James Randi EF supporting AGW denialism again?

I don't know, Greg. They sure don't seem like the sort of folks the JREF should be in bed with.

Reason is a bit complicated. While they have a definite libertarian bent, a lot of their content is quite good. Their coverage of civil liberties issues is often well done. Many of the writers at Reason agree that there's a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming. See e.g. http://reason.com/archives/2007/02/02/global-warming-not-worse-than

Just think, there will be so much more ocean to cruise once the polar ice is all melted. And it'll be safer, too, without those pesky icebergs to avoid.

Really, global warming is Mother Earth trying to save the Titanic. But being a planet and all, she's slower than a family of Ents trying to decide where to go on vacation.

Looooooooooooook. Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut.

Reason (http://reason.com) is libertarian (their motto is "free minds and free markets") magazine, certainly not neo-con. Their science coverage was skeptical of AGW years back, but now generally admits it is happening, but still skeptical of how much government intervention is needed to solve the problem: e.g. no to government subsidies for ethanol, electric cars, alternative energy, public transport, etc, but yes to a carbon tax -- that being the market solution, because it puts a price on the cost of releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

And I wouldn't call it a rag. Thoughtfully written mostly, even if I don't agree with everything they say, they do stick to their principles. I wouldn't consider them on the Randian deep-end of libertarianism.

I can't speak to the magazine because I haven't ever read it but I'm fairly certain that DJ is very much not an AGW denier or as far as I'm aware, a libertarian. I think it's probably just a loose association and not intended as a deliberate promotion of libertarian ideas or AGW denial.

Many of the writers at Reason agree

Many of the writers? Substitute some of the terms here and see how it sounds:

"Many of the writers at National Geographic agree that bigfoot is not real."

Shame.

And, no, it's worse than we thought, if you count acidification, which essentially means everybody dies.

Thomas, I don't think so. Let me connect the dots for you:

certainly not neo-con.

except for the fact that they advocate:

... skeptical of how much government intervention is needed to solve the problem: e.g. no to government subsidies for ethanol, electric cars, alternative energy, public transport, etc, but yes to a carbon tax

In other words, pure neocon.

Skepacabra: DJ has dropped the ball on any semblance of responsibility here. This might as well be a post advocating the Kimberly Ghost Tour. I'm not one to toss people's credibility out the window for fucking up like this, so we'll wait for the retraction and explanation. But if it is mere backpedaling it better be some pretty serious backpedaling.

I have read Reason off & on for some time. They are libertarian, they are not neocon (to my understanding, neocon means interventionist foreign policy - they'd be closer to paleocon if they weren't in favor of legalizing everything consensual), and while the writers seem to have views all over the map on all sorts of topics, their science writer Ron Bailey at this point acknowledges AGW. Regardless, I would not recommend the mag for science articles. Very good for cultural and civil liberty pieces. For examples see their P&T and South Park interviews or the Radly Balko and Jacob Sullum articles.

Thank you Greg for bringing this to the attention of your readers.
I'm a big fan of the JREF.
This science denialism crap must be confronted and dealt with once and for all.

Many of the writers at Reason agree that there's a scientific consensus for anthropogenic global warming.

Many? Define many.
I do not think that word means what you thing it means.

Here's a list of articles published by Reason.com connected to the subject of global warming...
How many can you find that don't aid and abet climate denialism in some way or form?

Reason.com has not embraced modern science.
They've just adopted a very, VERY slightly more nuanced fallback position.
It's the same ol' same ol' denialism with a dash of lipstick.

In all their articles, AGW somehow always manages to look bad somehow.

A few examples culled from their latest articles:

"..architectural blueprints in the United Arab Emirates are best regarded not as structures that will actually be built but as a regional subgenre of science fiction."

"The case for anthropogenic warming might indeed become airtight one day."

"None of the suggestions address the IPCCâs fundamental problem: It has every incentiveâfinancial and otherwiseâto buttress the global warming orthodoxy and none to challenge it."

