Hitting Back Against the New War on Science

By Chris Mooney | February 9, 2010 9:08 am

I haven’t read all the new material yet that my good friends at DeSmogBlog are producing. But I have long been suspicious of the attacks on leading climate researchers, like the recently vindicated Michael Mann, because they are so obviously diversionary, and yet also so obviously strategic.

There is no doubt that those attacks have been mounting; I believe a new and full scale “war on science” is afoot in the climate arena, something I hope to say more about shortly.

But in the meantime, it appears that following ClimateGate and GlacierGate, we are once again getting some revelations taking on the other side. Maybe this means the pendulum will shift, and good science can move back off the ropes, where it has been for too long. We’ll see. I’ll be watching closely.

Comments (120)

  1. gillt

    Ho,ho, you’re mired in metaphor! Over there you’re bridge building with anti-vaxers and creationists while over here you’re rattling sabers with AGW deniers. For the life of me I can’t find rhyme or reason to your strategizing.

  2. Count Nukem

    Chris Looney,
    Glicergate and other climategates shows that George Bush was right while he distrusted IPCC.
    “some revilations” you refer to use faulty logic and they do not change the substance of what Wegman comission found.

    The real peoples war on * junk-science* starts right now. After it was revealed that the chirch of climatology builds it faith on fradulent data we are looking forward to possibility that the church of evolution builds its faith on fradulent logic.

    Just as eugenics was discredited there will go the church of climatology and the church of scientific atheism.

  3. Will

    Did you even read their report? If so, how did you miss the part where they are saying he may very well have violated Penn States acceptable rules of conduct as a scientist?????

    “[....] the inquiry committee believes an investigatory committee of faculty peers from diverse fields should be constituted under RA-10 to further consider this allegation”

    “The investigatory committee’s charge will be to consider what are the bounds of accepted practice in this instance and whether or not Dr. Mann did indeed engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities.”

    How is this vindication for Michael Mann?

  4. Thanks for the heads-up that the bold and forthright response to the comedy of errors on the AGW side is to slime skeptics. That’s a political response, not a scientific one. If you want to know what a scientific response would be, click this link.

    We believe scientists need to use this current crisis to reflect on communicating uncertainty. They need to recognise that being more proactive and honest about the areas that are less certain or subject of disagreement would result in better-informed coverage and more public trust. If journalists think that there are disagreements or gaps in knowledge that are being hidden they are much more likely to start hunting around trying to ‘expose’ them than they are if all the information is on display. We need journalists and the public to better understand that disagreement is a normal, healthy feature of science and that unlike politicians scientists do not have to be ‘on message’ or arrive at an agreed line!

    Throwing up a smoke screen of diversion is no substitute for correcting errors and misleading information.

    Finally, Michael Mann was hardly “vindicated.” The so-called investigation didn’t even talk to his major critics.

    The only interviews mentioned in the report (aside from Mann) are with Gerry North and Donald Kennedy, editor of Science. [Since they are required to provide a transcript or summary of all interviews, I presume that the Inquiry did not carry out any other interviews.] What does Donald Kennedy know about the matter? These two hardly constitute “looking at issues from all sides”. [A CA reader observed below that "North [at a Rice University event] admitted that he had not read any of the EAU e-mails and did not even know that software files were included in the release.”] They didn’t even talk to Wegman. Contrary to Spanier’s claim, they did not make the slightest effort to talk to any critic or even neutral observer.

  5. bilbo

    As I said when it first broke, I’ll take ClimateGate seriously when we see a few peer-reviewed articles retracted over it.

    gillt:

    Really? Chris is “saber-rattling” here? I don’t see any more “saber rattling” in the above post than I have seen him use against creationists and even anti-vaxers. In fact, I’ve even seen Chris write posts about the need to reach out to some AGW skeptics while attacking others. So, while we’re missing the details for motivation, you’re kind of arguing from, well, personal dislike more than anything.

    Ho HO – you’re mired in…missing the point? (Actually, I think you just have such an innate hatred for Mooney that you jump at the slightest excuse to criticize like a hungry tribal pit-bull, eager to please your favorite bloggers who share your hatred for Mooney where, predictably, gillt rarely writes a critical word – it’s always “you LIE!!!!!” over here in Mooney World and “Yes, Lord! Yes, Lord! You tell ‘em Lord! You should see what I posted over there to Mooney, Lord!” over in NA World from gillt. It’s like two different people depending on which blog he’s on. But you get the picture.)

  6. Ian

    My take on the ‘gates’ episodes is that this is a wake-up call for all scientists to produce honest material. I note the phrases ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ have been around for a while … what a shame.

  7. Count Nukem

    Chris Mooney,(my apologies for misspelling your name in my first message)
    Even if M. Mann were cleared by internal comission with huge conflict of interests we should remember that CRU was found guilty of crime of hiding information from FOIA requests. If they act as rational players why would they hide their data? The only answer to this is that they want something to hide. And now we know that perhaps they wanted to hide omited data from weather stations in cold places and the fact that the warming of last decade is merely an artifact of crude interpolation.

    And there is another thing: now even Guardian see the corruption of peer -review process by the global warming cult.

    So who is fighting with whom? Was that “Republicans war on science” or was that war of pseudo science cult against the rest of humanity? As it is with David Koresh , the motives of climat cult’s war are irrational and justified only by their made up apocalliptic visions.

    This whole thing undermines the public trust in science in general. And now public will look at the other artifacts of fanatic faith masaked as something that belongs to science. Unfortunately, even legitimate theories of social significance will be suspect. Thanks to all zellots who were defending junk science.

  8. Michael

    The real abject tragedy of the whole global warming fiasco is that the politically charged advocates of man made global warming have seriously damaged the people’s faith in science in general. I loath the wacky ID/Ceationist crowd and pseudo-science in totality, but there is no emperical, measurable data that can prove that humans are actually warming the earth up. There ia no rise in sea level; most of the earth’s galciers are expanding and getting thicker; the average global temperatures since 1998 have fallen, with an astounding drop of .75 degress F since 2006.

    The historical evidence that the Earth’s climate is cyclical is virtually overwhelming, and that the CO2 content in the atmosphere has neglible effect on climate as a whole. This winter will convince people more than anything that the global warming alarmists are simply wrong, and worse, are politically motivated. While it is true that a severe winter does not make a cooling trend, several very cold winters will prove it. And those winters are coming. A cooler and wetter earth will have some dire consequences for humanity–far worse than the fictional warming that has been erroneously predicted.

  9. Count Nukem

    >>I loath the wacky ID/Ceationist crowd and pseudo-science in totality, but there is no emperical, measurable data that can prove that humans are actually warming the earth up.

    IMHO, the scientific atheism of Dawkins style belongs to the same basket as creationism. It looks more as an artifact of faith, or call it a philosophy, but it is not a falsifiable theory. The only good thing about it that no one really cares about Dawkins ontology.

    Talk about evolution is fine. But if one talks about eveolution/selection as the only drive behind creation of life then how one is going to prove it or at least propose experiment which would falsify the idea of exclusive role of evolutionary drives? There is no even any serious proposal for experiments that would falsify evolution as we see it in the textbooks. So what about its exclusive role? The irony is that in logical sense the creationism is negation of scientific atheism. Finding experiment which can falsify one would also be positive evidence for the oposite.

  10. Mat

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded#

    Mann should go back to reading hiking magazines for research

  11. bilbo

    Count Nukem just provided us with a wonderful primer of conspiracy-theorist “logic” that’s based more in confirmation bias than in actual fact and logical thinking. Let’s examine:

    Step 1: Begin with a kernel of truth couched in an overblown (and sometimes outright false) framework to poison the well before the argument even begins.

    “Even if M. Mann were cleared by internal comission with huge conflict of interests we should remember that CRU was found guilty of crime of hiding information from FOIA requests.”

    (Actual reality: While the ClimateGate emails contained statements from scientists discussing withholding info from FOIA requests, the CRU itself was never found guilty in a court of law to doing so (unless we’ve all been missing some outright HUGE news!). In fact, most of the data asked for the FOIA was actually freely available to the public, in raw format, on the CRUs website at the time of the FOIA request….which is why the CRU found no need to release it themselves. It was one click away from those who wanted it to being with.)

    Step 2: Beg a question that is posed after you’ve already reached a predetermined conclusion based on your confirmation bias – a question that is also based on the false statements made in Step 1, thereby perpetuating the lie.

    “If they act as rational players why would they hide their data?”

    (Actual reality: no one was “hiding” any data. Again, it was (and still is) freely available on the Internet.)

    Step 3: Answer your question for yourself, pretending that there is only ONE logical alternative out of a handbasket of equally-likely alternatives. Crucial point: never provide the evidence that you used to reach this conclusion.

    “The only answer to this is that they want something to hide.”

    (Actual reality: No, there is actually a plethora of potential answers in an absence of evidence. They could indeed have something to hide, but they also could have already had the data freely available on their public server (which we know they did), they could have known those requesting the FOIA had a track record of performing pseudoscience by fiddling with others’ data (which we know is also the case), etc. So, in actuality, the good Count’s “only answer” is, in fact, the one supported by the least evidence, and thus we find Count Nukem suckling greedily on the raw teat of his confirmation bias – finding a conspiracy by begging the question.)

