Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-05-10, 04:52 PM   #126
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The only big corporate sponsor left for 10:10 is O2, British cell phone company (unless I've missed something).

It appears they may be willing to go down with the ship.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/0...gate-goregate/

Quote:
David says:
October 5, 2010 at 1:51 pm

I received this from O2. Media Studies graduate Sarah is sticking up for the eco-nazis. But I doubt that her bosses will be for much longer.

Dear ******

Thank you for your message sent via the Think Big website.

Along with 100,000 members of the public, leading businesses, schools and universities, local authorities and NHS Trusts, O2 supports the aims of the 10:10 campaign.

We acknowledge our responsibility to the environment and are committed to reducing our carbon emissions both as an organisation and in society as a whole.

10:10 is an independent organisation and we don’t ask for editorial control over the content of its campaigns. 10:10′s latest statement on this issue can be viewed on its website at http://www.1010global.org/uk

Kind regards
Sarah
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-05-10 at 09:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-10, 03:06 PM   #127
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

A CAGW alarmist is offended that we're offended by the 10:10 film.

http://www.greenchipstocks.com/artic...te-change/1122

Quote:
3 Offensive Images Of Climate Change

Why Climate Change Deniers Should Be Blown To Bits!
By R.T. Jones
Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

A couple of weeks ago [Actually, five days ago, but alarmists have never been known for accuracy - m], a new short film by comedy screenwriter Richard Curtis was released for the 10:10 environmental campaign. And apparently, that film offended a lot of people.

I actually thought it was kind of funny. But I do have a sense of humor.

So why were people so offended?

Well, in the film, a few overzealous environmentalists use detonators to blow up those who don't want to do their part to reduce carbon emissions. I think the graphic scenes rubbed some folks the wrong way. Although the quality of the special effects made the whole thing about as realistic as the head explosion scene in the 1981 chesse-fest, Scanners.

Nonetheless, I'm calling bullshit on the whole “Oh, I'm offended” thing.

This movie was not offensive. What is offensive is the fact that we still entertain climate change deniers who use fossil fuel-funded studies to push their dishonorable agendas.

What's offensive is the result of continued inaction on climate change.

You want offensive?

Here's offensive. . .

city:



drought:



traffic:



These images are much more offensive than a fictional story and a few bad special effects.

These images show you what's really going on in our world. This is real life, not an art project!

Richard Curtis' film is nothing more than a tasteless, albeit funny 4-minute snippet in the tongue-in-cheek style of Monty Python.

And anyone who thinks that this movie is more offensive then the continued degradation of our planet should be, well, take a look at the film. . .

[embed of the 10:10 film, which I've posted above]
Jones has actually changed the first two images which had little to do with global warming. He changed them for two images that... have little or nothing to do with global warming. Neither does the third.

Read the comments which are almost all against Jones. While he has a few True Believers, it is becoming less and less common as the alarmists ignore contrary science and continue to offend decency.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-10, 03:15 PM   #128
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tells bald-faced lie about 2007 Supreme Court EPA decision.

http://greenhellblog.com/2010/10/06/...nt-of-the-day/

Quote:
Disingenuous EPA statement of the day
October 6, 2010
Steve Milloy

In an interview with Politico.com about her damn-the-critics approach to greenhouse gas (GHG) regulation, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said,

“The Clean Air Act is a tool. It’s not the optimal tool. But it can be used. And, in fact, I’m legally obligated now to use it. And so we’ve laid a lot of groundwork on that and we’ll continue.” [Emphasis added][/indent]
But EPA is not, in fact, legally obligated to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

In its March 2007 decision Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled only that the EPA may — not that it had to — regulate GHGs. And the Bush administration subsequently declined to regulate GHGs.

It wasn’t until December 2009 that the Obama EPA got around to declaring greenhouse gases to be a threat to the public welfare (the so-called “endangerment” finding), an optional pronouncement that enabled the EPA to move toward regulating greenhouse gases.

But just as the EPA opted to make the endangerment finding, it could opt to reverse it, thereby relieving the agency of any obligation to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

Lisa Jackson knows full well that the EPA does have to regulate GHGs, yet she plays to the media like her hands are tied to following an economically-suicidal and environmentally-futile course.
Good thing for her she doesn't have to face the voters after that whopper.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-10, 03:24 PM   #129
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The inevitable "Downfall" parody:



I have a feeling this may disappear as the Downfall filmmakers have been cracking down on these.

Now that's...

Funny, Actually.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-10, 03:52 PM   #130
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition



The cartoon keeps disappearing so here's the link:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...6/josh-44.html

Last edited by movielib; 10-07-10 at 11:25 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-10, 03:56 PM   #131
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,964
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Richard Curtis' film is nothing more than a tasteless, albeit funny 4-minute snippet in the tongue-in-cheek style of Monty Python.


He might be referencing their "Salad Days" sketch.

Unlike Curtis' film it is funny.
__________________
"Wishbone is spelled with an E not a 3..... *Be gone*" - Minor Threat
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 08:12 AM   #132
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Remember when they blamed amphibian deaths on global warming? It turned out to be a fungus. (I had predicted the problem would probably turn out to be a biological agent.)

The honeybee colony collapses have been happening for a few years now. Of course, again, global warming was one of the big "suspects," although not mentioned in this article, perhaps out of embarrassment. Still, they do mention pesticides and genetically modified food, two more "villains" environmentalists are fond of that are also almost never, if ever, real villains. Again, the predictable culprit(s) (if you are paying attention to the real world) is (are) biological.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/sc...bees.html?_r=2

Quote:
Scientists and Soldiers Solve a Bee Mystery
By KIRK JOHNSON
Published: October 6, 2010

DENVER — It has been one of the great murder mysteries of the garden: what is killing off the honeybees?

Since 2006, 20 to 40 percent of the bee colonies in the United States alone have suffered “colony collapse.” Suspected culprits ranged from pesticides to genetically modified food.

Now, a unique partnership — of military scientists and entomologists — appears to have achieved a major breakthrough: identifying a new suspect, or two.

A fungus tag-teaming with a virus have apparently interacted to cause the problem, according to a paper by Army scientists in Maryland and bee experts in Montana in the online science journal PLoS One.

Exactly how that combination kills bees remains uncertain, the scientists said — a subject for the next round of research. But there are solid clues: both the virus and the fungus proliferate in cool, damp weather, and both do their dirty work in the bee gut, suggesting that insect nutrition is somehow compromised.

Liaisons between the military and academia are nothing new, of course. World War II, perhaps the most profound example, ended in an atomic strike on Japan in 1945 largely on the shoulders of scientist-soldiers in the Manhattan Project. And a group of scientists led by Jerry Bromenshenk of the University of Montana in Missoula has researched bee-related applications for the military in the past — developing, for example, a way to use honeybees in detecting land mines.

But researchers on both sides say that colony collapse may be the first time that the defense machinery of the post-Sept. 11 Homeland Security Department and academia have teamed up to address a problem that both sides say they might never have solved on their own.

“Together we could look at things nobody else was looking at,” said Colin Henderson, an associate professor at the University of Montana’s College of Technology and a member of Dr. Bromenshenk’s “Bee Alert” team.

Human nature and bee nature were interconnected in how the puzzle pieces came together. Two brothers helped foster communication across disciplines. A chance meeting and a saved business card proved pivotal. Even learning how to mash dead bees for analysis — a skill not taught at West Point — became a factor.

One perverse twist of colony collapse that has compounded the difficulty of solving it is that the bees do not just die — they fly off in every direction from the hive, then die alone and dispersed. That makes large numbers of bee autopsies — and yes, entomologists actually do those — problematic.

Dr. Bromenshenk’s team at the University of Montana and Montana State University in Bozeman, working with the Army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center northeast of Baltimore, said in their jointly written paper that the virus-fungus one-two punch was found in every killed colony the group studied. Neither agent alone seems able to devastate; together, the research suggests, they are 100 percent fatal.

“It’s chicken and egg in a sense — we don’t know which came first,” Dr. Bromenshenk said of the virus-fungus combo — nor is it clear, he added, whether one malady weakens the bees enough to be finished off by the second, or whether they somehow compound the other’s destructive power. “They’re co-factors, that’s all we can say at the moment,” he said. “They’re both present in all these collapsed colonies.”

Research at the University of California, San Francisco, had already identified the fungus as part of the problem. And several RNA-based viruses had been detected as well. But the Army/Montana team, using a new software system developed by the military for analyzing proteins, uncovered a new DNA-based virus, and established a linkage to the fungus, called N. ceranae.

“Our mission is to have detection capability to protect the people in the field from anything biological,” said Charles H. Wick, a microbiologist at Edgewood. Bees, Dr. Wick said, proved to be a perfect opportunity to see what the Army’s analytic software tool could do. “We brought it to bear on this bee question, which is how we field-tested it,” he said.

The Army software system — an advance itself in the growing field of protein research, or proteomics — is designed to test and identify biological agents in circumstances where commanders might have no idea what sort of threat they face. The system searches out the unique proteins in a sample, then identifies a virus or other microscopic life form based on the proteins it is known to contain. The power of that idea in military or bee defense is immense, researchers say, in that it allows them to use what they already know to find something they did not even know they were looking for.

But it took a family connection — through David Wick, Charles’s brother — to really connect the dots. When colony collapse became news a few years ago, Mr. Wick, a tech entrepreneur who moved to Montana in the 1990s for the outdoor lifestyle, saw a television interview with Dr. Bromenshenk about bees.

Mr. Wick knew of his brother’s work in Maryland, and remembered meeting Dr. Bromenshenk at a business conference. A retained business card and a telephone call put the Army and the Bee Alert team buzzing around the same blossom.

The first steps were awkward, partly because the Army lab was not used to testing bees, or more specifically, to extracting bee proteins. “I’m guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk,” Charles Wick said. “It was very complicated.”

The process eventually was refined. A mortar and pestle worked better than the desktop, and a coffee grinder worked best of all for making good bee paste.

