropogenic). I am equally confident that climate scientists would be very wary of challenging prevailing views in my field of research.

    At the end of the day, and with apologies if this sounds too harsh, I tend to agree with Charles Darwin who once said, “Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge”. I have seen this in debates on the effects of climate change and other forms of anthropogenic disturbance on ecological communities, where some of the arguments made by sceptics border on the sophomoric. When asked what their qualifications are in making such rash assumptions, I am often greeted with ‘None, but I have been interested in the debate for a long time’. This just does not cut it, I am afraid.

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    February 12, 2008

    She (Oreskes) knows what is settled and what is not settled but…

    It never gets beyond “shoot the messenger”.

  14. #14 kent
    February 12, 2008

    Getting back to “thin ice melts faster than thick ice” and what that means. The shallow answers were what I would expect from warmists.

    Multi-year ice (3 years) is about 3 meters thick and the amount of annual melting equals the amount of annual ice formation.

    First year ice is 1.5-2 meters thick. Does this mean that it takes 2 years to freeze 1-1.5 meters of ice? If so, then we can see that areas of first year ice formation radiate a lot more energy than areas with multi year ice. One could even go so far as to suggest that multi-year ice contributes to global warming because it restricts energy flow into space.
    While Warmists see the lowest level of sea ice as proof of global warming they seem to ignore the effect of removing the ice on the cooling of the sea water and the effect on sea currents.
    Open leads in the artic winter can radiate up to 1000 watts per square meter.

    The experts tell us that La Nina is caused by upwelling of cold water. What causes the upwelling? Could it have something to do with cooling of sea water in the Arctic? Minimum sea ice coverage, then the fastest reforming ever recorded? That would have created a lot of salty cold sea water.
    So; thin ice melts faster than thick ice needs a much deeper response than double DUH!

    The graph of temperature that TIM posted is about 2 and a half years out of date. Add in the current data and the curve is downward. The January 2008 anomally is only .12 degrees above the mean. (sorry, lost the link)

  15. #15 markeebiel
    February 12, 2008

    @Jeff re:

    Does this ‘interest’ of yours imbue you with some kind of wisdom that people working in the field for many years, and who went to university and studied for PhDs lack?

    This is a very interesting question indeed in connection with the topic here, and personal too and therefore delicate.

    People with a PhD in astrophysics, astronomy, atmospheric physics, chemistry, geography, geology, glaciology, meteorolgy, radiology, engineering, programming, ecosystems, biology, antropology, medicine, paleontology, archeology, history, agriculture, forestry, mass media, communication, politics, economy, socio-economic systems, sociology, pharmacology, statistics, philosophy, teaching, theology,they are all very, very good in their area as specialists in their field.

    Here comes the wisdom question above the question of knowledge and ignorance: Who is specialist in anthropogenic global warming? You most probably know your answer. But since global warming is the first science that affects every single bit of our life, it is never, never just a matter of science. As I said, I might accept that a climate sensitivity of 2K+ is a fact. But This leaves it open whether we will ever reach it (assuming evolution theory we will). This will leave it open who and how many will be winners or loosers of such a scenario to happen. Should I entrust my life entirely into the hands of a handful of PhD scientists who will be responsible for the fate of billions of people? My answer is no. In such a vast area where divine wisdom is needed, I will choose whom to trust. Nobody can take this decision for me.

    In this forum here, I tried to just stick to one issue at the time. The issue ‘global change’ is just too vast. I accept the physical facts of global warming with open questions regarding feedback mechanisms. I am looking for somebody who can finally quantify the portion of the burning of fossil fuels in the surface warming of the past 30-50 years as I mentioned already. I observe a tendency towards a lowering and narrowing of climate sensitivity to result in ongoing studies.

    I think scientists need laymen and people of other fields of knowledge to ask the right questions. I keep asking questions and I fight or apologize if I feel misunderstood.

    I use energy saving lamps, I drive a small car but I use the train for the office, I buy local food, I recycle glass, plastic bottles, paper. I switch off the main switch at night (most of the time). I voted for a solar and environmental engineer to become member of parliament. This was my stand even before the global warming hoopla. Well, my environmentally friendly candidate was not elected. There is a lot of hypocricy regarding global warming in my country with Kyoto, bla, bla, but favoring heated chair lifts in winter and snowmaking at the same time. (I don’t ski anymore for long. My bad side: My/our mobility needs by air travel in our marriage. Something we must adress…)

    I will visit scienceblogs now and then and read your insights. I will “listen to voices fo the other side” as well. Anyway, I will look out for your name now and then. Thank you.