    Step 4: Use your “only answer” – which was reached by a path involving two logical fallacies and no evidence – to dream up a much more insidious conspiracy plot that is backed by literally no evidence whatsoever but happens to play well again into your confirmation bias….again.

    “And now we know that perhaps they wanted to hide omited data from weather stations in cold places and the fact that the warming of last decade is merely an artifact of crude interpolation.”

    (Actual reality: Um, none? Pure supposition on the part of Count Nukem. I’ll add that, in the above quote, Count Nukem spouts a brand of denialism mind-diarrhea that even most climate skeptics claim is silly: that the Earth’s climate has not changed in recent time. That’s last decade’s denialism, Nukem. After the data came out to prove that old conspiracy claim from the 1990s wrong, most denialists shifted to new conspiracies and new talking points.)

    ….and thus the cycle of the confirmation bias is complete: take an accusation, blow it up to truth without supposition, and through a series of logical fallacies and wild assumptions, tie it to a conspiracy.

    Ah, denialism!

  12. a dood

    “Good science?” … I don’t think you get it yet…

    AGW is DOA. The best thing to do is accept your losses and move on.

  13. bilbo

    Talk about evolution is fine. But if one talks about eveolution/selection as the only drive behind creation of life then how one is going to prove it or at least propose experiment which would falsify the idea of exclusive role of evolutionary drives? There is no even any serious proposal for experiments that would falsify evolution as we see it in the textbooks.

    Wow, we’ve got another of the ever-ignorant climate change-evolution combo denialists on our hands, folks!

    I guess once a denialist, always a denialist, And always an ignorant fool.

    I chortle at your churlish stupidity, you question-begging denialist! (You might want to look those two c-words up since it’s likely beyond your meager brain capacity, you sniveling, impotent fool.)

  14. dhogaza

    “Did you even read their report? If so, how did you miss the part where they are saying he may very well have violated Penn States acceptable rules of conduct as a scientist?????

    How is this vindication for Michael Mann?”

    I wonder why Will left out the bit in the document he quoted that said “we could find no evidence” that Mann’s done what Will says the report claims “he may very well have violated Penn States acceptable rules of conduct”?

    Can anyone here make a guess?

    Or why he left out the bit that makes it clear that they’re appointing a panel of scientists in order to make the soundest possible investigation in hopes that when this panel agrees that there’s no such evidence, that people like Will will shut up? (forlorn as that hope is…)

  15. John A. Jauregui

    War on science? Are serious? This is a war on propaganda. The national media’s continued silence on ClimateGate and increasing revelations of outright fraud and wrongdoing at all levels of government, academia and the media itself, tells the truth of the tail. That truth is there’s a lot more to this ClimateGate story than what little is being reported. The small (2 to 3 dozen) international cabal of climate scientists could not have possibly gotten to this point without extraordinary funding, political support at virtually all levels of government, especially at the national level and unparalleled cooperation from the national and world media. This wide-spread networked support continues even as we-the-people puzzle over what this is all about. I ask you, “What are you seeing and hearing from our national media on the subject?” Anything? What are you seeing and hearing from all levels of our government, local and regional newspapers and media outlets? Anything of substance? At all of these levels the chatter has remained remarkably quite on the subject, wouldn’t you say? Why? What points and positions are you beginning to hear on the radio and see on the television? This cabal of scientists has an unprecedented level of support given the revelations contained in the emails, documented in the computer software code and elaborated in the associated programmer remarks (REM) within the code. And —- this has gone on for years, AND continues even in the presence of the most damning evidence one could imagine, or even hope for. Watergate pales in comparison, given the trillions of dollars in carbon offset taxes, cap & trade fees hanging in the balance and the unimaginable political control over people’s lives this all implies. The mainstream media’s conspiracy of silence proves the point. Their continued cover-up is as much a part of this crime as the actual scientific fraud. ABC, CBS and NBC are simply co-conspirators exercising their 5th Amendment rights.

  16. Milton C.

    I’m never a fan of his childish tone, but bilbo has a point. Count Nukem seems to fall into the “question-begging denialist” mold that many of the skeptics posting here fall into. That is, by posing a question, pretending that it is valid, and then answering the question for themselves, the denialist excludes himself from having to substantiate his claims with evidence. By simply making the accusation it becomes true. Count Nukem does it above with:

    “If they act as rational players why would they hide their data? The only answer to this is that they want something to hide.”

    There’s absolutely nothing to back any of this up, of course, but Count Nukem finds it sufficent to satisfy the conclusion he had likely reached before even posing this question.

    I’ve been watching climate denialists do this for decades now. First the claim was that Earth’s climate wasn’t changing. Well, then it became apparent that it was, and denialists shifted the goalposts to say that the climate was changing, but it just wasn’t getting warmer. A few years later, data again refuted the denialists to show that, yes, the Earth was in fact warming. Then the goalposts shifted AGAIN, to the denialists taking on a whole different tone that “ok, the Earth’s claimte is changing, and ok, it IS getting warmer. But it’s all natural!” Now that’s starting to be debunked with hard facts and data, and the denialists have fallen back on this desperation strategy of hoping that scientists have been making data up all along…with some of the denialists going back to the old (now debunked) allegations. It’s really a self-reinforcing cycle of ignorance that survives my elevating unfounded supposition to the same level of veracity as evidence-supported science. That’s why it’s ultimately doomed to fail.

    Regarding Count Nukem’s begging the question example, regarding evolution, I’ll dispatch that easily by inserting “gravity” in place of “evolution:”

    “Talk about gravity is fine. But if one talks about gravityas the only drive behind the structure of the universe then how one is going to prove it or at least propose experiment which would falsify the idea of exclusive role of gravity? There is no even any serious proposal for experiments that would falsify gravity as we see it in the textbooks!”

    …and thus the stupidity of the Argument from Confirmation Bias becomes apparent.

  17. Deech56

    Glad to see these latest efforts get some attention. I wonder if some of those making comment have read The Republican War on Science and know the background behind so many of the industry attacks on science. The Desmogblog piece describes some work by John Mashey, who is well known among blog readers. In it he writes: “Either our institutions learn better how to defend scientists whose research is inconvenient, or we should just quit funding that science right now. We can let tobacco companies decide whether nicotine is addictive to children or not, and we can let fossil fuel companies decide climate science. If we keep letting scientists be singled out for unrelenting personal attack for doing their jobs, that is what will happen.”

  18. SLC

    Re Coount Nukem

    Talk about evolution is fine. But if one talks about eveolution/selection as the only drive behind creation of life then how one is going to prove it or at least propose experiment which would falsify the idea of exclusive role of evolutionary drives?

    It gets tiresome after a while but once again into the fray. Mr. Nukem, like all creationists, conflates the theory of the origin of life with the theory of evolution, thus proving he is an ignorant putz. The theory of evolution and the theory of the origin of life are two separate theories, if the origin of life is defined as the appearance of the first replicators. The theory of the origin of life, which currently does not exist, is a theory that would explain the appearance of the first replicators. It is a problem in chemistry. The theory of evolution, known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is a theory that explains the development of life after the appearance of the first replicators. The theory of the development of life, e.g. evolution is a problem in biology. Just to complete the story, the theory of the origin of the universe, e.g. the big bang, is a problem in physics and has nothing to do with the other two theories.

    There is no even any serious proposal for experiments that would falsify evolution as we see it in the textbooks.

    When J. B. S. Haldane was approached by an overeager Popperian challenging him to provide an example of an observation that would falsify the theory of evolution, he replied finding a cat fossil in the pre-Cambrian. Needless to say, nobody has yet found a cat fossil in the pre-Cambrian.

  19. Busiturtle

    Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all.

    - Dr. Andrew A. Lacis

    http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=17

  20. Until you learn how to defend science with soundbites, you’re gonna lose. I glazed over and stopped reading halfway through that link.

  21. Chowdamelon

    Mr. Mooney, your high priests of your Church of Human Caused Global Warming, have worn out their beads, rattles, and chicken bones, also known as ” computer models”. The whole thing is a farce. I work on computers 24/7 and I can create a computer model to show that the moon is made of green cheese. The data does not support your religion, which is based upon a New Fascist movement, Progressivism.
    I sincerely hope that you and your ilk sober up.

  22. Milton C.

    Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda.

    Of course the IPCC Reports have a “clear and obvious” policy implication – they’re policy documents!!!!!

    Perhaps the most common misconception of climate denialists is that the science of climate change hinges on the IPCC assessments, or that those who “believe” AGW reach their conclusions based on the IPCC Assessments. It does not, and they do not. The science of climate changes hinges on the science published in peer-reviewed journals, which the IPCC summarizes in their policy documents.

    Denialists and skeptics often attack the IPCC report and claim that they’ve debunked the science behind climate change. That is incorrigibly false. If your goal is to show that what science says about climate change is incorrect, you must debunk and disprove the actual science itself. Tod ate, I’ve yet to see a single skeptic or denialist do that successfully.

  23. Adeist

    IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors.

    Because of its intergovernmental nature, the IPCC is able to provide scientific technical and socio-economic information in a policy-relevant but policy neutral way to decision makers. When governments accept the IPCC reports and approve their Summary for Policymakers, they acknowledge the legitimacy of their scientific content.