Scientists in the project emphasize that their conclusions are not the final word. The pattern, they say, seems clear, but more research is needed to determine, for example, how further outbreaks might be prevented, and how much environmental factors like heat, cold or drought might play a role.

They said that combination attacks in nature, like the virus and fungus involved in bee deaths, are quite common, and that one answer in protecting bee colonies might be to focus on the fungus — controllable with antifungal agents — especially when the virus is detected.

Still unsolved is what makes the bees fly off into the wild yonder at the point of death. One theory, Dr. Bromenshenk said, is that the viral-fungal combination disrupts memory or navigating skills and the bees simply get lost. Another possibility, he said, is a kind of insect insanity.

In any event, the university’s bee operation itself proved vulnerable just last year, when nearly every bee disappeared over the course of the winter.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 09:58 AM   #133
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

New Zealand government says it has nothing to do with its official national temperature record which has been found to be somewhat fabricated.

http://www.suite101.com/content/lega...#ixzz11g0Cjj2e

Quote:
Legal Defeat for Global Warming in Kiwigate Scandal
By John O'Sullivan
Last Updated Oct 7, 2010, Published Oct 6, 2010

In the climate controversy dubbed Kiwigate New Zealand skeptics inflict shock courtroom defeat on climatologists implicated in temperature data fraud.

New Zealand’s government via its National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has announced it has nothing to do with the country’s “official” climate record in what commentators are calling a capitulation from the tainted climate reconstruction.

NIWA’s statement claims they were never responsible for the national temperature record (NZTR).The climb down is seen as a dramatic legal triumph for skeptics of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) who had initiated their challenge last August when petitioning the high court of New Zealand to invalidate the weather service’s reconstruction of antipodean temperatures.

According to the August official statement of the claim from NZCSC climate scientists cooked the books by using the same alleged ‘trick’ employed by British and American doomsaying scientists. This involves subtly imposing a warming bias during what is known as the ‘homogenisation’ process that occurs when climate data needs to be adjusted.

The specific charge brought against the Kiwi government was that it’s climate scientists had taken the raw temperature records of the country and then adjusted them artificially with the result that a steeper warming trend was created than would otherwise exist by examination of the raw data alone.

Indeed, the original Kiwi records shows no warming during the 20th century, but after government sponsored climatologists had manipulated the data a warming trend of 1C appeared.

New Zealand Government Abandons ‘Official’ Climate Record

The NZCSC story reports that the NZ authorities, “formally stated that, in their opinion, they are not required to use the best available information nor to apply the best scientific practices and techniques available at any given time. They don’t think that forms any part of their statutory obligation to pursue “excellence.”

NIWA now denies there was any such thing as an “official” NZ Temperature Record, although there was an official acronym for it (NZTR). However, the position now taken by the NZ government is that all such records are now to be deemed as unofficial and strictly for internal research purposes.

Fruity Scandal Shocks Kiwis - J. Smith

The article urges that if the government will not affirm that their temperature reconstruction is official then, “Nobody else should rely on it.”

Researcher from Climategate University Implicated in Data Fraud

As reported in a Suite101 article by the same writer of April 2010 'Kiwigate is a Carbon Copy of Climategate' it was shown that the scientist who made the controversial “bold adjustments” is none other than Jim Salinger who is also a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Salinger was dismissed by NIWA earlier this year for speaking without authorization to the media. The discredited researcher originally worked at Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), the institution at the center of the Climategate scandal.

Salinger was also among the inner circle of climate scientists whose leaked emails precipitated the original climate controversy in November 2009. In an email (August 4, 2003) to fellow disgraced American climate professor, Michael Mann, Salinger stated he was “extremely concerned about academic standards” among climate skeptics.

Bogus Data Destroyed before it could be independently verified

In circumstances strangely similar to those witnessed in the Climategate controversy Kiwigate appears to match Climategate in three key three facets. First, climate scientists declined to submit their data for independent analysis. Second, when backed into a corner the scientists claimed their adjustments had been ‘lost’. Third, the raw data itself proves no warming trend.
It just goes on and on, doesn't it?

Sounds like Mission Impossible.

The New Zealand government: "Your mission, Mr Salinger, should you choose to accept it, is to 'adjust' both past and present temperatures so as to give the impression that there has been a lot of warming in New Zealand in the 20th century. Should word of your manipulations leak out, the Secretary shall disavow that there even is an official New Zealand temperature record. This tape will self-destruct in 30 seconds."
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-07-10 at 11:15 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 10:07 AM   #134
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

The next two posts are Parts 1 and 2 of articles by Donna Laframboise who skewers the IPCC report on all those endangered species we're killing with global climate disruption. No bias in the IPCC assumptions or "experts" is there?

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress...nction-part-1/

Quote:
Another IPCC Train Wreck: Species Extinction (Part 1)
October 4, 2010
Donna Laframboise

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rarely misses an opportunity to spread alarm. In September 2007, during a presentation at United Nations headquarters in New York, he declared that “20-30% of plant and animal species [are] at risk of extinction” due to global warming.

In December of that year, when the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Prize, Pachauri used his Nobel lecture to tell the world that failure to prevent climate change “could prove extremely harmful for the human race and for all species that share common space on planet earth.” He warned that, if global average temperature exceeded “about 3.5 ºC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40%–70% of species assessed) around the globe” [italics added].

In February 2008, Pachauri cited the 20-30% figure while addressing a committee of the North Carolina legislature. In March, the bulletin of the International Atomic Energy Agency published an interview with him, in which he discussed the extinction issue in a similar manner.

That November Pachauri told an audience at a Zurich university that climate change “will reduce biodiversity and perturb functioning of most ecosystems” – once again referencing the 20-30% figure. By December he’d taken this message to Poland. Never tiring of the theme, in September 2009 he again raised the extinction fear at the UN in New York, then at the Copenhagen climate summit that December, then in an article he authored for the UK’s Guardian newspaper in April 2010.

It is by no means clear how the IPCC arrived at these scary numbers, however. In Chapter 4 of the 2007 Working Group 2 report, in a section titled “Global synthesis including impacts on biodiversity,” one paragraph ends with the following:
Based on all above findings and our compilation (Figure 4.4, Table 4.1) we estimate that on average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century as global mean temperatures exceed 2°C to 3°C relative to pre-industrial levels…The uncertainties remain large, however, since for about 2°C temperature increase the percentage may be as low as 10% or for about 3°C as high as 40% and, depending on biota, the range is between 1% and 80% (Table 4.1; Thomas et al., 2004a; Malcolm et al., 2006). As global average temperature exceeds 4°C above pre-industrial levels, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% species assessed) around the globe (Table 4.1).
Please note the words I’ve bolded. When people talk about estimates, possibilities, large uncertainties, likelies, maybes, and suggestions; when their guesses range from 10 to 40%, and from 1 to 80% – they aren’t saying much of anything. Nevertheless, the IPCC’s thinking on this matter does seem to be summed up by the excerpt above.

Please also note the two studies that get mentioned by name. One is by Chris Thomas (plus 18 co-authors). The second is by Jay Malcolm (plus four co-authors). According to the IPCC’s Table 4.1 (cited three times in the excerpt above), the Malcolm paper, which discusses vegetation only, estimates that different kinds of ecosystems – such as tundra, scrubland, and deciduous forest – could lose between 2 and 47% of their current area.

When the public hears about extinction, however, it thinks of animals. Table 4.1 says the Thomas paper (described as examining both flora and fauna planet wide) estimates that between 9 and 31% of species are “committed to extinction” if the average global temperature rises 1.2 to 2 degrees.

The dozens of other research papers listed in Table 4.1 are more limited in scope. One examines only eucalypts plants. Others look at Australia’s golden bowerbird, Brazil’s cerrado plants, Hawaii’s honeycreepers (small birds), or Antarctic mollusks (snails). One study discusses waterfowl habitat in America’s Prairie Pothole region.

It would appear, therefore, that the IPCC’s 20-30% planet-wide extinction estimate rests heavily on the Thomas paper. It is the only research cited by the IPCC that claims to be global and to have considered both animals and plant life. Incidentally, I’m not the only person who has come to this conclusion. University of Virginia School of Law professor Jason Johnston raised this matter in a May 2010 research paper (info & download link for 82-page PDF here).

Cue the dramatic music, because this is where the train leaves the track. What Pachauri’s many audiences have had no way of knowing is that the Thomas paper was controversial long before the IPCC decided to accord it center stage in its analysis.

THE NOTORIOUS THOMAS PAPER

In 2004, Nature – a UK science weekly – started off the New Year with a bang. The cover of it’s January 8th issue featured a fabulous close-up photo of a lizard. “Feeling the heat. Biodiversity losses due to global warming” declared the headline. Pages 145-148 introduced the Thomas paper to the world, after which the story was picked up by mainstream news outlets. As one scholar later observed: “It is rare for a scientific paper to be the lead item on the evening news, or to fill the front pages of our national newspapers, but the Thomas et al. paper received exceptional worldwide media attention.”

Unfortunately for Pachauri, many experts consider this paper to be a load of rubbish.

Enter Daniel Botkin. Considered one of the pre-eminent biologists of the 20th century, he helped develop some of the first computer models used by ecologists. In addition to degrees in physics and biology, he has four decades of professional experience under his belt. He has taught at several universities including Yale and the University of California, Santa Barbara – where he was chair of the Environmental Studies program for six years.

Botkin calls the Thomas study “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.” On his blog he explains:
First, the paper uses a theory that is inappropriate and illogical for the question. Second, the data on which the calculations are based — the areas of the world’s biomes — are crude, lacking estimates of measurement error. My textbook Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet has a chapter on the scientific method in which I state that “a measurement without a statement about its degree of uncertainty is meaningless.”
That this was a paper with shortcomings is confirmed by the fact that, by July 2004 (six months after it first appeared), Nature had received, edited, and published three separate critiques.

Nature Critique #1

The first pointed out that, rather than using well-established, universally recognized methods to arrive at their conclusions the Thomas team had employed a novel (and therefore unproven) analytical approach.

It added that the likelihood of errors was amplified by the fact that the Thomas paper incorporated findings from many studies that used a range of techniques (apples, oranges, and lemons had all been treated similarly).