"That Californians believe a statewide global warming policy will make a serious dent in global warming is a measure of our inflated sense of our own importance."

"Yet even in the heyday of the consensus on global warming there was never this kind of certainty. The ClimateGate scandalâin which prominent climatologists were caught manipulating data to exaggerate the observed warmingâhas significantly weakened this consensus."

"Reason's Ronald Bailey summarized the findings as follows: "All right, people. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Since its release, many critics have begun attacking the credibility of the committee charged with investigating the scandal.
(...)
The solution to global warming may very well be worse than the problem itself and, considering the stakes, the public needs to feel confident that climate scientists are acting in an open, transparent, and accountable manner. In this regard, the Russell report leaves much to be desired."

Ecetera, ecetera, ecetera...
It never stops.

The JREF should have absolutely nothing to do with these climate deniers.
It's disgraceful.

I've been told that Ron Bailey accepts climate change: http://bit.ly/aeK6PK , and from what I've read of him the past several months, this seems to be accurate. http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all

... skeptical of how much government intervention is needed to solve the problem: e.g. no to government subsidies for ethanol, electric cars, alternative energy, public transport, etc, but yes to a carbon tax

In other words, pure neocon

Uh, no. That's not neocon; those positions have little or nothing to do with the definition of what neoconservatism is. Do you even know the definition? Neocon refers to conservatives who favor an expansive, interventionist foreign policy. What you're describing is just libertarian/conservative. It's very old school, in fact.

Whether they're neocon, libertarian, palaeocon or whatever at Reason is largely irrelevant to Greg's main point, I think - Reason is supposedly looking at the world from a dispassionate, skeptical (in the true sense of the word, not the AGW denialist sense), apolitical standpoint, but actually the political agenda there sets the attitude to all else. Science is judged on the basis of ideology - you may as well be reading Marxism Today. I used to enjoy checking out the Hit and Run feature, in a mean-minded way - whenever there was reference to an environmental issue the readers would coming flapping in from every direction, anxious to prove their ideological bona fides to all of the other cadres, sorry, other independent free-thinking intellects, all queuing up to piss on the greenies like good little anarcho-capitalist rationalists. Pathetic.
And Ronald Bailey's just a cheerleader for corporate science.

You do know that other ScienceBloggers have Reason magazine in their blog roll. Dispatches from the Culture Wars and Built on Facts for example.

It's lucky that it's largely irrelevant to his point, because he appears to be confidently wrong about what Neocon means.

@7: I certainly don't see that many conservatives or neocon operators running for election supporting a carbon tax. The consensus for the carbon tax seems to be coming more from economists.

Conservatives seem be opposing new taxes of any kind, in particular the cap and trade scheme (though primarily only because it has been proposed by the currently in power dems). Externalities be damned...

The neocon label may not be entirely accurate, but the cherry-picking science denialist label fits. The reason I stopped subscribing to Reason magazine after years of readership was the subtle but pervasive pro-corporate spin on so many issues, particularly the environment. Even before I'd read enough about climate science to make up my own mind on AGW, the anti-environmentalist bent at Reason was getting on my nerves. It's true they do a lot of good work -- an interview with Archer Daniels Midland's Dwayne Andreas comes to mind -- but they and their ilk (notably Cato Institute, which I also donated to for a few years, sad to say) seem all too eager to be in bed with industrialists and to adopt their view of the world. I spent a lot of time at Cato events in the 1980s when I was working in Washington, but after reading David Brock's "Blinded by the Right" and more recently about the Koch brothers (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer) the things I observed over the years started to make more sense. If I remember correctly, Reason championed (or at least favorably reviewed) Bjork Lomborg's books, and Lomborg's arguments placated me (and directly or indirectly millions of others) against taking climate change seriously for many years. Now I'm reading The Lomborg Deception, which goes through his first two books endnote by endnote and points out his many lies, distortions, misquotes, etc. To say the least, Lomborg's standards of "scholarship" leave much to be desired. (Made-up references, citations that mean the opposite of what he claims, ignoring other studies that don't support his interpretations, etc.)