    Note – “agenda” is not the same word as “implication”.

  24. Will

    dhogaza, I left that part out because I do not believe it is relevant the the FACT that he is STILL under investigation by his peers. Anybody who cares can read the full report on their own, though you seem to think it part of some elaborate ‘spin campaign’ that I’m conducting on behalf of ‘Big-Oil’.

    I’m not sure why this is confusing.. Another panel is being formed to further investigate charge #4 based on the recommendation of the first investigators. You’ve personally admitted to this much in your angry rebutal!
    ” in order to make the soundest possible investigation” — dhogaza, Feb 9, 2010

    As long as Michael Mann is STILL being investigated by his peers I will stand by my claim that he has not yet been vindicated. To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.. Ohh wait..
    ‘ in hopes that when this panel agrees that there’s no such evidence, that people like Will will shut up?’ — dhogaza, Feb 9, 2010

    Keep hoping DHogaza….

  25. Milton C.

    Perhaps the most common misconception of climate denialists is that the science of climate change hinges on the IPCC assessments, or that those who “believe” AGW reach their conclusions based on the IPCC Assessments. It does not, and they do not. The science of climate changes hinges on the science published in peer-reviewed journals, which the IPCC summarizes in their policy documents.

    Real Climate says in its guide to climate change: “Informed, but in need of more detail:

    Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).”

  26. moptop

    Cripes Chris. Is that the best you can do? Your side is in serious trouble if so. Just sayin’ If you think conspiritorial ramblings about McKitrick and McIntyre and their “fellow travelers” is going to turn the debate around, my question would be “why hasn’t all of this motive questioning in place of logic and evidence worked so far?

  27. gillt

    bilbo: “Really? Chris is “saber-rattling” here?”

    silly hobbit

    Mooney: “There is no doubt that those attacks have been mounting; I believe a new and full scale “war on science”

    Don’t be obtuse. It’s a very reasonable interpretation to say Mooney is saber-rattling when he characterizes the opposition with military rhetoric.

    Do I disagree with Mooney’s assessment? Not necessarily.

    I’m simply calling out his absurd hypocrisy in doing so. I’m also aware that as a fanboy of everything Intersection you’re apt to react emotionally.

  28. gillt

    And lets not forget the call-to-arms title: “Hitting Back against the War on Science.”

  29. Mooney has given away the strategy: Smear the “denialists” to distract the public from the revelations of bad AGW science. In politics, it’s common to accuse opponents of what one is doing. So you can trust Mooney when he says there’s a war; except it’s not a war on science, but a sordid political war on “denialists.” The sewers at DeSmogBlog, Climate Progress, Science Progress, and all the other “science” sites Mooney is friendly with, are going to overflow.

    However, the problems for AGW theory and its establishment defenders have grown vastly greater than just M&M or even Climategate. Sliming the “denialists” will only increase sympathy for them and focus media attention on the attackers.

    The sleazestorm from Mooney’s friends won’t rescue AGW theory. It is just blind, futile, self-defeating rage.

  30. moptop

    You know what is missing from that post at deepclimate? A showing of how McIntyre was wrong.

  31. Chris

    Bilbo wake up, your being an idiot, (as many 0f you on this blog are). You are just defending a position to be what you perceive to be right. Just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. The evidence (and I really don’t care what the “deniers” as you refer to them say) indicates that CO2 doesn’t have anything to do with global warming. Many very respected scientists have stated this and it is hard to refute. You can talk all you want about how it is true, or not true. The evidence indicates it is not. Maybe they are wrong. However, they have as much credibibilty as anyone you wish to quote. Thus the focus on CO2 is misplaced at best. Stop carrying a flag and start looking for truth. That is what we need.

    And who really cares about evolution. It is a silly argument. Evolution has nothing to do with what we need to decide regarding policy at the present time (save the potential for wasted money looking for life on mars but that is small change in comparison). Stop wasting your time on it.

    Look for the truth and promote it. The AGW guys didn’t do that, and that is now obvious.

  32. The problem with Steve McIntyre is not so much in what he sais, it’s in how he sais it. And in blowing the significance of his findings way out of proportion. Even when he finds a genuine error (admittedly he sometimes does), the insinuations of fraud and dishonesty on the part of sciensts are like a thick cloud, preventing any contructive discussion. His tactics sometimes smell like a concerted effort at harassment:

    http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/mcintyre-concerted-efforts-to-derail-the-science-and-harass-scientists/

  33. Marion Delgado

    I’ll pick a lying slander at random:

    Count Nukem, it’s not if, it’s that Mann was vindicated – the last trumped-up charge could not be part of their evaluation because it was such a broad, vague and subjective one that it was suited only to the administration at Penn. Wherever any facts could be gathered, they supported Mann.

    Moreover, the people at CRU were not found guilty of violating FOIA requests. That’s a blatant, outright lie – and slander – by you, a false and pernicious defamer. Your baseless smears show clearly the completely factually bankrupt and sociopathic nature of your Know-Nothing crusade.

    The fact is, the email that suggested that that would be done IF copies of proprietary information lent to CRU was being requested by incorrectly filed FOIAs was itself suggesting something that’s entirely legal under British FOIA law. Moreover, it was not even carried out.

    The point is, McIntyre, a non-scientist who makes his money by consulting to the resource extraction industry, harrassed CRU with hundreds of repetitious FOIA requests. Moreover, they were usually for data that was not from CRU, or CRU’s property, and which had been obtained only with the legal contractual requirement that they not be released. You do know what a contract is, correct? If not, you’re stupid as well as venal. If so, then your dishonesty and perfidy is almost beyond belief.

  34. Mooney has given away the strategy: Smear the “denialists” to distract the public from the revelations of bad AGW science.

    I’m still waiting to see any revelations about bad AGW science.

  35. Marion Delgado

    The truly great thing about the DeepClimate, etc. posts is that they leave various issues to other bloggers. This means that we’re no longer all duplicating efforts. That’s a huge win.

  36. Count Nukem

    bilbo,
    Indeed you missed a huge news: about a week ago ICO found CRU guilty in violating FOIA laws. It is so old I can’t even dig original link, but here is secondary:
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/cru_foia_guilty/

    Some passages from your essay put one against another:

    1..Actual reality: no one was “hiding” any data. Again, it was (and still is) freely available on the Internet

    (what FOIA was asking then?
    .2..Actual reality: No, there is actually a plethora of potential answers in an absence of evidence.
    (speaking for reality???? are you from “Real Climate?)

    3… They could indeed have something to hide

    (contradincts to #1)

    This is just short peace of your text.

    bilbo have demonstrated us what logic of a *demagog* is. It is especially laughable in view of ICO finding.

  37. Count Nukem

    Marion Delgado #34
    look at my answer #36

    DeepClimate reminds mee of Deep Ecology. Does anyone on this blog knows what Deep Ecology is?

  38. Count Nukem

    bilbo #13, Milton #16
    If you call me denialist for asking reasonable methodological question (and not even insiting on any answers) then you look to me like members of uneducated public. Perhaps you fascination with science comes from your experience of serving salad to students in a university caffe.

    evolution ~ gravity? This only shows how crude your brains are. Why did not you say evolution is like String Theory. If you said that you would be correct. See book “Not Even Wrong”

  39. Marion Delgado

    BTW DEPUTY commissioner Graham Smith has no idea what was going on. Fortunately for science, he’s got no authority over the inquiry.

  40. Marion Delgado

    A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said that it was not aware of Smith’s statement. “The way Freedom of Information requests have been handled is one of the main areas being explored by Sir Muir Russell’s independent review. We have already made clear that the findings of the review will be made public and that we will act as appropriate on its recommendations,” she said.

  41. Count Nukem

    It is also official that Jones *LOST* data on China statition related to his work on urban heat islands.
    http://reason.com/blog/2010/02/02/climategate-update-1-the-china

    If he LOST data then he may be just deleted them as well. Who is going to trust this croock anyway.

    The Nobel prize wining work, endorsed by all possible geoscience unions now is a toast. IPCC admits its errors:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704182004575055703697897576.html

    What a shame for all geoscience unions who endorsed it.

    bilbo,Chris Mooney and Marion Delgado who call me lying slander : You will have no place to hide from the fact that lying slander is what you did for the last few years of this global warming scam advocacy. Your days are numbered. Eventualy you will have to eat your shoes and feel all what Jones feels now.

  42. Count Nukem

    Marion Delgado,
    it is you who has no idea what was going on :-) Empty statements as in #40, #41 which are only PR tricks will not get you anymore where they were getting you before. The world has changed.

  43. Count Nukem

    Free media hits back against political slander of DeepClimate et al.:

    http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m2d9-Global-warming-When-in-doubt-slime-the-opposition

    Everyone seems understands that attacks on Wegman are nothing but PR stunt.

  44. Count Nukem, thanks for the link,
    Mooney’s “science” friends over at Climate Progress have really stepped in their own slime:

    I generally do not use the word “libel” for media miscoverage of climate science. But CBS reports in the same story, almost as a throwaway, that an academic panel had just cleared Mann of the exact same “charge” leveled at it by the fact-free video. Thus, the false charge meets the tough legal standard for determining whether a major media outlet has defamed a public figure — that the publisher had “knowledge that the information was false” or that the information was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

    What a load of steaming bluff. Mann doesn’t dare sue CBS, because the discovery process would ensure there’d be a real investigation into his conduct.