Echoing Botkin, the critique authors said they were not aware of “any means of quantifying” the uncertainty associated with “the simplistic link” the Thomas paper had attempted to draw between a reduction of habitat and a particular species’ risk of extinction.

Nature Critique #2

The second critique accused the Thomas authors of circular mathematical reasoning and of jumping to conclusions. It then continued:
The effects of global change on extinction risk are difficult to anticipate. Global warming will increase some habitats and their speciesholding capacity, just as warming reduces other habitats. The net effect for biodiversity of these habitat expansions and contractions is not obvious, particularly as species ranges may shift poleward from the tropics, where the greatest number of species is currently.
Nature Critique #3

The third critique pointed out that because no one yet understands the role genetics plays when species attempt to adapt to changing environments, certain assumptions in the Thomas paper “may not be justified” and certain of its methods may “yield poor results” and “may be inaccurate.”

This critique said that while the Thomas paper’s overall conclusion was “compelling,” the paper “could be greatly underestimating the threat to biodiversity from climate change.” That logic, of course, cuts both ways. Once we understand genetics better, we may discover the extinction risk to be less than we thought rather than worse.

Owen Lewis

The misgivings about the Thomas paper didn’t end there. In July 2005, three months prior to when the Malcolm paper (on which the IPCC chose to rely, above) received its publication green light, a conservation biologist at Oxford University had his own paper accepted for publication in a prominent British journal. Owen Lewis devoted 6,000 words (3 times the length of this blog post) to explaining why the findings of the Thomas paper were highly questionable.

Lewis argues that since we don’t know how many species are currently constrained by climate alone (as opposed to, say, natural predators), we can’t tell if today’s distribution patterns reflect the true limit of the climate they’re able to tolerate. He points out that the “widespread ability of species to persist if transplanted or introduced outside their current range” suggests the natural world is more resilient than we might think. (Tomatoes, for example, are native to South America. Introduced to Europe during the 1500s, they thrived to such an extent they then became a cornerstone of Italian cuisine.)

Lewis is troubled by the fact that the Thomas paper studied only populations known to occupy relatively small geographic ranges. This is a problem, he says, because it is “well know that species with small geographic ranges are particularly prone to extinctions.” Moreover:
…only a small fraction of the species included by Thomas et al. are from tropical forests, but these forests account for over 50% of terrestrial biodiversity (perhaps considerably more) and may be less affected by climate change than habitats at higher latitudes.
According to Lewis, because so little is known about the tropical invertebrates (insects, worms, snails, butterflies, and so forth) that constitute “the bulk of global biodiversity” scholars “are certainly not in a position to predict their future ranges” – or to know how large their habitat would need to be in order to ensure their survival.

Then there’s the fossil record. Lewis says there’s evidence that temperatures both increased and decreased during the past 10,000 years “to a greater extent than the minimum warming scenario investigated by Thomas et al., and at a similarly rapid rate.” Those temperature changes appear to have “had relatively little impact on extinctions,” he says. It’s also possible, he suggests, that “those species most sensitive to climate change” have already been weeded out via natural selection.

The long and short of it? Lewis thinks it’s highly inappropriate for the findings in the Thomas paper to be extrapolated to the entire globe. The layers upon layers of uncertainty, he says, should “make us very wary of the accuracy” of these predictions.

Carsten Dormann

By June 2006, a scholar at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research in Germany had also submitted a paper to a scientific journal disputing the Thomas findings. Carsten Dormann says the Thomas researchers simply “assume that species distributions are affected overwhelmingly by climate, that species will…not adapt to climate and that the statistical methods are robust.”

While it’s one thing, he says, to employ ecological models to generate hypothesis for further testing, it’s another matter entirely to present the results of these modeling exercises as predictions that policy makers and the public then interpret as forecasts. The problems associated with the Thomas approach, he says, “are so numerous and fundamental that common ecological sense should caution us against putting much faith in…their findings.”

Dormann suggests that the Thomas researchers use data that isn’t appropriate for their purpose, that “many papers reporting on species distribution have not provided the scientific rigour” necessary to be reliable, and that extrapolating from small studies in order to make global statements is fraught with danger. “Species distribution analyses are no easy game,” he insists. They require “intimate knowledge of the species, of the statistics and a lot of thought.”

Arguing that far more attention should be paid to validating ecological models before ecologists use them to predict the future, Dormann says his own paper “is intended to call on the scientist employing species distribution models…to reflect more thoroughly on their merits and limitations.”

Daniel Botkin

By March 2007 a paper by Botkin (the eminent biologist who makes his appearance at the top of this section) had also been published. Co-authored with 18 other scholars from the US, Denmark, Spain, the UK, Australia, and Switzerland, this paper accuses many researchers of employing techniques whose reliability has never been confirmed to make predictions about the future. “Of the modeling papers we have reviewed, only a few were validated,” they report.

In the opinion of these authors, the Thomas paper “may have greatly overestimated the probability of extinction.” Like Oxford biologist Lewis, above, they believe the past sheds important light on the threat climate change may pose in the future:
…the fossil record indicates that, in most regions, surprisingly few species went extinct during the [last 2.5 million years] – in North America, for example, only one tree species is known to have gone extinct…

…Until recently, it was thought that past temperature changes were no more rapid than 1 degree Celsius…per millennium, but recent information from both Greenland and Antarctica, which goes back approximately 400,000 years, indicates that there have been many intervals of very rapid temperature change, as judged by shifts in oxygen isotope ratios. Some of the most dramatic changes…are actually of greater amplitude than anything projected for the immediate future.
Declaring that serious problems “need to be overcome” before “too much weight can be placed” on the methods used in the Thomas paper, Botkin and his co-authors make it clear that this is not top-notch research.

to be continued…
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 10:16 AM   #135
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress...nction-part-2/

Quote:
Another IPCC Train Wreck: Species Extinction (Part 2)
October 7, 2010
Donna Laframboise

5 of 10 lead authors have links to the World Wildlife Fund (WG2-Chapter4)

A few days I ago I wrote about the chapter in the 2007 Nobel-winning climate bible that concludes 20-30% of all the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction due to global warming. I explained that the research paper on which this finding depends has been demolished by experts in that field. According to one of the world’s pre-eminent biologists, the 2004 Thomas study isn’t just flawed it’s “the worst paper I have ever read in a major scientific journal.”

So now imagine you are among the 31 individuals assigned to write this chapter of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. You know that the purpose of the IPCC is to “provide rigorous and balanced scientific information” – just like it says on the website.

Is there any way you can cite the findings of the Thomas paper and yet not tell your readers about the controversy it generated?

Is it honest to neglect to mention that the same journal that published the Thomas paper followed up six months later with not one, not two, but three critiques?

Is it scientific to fail to alert your readers to the fact that another harsh appraisal of some 6,000 words in length was authored by a scholar at Oxford University?

Do you not have a responsibility to explain, as does renowned biologist Daniel Botkin, that: “Specialists know that theoretical models…should not be taken literally“?

Can a chapter really be considered an objective overview if it lists 917 documents as references yet neglects these contrary perspectives? Does critique number one appear in the references? Nope. Critique number two? Nyet. Critique number three? Na. The Oxford gent’s paper? Not a chance.

WHO MADE THE SPECIES EXTINCTION CALL?

So who wrote this chapter? Its two most senior people (coordinating lead authors) are Andreas Fischlin, a biologist from Switzerland, and Guy Midgley, a biologist from South Africa.

Andreas Fischlin

Prior to his involvement with the 2007 edition of the climate bible, Fischlin also helped write the second (1995) and third (2001) editions. He has been appointed once again to take part in the updated version currently getting underway. His academic bio, however, tells us he has long been a member of the Swiss delegation “in all UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) negotiations.” The UNFCCC is an international treaty. In others words, Fischlin is no disinterested scientist. He is involved in climate change politicking at the very highest levels.

Forty coordinating lead authors (2 per chapter) helped produce the climate bible’s Working Group 2 report. When that working group’s findings were presented to the UNFCCC in May 2007, only four people out of these 40 were selected to make that presentation. Fischlin and his fellow coordinating lead author Midgley both landed a role in this decidedly political affair.

Later, Fischlin participated in a three-day United Nations conference dedicated to global warming and the tourism industry where he made statements such as:
Tourism has to contribute to [emissions reduction]: it’s a cause of the problem and has to take up its share.
When these comments were reported by the news media, Fischlin was described as “a leading scientist on the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change.” The public was not told that his expertise is in ecological modeling – not tourism. Nor was it advised of his other role as a science politician.

Guy Midgley

Would it surprise you to learn that the second senior person for this chapter – Guy Midgley – is, in fact, a co-author of the notorious Thomas paper? (Another Thomas co-author, Lesley Hughes, also worked on the chapter.)

The IPCC has no conflict-of-interest guidelines. Instead, it seems to believe its authors are capable of remaining rigorously objective whenever the merits of their own work are being evaluated. A total of 23 papers in which Midgley was involved were cited. The public has no way of knowing how the quality of the other 22 compares to that of the soundly thrashed Thomas paper.

Midgley has once again been tapped to serve as a coordinating lead author for the upcoming edition of the climate bible. It’s rather a mystery, though, how his expertise in “plant ecophysiology and stress tolerance” equips him to be one of two senior people for a chapter examining “Adaptation opportunities, constraints and limitations.” We’re told the world’s top experts write IPCC reports. But the closer I look, the less I believe this to be the case (see here and here).

Jeff Price

Eight people were assigned the role of lead author in the species extinction chapter. American biologist Jeff Price appears first on the list. He holds scientific degrees and teaches at universities. But that doesn’t alter the fact that his orientation is overtly activist rather than strictly scientific.

In 2002 he was the director of climate change impact studies for the American Bird Conservancy – an advocacy group. None of the critiques of the Thomas paper may have made it into this IPCC chapter’s list of references, but a Birdwatcher’s Guide to Global Warming co-written by Price and published by his employer did. Price has worked for the United Nations Environmental Program and is now employed by yet another activist group, the World Wildlife Fund.