So they all (Lomborg, Reason, Cato, the Kochs, etc.) have blood on their hands as far as I'm concerned.

The neocon label is perfectly fine: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neocon

Then you have your neocon denialism, which is what we are seeing here.

This is my big problem with the skeptical movement. there are so many libertarians who call themselves skeptic. I got fed up dealing with those people and stopped attending those events or forums. Appears that prominent skeptics are setting the right example then... All very sad.

Greg Laden: The neocon label is perfectly fine:
[...]uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Neocon

Uncyclopedia is entertaining, but hardly a serious source to indicate commonly accepted meanings. For comparison, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocon.

The political right has factions which don't completely agree. The terms I usually use are Theocon, MoneyCon, XenoCon, and NeoCon. Theocons refer to the religious fundies on that side; MoneyCons, the "cheap labor conservatives" who just want wealthy businesses and their owners to get richer; XenoCons, the ones who are afraid of the little brown people; NeoCons, the latest jingoist expansionists who want to take up the white man's burden and go out to set the world right. (JingoCon would probably be a clearer term.)

There's a lot of overlap in position; the difference is largely a question of where they put their personal emphasis. Note, for example, the Wikipedia entry on the NeoCons mentions the fiscal position - which I would consider closer to MoneyCon than to "free-market libertarian". (Not that I'm a big fan of libertarian economics, either....) Similarly, most TheoCons also tend to XenoCon attitudes. However, the essential impulses apparently underlying of religion, money, power, and fear are different things.

However, if you'd rather play Humpty-Dumpty and give common words your own choice of meaning, I can work with that.

I wonder if these comments would make Eric Dondero's head explode? (He's a neocon who fancies himself a libertarian nad hates the Reason crowd)

Reason often publishes quite anti-AGW-science stuff. Note that they have on their cruise (pimped by JREF) Shikha Dalmia who writes odiferous anti-science material. Even Ron Bailey, who some have tried to praise (even McKibben) still writes with dismissal on the subject. Take note of his come-dance-on-the-grave-of-Schneider post, which Bailey's readers jumped on and did just that.

Greg -

So having gone to see your link about neocons and even accepting a rather more dubious source than even wikipedia, I am not seeing how Reason fits the label. The only thing on that page that actually fits Reason, is that editorially they are probably opposed to affirmative action and even that is rather more complicated than the neocon position - ie. putting those non-caucasians in their place.

To be clear, I am not a big fan of Reason. They oppose the welfare state to a degree I find distasteful, though they don't just toe the Libertarian line that welfare is an atrocity. They also tend towards the occasional anti-science views, though the editorial position on climate change isn't that is isn't happening - they now are rather more sceptical of state solutions. I rather adamantly disagree with them on that.

But when it comes to neocons, they have been absolute and unflinching in their opposition to the neocon agenda. They are absolutely anti-interventionist, with debate over whether we should intervene when asked by the nation in question. They are absolutely pro-gay marriage and complete equality. They are dead against all this anti-illegal immigrant hysteria and believe in making it easier for migrant workers to work here and be able to freely visit family they left behind. They are ardently opposed to religious intrusions into state institutions and publicly owned lands. They are pro-drug and prostitution legalisation, with an interest in seeing both made safer. They are far more opposed and absolutely so, in their opposition to corporate welfare, than they are to a welfare state. They are rather voracious in their criticism of law enforcement and the seeming complete immunity for police officers. They are also voracious in their opposition to racial profiling.

Bottom line, while they support some ideas that I am absolutely opposed to, they have far more in common with me and my political views (yours as well Greg), than they do with the neocons and teabaggers. It isn't even close and the list in the last para wasn't even close to comprehensive. Your political views and the editorial position of Reason are exceedingly similar, with very few (albeit very important) differences.