  45. I’m still waiting to see any revelations about bad AGW science.

    Try the 2007 IPCC report.

  46. bilbo

    Bilbo wake up, your being an idiot, (as many 0f you on this blog are). You are just defending a position to be what you perceive to be right. Just because you believe something to be true doesn’t make it true. The evidence (and I really don’t care what the “deniers” as you refer to them say) indicates that CO2 doesn’t have anything to do with global warming

    Actually, I’m “defending a position” that’s backed by 3 decades of peer-reviewed scientific evidence….all of which denialists such as yourself have proven utterly impotent at debunking (but your fake conspiracies must be fun!).

    I’ll challenge you, though, to provide us with the citations for 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change. Then, clearly show us how these papers can be scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If the “evidence” is so clear, as you claim, show us! This should not be hard if I’m so misguided. Correct, denialist?

    I pose that challenge to you, as I have to about 10 other denialists here before, knowing full well that not a single one has even attempted it. I imagine you will only try diversionary tactics, too.

    Shall you fail, denialist? Or shall you make a fool of me once and for all.

    I’m waiting.

  47. bilbo

    If you call me denialist for asking reasonable methodological question (and not even insiting on any answers) then you look to me like members of uneducated public. Perhaps you fascination with science comes from your experience of serving salad to students in a university caffe.

    Actually, someone with the sorry grammar found in the above quote and misspellings like “caffe” seems to me to be the better example of the “uneducated public.”

    evolution ~ gravity? This only shows how crude your brains are. Why did not you say evolution is like String Theory. If you said that you would be correct. See book “Not Even Wrong”

    I always love it when someone who gets upset at being called a denialist clearly shows a denial of a scientific topic (like evolution), as the Moronic Count just did here. Are you really a grade-schooler, Count Oblivious?

    bilbo,Chris Mooney and Marion Delgado who call me lying slander : You will have no place to hide from the fact that lying slander is what you did for the last few years of this global warming scam advocacy. Your days are numbered. Eventualy you will have to eat your shoes and feel all what Jones feels now.

    Actually, Count Oblivious, you don’t have to wait for me to ‘eat my own shoes.’ If your denialist arguments are so fool-proof – and I’m such a buffoon for accepting the science of climate change – I’ll pose the same challenge to you that I just did to Chris the Denialist.

    Provide us with the citations for 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change. Then, clearly show us how these papers can be scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If the “evidence” is so clear, as you claim, show us! This should not be hard if I’m so misguided. Correct, denialist?

    This is your chance to humiliate me, Count Coward. I’m calling you out. Make me “eat my shoes” before the blog and before the world. Man up and destroy my “lies” once and for all. This should be easy for someone who is so clearly correct. Shouldn’t it?

    Or, you can divert, evade the question, rant about conspiracies or tone or personal attacks, and prove that, in fact, you simply cannot do it. You simply cannot prove the science of climate change wrong. Shall you fail?

    Shall you prove that you have no foundation to stand on, denialist?

    I’m waiting.

  48. bilbo,
    I’ll challenge you, though, to provide us with the citations for 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change. Then, clearly show us how these papers can be scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If the “evidence” is so clear, as you claim, show us! This should not be hard if I’m so misguided. Correct, denialist?

    Those who propose a theory bear the burden of proof. So here’s a more scientifically valid form of your challenge:

    I’ll challenge you, though, to provide us with the citations for 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change. Then, clearly show us how these papers can be scientifically validated (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If the “evidence” is so clear, as you claim, show us! This should not be hard if I’m so misguided. Correct, believer?

  49. bilbo

    Do I disagree with Mooney’s assessment? Not necessarily.

    I’m simply calling out his absurd hypocrisy in doing so.

    Interesting to see you imply agreement with something you also call “absurd hypocrisy.”

    Don’t worry, don’t worry – I get it; it’s the same argument for every sitation with you fellas. We should all be lumping issues and people into nice, homogeneous packages so we can assign one of two choices/strategies to each, in every foreseeable situation: (1) hurl feces at it or (2) nod vigorously in approval.

    Any deviation from the preconceived polarized worldview narrative that we’re using to acheive our rational utopia must be seen as “absurd hypocrisy.”

  50. bilbo

    Bradley J. Diversionist Denialist:

    I love diversionary responses like yours because, well, the evidence has been around for over 30 years now. Pick up a climate research journal, and there you have it. Can you debunk any of those articles that support my “belief?”

    Also, I find it interesting that, when denialists such as yourself make wild accusations that the science of climate change is wrong (or that those supporting it are “idiots”) the burden of proof strangely lies on the accused, not the accuser. That’s hardly the way that it’s traditionally put.

    Hey, but it’s cool. Let’s use your logic. Here’s an accusation for everyone: Bradley J. Fikes’ mother was a free-wheeling crack whore from 1978-1980. Since (according to you) the burden of proof is not on me to prove the validity of that statement but for you to somehow prove that she was not the person I accused her of, I’ll gladly be awaiting your evidence. (Or, more likely, an angry retort about tone proving that I highlighted your fifth-rate, backwards logic.)

    But back to the subject. You claim that the science of climate change is false or, as I’ve seen you post on this blog before, a conspiracy of lies. This is one damning accusation, Bradley J. Denialist! And the burden of proof is upon you to prove the science wrong and support that accusation! Seeing as how the proof and evidence to support my “side” is posted clearly readable by anyone in scientific journals, I find it interesting that the multiple (over 10 now) denialists I’ve challenged on this blog to provide the evidence that supports their “side” simply cannot (or will not) do it.

    I’ve posed the challenge to you before in the past. Predictably, you left that thread and never posted on it again. As I suspect you will continue to do here.

    Why oh why is the evidence supporting denialism (that same evidence denialists seem so unabashedly sure of but equally impotent to provide) so difficult to come by?

  51. gillt

    No, it’s not interesting. It’s perfectly consistent what I’ve always said, which is in agreement with people like Orac who are on the front line. Mooney isn’t on the front lines of the anti-vax controversy yet naively and arrogantly insists those who are should be building bridges. Mooney is, however, on the front lines of AGW denialism and–Surprise!–his tactics are different: no longer accomodationist Mooney, it’s War on Science Mooney (What we need is another Mooney to come along and chastise the first Mooney for doing it wrong.).

    I’ve just offered an explanation for Mooney’s behavior, which is more than Mooney’s ever done. What’s your excuse-making bilbo for why Mooney thinks anti-vaxers deserve the kid gloves? Go read Oracs post before answering.

  52. Tenuc

    I don’t think anything that climatology is doing or has done can be called real science. Any theory that depends on inaccurate, patchy, homogenised data which cannot be independently checked is no better than Cargo Cult science. The sad part is that this travesty has done untold damage to the environmental movement, with big business and money grabbing politicians being the only beneficiaries.

    Those trying to defend the indefensible will only dig themselves into a bigger hole, as the cover-up inevitably causes more damage than the crime. It will be fun watching the perpetrators squirm over the coming weeks.

  53. Jim from Arizona

    Maybe we need to redefine climate denier.
    Who denies the Medieval Warm Period?
    Who denies the Little Ice Age?
    Who denies the climate ever changed before the 20th century?
    Who’s really the denier?

  54. moptop

    Bilbo,

    “Pick up a climate research journal, and there you have it. Can you debunk any of those articles that support my “belief?”” – Bilbo

    How about you pick the one that convinced you and people can have a crack at it? Naw, that would be acting as if the world were at stake, and I am sure that the two minutes it should take you would be far too much bother for such piddling stakes as seem to exist.

  55. kim

    Well, I understand that Spencer Weart’s new book will be entitled ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’. Are you working, my dear Chris, on ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’?
    ===========================================

  56. bilbo

    moptop,

    The simple fact that you think a single journal article should sway one person one way or another about a scientific issue highlights your misunderstanding of science.

    The foundations and evidence of climate science are built on nearly 3 decades’ worth of independent research articles that reach the same conclusions using different datasets and analytic methods across virtually all branches of science, from biology to physical science to atmospheric science to even chemistry. The relevancy and strength of a hypothesis or theory in science is found in the strength of the evidence behind it. For climate change, the evidence is there, buddy. And pretending that it rests on one or two papers is a misconception only an overeager denialist fool would hold (one that you just echoed, I’ll add).

    In fact, my challenge to you still stands, just as it does to any denialist or skeptic trolling the blog:

    Provide us with the citations for just 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change (really an infantesimile amount of the literature supporting the science). Then, clearly show us how these papers can be and/or have been scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). As I’ve told the other denialists, if this is such a shoddy, easily-debunked science full of holes and fatal flaws as you all claim, then you should have absolutely no trouble debunking them. Correct? It’s simply hilarious to watch you all scatter and employ diversionary responses when this extraordinarily simple challenge is proposed.

    We’re all waiting, moptop et al. You have your chance to kill the conspiratorial, flawed science of climate change on this blog once and for all, in public, subsequently humiliating all of us silly “believers” in the process.

    I don’t see how you could pass this chance up. Let’s see what you’ve got.