When interviewed in 2007, Price told a reporter:
Many of us believe we are on the threshold of a massive extinction event. [italics added]
But as any detective will tell you, there are opinions and then there are facts. Price talked about major ecosystem collapse before uttering the sort of sentiment you’d expect to hear from a detached and circumspect scientific mind. He hoped, he said, that the soon-to-be released IPCC report would “finally wake people up to the sheer magnitude of the problem.”

Top Experts?

Revisiting the world’s top experts question for a moment, there is little indication that Price meets that threshold. Moreover, it is worth noting that those who worked on this chapter include not just Fischlin (the science politician) but two individuals whose doctorates were supervised by him. Lead author Harald Bugmann‘s thesis involved “a simulation study” of how forests might react to climate change. Contributing author Dimitrios Gyalistras‘ thesis involved ecosystem models.

Both of these gentlemen are computer modelers. Their expertise involves virtual reality rather than the real thing. In the case of Gyalistras, his CV tells us he received his PhD in 1997 and that he spent 2002-2003 traveling. It says that between 2003-2007 he was a “freelance scientist” involved in a handful of projects. There is no reason to believe he isn’t a marvelous human being and a fine computer programmer. The question is whether he could remotely be considered one of the world’s top experts when he worked on the IPCC report during 2005 and 2006.

The WWF Connection

To sum up, therefore, we have a chapter that contributed a crucial finding to the 2007 edition of the climate bible. The claim that 20-30% of the Earth’s species are at risk of extinction has been a hallmark of IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri’s public speeches ever since (see Part 1 here). That chapter’s conclusions appear to have been accorded such high importance within the IPCC itself that both coordinating authors were invited to make presentations to political and diplomatic delegates.

Since I’ve begun researching the climate debate I’ve discovered that there are scientists and then there are activist scientists. The second category don’t behave in a scrupulously neutral, objective, and disinterested manner – what one expects when one hears the word “scientist”. They don’t tell you the facts and let you decide for yourself. Instead, they have strong views about what’s happening in the world. They have strong views about what should be done about it. Those views, however, are political opinions – not scientific conclusions.

If climate change does, indeed, represent a planetary emergency we have a right to expect the highest level of professionalism from those who investigate it. When a document is as important as the climate bible, the scientists who produce it cannot get into bed with activist groups. Justice, as they say, must not only be done – it must be seen to be done.

Yet five out of 10 of this chapter’s most senior personnel have documented links to the World Wildlife Fund. Fischlin and Midgley both sit on a WWF advisory panel. So does lead author Rik Leemans and lead author Brij Gopal. As has already been mentioned, lead author Jeff Price is currently a WWF employee.

Furthermore, three additional personnel (who served as contributing authors) are also WWF advisory panel members – Antoine Guisan, Christian Körner and Lesley Hughes.

There is no way to know, therefore, which sections of this IPCC chapter represent the political opinions of a particular clique and which sections are, in fact, scientifically sound. As IPCC chairman Pachauri would say, this chapter belongs in the dustbin.
So the IPCC used a highly questionable paper, ignored all the criticism and put WWF and other activists in charge of the whole thing. Does anyone think the result was not a foregone conclusion?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 10:27 AM   #136
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition



The cartoon keeps disappearing so here's the link:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bl...7/josh-45.html
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-07-10 at 11:25 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 10:53 AM   #137
DVD Talk Legend
 
wishbone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,964
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post


The cartoon keeps disappearing so here's the link:

http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/

(The Green Peacemaker cartoon)
__________________
"Wishbone is spelled with an E not a 3..... *Be gone*" - Minor Threat

Last edited by wishbone; 10-07-10 at 11:37 AM. Reason: Greenpeacemaker
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 11:27 AM   #138
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

wishbone, could you do the one in Post #136? It's actually a different one.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 11:46 AM   #139
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Franny Armstrong was absolutely giddy over the 10:10 video right before it was released. The Franny Tweets:

http://spectator.org/blog/2010/10/06...y-giddy-franny

Quote:
Positively Giddy Franny
By Paul Chesser on 10.6.10 @ 2:38PM

Well 10:10.org apparently is not only embarrassed about their bloody schoolroom splatter flick, but also by the first "apology" they issued for it, as it's been removed from their Website. "Oh well, live and learn" has been replaced by something a little more serious (which was posted on Monday -- for a while both "apologies" were online simultaneously).

The first "sorry" certainly had an "Age of Stupid" tone about it, which is the title of high-flying Franny Armstrong's aviation-causes-global-warming crockumentary from last year. 10:10's Franny helped make the Splattergate video as well, which she was extremely giddy about as Friday's release date approached. Among the comments from her Twitter account leading up to the debut:
* Off to #spurs to blow up some footballers for #1010 mini movie. Will try to send pics. 6:04 AM Sep 16th
* First #spurs player gets exploded (link is to a bloody special effects photo). Anyone hazard a guess as to who it is? 7:24 AM Sep 16th
* #spurs players lining up in the rain to be filmed/exploded for #1010 mini-movie 11:23 AM Sep 16th
* Ha ha, #McDonalds advert is being mixed in sound studio next to #1010's mini movie. Should I sabotage? Wed Sep 29 2010
* Oh oh oh oh oh just seen final version of #1010's explosive mini movie oh oh oh oh oh oh gulp yeah oh oh eek oh Thu Sep 30 2010
* When does #1010's explosive Richard Curtis-penned mini-movie go live? Very soon, my friends, very soon. Thu Sep 30 2010
* Ever wondered what the inside of David Ginola looks like? Find out in 2.5 hours... Thu Sep 30 2010
* Spurs players & Hollywood star blown away by #1010, thanks to Blackadder's Richard Curtis Thu Sep 30 2010
* Any plans to install a No Pressure button in the House of Commons? 5:21 AM Oct 1st
And on September 29 Franny hosted a contest on Facebook and Twitter that promised a copy of "Age of Stupid" to the first person who could "guess what's going on in this pic." Franny's answer: "We're just finishing editing 10:10's Richard Curtis-written mini movie, 'No Pressure,' and we needed some sounds of blood and gore splattering on the floor after the children/footballers/celebrities blow up."
Unbelievable.

How about the tweets since?
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 12:01 PM   #140
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

MSM is not interested in 10:10 film.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...006150204.aspx

Quote:
Exploding Children in Eco-Group's Video Fails to Upset Liberal News Media
Shocking British short to promote cutting carbon emissions shows skeptics being blown up for not participating.

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
10/6/2010 3:11:11 PM

Red is the new green, according to a horrific short film put together by global warming alarmists in Britain for 10:10 a “Global Day of Doing.” Blood red that is.

The group 10:10 UK’s “No Pressure” video advertisement that was intended to promote its cause begins with a teacher lecturing her students: “Just before you go there’s a brilliant idea in the air that I’d like to run by you. Now it’s called 10:10 – the idea is that everyone starts cutting their carbon emissions by 10 percent, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone, eventually.”

Preaching global warming alarmism to children is nothing shocking, but the next part of the film was. The teacher singles out the two students who are skeptical about participating, presses a red button and BLAM! those children’s bodies explode as blood and guts cover their classmates.

Skeptical soccer players, businesspeople and even actress Gillian Anderson all get blown up in the “disturbing” video for not complying with the wishes of the global warming crowd.

The violent depiction may be a new low for the environmental movement, but its violent rhetoric has been in use for years. Yet, the response from the liberal news media in the U.S. has been minimal, despite the willingness of the same outlets to portray – without a shred of evidence – conservatives as “incendiary” and violent.

Despite the horrific nature of the video and the message that skeptics should be killed, the television news media, with the exception of Fox News, haven’t reported on it as of October 5.

The New York Times has run a couple of articles on its website, and James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal wrote a strong condemnation October 5 of the “green supremacists” that created the video. But, so far at least, much of the national news media have ignored the controversy.

The video was outrageous enough to upset even climate-change extremist Bill McKibben, who called it “the kind of stupidity that hurts our side.” Taranto said that the video had “drawn lots of criticism, much of which to our mind is not strong enough.” Perhaps he had the Time magazine’s blog headline in mind which callously read: “Blowing Up British Kids: Not Everyone’s Cup of Tea.”

But compare the minimal, isolated journalistic condemnation of such a violent and shocking film, to the volume of news stories portraying tea partiers and conservatives violent, without any proof whatsoever. On March 25, NBC’s Ann Curry harangued Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about Republicans “encouraging the violence” against Democrats.

Curry specifically cited a map from former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin’s website that had shown weak Democratic districts in crosshairs. She pressed McCain saying “Do you know, recommend that your party use less incendiary language?”

McCain replied that terms like “targeted” and “battleground” are part of the “political lexicon.” Such terms have been long used by both parties and by the news media without concern of actual violence, yet Curry declared “These are very dangerous times.”

A few days after that “Today” interview, CNN condemned Palin with an onscreen caption that read: “INCITING VIOLENCE?” as Palin was showing speaking in Nevada.

Anchor Don Lemon said on March 28, “Sarah Palin takes on one of the highest ranking Democrats right in his own backyard, all while causing another uproar by urging tea parties to quote ‘reload.’ And the question is, are comments like that inciting violence and name-calling over the health care bill and the like?” The panelists that answered that question agreed that Obama’s political opponents were inciting violence and were motivated by racism.

But Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen took the criticism of conservatives to an absurd level on October 5 by arguing that the Tea Party movement is like those responsible for the 1970 Kent State shooting. Cohen claimed a “language of rage” fuels the Tea Party and took shots at Glenn Beck and New York gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.

Violent Video, an Attempt at Humor?

After sparking outrage over the violent video, 10:10 pulled the video and issued an apology which read in part: “At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark … Oh well, we live and learn.”

The 10:10 UK climate group, which has several corporate sponsors including Sony, Kyocera Mita and O2, along with a number of celebrity supporters, claimed the video was supposed to be humorous. 10:10 said its sponsors did not have prior knowledge of the video and Sony issued a statement condemning the video as “ill-conceived and tasteless” and said they were “disassociating” from the group.