There are some important issues to disagree with, with Reason. Rather a lot of their readers and writers do just that. But accusing them of being neocons is patently fucking absurd. The differences between the neocon/teabagger movement and most actual libertarians, including Reason are considerably more vast than the differences between most actual libertarians and most lefties.

Try actually reading Reason some time. Peruse some of their articles, easy enough to find online. Then try to tell me with a straight face that your characterisation of them as neocons was the least bit accurate.

Hi Greg:

I assume you know of Radley's work. Other alums, such as Julian Sanchez and Dave Weigal, also product work that you may find interesting.

re: "neocon" - some writers were pro war and seem to be pro expansionist FP (CP Freund, another alum; Michael Moynihan), while others are not.

Jesse Walker does really fun cultural stuff.

They're against torture, the former and current administrations' desire for an expanding police state, and are worried about the expanding role of government in our lives.

Sure, they fret and moan and have their clear biases. Check out people hier - you see the same things.

Please don't do a PZ and argue with the libertarians/Reason mag in your head - there's plenty to cheer and boo about if you honestly read the mag

(I was an "original" on hit and run, used to subscribe - I find their coverage of the current admin to be poor, despite the President's faults. Oh yeah - I love the concept of wind and solar power, and wish there were more electrified public transportation hier in Chicago)

Signed,
Viking Moose, skeptic and libertarian (my definition of each fits into: Evidence trumps ideology (which really sucks sometimes, grin)).

I love it when libertarians tell me what to think.

Hi Greg -

"I was under the impression that "Reason" magazine was a libertarian neocon climate denialist rag. I could be wrong, but that's what I thought. "

yes, you're wrong. it's not neocon, and their "science" writer (giggle) does not deny AGW. it has its faults, but not where you're going

you're better than that. you're arguing with the libertarians in your head. Highnumber and I most definitely don't fit that definition. and check out what we both said. We're not telling you what to think. I feel that you erred in your classification of that magazine (which as I said, I don't like any more).

but we both tend towards libertarian. What is your relation with Ed Brayton like? do you even know of Radley's work? He's a libertarian. or - since he's associated with libertarian, you'll be for puppycide? c'mon. we both know that's not true.

but you and PZ really have a hostile argument in your heads that alienate a whole bunch of people, who actually are closer to you in views.

respectfully,
VM

Viking, as I said, I could be wrong, and I was eliciting commentary. I was not eliciting snarky insulting remarks, but that' just you, I guess.

Funny thing is, as the comments acrue, my opinion of the site is not exactly shifting in a positive direction. It seems that JREF is in fact advertising an AGW denialist cruise event as though it was something worthy of JREF pointing to.

I know nothing of Radley. Does that fail me some sort of test? Ed Brayton? Don't know him at all. (I know he has a blog on scienceblogs, of course. Never met him, corresponded with him exactly once on some inane business)

So the site is probably not neocon, but this connection to AGW denialism seems pretty firm. And, of course, the whole libertarian thing is very annoying.

Hi Greg:

sorry about the snark and insults! I apologize! i read the "I could be wrong" as snark, and was answering in the tone that I (mis)interpreted. sorry!

And no, I wasn't testing you. Again, my first thought is that is some sort of snark to phrase it that way (again, only saying that as disclosure) - I was only asking to see if you were aware of these two libertarianish writers. Radley does excellent work on police abuse. I recommend his work! And yes, Ed is at scienceblogs. I think he also does excellent work.

It's hard to say if Reason is a AGW denialist site. Some journalists there are, some aren't. Just like the Iraq War. Some were for, some were against. There are mixed editorial slants on that.

Regarding the "libertarianism = annoying", man oh man. You get a full whomping portion of that on their blog, these days! *shudder* it sounds like a bunch of 15 year old internet tough guys who want their way, and use the "limited government" as a punishment. terrible.

anyways, apologize for misreading you (and for any and all insults and snark) and I appreciate the response.