  57. Milton C.

    What’s the best way to deal with science-denialist “guerillas,” as Chris jut posed on his latest post?

    Do what bilbo’s doing. Ask them to provide the evidence they’ve used to reach their conclusions, and ask them to show how the supposedly flawed science of climate change can be debunked.

    Bilbo’s been doing it for months on here, and no one has succeeded yet, instead falling back on ad hominems against political philosophies and individual researchers or trying to quickly change the subject. To an undecided observer, that kind of inability to support your arguments speaks volumes for itself.

    Just look at this post. Bilbo’s posed that challenge 3 to 4 different times now. No one has even attempted to approach it. And for good reason.

  58. J: I’m still waiting to see any revelations about bad AGW science.
    BJF: Try the 2007 IPCC report.

    I can’t help but notice that every time we ask for evidence that the science is wrong, we get a link to an editorial written by a climate skeptic. I suppose these arguments may seem damning to you, but they are not scientific evidence.

    BTW, the IPCC report is not the science. It’s a summary of the science.

  59. Philip Jr.

    @ Milton C. #57:

    I agree. Denialists and skeptics move into Crisis Mode when they’re confronted with questions about providing evidence to back up their claims – whether the topic is climate change or something like tobacco health risks, as I dealt with years ago. The same old canards are used now that were used on wholly different topics back then.

    Pose a challenge about substantiating accusations with evidence to a denialist on any topic, and you typically get one out of a few different responses:

    i.) A backasswards supposition about the burden of proof, a la Bradley J. Fikes in #49 (e.g., if one accuses climate science of being a fraud, it’s not their job to back that accusation up… which = WTF?). This is a VERY (decades) old denialist tactic.

    ii.) A quick topic change, typically to something involving politics or the cost of climate change policy or an argument about tone and civility.

    iii.) Something along the lines of “I plotted Bob’s dataset from 1979 in Excel at home using a bar graph, and it looks totally different than it did in his publication. BOOM! He’s a fraud! Climate change is dead!”

    iv.) Plain old ad hominems

    or v.) Rambling, jargon-filled attempts at debunking climate science that use terms and definition incorrectly and reveal some very elementary misunderstandings about the scientific method.

    This has been the failure of science denialism for decades, from DDT issues to water and air pollution, through tobacco health risks, and now to climate change: a gross inability for denialists to back up accusations with fact. It catches up with them in the end and ultimately has been the catalyst for the ultimate failure of those previous topics regarding science denial. Seeing the denialists move into the now-familiar desperation, smear-campaign phase, it seems that this is the case as well.

    So keep pushing them to provide evidence and substantiation. In time, it will lead to the death of denialism. A slow and painful death, but a welcome one, nonetheless.

  60. Sean McCorkle

    Chris Mooney,

    Wow, it seems to be playing out again just as you documented so well in tRWoS: one or two industry-funded right-wing think tanks coordinating a misinformation campaign, connecting with sympathetic congressman up with credentialed (or not) shills to stir up the appearance of controversy. And they don’t have to convince the public that they’re right, they just need to get the public to distrust the experts in the field.

    Im still trying to get my head wrapped around “60 Freedom of Information Act Requests” in one month -
    http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/climategate-scientist-phil-jones-contemplated-suicide/19348067
    if thats not a denial-of-service attack, I don’t know what is.

  61. gillt

    Jinchi: “BTW, the IPCC report is not the science. It’s a summary of the science.”

    The IPCC is a meta-analysis of all the data and published papers relevant to global warming, which reflects a general consensus view.

    Why don’t you think the IPCC report is relevant in this discusson, Jinchi? Do you know something the experts don’t?

  62. The IPCC report seems to be whatever the global warming advocates want it to be. It’s the authoritative source on global warming science, which Real Climate advocates people study to learn about the science. But when the IPCC report is found to have sloppy errors, it’s suddenly much less important.

    In other news, Chris Mooney has closed comments to his latest post. I guess he’s gotten more free speech than he can handle. So I invite you all to discuss his post at my site. Pro and con, whatever your views on global warming, all are welcome.

    While comments are moderated, I check them several times a day, and provide equal opportunity access. Unlike Mooney and his ilk, I don’t mind being challenged.

  63. bilbo

    While comments are moderated, I check them several times a day, and provide equal opportunity access. Unlike Mooney and his ilk, I don’t mind being challenged.

    What? We’re supposed to go to the same guy’s site who calls people who accept the evidence-backed science of climate change over denialist supposition “idiots,” “liars,” “pathetic,” and “cultists?” And we’re supposed to expect that “all are welcome” in light of this.

    Harumph, I say!

  64. Funny, the comments on that post have now been opened! I wish I had taken a screen capture when it had “comments closed,” but oh well.

  65. gillt

    Bradely, it’s obvious the IPCC report is the first scientific report you’ve ever attempted to comprehend. Your “assessment” says more about your own ignorance of what a large-scale, comprehensive report looks like (yes, errors occur and are corrected for in a timely fashion).

    You should be asking yourself why you think your judgment of matters far beyond your knowledge is worth making public.

  66. Milton C.

    So I went to Bradley’s website and found a peculiar observation: Bradley posts both pro and con pieces about virtually every topic except climate change. To read his blog paints a picture that there’s never any new evidence for the science: it’s all being debunked.

    And then I realized I was looking at a veiled shill site for science denial, and I quickly left.

  67. bilbo

    4 denialists called out.

    0 responses.

    We’re still waiting, fellas. You mean you’ve got nothing?!

  68. Milton C.

    I’m correcting >my earlier embrace of global warming theory.

    You’ll note that I even have good words for Chris Mooney, of which I have since repented:

    “Another long-term global warming debunker, James K. Glassman, recently wrote an article blasting “environmentalist extremists” who link Hurricane Katrina with global warming.

    “Katrina has nothing to do with global warming. Nothing,” Glassman, a former New Orleans resident, argued in an opinion piece printed in newspapers and on his Web site Tech Central Station: (tinyurl.com/7mk72).

    Glassman is right in that a specific storm cannot be attributed to global warming. Real Climate, a Web site run by mainstream weather scientists, warns of this fallacy: (tinyurl.com/dptpu). The Real Climate scientists liken the effect to playing with loaded dice: It is in the long-term trend from many individual dice tosses that you notice that something is amiss.

    However, Glassman is wrong to claim no connection. Katrina is the kind of intense hurricane we can expect if global warming continues.

    Chris C. Mooney, a science writer who is also a former New Orleans resident, highlighted that indirect connection by quoting comments made five years ago by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration official about the dangers to New Orleans (tinyurl.com/amrdu):

    ” … In fact, an international organization of scientists ranked New Orleans as the North American city most vulnerable to climate change. Therefore, the topic of global warming is especially relevant here.”

    Mooney even warned of the potential disaster in an article on New Orlean’s vulnerability three months ago: (tinyurl.com/bzfec). Although not concerned with global warming, it is an excellent example of how good science can save lives —— if only science mattered to politicians and bureaucrats.

    Unlike Bailey and Mooney, Glassman seems to have heard none of this evidence. He can’t even make up his mind whether hurricane intensity is increasing or decreasing.

  69. bilbo,

    You appear to be unclear on the concept: It is AGW advocates who bear the burden of proof to show that the theory is correct. If you make a challenge, you should be prepared to meet the demands yourself. I know, that would take real work on your part.

  70. Why don’t you think the IPCC report is relevant in this discusson, Jinchi?

    I didn’t say it wasn’t relevant. But “GlacierGate”, as Chris calls it, concerns the claim that glaciers in the Himalayas would disappear by 2035. That was a statement in the IPCC report, referencing the WWF. It was not a reference from the scientific literature, which is why the it has been retracted.

    It was an error in the summary report, not an error in the science. The science, which demonstrates that there has been significant loss of ice in the Himalayas over the past several decades, is not in doubt and has not been retracted.

    Bradley’s argument is akin to insisting that an error in his son’s history textbook proves that historians don’t know anything about the past.

    The IPCC report seems to be whatever the global warming advocates want it to be.

    The IPCC is a perfectly good guide to the current understanding of climate science and the whole of it stands up quite well. If you can refute an actual scientific claim in it, go to it.

  71. gillt,

    Bradely, it’s obvious the IPCC report is the first scientific report you’ve ever attempted to comprehend. Your “assessment” says more about your own ignorance of what a large-scale, comprehensive report looks like (yes, errors occur and are corrected for in a timely fashion).

    If by “timely” you mean a 2007 report is still being corrected in 2010, then you’re right.

  72. moptop

    Cripes bilbo,
    Name one then. If I name one, you will say I cherry picked it as an easy target. Name an important one. Seriously. One you find convincing. Any one.

  73. moptop

    Provide us with the citations for just 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change (really an infantesimile amount of the literature supporting the science).

    How about you name 10 “foundational papers supporting climate change”? My bet is that you can’t even do that. My bet is that you decided it was true based on media reports and the writings of propagandists like Mooney.

  74. Bradley’s argument is akin to insisting that an error in his son’s history textbook proves that historians don’t know anything about the past.

    It’s actually more akin to insisting that a professor who wrote a textbook with glaring mistakes shouldn’t be granted tenure.

    If you can refute an actual scientific claim in it, go to it.