  16. #16 climatepatrol
    February 12, 2008

    @kent
    here and here are links with the latest monthly weather data. This supports well your hypothesis.

  17. #17 kent
    February 12, 2008

    Thanks climatepatrol. They are in my Favourites now.

  18. #18 Chris O'Neill
    February 12, 2008

    I will choose whom to trust.

    The subject of this thread (something few people bother with) is about proven professional liars. If you choose to believe professional AGW deniers then you are choosing to believe proven professional liars. You can choose to believe proven professional liars if you wish but my choice is not to trust proven professional liars.

  19. #19 bi
    February 12, 2008

    markeebiel:

    I use energy saving lamps, I drive a small car but I use the train for the office, I buy local food, I recycle glass, plastic bottles, paper. I switch off the main switch at night (most of the time).

    Yeah, pretend to really really care, as Nexus 6 said…

    Should I entrust my life entirely into the hands of a handful of PhD scientists who will be responsible for the fate of billions of people? My answer is no. In such a vast area where divine wisdom is needed, I will choose whom to trust. Nobody can take this decision for me.

    As Chris O’Neill points out, you’re already putting absolute trust in a group of liars who distort, misrepresent, and fabricate outright rubbish at every opportunity. I don’t claim to completely understand the work of the mainstream consensus scientists (sorry, “warmists”); but I don’t even need to do that to see that denialists such as yourself are full of garbage, because denialist “scientists” like to make elementary errors that I could’ve spotted while in high school.

    And all the quote-mining, the appeals to Freedom and Capitalism, the bogus credentials… what more does one need to realize that denialism is a steaming pile of buffalo dung?

    (OK, I can hear it now: “the other side did it too, Clinton did it, Clinton did it…”)

  20. #20 bi
    February 12, 2008

    (note to self: markeebiel = climatepatrol)

  21. #21 kent
    February 12, 2008

    Since Tim tells us “personal attacks on other commenters will be disemvowelled” and yet he never does. That would make him a professional liar by the standards of the mental midgets who rant on his blog. The rudeness that Tim condones on this blog makes me question his objectivity.
    To all you loud mouthed morons who think your sh*t don’t stink, get a grip and learn some manners. I come here for intellectual dialog not a bunch of hate spewing dog humpers. Have a nice day now.

  22. #22 trrll
    February 12, 2008

    Having been on this site (and the first to post here on the issue) and ClimateAudit the day Steve McIntyre announced the 1934/1998 discrepancy, I can tell you that Steve made no “big production” of the incident. I would say that pro-AGW sites like this one made a much bigger deal of attacking Steve for exposing Hansen’s error.
    Steve never claimed it overturned AGW theory or that it was statistically significant. He just caught an error and reported it. What should he have done, quietly emailed Hansen and apologized for finding Hansen’s goof?

    Well, I certainly consider his public statements in this interview to constitute making a “big deal” out of it, with statements like

    “What they’ve done now is inserted a patch into an error that I identified for them but they haven’t established that the rest of their adjustment methodology is any good.”

    That really doesn’t sound to you like trying to manufacture doubt?

    Can you provide any evidence that he contacted the many news organizations and web sites that misrepresented this correction as casting doubt upon global warming to disavow such an interpretation? Did he ever contact Fox News, for example, to explain that they had gotten it wrong?

    The fact that you, and other AGW supporter, still fail to acknowledge the problems with Mann’s hockey stick and other incestuous proxy studies, that use much of the same data series and techniques, shows either a lack of scientific objectivity, a deficit of intellectual curiosity or both.

    I ask again, what is the point of obsessing about “problems” with this one study, unless it is to manufacture doubt? After all, a a National Academy of Sciences blue ribbon review panel ended up supporting the primary conclusions of the “Hockey Stick” paper, even taking into account additional data that was not available when that paper was written

    From the NAS report:

    The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world. Not all individual proxy records indicate that the recent warmth is unprecedented, although a larger fraction of geographically diverse sites experienced exceptional warmth during the late 20th century than during any other extended period from A.D. 900 onward.

    Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

  23. #23 Lee
    February 12, 2008

    markeebeil said:
    “As I said, I might accept that a climate sensitivity of 2K+ is a fact. But This leaves it open whether we will ever reach it (assuming evolution theory we will).”