Best,

But what about the more immediate fact: The item being pointed to on JREF being an AGW denialist event? That seems more important than the overall gestalt of "Reason"

true! and an excellent point (getting us back "on message")

they should be better than that!

Penn and Teller should also know/do better, even though Penn said that he was wrong about AGW. When they pretend to be empirical/evidence/ science based skeptics, they should realize that it might go against political views, at which time they can reexamine how they go about things and fit the outcomes to their views (what I call the "Fox news approach") or reexamine their views, if their methods are sound.

thanks again for the response.

best

"But what about the more immediate fact: The item being pointed to on JREF being an AGW denialist event?"

I think that may be overstating things a bit. Sikha Dalmia probably is a denialist, and I wish they'd send her off to National Review or some such. She did manage to republish the odious Hummer-vs-Prius tripe that went around a few years ago.

Bailey - When you corner him, he's right, but he spends an awful lot of time trumpeting minor failings of the pro-AGW crowd.

I think that the tendency for libertarians to be skeptical of climate science has to do with cultural perceptions. Academic scientists are generally a fairly left-leaning bunch. I certainly recall hearing a lot of "this will finally stick it to those greedy corporations" when I was in grad school (geophysics with an environmental focus - but mine was on dump-site characterization for remediation, not ecology or climatology). For me this was balanced by all the oil/gas exploration guys who'd bring in spokes-scientists from Exxon/Mobile/Arco/Chevron/etc who'd bullshit wildly about how we weren't running out of oil and CO2 was as safe as hugs and kisses. So I heard expert denialism early on, but also saw a certain amount of emotional validation on the part of AGW proponents.

And that tendency among the true academics to crow about how they'd finally caught those greedy corporations would certainly lead me to almost assume that while the overall science is pretty damned air-tight (the last question marks were answered by no later than '98, IMO), there's almost undoubtedly been some puffing of some numbers by some isolated scientists for two reasons. One - to make their own findings seem more important. Two - because it confirms their narrative bias that greed and consumption are inherently bad.

HOWEVER - and this however is pretty important - many/most thoughtful libertarians (this is to distinguish from the Randroid- and cowboy-conservative- libertarians) have their own antisocialist and antiLuddite biases that lead THEM to over-emphasize this left-bias among scientists. Hence they are vigilantly pro-science when it comes to numerous issues but they get very very sloppy when it comes to what they see as calls to impede liberty. Those few who puffed their numbers or threw out their low-side outliers more rigorously than their high-side outliers or otherwise let their personal biases influence their work, did so largely unconsciously, and definitely not to a degree to seriously compromise the overall body of work. And this is a nuance that professional libertarian thinkers will, for their own emotional reasons, gloss over.

In any event, I don't think there's signficant evidence to support characterizing the cruise as a "denialist event" which gives the impression that it's got denialism as a focus. There will be one probable denialist there, and some other fence-sitters but few of them have denialism as a focus, so it's entirely possible that you could get through the entire event without ever being exposed to denialist sentiment.

Then again, you might.

I will say this: Once you move away from AGW and some elements of environmentalism, Reason's editorial bent becomes much more pro-skeptic, and pro-science. They are skeptical of Truther LIHOP and MIHOP conspiracy theories, openly mock Birthers, and all manner of Woo. They kinda think that Creationists have a right to be wrong, but soundly mocked neocon darling Ben Stein for his ID foolishness, and oppose religious indoctrination in government schools (although they mostly support letting creationists take voucher money to madhrassas or even Bob Jones Elementary if they so desire, but that's again on the be-free-to-be-wrong platform, not the pro-ID/Creationism platform)

Also, Greg, re: insults, I think most of the libertarians you're seeing here see 'neocon' as an insult. Libertarians and neocons found common cause during the Cold War because both opposed socialism and communism, and there are still some common threads in that both oppose Iranian- and Taliban-style theocracy. Hence those libertarians and Reasonoids who supported the wars early on. But as Bush got further and further out of hand, the libertarian/neocon divide deepened. Reason's staff went about 25% McCain, 30% whoever-was-the-LP-guy, and 35% Obama, IIRC. Well, of those who didn't endorse principled-non-voting.