Kyocera Mita is reconsidering its partnership with 10:10 and said they were “very shocked by the movie.”

“We wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh,” said more of 10:10’s apology. But is humor a valid defense for portraying the murder of people who disagree with you?

That was the basic defense Jim Edwards of CBS Interactive’s BNet gave for the video. Edwards said, “No one but the most extreme climate change denier believes this is actually what environmentalists want. It’s obviously just a joke outrageous enough to actually get people’s attention.”

WSJ’s Taranto wrote that “one may hope that Jim Edwards is right when he denies that ‘this is actually what environmentalists want.’ But it’s bad enough that this is what they fantasize about -- and that they manifestly felt no inhibition about airing such a depraved fantasy in public.”

Given statements by other warming activists in the past about executing, jailing or trying skeptics or wanting to reduce the world population, the video shouldn’t be funny anymore.

Skeptics have many reasons to view the video as a threat since environmental extremists have long sought to punish them for their dissent.

“We should have war crimes trials for these bastards – some sort of climate Nuremberg,” David Roberts of the environmentalist Grist Magazine wrote, describing the climate change “denial industry.” NASA’s James Hansen also called for trials for “high crimes against humanity” in 2008. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attacked skeptics in 2007, calling it “treason.”

In 2009, an article on the liberal Talking Points Memo website attacked skeptics as “greedy bastards” and asked how such people should be punished when they “have caused it to be too late to fix the problem, and we start seeing the devastating consequences …”

The headline of that anonymous article was chilling: “At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers.”

Some environmentalists simply want massive population reduction because of the damage they say humans are inflicting on the planet. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant efforts to stop whalers, warned in 2007 that mankind is “acting like a virus.”

“We are killing our host the planet Earth,” Watson claimed as he called for the world population to drop below 1 billion. Watson didn’t care about the 5.5 billion people that would need to die in order to meet that goal.

10:10’s video also wasn’t the first environmental ad campaign to use chillingly violent imagery to make its point. TreeHugger.com displays a gallery of “coolest environmental advertising” from 2009. The “provocative” ad that “deserves to lead” the slideshow, according to TreeHugger, was an image of a young girl with a noose around her neck standing on a melting iceberg.

Last year, a “grassroots group” called Plane Stupid released a grizzly advertisement showing polar bears falling from the sky, being bloodied as they bounce off skyscrapers and ultimately crash to death on the streets of an unidentified city. After that sickening video, the screen goes black and the anti-carbon message is revealed: “An average European flight produces over 400kg of greenhouse gases for every passenger … that’s the weight of an adult polar bear.”

The group wants to end see an end to airport expansion, aviation advertising and “sustainable” transport.

Media Rationalize or Ignore Ugly Side of Environmentalism, Skeptics Concerned

But the liberal news media often downplay or ignore threats of violence and extreme rhetoric from the eco-left. In the case of “No Pressure,” one national newspaper’s environmental blog ignored the controversy even while talking about environmental activism.

The Los Angeles Times Greenspace blog wrote about environmental events happening on 10/10/10. But it focused on lefty Bill McKibben of 350.org and his Global Work Party and failed to mention the same event going on in Britain or the violent propaganda advertising it. Since the exploding children video, McKibben has distanced himself from the 10:10 UK group.

Andrew Revkin took a different tack on October 4 on The New York Times’ Dot Earth blog. Revkin, senior fellow at Pace Academy for Applied Environmental Studies, was critical of the video, but managed to dream up a conspiracy theory involving Big Oil.

After saying that the environmental campaigners succeeded in shocking people and forcing some people (himself included) to write about the video, Revkin said: “Then again, it could be a conspiracy. Perhaps the filmmakers were simply highly-paid double agents for big oil and big coal trying to undercut the global effort of the similarly named 10-10-10 campaign kicking off Oct. 10. (The 10:10 group is one of the thousands of participants in the international climate ‘work party’).”

It’s unclear whether Revkin was being sarcastic about such a conspiracy, but what is clear is the way he tried to downplay the seriousness of the disturbing video and rationalize it away. He quoted a media professor who called the controversy simply a “generational divide over violent imagery.”

He quoted another mocking people upset by the film for not having a sense of humor, and two more people who actually found “No Pressure” to be “funny.”

Revkin also quoted Marshall Herskovitz, a past president of the Producers Guild of America who attacked “deniers,” saying: “The deniers will deny until the moment they either stop making money from it, or they truly understand that they are dooming their children … I envy the deniers, really, for they are not yet compelled to see the terrible truth: That there is no time left for us to fail.”

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano appeared on Fox News Channel to discuss the video with Megyn Kelly.

“Many are still defending it as satire, just humor. The problem Megyn, is this expresses a very deep sentiment in their movement of wanting to get rid of and silence global warming skeptics,” Morano said before citing examples including Grist’s call for Nuremberg-style trials of skeptics.

“Let’s hope eco-snuff films are not the future,” Morano concluded.

Heartland Institute president Joseph Bast told the Business & Media Institute he is concerned about potential attacks on skeptics – including those within his organization – stemming from this film.

“I was shocked when I saw this video, and immediately sent an email to all of Heartland’s staff warning them that it could encourage environmental extremists to physically attack us,” Bast said. “This overt call for violent action against global warming realists has absolutely no place in civilized dialogue on climate change, or any other public policy issue. Calling on others to consider using violence to silence those who disagree with you is itself an act of violence.”

Bast also said that the makers of the video are responsible for whatever “eco-terrorist acts” occur in the coming months. “We can only pray that no one gets hurt, and that similar acts of violence do not occur in the future.”
The 10:10 video remains one of the biggest stories in the blogosphere after almost a week. But the MSM has hardly touched it. Can you imagine what a story it would be if skeptics had "blown up" alarmists?

No pressure, indeed.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 04:31 PM   #141
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

10:10 video was "inevitable."

http://blogs.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/...e-a-good-idea/

Quote:
Why Blowing Up Kids Seemed Like a Good Idea
By WARREN MEYER
October 7, 2010

My guess is that most readers have seen the recent 10:10 climate video, in which government teachers and other global warming zealots push red buttons that explode school children and adults who don’t toe the global warming line (if you missed the video, you can watch it here, though beware, there is a lot of, uh, gore.)

Context is important. Had the video been part of a absurdist Monty Python sketch, I probably would have thought it funny. Had the video been produced by skeptics to mock the stridency of the global warming community, it would have been thought to be over-the-top. But this was a video funded by establishment groups, showing those who opposed them being killed in a horrible manner.

After an initial non-apology that basically read, “we’re sorry you have no sense of humor,” folks who are alarmed about global warming have been spinning the video as a fleeting and isolated error in judgment roughly equivalent to a politician’s misstatement in a debate. This doesn’t entirely wash, however — hundreds of people had to be involved in the making of the video over a period of months, from original concept design through post-production. The group involved well-known directors and actors and prominent activists in the 10:10 organization and its partners. The whole effort was underwritten by a number of major corporations as well as the UK government.

I have been a part of the public climate debate for several years, and unlike those helping to spin this video as a regrettable aberration, in many ways I think such a production was almost inevitable. In particular, alarmists have worked hard to portray climate skeptics not as reasonable people who disagree with them, but as evil, bad-intentioned monsters out to destroy the Earth for their own narrow personal gain.

We can see this ad hominem approach in the comments by Joe Romm in response to the 10:10 video. Romm is prominent global warming alarmist and proprietor of the web site “Climate Progress,” the climate site launched by the Center for American Progress where he is a fellow. Romm quickly distanced himself from the 10:10 video, calling it “beyond tasteless,” but went on to make the tu quoque argument that “individual anti-science, pro-pollution disinformers, of course, routinely promote hate speech.”

What was telling in Romm’s comments was this: “but those trying to destroy a livable climate, well, for them lies and hate speech are the modus operandi.” It is practically an article of faith among climate alarmists in their echo chamber that skeptics are “trying to destroy a livable climate.”

This is absurd. While one could probably find someone on Earth who holds just about any wacky opinion that can be imagined, I know many of the prominent skeptics world-wide and I am confident none of them are motivated by a desire to destroy the Earth.

Space is too short here to run through the breadth and depth of issues skeptics have with the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. In short, though, most skeptics do not deny that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas to warm the Earth, or that man is contributing incrementally to CO2 levels. Skeptics, however, tend to deny the catastrophe — in other words, we argue that many climate forecasts are grossly exaggerating future man-made warming and greatly overstating the effects of small amounts of warming in creating adverse weather conditions (for those interested, the science of the skeptic’s position is in part outlined here).

Suffice it to say that there are reasoned differences that well-intentioned people can have with the catastrophic climate change hypothesis. Certainly it is fair for folks like Joe Romm to argue that the end result of what skeptics advocate is an unlivable climate, but it is grossly unfair to argue that skeptics are motivated by destroying the climate. I could as easily argue that Romm is motivated by keeping billions of residents of developing nations in poverty, because I think that will be the outcome of what he advocates, but this would be an equally unfair attack on his motivations.

Romm’s comments really highlight one of the most abused terms in modern discourse: hate speech. Romm seems to accept what has become the defacto definition of hate speech, which is “since I am motivated by saving society / humanity / the planet, then anybody who disagrees with me must be engaging in hate speech, because by disagreeing with me he or she must therefore hate society / humanity / the planet.”

By hammering for years on the motivations, rather than the science, of skeptics, environmental leaders have built a community of supporters who believe to their core that skeptics are actively plotting to destroy the Earth. While no one would consider violence or government action against those who are arguing questions of science in a fact-based manner, it is not a very long step to advocating such extreme consequences for people one thinks are hatching a Dr. Evil-like plot to destroy the Earth.

In fact, it has not been unusual for prominent activists to publicly call for dire punishments of skeptics. In 2008, NASA’s James Hansen, a leading global warming alarmist, used a speech before Congress to argue that oil company executives should be “put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature” for fostering doubt about global warming. Robert Kennedy, Jr. called coal companies “criminal enterprises” and said that one coal CEO “should be in jail … for all eternity” both for selling a high-carbon product and being publicly skeptical of global warming. Anonymous web posts calling for death to climate skeptics are practically routine, with one blog post (later deleted) at leftish Talking Points Memo asking “at what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers?”