    So the claim about Himalayan glaciers, is not scientific?

    The claim about African crops?

    The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.

    This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.

    In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.

    Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.

  75. bilbo

    I love it! Bradley J. Fikes and moptop enter the blog, screaming some serious accusations about the integrity of climate science, and then choose to obfuscate when I pose a simple question regarding the evidence supporting their accusations.

    For both of you: I urge you to read this regarding the burden of proof.

    You see, when you make an accusation such as, to quote Bradley J. Fikes, that climate change science is “bad science,” it is then upon you – the accuser – to support that rather broad accusation with some facts. Otherwise, it will be (rightfully) treated as unsubstantiated bullshit. Thus, my challenge. Meet it, or prove your impotence.

    (Of course, if you’d still like to reverse the logic of the burden of proof, Bradley, my accusation about your mother being a disease-ridden whore is still true until you, the accused, can provide some evidence to debunk it. Under your logic, I have no obligation to support my accusations with evidence, and they’re true just because I said them. I truly feel sorry for your upbringing, in that case, my dear denialist.)

  76. Philip Jr.

    I wish I could make an accusation about something and have it be true just because I said it. All this backing my points up with evidence sure is a waste of time… *facepalm*

  77. Milton C.

    So the claim about Himalayan glaciers, is not scientific?

    The claim about African crops?

    Actually, no and no. The IPCC made predictions on those topics based on scientific articles, but the predictions themselves were not peer-reviewed of the nature of the original articles. If you can debunk the two actual articles, then, you may be approaching relevancy.

    For example, I can use evolutionary theory to make a prediction about the evolution of size in an organism. But if that prediction doesn’t come true, it doesn’t mean the science behind the published articles I used to make my prediction was flawed and/or incorrect.

    Somehow, though, seeing as how I’m dealing with science denialists, that example won’t sink in….

  78. bilbo

    Now entering its fifth installment in this post and 20th installment i the history of comments on The Intersection – with no attempts at an answer – I pose my challenge to any denialist or skeptic trolling the blog:

    Provide us with the citations for just 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change (really an infantesimile amount of the literature supporting the science). Then, clearly show us how these papers can be and/or have been scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If this is such a shoddy, easily-debunked science full of holes and fatal flaws as you all claim, then you should have absolutely no trouble debunking them. Correct?

    I’m simply dumbfounded that none of you self-assured denialists can do this. Is it because you simply don’t know the science you’re arguing against? Or is it that you know you can’t debunk the science, and all you have is conspiracy allegations and question-begging? Is it some combination of both?

    This is getting to be quite telling, indeed.

  79. bilbo evidently thinks attacking a woman dead for more than 20 years somehow proves AGW.

    Stay classy!

  80. Milton C.
    Actually, no and no. The IPCC made predictions on those topics based on scientific articles, but the predictions themselves were not peer-reviewed of the nature of the original articles. If you can debunk the two actual articles, then, you may be approaching relevancy.

    Thank you for clarifying that the predictions are not peer-reviewed science. Then why are they in the IPCC reports at all?

  81. Milton C.
    For example, I can use evolutionary theory to make a prediction about the evolution of size in an organism. But if that prediction doesn’t come true, it doesn’t mean the science behind the published articles I used to make my prediction was flawed and/or incorrect.

    Of course. But in global warming, the predictions are what’s driving political activism. And anyone who disputes the predictions is likely to be called “anti-science.”

    Regarding the evolution example, I’ve written a lot about evolution over the years. Here’s one example for Darwin’s 200th.

    I was refuting creationism when Chris Mooney was in diapers.

  82. Milton C.

    Then why are they in the IPCC reports at all?

    Because the IPCC reports are summaries of the science designed to assess the science and make general predictions/summaries for policymakers to use. The IPCC reports could all be full of completely false predictions, and the science of climate change wouldn’t lose an ounce of credibility/validity (see my original example).

    That misunderstanding is one of the most simpleminded misconceptions of a climate denialist.

  83. Marion Delgado

    gillt:

    There is a huge difference between the anti-vaccination movement and the pro-CO2 movement.

    The anti-vaxxers don’t have vested interests funding them to any degree – Wakefield, who got the ball rolling, has been discredited, and it’s more bottom-up than top-down. Therefore, yes, at least some degree of outreach is MANDATORY – these are concerned and worried people, mostly moms, and some dads, and they need to be educated. Even where fringe ideology is involved, it’s not tied to one “side” but represents a broad spectrum – everything from Tea Partiers to people who regard the pharmaceutical industry as a predatory and fraudulent big business.

    The trolls pushing against doing anything about AGW, on the other hand, are recipients of a fortune in self-serving paid propaganda, astroturf groups, fake science institutes, dedicated think tanks. It ties into a right-wing market fundamentalist ideology and generations of corporate demonization of environmentalists. AGW extremism can’t just be educated out of people, because it’s a politicized conflict and often a symbolic one. They say “the earth is cooling” or “cosmic rays cause climate change” but they mean “Let’s curb stomp some filthy Green socialist bastards for economic freedom!” and “a businessman is worth 10 scientists any day.”

    I would say even the creationism fight is not half as hard as the AGW fight. Market fundamentalism has a privileged position in society over fundamentalist Christianity, for one thing, and more money, and it’s not as obviously religious. And now that the highest court in the US has ruled that corporations have to be given full human rights AND that that somehow means that the limits placed on actual humans on spending money for public advocacy, candidates, and legislation are now eliminated by fiat, to equate the AGW struggle with the anti-vax struggle becomes not just stupid, but insane.

    If you cannot see the difference, gillt, then your evaluation of Chris is simply ill-informed. I would add that most of the PZ-followers who come to the Intersection don’t do as good a job of evaluating him even as you do. Most of them have, I believe, wounded vanity over the fact that he’s essentially correct, and their heroes have proven to be, as Mooney’s “Doubt and About” op-ed put it, “Not too ‘Bright’.” I’d be interested in who you thought was right on that issue, gillt? I think the Brights were complete asses. I think that gave Mooney (perhaps too much so) the impression these were people not to be relied on for dealing with people. I think it wounded their vanity to have this young smart-ass calling them on being idiots, and they’ve never forgiven him.

  84. moptop

    bilbo,
    I never said anything about all climate science being “bad science” You can look through all of my posts. I just said I am unconvinced and asked you kindly for a citation of some paper or other we could look at together. I have pointed out in the past that the National Academy of the Sciences found Briffa’s and Mann’s hockey stick to be hokem. Maybe you could show me how the evidence adds up. I don’t believe that every paper in climate science is wrong. I just don’t think they add up to what you think they do. That is all I have ever said.

    What I think is that you found a little rhetorical redoubt from which you can throw your monkey poop.

  85. Milton C:

    Because the IPCC reports are summaries of the science designed to assess the science and make general predictions/summaries for policymakers to use. The IPCC reports could all be full of completely false predictions, and the science of climate change wouldn’t lose an ounce of credibility/validity (see my original example).

    If the IPCC reports are full of completely false predictions (your hypothetical, not mine), then why should policymakers heed them? For that matter, why should the IPCC include anything not consisting of peer-reviewed science?

    That misunderstanding is one of the most simpleminded misconceptions of a climate denialist.

    Then the media should work to eliminate that misunderstanding, by stressing in every article about the IPCC predictions that they aren’t themselves scientifically peer-reviewed.

    Also, Real Climate,supposedly the most authoritative blog for climate scientists, could do its part by pointing out the difference. It doesn’t do that in its description of the IPCC reports in its “Start Here” page.

    Informed, but in need of more detail:

    Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).

    Let’s clean up this misconception that the IPCC predictions are part of peer-reviewed science.

  86. kim

    Well, bilbo, we could look at Phil Jones’s UHI work from the early 90′s, or MBH 98&99, or Briffa’s Yamal fantasies, or Steig’s Antarctic fables. I’m not sure we’d see the same thing if we both looked, though.

    Can you show, from your vaunted foundational studies, what is the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide in our world? Can you show us a rigourous, uncontroversial, scientific exposition of the temperature effect of doubling CO2 concentration, in our world? Can you explain your certainty about the effect of CO2 when wise ones are unsure? Can you explain the necessity for policy action in the face of our scientific ignorance?
    ==========================================

  87. Dougetit

    The AGW theory is proven in the temperature and Co2 history. Scientists have observed a steady temperature increase through highly accurate and methodical thermometer readings which extend back to the 1880’s. We also have accurate Co2 records going back to the 1960’s which trend nicely with the theory that human’s increased contribution of Co2 is causing global temperatures to rise. All well and good.

    But there is a major flaw to the theory. No data, no theory. The “raw thermometer data” has been destroyed. As the theory can’t be repeated, (even once), it is to be declared invalid. As other scientists based their papers on this non-data, they find their research also to be fatally flawed. Garbage in, garbage out. Not so fast…. There does exist temperature data other than thermometer data. During the global cooling scare of the 1970’s, satellites were launched and began tracking global temperatures with an accuracy of +- three one hundredths (3/100) of a degree accuracy.