This may (or not) help clarify 'who' Reason is.
http://reason.com/archives/2008/10/29/whos-getting-your-vote/singlepage
Barr got my vote.
As for a former president who i dislike (no physical harm please): While Wilson was a eugenicist/racist/statist douche, i have a very personal beef with FDR. He sold out my dad's family at Yalta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul
Reason is of course in the Koch's pocket to a point. Yet let's not forget that David also supports PBS's NOVA.

Reason ran a mix of views on climate change when I started reading it about 20 years ago, when denialism was more defensible. As the evidence piled up, the denialists disappeared. These days the differences of opinion at Reason have to do with how to deal with global warming, not with whether it's happening.

As the evidence piled up, the denialists disappeared.

Who disappeared?
Name names.

Who, from the Reason team, walked away in disgust due to a pro AGW stance being adopted by the entire staff?

Who are the new, young fire-brands that are very pro-science and are not prepared to hem and haw over the issue?
Who?
Judging by the archived articles from yesteryear, the same names are still around.

These days the differences of opinion at Reason have to do with how to deal with global warming, not with whether it's happening.

It's the same dogs, but with different fleas.

The traditional denialist and the "more nuanced" denialist both have the same end-game.

Do Nothing.

It used to be flat out denial:

"Nope, it's not happening. So Do Nothing".

Now it's 'nuanced':

"Okay, maybe it's happening. If you squint real hard, maybe it's happening. No denial here. No Sirree! Yet sadly, and most unfortunately, the problem is too big/small/undefined/complicated/expensive/statist/leftist to do anything about. Oh look, CLIMATEGATE!!! So Do Nothing."

Every single article connected with AGW by reason.com has a "yeah but...".
Every single article looks for that all important shadow of doubt.
All the while they carefully phrase things to maintain plausible deniablity that they are not really being exactly deniers.
They damn AGW with faint praise.

They've written dozens of articles in exactly the same pattern. It's no coincidence.

The dog-whistle blows loud and clear.

Sure. But it's a legitimate opinion. Now that we've balanced the local federal budget and worked out a system to achieve world peace, lets work on stopping AND reversing global CLIMATE fluctuations so that will stop changing too.

Cedric,
It sounds like you know of a magic bullet for AGW. I must admit that I missed the media coverage of this spectacular foolproof solution that ends the need for debate. What exactly is it?

highnumber: Is media coverage your criterion for knowledge? Interesting.

The problem is the release of fossil carbon into the existing carbon cycle. The solution is to stop releasing carbon into the existing carbon cycle then find some god that works and pray to it that the excess carbon returns to some carbon sink in time for the oceans to not lower too much in pH to support aerobic life on this planet.

Greg,
Ideas are transmitted through media. Now I see how I could have missed this brilliant solution.

Reason doesn't deny Anthropogenic Global Warming, it simply opposes any effort to mitigate its effects. Ronald Bailey, the magazine's science "correspondent" takes the tack of misrepresenting and selectively reading virtually every study on the subject.

Orjin Krem Bitki özlerinin mikro ölçülerde birleÅtirilmesi ile elde edilmiÅ naturel bir üründür.
Orjin Krem Emilimi çok güçlü olduÄundan etkisini dakikalar içerisinde gösterir.
Orjin Krem Bitki özleri sayesinde kasların rahatlamasına ve gerilimin giderilmesine yardımcı olur.
Orjin Krem 100 ML ve 25 ML set olarak satılmaktadır.
Orjin Krem iki kutu bir arada bir kutu içerisindedir holagram bulunmaktadır.
Orjin Krem alındıktan sonra bandrollü sayesinde sahte olup olmadıÄını kontrol edebilirsiniz.