And thus I think we can better understand how a group of probably well-meaning activists and film-makers could create such crazy, totalitarian vision. In many ways, the film reminds me of Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglorious Basterds,” which is a fantasy film about a group of jewish soldiers killing Hitler and his high command. Viewers are not offended by the bloodshed and brutality, because the fantasy is so delicious. The same must have been true for those who created and screened the 10:10 video prior to its release.

Rather than an isolated aberration, then, the 10:10 video can be seen as the end result of years of ad hominem attacks meant to marginalize skeptics and make it unnecessary to actually address their concerns about the science. Perhaps this video will mark a turning point where we can finally start talking about the science rather than attacking motivations.
This article makes a great point I hadn't thought of. Many of us do love Inglourious Basterds, not least because of the wonderful fantasy of it (I won't spoilerize but if you still haven't seen it, don't read this if you don't want it spoiled): Hitler and many others are killed, bringing an earlier end to WWII than what really happened. Hitler and the Nazis were so thoroughly and obviously evil incarnate that we know what happens in the film is justified and anything that would have shortened their reign was for the good.

I have a feeling that many alarmists, certainly including the ones who made this film, reveled in seeing evil skeptics cut down before they could do "more damage." On the other hand, I cannot imagine skeptics making a film which reversed the roles of the 10:10 film. The alarmists have a whole string of films and advertisements that are only slightly less outrageous and offensive than the 10:10 film. There has never, I repeat, never been anything even remotely comparable from the skeptics' side.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-10, 04:39 PM   #142
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Another "Downfall" parody:

Hitler Learns About the Climate 10:10 Video from Steve Hayward on Vimeo.

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-10, 04:44 PM   #143
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Michael Mann critic accused of plagiarism.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/0...ds-themselves/

Quote:
On Wegman – Who will guard the guards themselves?
Posted on October 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Thomas Fuller

Regular readers will remember that the fuss generated by Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick chart caused an investigation. A U.S. Congressional committee, led by Congressman Joe Barton, asked Edward Wegman to investigate the methods and findings of Michael Mann. (See the Wegman report titled “AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION” here)

Now Wegman’s work is being investigated in much the same manner by people alleging that Wegman’s work contains plagiarized material.

The investigating institution, George Mason University, is responding to a formal complaint by Raymond Bradley, who was a co-author with Michael Mann of the work Wegman looked into.

One of the anonymous weblogs specializing in climate hysteria, Deep Climate, has been trumpeting charges about Wegman’s work for quite some time, alleging among other heinous crimes that some of the post grads working with Wegman had plagiarized work. Given the source, I had not paid much attention to it.

But if there is a formal complaint, we need to look at it seriously. Wegman’s criticism of Mann’s work is widely cited–his famous claim that ‘right answer, wrong method equals bad science’ is certainly and obviously correct–but it will have to apply to him, too.

I should also note that this is being handled better than Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of the University of Virginia’s grants for Michael Mann–basically because it’s being handled by the institution involved, as it should be.

I don’t like the weblog Deep Climate, and I very much respect the report Edward Wegman put out. I understand what the report said and I agree with its conclusions. So I’m hoping this investigation is thorough, quick and that Wegman’s work stands.

But there’s no way we can ignore this and complain about a lack of vigor in finding out what went wrong with CRU, Climategate and the Hockey Stick. This is bad news (for me). But it is news.

Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick will not be resurrected–there is enough criticism of it from his own colleagues in the leaked emails of Climategate to insure that. But Wegman’s report may sink under the weight of plagiarized material and while that would be a pity, that’s sometimes the way things work.

Let’s watch this and see, and report on the results in a clear-eyed fashion. Just because we have policy preferences and have opinions doesn’t mean we can ignore the facts.
First of all it is important to know that what is being criticized has nothing to do with Wegman's criticism of Mann's shoddy statistical work so the Hockey Stick is still unquestionably broken, plus there is McIntyre and McKitrick's work as well as McShane and Wyner's work.

The "plagiarism" is solely about some explanatory discussion about paleoclimatology in the introduction of Wegman's report which is all well known to begin with. It's alleged that Wegman used a book by Mann collaborator Bradley to write that introduction and didn't sufficiently credit him. Against that are counterarguments that Bradley's work was cited (see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/201...ns/#more-10584 which shows the citation) and the introduction may have been put together by a grad student (for which, still, of course, Wegman is responsible). Also, the material in Bradley's book was not original with him. As I said, this background material is well known and not controversial. From whom did Bradley "plagiarize"? Plus there is the fair use doctrine.

It should be noted that Wegman is a statistician, not a scientist and he had nothing against Mann but was picked to write this report because the heart of Mann's claims are statistical and Wegman is very highly respected in his field. And what he found has been confirmed independently both before and after his report. Wegman has never been a big fighter for the skeptical side. All he did was find that Mann's work stunk.

It's certainly funny that this is coming out more than four years after the Wegman Report (wouldn't one think if Bradley thought he was plagiarized, he would have complained earlier?). It seems this was stirred up by an alarmist website called "Deep Climate" and Bradley was only just recently convinced to make a formal complaint. That triggered a compulsory investigation at George Mason University.

If all this seems to be enormously trivial compared to Climategate and Mann's machinations, that's because it is.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 10-09-10 at 05:06 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-10, 05:00 PM   #144
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

This is the article at the link I cited in my discussion of the Wegman plagiarism charge:

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/201...ns/#more-10584

Quote:
As Copygate turns
Posted by Jeff Id on October 9, 2010

I’ve spent the last several hours looking at references and such from the alleged plagiarism included in the Wegman report. Deep climate has been ranting on about it for a long time now, I’ve found the discussion both tedious and uninteresting but primarily the lack of organization of the story combined with discussions of Wegmans differences of opinion (Bias in Deep’s view) at his blog makes the issue difficult to penetrate.

Several sections of the Wegman report are very believable rewordings of the literature, and I find it impossible to conclude that pre-dated sources were not correctly identified by Deep.

From Wiki:
Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as “the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions, and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”[1][2] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to “copy the masters as closely as possible” and avoid “unnecessary invention.”[3][4][5][6][7]

The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage. Not so in the arts, which have resisted in their long-established tradition of copying as a fundamental practice of the creative process, with plagiarism being still hugely tolerated by 21st century artists.[8][9]

Plagiarism is not a crime but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence.[3][10]
So it is the representation of someone else’s ideas as your own work. The sections of the Wegman report which can be credibly stated to NOT be his own work include some from a book by Raymond Bradley. In the ever-left USA Today, Bradley is quoted as writing:
“Clearly, text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the (Wegman) report,” says Bradley, who is also one of the authors of the 1999 Nature study. In response to earlier concerns raised by the Deep Climate website, Bradley says he wrote a letter in April to GMU, noting the possibility of plagiarism and demanding an investigation of both the 2006 report and a subsequent, federally-funded study published by some of Wegman’s students. “Talk about irony. It just seems surreal (that) these authors could criticize my work when they are lifting my words.”
Now it sure sounds serious, the best representation of the copied text I can find is from the Deep Climate website copied here.wegman-bradley-tree-rings-v20[1]

In my opinion the text was obviously a sligtly reworded version of Bradley’s book. That issue is a no brainer, but I wonder if that rises by itself to the level of plagiarism. Certainly, nobody expected that Wegman knew this stuff on his own, he’s a statistician and was asked to testify on statistics issues. It’s hard to imagine anyone reading the report would misinterpret Wegman as representing himself as an expert in paleoclimatology so of course you would expect this sort of background information to be compiled from sources.

So the question is, were the sources referenced correctly? After all, this is a congressional report, not a scientific paper.

The book in question was: Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary

Riveting title aside, I looked to the bibliography of Wegman’s report.07142006_wegman_report[1]
Bradley, R. S. (1999) Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quarternary, 2nd Edition, San Diego: Academic Press.
So it seems to me that to accuse academic misconduct from this section on basic background information on paleoclimatology, means that we must assume that first Wegman’s report represents that he himself came up with the field. Also, since there was slight rewording of the text based on some improved wording and differences of opinion, how could he possibly cite the information in a quotation fashion. It wasn’t a direct quote.

I assume then that Ray and Deep are basically insisting that Wegman must use his words exactly as written by Ray with no changes and then place quotes around the whole thing? As we know, in climate science there is often little room for differences of opinion.

Is it correct to insist that he can’t cite the book and insert changes to the text where appropriate for a congressional report?

And I find it particularly odd that Raymond Bradley who was one of the critiqued authors by Wegman’s report, who’s book was cited by the Wegman report, just now after years noticed that the wording was too similar for his liking.

I’m inexperienced in how plagiarism and proper citation are addressed in non-scientific literature so perhaps someone can enlighten me but it seems to me that this is a totally fabricated issue.
Hmm, I seem to remember something about motes and beams.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-10, 05:42 PM   #145
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Andrew Montford (aka Bishop Hill) lays out the absolute worst case scenario for the Wegman Report:

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010...on-wegman.html

Quote:
Some thoughts on Wegman
Oct 9, 2010
Andrew Montford

I haven't had time to read John Mashey's report, but from what I can gather about today's excitements over the GMU investigation of Edward Wegman, there are two possibilities in play:
* Wegman et al are guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise

* Wegman et al are not guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise.
Is this right? Nobody is suggesting that the principal findings of the Wegman report - on the incorrect centring used by Mann - are incorrect, are they? They were, after all confirmed by the NAS panel and apparently also by David Hand during the Oxburgh panel's (brief) deliberations.

So I guess we are looking at quite an interesting investigation about how the norms of academic citation apply in expert reports (no doubt Donna LaF will be checking the IPCC reports over very thoroughly in coming days), but not much else.
In other words, the so-called plagiarism issue has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with Wegman's statistical conclusion. No matter what, Mann's work is garbage.