    By the second decade these temperature measurements rose pretty much in correlation with rising Co2. But then, after 1998, temperatures stopped their upward march and, in fact, started trending downwards. Fast forward to the present, the temperatures have continued trending down since 1998, (12 years), (even considering the warm +.72 January anomaly), while at the same time, Co2 has been marching in the opposite direction, in ignorance of falling global temperatures.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

    You’d think this to be cause for elation for the Pro AGW scientists who’s 21+ supercomputer models where unable to predict this. Now they could insure the public that the climate is more complicated than they thought. Real hero’s, admitting they just can’t say that the earth is going to disintegrate quickly before our eyes, but most importantly the polar bears are safe. What happened was to the contrary. Their response was to dig in their heels, screaming “peer review’ while behind our backs inhibiting skeptical peer review papers from publication. To slime their perceived adversaries, labeling them as “deniers“, “flat earthers“, “anti evolutionists“, while the Main Stream Media touts the “move along folks, nothing to see here” ‘bad scientists don’t mean bad science” “relax everybody, the science is sound“ mantra. But the science is NOT sound. It has been corrupted with a lack of objectivity which has swept throughout most of the AGW climate science community. Maybe too much “skin in the game“? I won’t speculate. It’s a matter of science.

    Objectivity. ‘Scientists are not as objective as their traditional image implies. Although science has built into it many safeguards for encouraging objectivity, scientists are still human like everyone else. They have unconscious, if not conscious, notions about what the results of an experiment should be. These notions often influence not only the design of the experiment but also the gathering and interpretation of the data. Some scientists begin to “believe,” not just use, certain pet theories and they become so emotionally attached to the theories that they lose their objectivity. Some scientists play politics and some are affected by profit motives, budgets, fads, wars, and religious beliefs. This is not to say that scientists do not strive for objectivity, but only that they might not always attain it.’ (Zumdahl)

  88. If the IPCC reports are full of completely false predictions (your hypothetical, not mine), then why should policymakers heed them?

    Bradley, when asked for evidence of bad science, you cited the IPCC report . We’ve pointed out to you that the flaws you see in the report aren’t part of the peer reviewed science at all. So you haven’t made your case.

    And as for the report being full of completely false predictions, the Himalayan example was exactly one paragraph in a chapter that was over 30 pages long. The Working Group II report is almost 1000 pages long and the report as a whole has thousands of references to the peer-reviewed literature. You have yet to cite any of them as an example of bad science.

    Science: You can’t do better than the IPCC reports themselves (AR4 2007, TAR 2001).

    Could it be that they are referring to this: (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html) titled Working Group I : The Physical Science Basis, or this ( http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm ) titled Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis ?

    How could I know that? Because that’s where RealClimate links to in that very sentence.

  89. kim

    Look, the IPCC is corrupted, Wikipedia on climate is massaged by William Connolley, the globe is cooling for God’s sake, and some of you are still trying to push this hoax. Even my tire guy knew that they made up the temperature series, and that the ultimate effect of exposing this fraud will be good for the economy. It’s over…..give it up.
    ==========================================

  90. Milton C.

    Let’s clean up this misconception that the IPCC predictions are part of peer-reviewed science

    Lets. The only people I see holding that misconception are denialists such as yourself. Most everyone else (read: those who accept AGW) seems aware that it is a summary of the existing science only – not the science’s foundation.

    I look forward to the increased amount of levelheadedness you just admitted you need to inject into your thought process regarding this issue. It’s time to examine the science at its source, Bradley.

  91. Lets. The only people I see holding that misconception are denialists such as yourself. Most everyone else (read: those who accept AGW) seems aware that it is a summary of the existing science only – not the science’s foundation.

    That distinction gets lost in the press.

    (CNN) — The glaciers in the Himalayas are receding quicker than those in other parts of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
    The result of this deglaciation could be conflict as Himalayan glacial runoff has an essential role in the economies, agriculture and even religions of the regions countries.
    The Himalayan glaciers form the world’s largest ice body outside of the polar caps. Popularly known as the “Water Tower of Asia,” they are the source of water for rivers that flow across the continent: the Indus River in Pakistan, the Brahmaputra that flows through Bangladesh, the Mekong that descends through Southeast Asia, the Irrawaddy in Myanmar, the Yellow and Yangtze rivers of China and a multitude of smaller rivers that flow through the Indo-Gangetic plains of Northern India.
    Satellite data from the Indian Space Applications Center, in Ahmedabad, India, indicates that from 1962 to 2004, more than 1,000 Himalayan glaciers have retreated by around 16 percent. According to the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China’s glaciers have shrunk by 5 percent since 1950s.

  92. Jinchi,
    And as for the report being full of completely false predictions, the Himalayan example was exactly one paragraph in a chapter that was over 30 pages long.

    That was from Milton C., who I was responding to. As I noted, it was his hypothetical, not mine.

    Anyway, it’s good to see the AGW believers are now stressing the distinction between predictions and science.

  93. The AP’s Seth Borenstein has written an excellent story about the problems with the IPCC reports.

    The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.

    No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. So far, four mistakes have been discovered in the second report, which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world.

    “A lot of stuff in there was just not very good,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. “A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good.”

  94. it’s good to see the AGW believers are now stressing the distinction between predictions and science.

    Nope. We’re stressing the distinction between several predictions in a summary report which were not backed up by scientific evidence and those which are.

    There are, in fact, predictions made in the peer-reviewed science and reported (with references) in the IPCC report. See for example here ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch10.pdf ) and here ( http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch11.pdf ) . These predictions almost always include a range of probable values and a description of assumptions and uncertainties involved.

  95. Marion Delgado

    btw re anti-vax, front lines, etc. Out in the non-net world, I have alienated more people, a lot more, by sticking to a defense of not just vaccination, but thimerosol as a non-cause of autism, vaccination as a non-cause of autism, giving babies and young kids too many vaccines as a non-cause of any known illness or syndrome, etc. than I’ve ever done defending evolution by natural selection and AGW put together, on the net or off it.

    People that are friends and relatives have an attitude of “how could you?” about it. When the publication I work for does vaccination stories, I get personal man-in-the-street complaints and queries that are filled with ill-sourced paranoia. I’ve memorized the names and dates of studies, and the statistical results. I’ve explained to liberals that vaccination is a Free Rider problem, and to conservatives that the pharmaceutical companies are getting a bum rap from overzealous consumer advocates like RFK Jr. and the Hollywood celebs. I could go on, but I think more of us are, if not on the front lines, at leas in the anti-vax trenches than people think.

    I want to hit back at the anti-science pro-CO2 industry, and build bridges to the people scared by the paranoid anti-vax movement, not because in the first case my ox is being gored and in the 2nd case it isn’t, but because they’re different cases.

  96. Marion Delgado

    bilbo: I believe gillt is one of the least irrational of the NA/PZ/Coyne acolytes, and one of the ones you can actually reason with, to a degree. I seriously wish one could blank their memory for a day of who posted what and have the general run of them read their own comments sometime – because they’d be horrified, IMO. Then again, “we” are the people saying human beings are emotional and irrational and not Vulcans, so I can’t even throw the first stone there.

  97. bob

    Marion Delgado, your comment currently at 86 about the differences between AGW denial and antivax people is ridiculously ill-informed.

    The antivax movement is hugely tied into the larger alternative medicine movement, which is as well-funded and politically-motivated as the AGW denial movement. In fact, alt-med is almost certainly worse (in that it’s stronger), because it spans the political spectrum and gets serious footing in academia.

    As for money, there is a ton of money in alt-med. All the things you list about AGW denial (a fortune in self-serving paid propaganda, astroturf groups, fake science institutes, dedicated think tanks) apply equally, as well.

    I could continue, but you are clearly too ill-, mis-, or un-informed for it to be worth my time. I would suggest exploring the Science-Based Medicine blog to educate yourself. But, if you’d like to think that all us criticizing Mooney just hate him because we’re PZ/Dawkins sycophants, that’s of course your prerogative. I’m sure it makes you, and him, feel better about yourselves.

  98. jinchi,
    There are, in fact, predictions made in the peer-reviewed science and reported (with references) in the IPCC report.

    I’ll read your links on the peer-reviewed predictions. Thank you.

    In the meanwhile, I’ll half-seriously suggest the IPCC eliminate any confusion by labeling its reports according to Thomas Jefferson’s recommendations for newspaper editors.

    “Perhaps an editor might begin a reformation in some such way as this. Divide his paper into 4 chapters, heading the 1st, Truths. 2d, Probabilities. 3d, Possibilities. 4th, Lies. The first chapter would be very short, as it would contain little more than authentic papers, and information from such sources as the editor would be willing to risk his own reputation for their truth. The 2d would contain what, from a mature consideration of all circumstances, his judgment should conclude to be probably true. This, however, should rather contain too little than too much. The 3d & 4th should be professedly for those readers who would rather have lies for their money than the blank paper they would occupy.”

  99. Will

    Bilbo, I agree with you– if the science is that shoddy then it should be pretty easy to debunk.

    Let’s do this. I would like to take you up on this challenge. We need to set some ground rules though.

    Specifically:
    A. You must provide me with links to 10 of the ‘foundational’ papers of your choice.
    It is important that we agree on which papers are ‘foundational’. I could easily pick 10 only to have you reject them off-hand. If you select the papers that you feel are the strongest then there is no chance disageement. You should have no problem accepting this as it gives you the opportunity to pick the strongest research possible.