    To which I can only respond – uuuuhhhh…. wtf?

  24. #24 bi
    February 13, 2008

    kent:

    To all you loud mouthed morons who think your sh*t don’t stink, get a grip and learn some manners. I come here for intellectual dialog not a bunch of hate spewing dog humpers.

    Despair thy charm, thou of the Warmist Inquisition! For, right here is the most devastating argument against the AGW theory, obtained using the most state-of-the-art, cutting-edge methods in climate science! And it’s evidence-based too!

  25. #25 Barton Paul Levenson
    February 13, 2008

    kent posts:

    [[ I come here for intellectual dialog not a bunch of hate spewing dog humpers. ]]

    Who wants to bet he doesn’t see it?

  26. #26 Ian Gould
    February 13, 2008

    Hans: “How many papers of the Oreskes analysis support Alarmistic Global Warming?”

    Define Alarmist Global Warming.

  27. #27 Ian Gould
    February 13, 2008

    “Who wants to bet he doesn’t see it?”

    What, “the beam in thine own eye”?

  28. #28 Ian Gould
    February 13, 2008

    “My point with the TV shows is: It has most of the impact for policy makers,”

    Have you ever actually worked for policy makers?

    I have.

    At least, here in Australia I can assure you television programs have minimal impact on decision making.

    do you have any direct evidence (not speculation or opinion) that Switzerland is different?

  29. #29 Ian Gould
    February 13, 2008

    “I think Oreskes knows very well how much political power she has with her scientific expertise claims.”

    Yeah, politcians ans bureaucrats crap themselves with fear whenever the words “scientific expertise: are spoken.

    After all, it’s not like they have scientifically trained staff of their own at their beck and call to dissect and analyse such papers.

  30. #30 Chris O'Neill
    February 13, 2008

    kent:

    I come here for intellectual dialog

    Then you should actually make a comment on the posting (that’s what the “comments” section is for) rather than being a potty-mouthed troll.

  31. #31 kent
    February 13, 2008

    Chis; don’t cry, you potty mouthed troll. Commenting on the commentors is out of bounds is it? Take your own advice.

    I only responded the way I did because Tim refussed to admonish those who were breaking his rules. So… when in Rome do as the Romans. Since so many were having a go at me I decided to respond in a similar fashion. I would much rather discuss the cycles that control and effect our climate but the warmists here seem more interested in stifling debate than actually seeking knowledge.

  32. #32 bi
    February 13, 2008

    Just a reminder, kent, here’s your very first reply on this blog entry:

    Warmists like to say that if they are wrong then no harm will come from reducing the use of fossil fuels, but if they are right and nothing is done then great harm will come to human kind.

    Does that look like a totally open-minded “discussion” on “the cycles that control and effect our climate”? Why does it seem to me more like a fluffy potshot directed at a bogeyman called “The Warmists”?

    So much for accusing others of “personal attacks”…

    They only see two outcomes, Warming or not warming. They miss one other possibility, that of cooling.

    More fluffy generalities based on exactly zero evidence whatsoever. And why do I still see not a single shred of “discussion” on “the cycles that control and effect our climate”? It’s always about Warmists. Warmists Warmists Warmists.

    You know, kent, this whole crybaby schtick of yours (and Lance’s) is getting old.

  33. #33 Chris O'Neill
    February 13, 2008

    kent:

    Chis; don’t cry, you potty mouthed troll. Commenting on the commentors is out of bounds is it?

    It is, apparently, if you are Chris O’Neill commenting on kent.

    Take your own advice.

    You don’t have to take yours, of course.

  34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
    February 13, 2008

    Ian Gould’s trick knee is acting up again. So, Ian, you think “hate-spewing dog humpers” amounts to “intellectual dialogue?” That would explain a lot of your posts…

  35. #35 Alex
    February 13, 2008

    Does this vision of the world post-global warming add anything to the lively discussion above… ?

    A Winter’s Day in 2079

  36. #36 climatepatrol
    February 14, 2008

    At least, here in Australia I can assure you television programs have minimal impact on decision making.

    do you have any direct evidence (not speculation or opinion) that Switzerland is different?

    .
    Yes, I do. In this what we call “direct democracy”, every citizen with a right to vote is a potential policy maker.