And the more I get into this, the more I think the charges of plagiarism are ridiculous. Someone in the comments to the above post points out Bradley says something in his book very much like Phil Jones said earlier. What we are talking about here, in the so-called plagiarized section, is stuff that is common knowledge and everyone states it in more or less the same way.

Montford's last paragraph is instructive. He is referring to Donna Laframboise (whom I have cited many times in the past) and her meticulous skewerings of the IPCC reports. If she starts looking at all such restatements of agreed upon common knowledge in the reports I'm sure she could find many matches to stuff already written that's not cited or "insufficiently" cited. Big deal.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-10, 08:29 AM   #146
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Beware dangerous carbon pollution the misuse of language for propaganda purposes.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/0...comment-503987

Quote:
“Dangerous Carbon Pollution” – an example of Climatism
Posted on October 9, 2010 by Anthony Watts
Guest post by Steve Goreham, Climate Science Coalition of America

In an address to Green Mountain College on May 15, Carol Browner, Director of Energy and Climate Change Policy, stated “The sooner the U.S. puts a cap on our dangerous carbon pollution, the sooner we can create a new generation of clean energy jobs here in America…” In July, 2009, President Obama lauded the “Cash for Clunkers” program, stating that the initiative “gives consumers a break, reduces dangerous carbon pollution, and our dependence on foreign oil…”

Unfortunately, our President is misinformed about carbon pollution.

The phrase “dangerous carbon pollution” has become standard propaganda from environmental groups.

An example is a May, 2010 press release from the World Wildlife Fund that called for “a science-based limit on dangerous carbon pollution that will send a strong signal to the private sector.” Environmentalists have successfully painted a picture of black particle emissions into the atmosphere. This misconception is being used to drive efforts for Cap & Trade legislation, renewable energy, and every sort of restriction on our light bulbs, vehicles, and houses—all in the misguided attempt to stop climate change.

Carbon is integral to our skin, our muscles, our bones, and throughout the body of each person. Carbon forms more than 20% of the human body by weight. We are full of this “dangerous carbon pollution” by natural metabolic processes.

It’s true that incomplete combustion emits carbon particles that can cause smoke and smog. But this particulate carbon pollution is well controlled by the Clean Air Act of 1970 and many other federal and state statutes.

According to Environmental Protection Agency data, U.S. air quality today is significantly better than it was in 1980. Since 1980, airborne concentration of carbon monoxide is down 79%, lead is down 92%, nitrogen dioxide is down 46%, ozone is down 25%, and sulfur dioxide is down 71%. Carbon particulates have been tracked for fewer years, but PM10 particulates are down 31% since 1990 and PM2.5 particulates are down 19% since 2000. Over the same period, electricity consumption from coal-fired power plants rose 72% and vehicle miles driven are up 91%. We do not need Cap & Trade, Renewable Portfolio Standards, or the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), to reduce carbon particulates.



The target of “dirty carbon pollution” propaganda is carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is an invisible, odorless, harmless gas. It does not cause smog or smoke. Humans breathe out 100 times the CO2 we breathe in, created as our body uses sugars. But since it’s tough to call an invisible gas “dirty,” Climatists use “carbon” instead. It’s as wrong as calling water “hydrogen” or salt “chlorine.” Compounds have totally different properties than their composing elements.

Not only is carbon dioxide not a pollutant, it’s essential for life. As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought, as documented by hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers. Carbon dioxide is the best compound that mankind could put into the atmosphere to grow the biosphere.

This “carbon pollution” nonsense is driven by Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. In a debate at the Global Warming Forum at Purdue University on September 27, Dr. Susan Avery, President of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was asked “What is the strongest empirical evidence that global warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions rather than natural causes?” Neither Dr. Avery nor Dr. Robert Socolow of Princeton, who also presented, could provide an answer, except the ambiguous “There is lots of evidence.” In fact, Climatism is based largely on computer model projections. There is no empirical evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming. According to Dr. Frederick Seitz, past President of the National Academy of Sciences, “Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”

As Joanne Nova, Australian author, points out: “Everything on your dinner table—the meat, cheese, salad, bread, and soft drink—requires carbon dioxide to be there. For those of you who believe carbon dioxide is a pollutant, we have a special diet: water and salt.” So the next time you drink a beer or eat a meal, beware of that “dangerous carbon pollution.”
As long as the alarmists are allowed to get away with the misuse of language (another example: blurring the distinctions among "global warming," "anthropogenic global warming" and "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming") they get an advantage they don't deserve. They should be called on it whenever they do this.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-10, 10:00 AM   #147
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: gloucester, uk
Posts: 2,154
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

There are those who believe the moon landings were faked by a conspiracy of American scientists, politicians and military personnel. There are also those who believe a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists (most of them), politicians and media have concocted a false idea called man-made climate change. I wonder if there is much cross-over between these conspiracy theorists. If anything I would suspect the moon landing conspiracy would be far easier to pull off (though no less unlikely and ridiculous)!
__________________
“Life breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places.”
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-10, 09:30 AM   #148
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnt Thru View Post
There are those who believe the moon landings were faked by a conspiracy of American scientists, politicians and military personnel. There are also those who believe a vast worldwide conspiracy of scientists (most of them), politicians and media have concocted a false idea called man-made climate change. I wonder if there is much cross-over between these conspiracy theorists. If anything I would suspect the moon landing conspiracy would be far easier to pull off (though no less unlikely and ridiculous)!
First off, most skeptics do not believe there is a vast conspiracy to promote CAGW. I don't. I do think there is a lot of bad science reinforced by access to tens of billions of research dollars that are available to those who are looking for CAGW. Also, many simply want to believe that people are an environmental plague on the planet. Also many of these people engage in a sort of groupthink, reinforcing each others' beliefs. The MSM pushes CAGW incessantly but I think it's because they buy into these things for some of the above reasons, not because they are part of a vast and sinister conspiracy.

As far as overlap between faked moon landing believers and CAGW skeptics, that's just plain silly. I don't personally know of any. Furthermore, there is the irony of this charge that at least two of the people who walked on the moon - Buzz Aldrin and geologist Dr Harrison Schmitt - are outspoken CAGW skeptics.

Furthermore, alarmists have not pulled off a conspiracy, even if they're trying (as I said, I don't think it's a conspiracy). Their science is poor and the skeptics' science has been much better. The Hockey Stick is smashed, the tropical troposphere hotspot forecast by all the climate models is AWOL, there is much more evidence for climate change being caused by ocean circulation cycles and solar cycles and there is good evidence that cloud cover and cosmic ray flux have a lot to do with it (any or all of the preceding may be connected with each other). CO2 is a player but a very small player.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-10, 09:52 AM   #149
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,570
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

A few days ago, Michael Mann wrote a ridiculous diatribe in the Washington Post. Willis Eschenbach answers him point for point:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/1...-michael-mann/

Quote:
An Open Letter to Dr. Michael Mann
Posted on October 11, 2010
Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Dear Dr. Mann:

I just read your piece in the Washington Post.

First, let me say that I disagree entirely with Cuccinelli’s legalistic approach. It doesn’t seem like the right way to achieve the desired result, that of shining the merciless light of publicity on your actions.

On the other hand, your opinion piece published in the Washington Post contains a number of omissions, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and misstatements of fact.

[As a digression, for those who don't know who Dr. Michael Mann is, he is the man who wrote the paper that established the "Hockey Stick" as the icon of misguided climate science. He then used his position on the IPCC to promote his own work, and suppressed contrary views. In one swipe he threw out all evidence that there were warmer periods in the past. No Medieval Warm Period. No Roman Warm Period. Here's that famous and most bogus of graphs, which has been reproduced hundreds of thousands of times ...



Unfortunately, his math was wrong, and the method he used mines for "hockey stick" shapes and will pull them out of random data, so the graph turned out to be both meaningless and totally misleading. End of digression]

So without further ado, Dr. Mann, here are my comments on your opinion piece. I have put your entire article from the Washington Post, without deletions, in bold italic.

Get the anti-science bent out of politics

As a scientist, I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do.


If this is a surprise to you, it should not be, and not just for climate scientists. Cast your mind back President Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1960, wherein he said (emphasis mine):
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
You are funded by the government, and are a salaried member of that scientific-technological elite that Eisenhower warned us about. Why on earth would you think that you would not have a stake in the election? The problem is the opposite – you have far too large a stake in the election, since climate science funding comes solely because the government is willing to back your ideas. As a result, a change in administrations might dry up your funding. You have a huge stake in the elections, and it is curious you want to claim otherwise. You are fighting like mad to keep the funding coming, so don’t pretend that you “shouldn’t have a stake” in the elections.

And regarding the elections, you have a huge political problem. Your science is so shabby and weak, and your claims are so apocalyptic, shrill, and far-fetched, that the people are no longer buying your line of patter. Climate change is at the very bottom of things that the electorate thinks are important … which seems to drive you guys nuts. Because of this, you and other climate scientists like Jim Hansen have become political activists, fighting like crazy to make sure the right people are elected to keep the money spigots turned wide open … just like Eisenhower warned.

So please, spare us the vapors about scientists having a stake in politics. You are in it up to your ears.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.


Deniers? Anyone who is still using that emotion-laden, infantile term is deliberately being antagonistic. In any case, we have very real reasons to suspect you of wrongdoing. You don’t exactly show so well in things like the Climategate emails … see below.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me after a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.


Forgive my bluntness, but that is absolute hogwash. Hand-picked groups of your myopic friends have gotten together, consulted the auguries, studiously looked away, and declared you and Phil and Gene and the rest to be pure as the driven snow. But not one of the “thorough investigations” has spoken to one single person other than you and your friends and supporters. How thorough is a “thorough investigation” that only interviews your friends? “Exonerated”? Don’t make me laugh. You haven’t even been investigated, much less exonerated.

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published?


Well, they might uncover the truth contained in the emails that haven’t been published. For example, you stand accused of conspiring to delete emails that showed you and your friends trying to prevent IPCC Review Comments from being made public.

Did you delete those emails? We may never know, since your good buddies in the “thorough investigation” DIDN’T EVEN LOOK TO SEE IF THE ACCUSATION WAS TRUE. They never looked through either your emails, or the CRU emails, to see if you had deleted emails as you were asked to do by Phil Jones. They never looked for your answer to Gene.

