Eli Rabett on the Oregon Petition
where we find John Humphreys in the graveyard resurrecting this unkillable climate denialist zombie. Tim Lambert, thermometer in hand tries to bludgeon the poor beast into eternal peace (and quiet). For those of you fortunate enough not to know what the hell Eli is babbling about, go, leave, get hence from this post, lest the spirit of love and kindness curdle in our season of good will and you try to stiff your loved ones (Ms. Rabett has informed Eli that any such attempt would be a health contraindication).
There's more on the whole sordid tale.
More like this
There's a thread on twitter, started by "@JacquelynGill" noting "The Day After Tomorrow", "@ClimateOfGavin" replying that "it was that movie and lame sci community response that prompted me to start blogging", and continuing "Spring 2004 was pre-RC, Scienceblogs, etc. Deltoid was around, Stoat, @…
This graphic novel series is simply amazing. It's some of the best graphic pure storytelling I've come across in a very long time -- I just can't recommend it enough. The story is perfectly paced: slow when it needs to be but mostly taut and exciting, pulling you from episode to episode like a…
Who are the global Warming Denialists?
A tougher question is, in a discipline as complex as climate science, how do you tell who the legitimate skeptics (those that ignore the reporting at the Independent for instance) are versus who are the denialists?
Again, it's simple, because denialism is…
Note: My friend DarkSyde posted an entry on his diary at DailyKos pointing people here for information about Rev. Moon. It's been a few weeks since I last wrote about Moon, so I thought I'd repost the one that started it all, my fisking of the insanely ridiculous full page ad that Moon took out…
Thanks for the pointer. The production coneys have added music and video to the after seminar sing along for those who want to skip the boring stuff.
Listen... The fact is, major and mainstream scientists are divided about the issue of global warming. There are reputable researchers and studies on both sides of this issue.
What this shows is that no "scientific consensus" exists, and this fact needs to be realized, when assessing what to teach students, and the public, about this controversial issue. It must also be taken into consideration, before any legislation is passed, that would violate individual liberties and property rights, in the name of protecting the environment.
Feel free to name, say, six "major and mainstream scientists" who dispute the AGW hypothesis.
Be prepared to defend that description by, for example, showing their track record of peer-reviewed papers on the topic.
Aakash posted the exact same post over at Rabbett Run. I guess he's hoping quantity will make up for any lack in quality.
From Askash's own link:
'For example, there appears to be a strong scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. The historian of science Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science claiming that a survey of the abstracts of 928 science articles published between 1993 and 2003 showed none which disagreed explicitly with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.[2] In an editorial published in the Washington Post, Oreskes claimed that those who opposed these scientific findings are amplifying the normal range of scientific uncertainty about any facts into an appearance that there is a great scientific disagreement, or a lack of scientific consensus."
(Hint, in future Askash, before citing a source you might want to check that it doesn't directly contradict the claim you're attempting to make.)
Actually Ian, it is an old tactic that anyone who has marked papers is familiar with. Very few people check references or follow links. Therefore you put the link out there and nine times out of nine, people accept what you say without checking. That, combined with the data dump or the 110 references you must read before you reply, are very effective and simple tactics. This is one of the weaknesses of debates, there is no way of checking the veracity of what the opponent says.
On the other hand, you occasionally run into people like Tim, you and others who post here, who follow up. That is unfair.
That encyclopedia article, while very useful, has been modified several times within just the past month. Even with the current article, Mr. Gould has cut off the remainder of the paragraph that he quotes.
This November 13th version of the encyclopedia article is more accurate, though the wording is only slightly different.
Wording aside, the article also cites the work of MIT Professor Richard S. Lindzen. The encyclopedia article on Prof. Lindzen states that:
He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles, but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse."
There are strong arguments that have been made on all sides of this debate, but the fact is, no scientific consensus currently exists. I remember in the past, it seemed to be understood by teachers that the global warming theory was controversial, and not supported by a consensus... I am afraid that in more recent years, advocates and alarmists have been trying to obfuscate the truth, and encourage only one side to be taught in classrooms. Many instructors understand however, even at this point, that since the major scientists are divided on this issue, it cannot be taught as fact, and students - as well as the public - should be encouraged to reach their own conclusions, about this contentious issue.