  37. #37 bi
    February 14, 2008

    Yes, I do. In this what we call “direct democracy”, every citizen with a right to vote is a potential policy maker.

    …what? What?

    Why yes, £reedom and £apitalism is very good. Therefore, instead of relying on the nanny state, we should treat all citizens as intelligent, free-thinking individuals. Unfortunately, the masses are too brainwashed to realize that they’re not brainwashed. Therefore, while all individuals are intelligent and free-thinking, we must use the forces of the £ree Market to tell them how to think, so that they can think for themselves. Because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking they’ve been brainwashed.

    Or something.

  38. #38 Ian Gould
    February 14, 2008

    “Ian Gould’s trick knee is acting up again. So, Ian, you think “hate-spewing dog humpers” amounts to “intellectual dialogue?” That would explain a lot of your posts…”

    Actually I was agreeing with you.

    But, of course, since I don’t share your conviction that you have a personal hotline to God and are therefore infallible I am the enemy and a tool of Satan and must be attacked at every oportunity.

    Why is it the Christ-shouters never seem to fixate on “Turn the other cheek” or “Love thy neighbour as thyself”?

  39. #39 Barton Paul Levenson
    February 14, 2008

    Why do those who claim not to be anti-Christian bigots bring up my religion at every opportunity, even when I’ve made no mention of it myself? Or use terms like “Christ-shouters,” for that matter. Just one of those mysteries of the universe, I guess, like what started the Big Bang or why Ann Coulter isn’t in a mental hospital.

  40. #40 Lance
    February 14, 2008

    bi,

    So I’m a “cry baby” huh? How ironic that as a response to calls for civil disussion you would hurl an insult.

    Christ, I wasn’t even in the discussion, yet you felt the need to call me names.

    Of course pointing this out to you will probably just provoke more “cry baby” remarks.

    I wonder how different these discussions would be if they occurred face to face?

  41. #41 bi
    February 14, 2008

    So I’m a “cry baby” huh? How ironic that as a response to calls for civil disussion you would hurl an insult.

    Waah, mommy mommy, they hurt, I afraid!

    To refresh the memory of our chivalrous-knight-in-shining-armour turned crybaby, here was the original totally civil call for civil discussion which is civilly filled with supreme civility:

    The fact that you, and other AGW supporter, still fail to acknowledge the problems with Mann’s hockey stick and other incestuous proxy studies, that use much of the same data series and techniques, shows either a lack of scientific objectivity, a deficit of intellectual curiosity or both.

    Oh, and not only is it civilly civil civility, it’s evidence-based too.

  42. #42 Lance
    February 15, 2008

    bi,

    Specific criticisms of behavior, such as lack of objectivity or curiosity are not the same thing as name calling. I can say that in a particular incidence a person isn’t being objective without impugning the character of the person.

    If you can’t tell the difference between juvenile insults and legitimate criticism maybe you shouldn’t engage in these discussions.

  43. #43 Chris O'Neill
    February 15, 2008

    “Specific criticisms of behavior, such as lack of objectivity or curiosity are not the same thing as name calling”, such as “incestuous”, for example, or presumptuous unspecific statements such as “the problems with Mann’s hockey stick”.

    Lance, if you can’t tell the difference between juvenile insults and legitimate criticism maybe you shouldn’t engage in these discussions.

  44. #44 Hank Roberts
    February 17, 2008

    Anyone capable of coding something that pipes weblog text through a Usenet threaded newsreader? I sure miss being able to kill threads (avoiding replies to killfiled material).

    Everything was better in ASCII.

  45. #45 z
    February 18, 2008

    “Eliminating fossil fuels is friggin’ cheap
    A third of our military budget could cure our carbon addiction
    Scientific American’s grand plan to provide a bit over a third of U.S. energy from solar sources provides insight into what it would cost to phase out all or most U.S. greenhouse emissions. Bottom line: a lot less than current military spending.

    The total cost of the SciAm plan: $420 billion over the course of that 40 years, or slightly over ten billion dollars per year — less than current fossil fuel subsidies, less than the new subsidies “clean coal” would require.”
    < http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/15/151252/412>
    <
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan&page=1>

  46. #46 Lance
    February 18, 2008

    Chris ONeill,

    The word “incestuous”, in regard to paleoclimate dendro studies, means that they use many of the same data sets. It doesn’t mean Mann is sleeping with his sister.

    Or like bi do you not understand the difference?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.