As you may not want to recall, in the Climategate emails, Phil wrote to you about the AR4 review emails, as follows:

Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene [Wahl] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!

Cheers

Phil
Those emails, Dr. Mann, were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request. You replied:
Hi Phil,

laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to have been true.

I’ll contact Gene [Wahl] about this ASAP. His new email is: xxxx@yahoo.com

talk to you later,

mike
Now you may have a reasonable innocuous explanation for that interchange. I don’t see one. I see Phil advising you to break the law and delete emails that were the subject of an FOI request, and you saying “I’ll contact Gene about this ASAP”. When your friends were doing their “thorough investigation”, it is curious that they NEVER ASKED TO SEE the other emails in the chain. Like for example the email you said you would send to Gene to tell him to delete the emails. Did you send it?

And did you delete your emails? The “thorough investigation” never investigated that either, they didn’t even try to answer that important question.

So please don’t give us your sanctimonious posing as though you were shown to be innocent. The “thorough investigations” run by your friends have not determined your innocence, or the lack thereof – since they haven’t even tried to look at the evidence, how could they determine anything? So the jury is still out on the question.

But the facts we do have do not look good for you in the slightest.

If you had any actual evidence that you were innocent, I’m sure you would have given it to the investigators … funny how none of the five investigations have come up with a single fact or email or document to exonerate you in this question. As far as we know, you didn’t write back to Phil later and say something like “I can’t delete emails, that would be unethical and possibly illegal”. You wrote back to say that you would pass on the email deletion order to Gene … and you want us to believe that your hands are clean? Sorry, my friend, I’m like the Red Queen, I can believe six impossible things before breakfast, but that one is just too big to swallow.

The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none.
The truth is, your objections have nothing to do with climate research. You are simply worried what an inquiry might find out, otherwise the idea of an investigation wouldn’t bother you a bit. But since all the indications are that you and others conspired to subvert the IPCC process , and then conspired (as shown in the Climategate emails) to cover it up, I can understand your all-pervading unease …

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today.


Discredited claims? A bit more specificity would go a long way here, although I don’t expect it of you. What claims were “discredited”? As a close observer at the time, I did not see that a single claim against you was “discredited”. Quite the opposite, several of your claims were discredited, and McIntyre’s claims were totally upheld.

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change.
I’m not sure what your point is here. You seem to be saying that there have been false claims made by shady scientists in the past, and so that makes you right. How does that work again?

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.


Scientists are in broad agreement that the earth has been slowly warming for about three centuries. We don’t know why, which should give us a clue about the depth of our understanding of the climate.

More to the point, there is no agreement about such basic, rudimentary, fundamental, all-important questions as the sign and size of the cloud feedbacks. A change of 2% in cloud cover would wipe out any CO2 effect. Since we don’t understand the clouds, that most basic and critically important part of climate science, the idea that we understand why the earth is currently warming, or the idea that we can forecast climate a hundred years in advance, is hubris of the first order. We don’t know why it warmed in Medieval times. We don’t know why it warmed in Roman times. We don’t know why it has warmed since the “Little Ice Age”. We don’t understand the climate, and you folks’ claims that you do understand it well enough to make century-long forecasts just makes rational, reasonable people point and laugh.

Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. But even if we don’t reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climate change will require responses from government at all levels.


And you know this how? You guys have got some serious coconuts, to think that you can predict what kind of “potentially dangerous changes in our climate” will be the lot of people living a hundred years from now. Let me say it again. There is no agreement on the SIGN, much less the size, of cloud feedback. And if you don’t understand cloud feedback, you don’t understand the climate well enough to forecast it for a decade, much less for a century.

Next, you say “even if we don’t reduce emissions” as though there is a cost-effective way to reduce temperature through emission cuts. The Kyoto Protocol (if its adherents had been able to fulfill their targets, which they didn’t) was estimated by its proponents to have the potential to cool the earth by six hundredths of a degree by 2050. The EPA just estimated that their current plan of regulating CO2 as a “dangerous pollutant” will cool the earth by somewhere around three hundredths of a degree by 2030. Those are the estimates of the proponents of the plans, opponents say less.

So you are pushing us to spend billions and billions of dollars and radically reshaping the global economy, and all for a trivial, unmeasurably small reward of a few hundredths of a degree … and then you think people who are against your cockamamie ideas are “anti-science”??? Where is the science in spending billions and billions of dollars for a possible, not guaranteed but only possible, temperature reduction so small we can’t even detect it? That’s so dumb and so far from science that I can’t begin to characterize it.

Challenges to policy proposals for how to deal with this problem should be welcome — indeed, a good-faith debate is essential for wise public policymaking.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.


The questions that you have been asked from the beginning have been the most fundamental of good-faith questions. We simply asked you to show us your data and your work. We requested you to abide by the most bozo requirements of the scientific method. Show us your data, show us your work, the same thing my high school science teacher taught me.

But no, in February of ’05 you went to the Wall Street Journal to make the extraordinary claim:
Giving them [McIntyre and McKitrick] the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in
For you to claim that such basic scientific questions were not in good faith, for you to say that merely (and politely) asking you to show your work is “intimidation”, is the opposite of science. For you to refuse to respond to those requests stops science in its tracks. We just wanted to see how you had come up with such an unusual and unexpected result as your total eradication of the Medieval Warm Period from the landscape. (It turned out that when you were finally forced to reveal your methods, your novel result could be seen to came from a stupid mathematical error combined with using bristlecone pines, known to be an invalid temperature proxy. That made your work meaningless and misleading … but I digress.)

How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing?


How can you assure them? It’s very simple. Dr. Mann, do you think you were picked at random to testify at a Congressional hearing? If you want to assure young researchers that they will not be dragged in front of Congress, tell them not to do the things you have done.

Tell them not to hide adverse results in a folder marked “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED“. Tell them not to make stupid mathematical mistakes and then refuse to show their work. Tell them not to hang around with people who delete emails that are the subject of a Freedom of Information act. Tell them not to subvert the IPCC process to advance their point of view.

And above all, tell them to be open about their data and their work. Why is it so hard for you to understand and practice this most basic of scientific tenets, total transparency and openness? You got hauled before Congress, not because of your scientific views, but because you tried to con people with your bogus math and bad proxies. And when we didn’t buy it, when we asked how you got your results, you refused to explain your methods, claiming it was “intimidation” to even ask, so we should just take it on faith that you were right …

Tell your students that scientists who do those things may have to face either the consequences, or Congress, or both …

America has led the world in science for decades. It has benefited our culture, our economy and our understanding of the world.

My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.


My friend, the problem is not blatant abuse from politicians. The problem is your blatant abuse of the scientific method. If you and other climate scientists stopped trying to scare us with your doomsday fantasies, if you and other climate scientists were honest and open and forthright about what we do understand and what we don’t understand, if you and other climate scientists fully disclosed your data and your methods, if you and other climate scientists stopped trying to subvert the IPCC into serving as your propaganda mouthpiece, we could have a rational discussion.

But you are like a junkie who jumps up and down and screams “Police abuse” every time the cops question him. Asking you scientific questions is not abuse, Dr. Mann, no matter how many times you try to claim it is. And your investigations are the just rewards of your own anti-scientific and unethical actions. As my momma used to say, “Scorch around, and you’ll get burnt.”

Now, if you’d care to disagree with any of the things that I have said above, I am certain that Anthony Watts would be more than happy to publish your reply. So the opportunity is yours to make your case about the math, and the bristlecones, and the IPCC AR4 review comments, and all the rest. Heck, publish your emails that show that you didn’t conspire with Wahl and Amman and Jones to delete emails regarding what you had done to subvert AR4 … I offer you the chance to set the record straight.

My conclusions? I strongly support the fullest further investigation of the Climategate scandals, and your own role in them. Not via the legal system like Cuccinelli, however. I want an independent, outside scientific/academic investigation that talks to both your friends and those who disagree with your actions and claims. I want to bring in full sunlight, and put this matter to rest. I would like to know if you did delete the emails, and if you asked your pal Gene to do the same … you know, the stuff your precious “thorough investigations” never investigated in the slightest.

And as a result, it is perfectly clear to me why you have gone to the Washington Post to complain about the possibility that people might find out exactly what you did and didn’t do. And I have to say, I sympathize with you in that regard.

Because from the looks of things, if I were you … I wouldn’t want someone bringing in the sunlight so folks could find out what went on, either.

Sincerely,

Willis Eschenbach

Independent Climate Researcher
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-10, 02:14 PM   #150
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ky-Fi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Posts: 10,557
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 10 (Post-Climategate Whitewash Edition

Didn't see this already posted by movielib (although I may be wrong ), but I thought this was interesting:



Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history

Posted on October 8, 2010 by Anthony Watts

UPDATE: Since this came in late Friday, many of our weekday WUWT readers might not see this important story, so I’m sticking it to the top for a couple of days. New stories will appear just below this one, please scroll down to see them. – Anthony


Hal Lewis

We’ve previously covered the APS here, when I wrote:

While Copenhagen and its excesses rage, a quiet revolution is starting.

Indeed, not so quiet now. It looks like it is getting ugly inside with the public airing of the resignation of a very prominent member who writes:

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.- Hal Lewis

Below is his resignation letter made public today, via the GWPF.

This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.


What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today’s Washington Post.

Readers, we can do this. Here’s the place at WaPo to ask for it. For anyone writing to the WaPo, the national@washpost.com, is the national news editorial desk. The Post’s Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, is the readers’ representative within the newspaper. E-mail him at ombudsman@washpost.com or call 202-334-7582.

Spread the word on other blogs. Let’s see if they have enough integrity to provide a counterpoint. – Anthony

======================================

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis

From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society

6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.

Hal

==========================================================

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/0...sical-society/
__________________
"Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously."
---G.K. Chesterton "When all that says 'it is good' has been debunked, what says 'I want' remains."--C.S. Lewis.
Atlantica Vox on FB
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0