    B. We need to be clear on what it is to ‘debunk’.
    If I can show any of the following:
    1. Conclusions based on insufficient samples
    2. Conclusions based on overly ‘fitted’ samples
    3. Conclusions based on 3rd party data that has been overly ‘fitted’
    4. Conclusions that rely on factual uncertainties
    5. Conclusions based on factual inaccuracies
    6. Claims by the author that their findings are inconclusive as-is

    then can we agree that whatever the paper indicates is in fact not conclusive, and therefore ‘debunked’ as proof (though not neccessarily debunked as a hypothesis)?

    If the proposed terms are too broad, please by all means feel free to refine.

    Eagerly awaiting your reply,
    Will

  100. kim

    Will @ #102. Excellent and generous proposal. A ‘Lance’ on the ‘Guerilla’ thread has posed a similarly worded response to bilbo, with both of you allowing him to pick the ten articles. We wait, we bate our breaths, we bait.
    ===============================

  101. Moptop

    Good luck kim Will. bilbo won’t respond because I can only assume that he can’t. What you guys ask is logical. I have been asking him to do it for a while now. bilbo knows how to throw monkey poop. If you want to learn something about climate, this is not the place to come.

  102. Count Nukem

    bilbo,
    name calling is all what you have got, boy? I will not need to call you names to humiliate you.

    >>Provide us with the citations for 10 of the foundational papers supporting climate change. Then, clearly show us how these papers can be scientifically debunked (data, analyses, and conclusions, please). If the “evidence” is so clear, as you claim, show us! This should not be hard if I’m so misguided. Correct, denialist?

    The following will undermine many papers, actually it will destroy all of those which rely on the CRU/NOAA/NASA surfice temperature measurements. Garbage in, garbage out.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/02/09/john-lott-joseph-daleo-climate-change-noaa-james-hansen/

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2914-chinagate-the-continuing-climategate-saga

    This kills all of your kind. I am looking forward for congressional investigation of these matters and result of it is already obvious: alarmists will eat their shoes.

    Now you can smear me with name calling as much as you want. This is internet and unfortunately I can’t delegate this conversation with you to my Smith &Wesson. (I have 357 magnum J-Frame and what is in your pocket, coward? ) But, venegance belongs to God and in this case I will get my revenge! I am content with the vision of your family and friends looking at you as a fool after AWG scam is exposed and every single person see it as a scam. When they laugh at you, remember Count Nukem.

  103. wildlifer

    Bradley quotes Trenberth’s (accurate) description of the situation but still fails to get it. Intentional?

  104. wildlifer
    Bradley quotes Trenberth’s (accurate) description of the situation but still fails to get it. Intentional?

    Here is what I got from Trenberth’s description:

    No errors have surfaced in the first and most well-known of the reports, which said the physics of a warming atmosphere and rising seas is man-made and incontrovertible. So far, four mistakes have been discovered in the second report, which attempts to translate what global warming might mean to daily lives around the world.

    “A lot of stuff in there was just not very good,” said Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the first report. “A chronic problem is that on the whole area of impacts, getting into the realm of social science, it is a softer science. The facts are not as good.”

    My take is that Trenberth is defending the first report and the science of human-caused global warming (as I would expect), but is conceding that trying to spell out what that means for humanity is less certain. So again, I’d ask what is the IPCC, which is supposed to be the definitive guide for policymakers, doing publishing a section where “a lot of stuff in there was just not very good”?

    As far as the hard science of AGW being “incontrovertible,” that doesn’t quite fit the IPCC’s conclusion that it is at least 90 percent certain that global warming is human-caused.

    Andrew Revkin at the New York Times makes this point when he says the summary provided for policymakers claims a certitude the science doesn’t support.

    I have yet to see anyone provide definitive evidence — with no error bars — that the fingerprint of human-generated greenhouse gases (or other emissions or actions) is unequivocal. The only thing described as “unequivocal” in the report was the warming, not the cause, unless I really haven’t been paying attention for the last two decades.

    Further down Revkin’s blog post, he describes an email exchange with one of the two lead authors for the IPCC chapter he’s discussing:

    In an extended email exchange, I responded that using definitive words like “detected” in a highlighted introductory phrase in a long document — even if there is nuance in subsequent sentences — is hard to read as nuanced.

    “To a journalist or policy maker, the word ‘detected’ has no wiggle room,” I wrote. “All of this seems to support the need for [the] I.P.C.C. to look at its output from the standpoint of the outside world. A heading is what we call a ’sound bite.’ It’s part of the language of the document.”

    So Trenberth says the IPCC section about impacts is a “softer science” where the facts aren’t as good. And Andrew Revkin says he hasn’t seen any evidence that AGW theory has been definitively demonstrated.

    That seems perfectly understandable to me. How about you?

  105. Count Nukem

    bilbo>>>I always love it when someone who gets upset at being called a denialist clearly shows a denial of a scientific topic (like evolution), as the Moronic Count just did here. Are you really a grade-schooler, Count Oblivious?

    bilbo #48, even if I were a fifthgrader you can’t be smarter than me. Every journalists knows about Karl Popper’s criteria of scientific theory, you do not. Where someone intelligent would see a logical argument you see only opportunity for name calling, which makes you simply a jerk. You are just as many other left liberal scumbags who learned only one way to argue: personal smear. You would not say it all to me if you meet me in person, you can say the garbage only on internet when you are safe. I am not upset about the words you use, the only thing which upsets me is that I wasted my time with a jerk.

    With last hope that you have some rudimentary mental capasity aside finding misspelled words I say to you: If you did not learn Popper from you philosophy lessons (you did not have one, right?), learn at least something from newspaper articles:

    “Follow the Warmist logic: Absence of winter snow proves the existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, and winter snowstorms prove its existence as well. Isn’t science wonderful! Climate change (AGW) theory cannot be disproved…It is falsifiability-proof. Of course, according to scientist/philosopher Karl Popper, any theory that cannot possibly be disproved is not science at all. Instead, AGW is a cult-like religion that our fearless politicians are exploiting to attempt to enslave the populace through oppressive regulation, taxation, and economic devastation. ”
    see more at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/02/warmists_stupefying_sense_of_s.html

  106. Count Nukem

    bilbo and other alarmists,
    I like less than half of you half as much as I should like and I like more than half of you half as much as you deserve. With this I bid you farewell. Sorry, can’t continue, have to take care of business.

  107. Dougetit

    @Will 102.

    Another apparent win for science…. another “hit” for shoddiness.

    Good job!

  108. Marion Delgado

    bilbo: with due respect, the anti-vax movement is not in the same funding orbit as the anti-AGW movement. I am surprised you’d believe that. Go to Exxonsecrets or any number of other sites and educate yourself on the difference. It’s at least 2 orders of magnitude.

    There is certainly money in alternative medicine, but not only are you quite wrong about how much is available to fund the anti-vax movement, but calling me ill-informed on that basis is reckless.

    Chris has made some of the same points I made. It’s not that I disagree with Orac, it’s that I see clear distinctions. So does Mooney, and for at least similar reasons – because once you dig into the history and funding and ideological statements, the facts back it up.

  109. Marion Delgado

    sorry, the above is BOB, not BILBO.

  110. Marion Delgado

    My apologies to bilbo, who’s made similar points to those I am making.

    This has become too big a thread to copy correctly for me.

    Bob: You’re wrong by orders of magnitude. Look it up.

  111. Marion Delgado

    And bob, i never said all critics of Chris were sycophants of anyone – and we should all continue this on other threads.

  112. bob

    Well, if you single out antivaxxers from the larger problem of alternative medicine, then sure. However, that would be like singling out people who reject glacier data out of the larger community of AGW deniers.

    And, I don’t know where you’re getting your funding numbers from. The FAQ on the ExxonSecrets site mentioned a 2.2 million dollar contribution. Whoop-dee-doo. NCCAM has wasted north of two billion.

    Go ahead and continue to just make up your own criteria by which to judge pseudoscientists and those who defend science. It’s exactly what your boy Mooney does, so you should be able to as well.

    Speaking of the patron saint of framing, you claim that he dug into the history and funding and ideologies and found facts relevant to his framing? Really? When? Where? What did he find? Why did he not find analogous things for AGW and vaccines and evolution? Can I haz links?

    I’ll also point out that I anticipated this (empty) response from you, but you ignored it. Have you heard of Tom Harkin and his reasons for starting NCCAM? What is not analogous about that situation?

  113. anon

    Meh, this post of yours helps demonstrate and confirm what a hack you are.

  114. Busiturtle

    What are the AGW adherents going to do with Phil Jones? Does he get excommunicated from the church of Global Warming for admitting the science is not settled? Or does he just get assigned to the rear pew for saying the dog ate his homework (ie data records).

  115. Byron

    For some reason I can no longer get Real Climate. It just drags and drags on loading and nothing comes up. My guess is a DDOS attack, but I haven’t found anything on such mentioned in Google. Anyone else having this problem?

  116. Byron

    Here’s a good article from Monbiot comparing the “Scandal” of “climate gate” to what Big Energy has been doing behind the scenes to obfuscate the issue in the minds of the public. Hint: there’s no comparison.

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by Salon.com and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »