662Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDepends on whether one is genuinely unaware of the difference or ignoring the difference. In CS' case, I'd go for the latter.Originally Posted by myksav
Depends on whether one is genuinely unaware of the difference or ignoring the difference. In CS' case, I'd go for the latter.
Never let the best be the enemy of the good.
CNN have a good article on their website outlining the McCarthyite attacks on climate scientists and other scientists over the years. Attorney General Cuccinelli's (or Cuckoo nelli as he is more appropriated nicknamed) scurrilous attack on Mann is just the latest in quite a list. At this stage one really has to admire those scientists brave enough to stick their head above the parapet when their results are contrary to those wanted by the powers that be.
After listing some of the scientists who have suffered for their conclusions they conclude with the following:
Attack on climate scientist just latest in a long line - CNN.com
The whole article is worth reading.This included the science that demonstrated the harms of DDT, the dangers to children of second-hand smoke, the causes of acid rain, and the reality of the ozone hole. Often the same people were involved in several or even all of these attacks. The common feature in all these cases was a link to think tanks promoting free markets and opposing government regulations.
One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see the pattern: People are loath to admit that our free market system has created problems that the free market has proved ineffectual to solve......
If you tried to argue that global warming is not a market failure, you'd just look silly. So extremist defenders of the free market have found themselves an easier target. Science is arcane and scientists are frankly often incomprehensible. But the important point for us to understand is this: Scientists have done nothing wrong. On the contrary, they've been repeatedly vindicated in their work on environmental change.....
The real crime is not to be found in some pile of obscure scientific documents or the e-mails of harassed scientists. The real crime is that our best science is being undermined by ideologues, confusing us about some of the most important issues of our time.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." - Chapman Cohen.
Here is a good illustration of the Cucinelli mentality.
The seal of the state of Virginia shows the Goddess Virtue triumphant over (I presume) Tyranny. Unfortunately, in the struggle she has also suffered an unfortunate wardrobe malfunction, and her left breast is bare.
Cucinelli gave out lapel pins showing Virtue with her bosom modestly covered by a breastplate.
Now Cucinelli (and Virtue) is triumphant over Vice as well as Tyranny. Soon he intends to add Science to his list of conquests. After that, no telling where an ambitious politician may go next ....
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/po...-92583914.html
Incidentally, Naomi Oreskes' book on how climate deniers learned their tactics from Big Tobacco (even employing the same think tanks and consultants) is now published:
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming: Amazon.co.uk: Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway: Books
And the procession of irrelevant arguments grows apace.
Isn't it so telling when the evidence to prove Dangerous Anthropogenic Climate Change doesn't exist, we get increasingly bombarded by irrelevances such as tobacco.
I have been reading Norman Davies "A History of Europe". There is an interesting side bar on the history of propaganda (going back many centuries). He lists the five prime characteristics of propaganda and they read like a recipe for the climate alarmism industry, from the IPCC right down to this strange interest from the nutjobs in social sciences like Oreskes.
I will post them later.
Testimony to the Interacademies Council inquiry now in progress, from a climate scientist:
John Christy: IPCC authors are gatekeepers - Climategate.nlA fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.
Picked this up on Not Spaghetti | but everything else
[SIZE="4"]Can you spot the real scientist?[/SIZE]
GOOFUS has a PhD.
GALLANT has a PhD in a field unrelated to his research.
GOOFUS gets little respect as a scientist outside the scientific community.
GALLANT gets little respect as a scientist inside the scientific community.
GOOFUS drives a beat-up old car.
GALLANT drives a BMW unless his chauffeur is driving.
GOOFUS wears street clothes to work, maybe a lab suit on occasion.
GALLANT wears three piece suits at all times.
GOOFUS is employed by a "university", a "hospital", or a "laboratory".
GALLANT is employed by a "Coalition", an "Institute", an "Association", a "Foundation", a "Council", or a "White House".
GOOFUS earns $30000 per year unless they cut his funding.
GALLANT earns $200000 per year but makes his real money from speaking fees.
GOOFUS lives anywhere in the country.
GALLANT lives in a wealthy area near Washington DC, but may have additional homes elsewhere.
GOOFUS may sometimes be filmed standing in front of big melting icebergs.
GALLANT may be filmed sitting in front of a bookcase or standing behind a podium at a $2000 per plate fundraiser, although there may be ice melting in his drink.
GOOFUS is a dues-paying member of several scientific grassroots organizations.
GALLANT is on the payroll of several scientific astroturf organizations.
GOOFUS gets summoned for jury duty but is never picked as a juror.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
GOOFUS maintains the world is five billion years old.
GALLANT isn't really saying, but creationists distribute his pamphlets all the time.
GOOFUS claims the world is warming as a direct result of human activity.
GALLANT either claims that climate change doesn't exist, or if it does, that humans have nothing to do with it.
GOOFUS and his graduate students do the dirty work of collecting raw data and looking for conclusions to be drawn from it.
GALLANT does the dirty work of discrediting GOOFUS by manipulating his data in Excel with statistically invalid techniques.
GOOFUS writes scientific papers and grant proposals.
GALLANT writes the nation's environmental legislation and a column for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
GOOFUS draws scientific conclusions from the data he collects that usually come out in agreement with the scientific consensus.
GALLANT paints the scientific consensus as being entirely political in nature and enjoys comparing himself to Galileo.
GOOFUS is heavily trained to be a skeptic and to treat information from all sources with a skeptical mind.
GALLANT is heavily marketed as a skeptic but reserves his skepticism for GOOFUS.
GOOFUS isn't paid much attention by the press since his opinions are commonplace among scientists.
GALLANT holds maverick opinions for a scientist which keeps him busy running from one balanced talk show to the next.
GOOFUS has no PR skills.
GALLANT leverages his PR experience all the time, although he has access to paid PR staff.
GOOFUS claims the sky is falling and we have to take painful steps to reduce CO2 emissions now.
GALLANT claims the free market will take care of it and recommends solving the problem by conning Zimbabwe out of their pollution credits.
GOOFUS advises his kids not to go into science.
GALLANT advises the president
Last edited by owedtojoy; 29th February 2012 at 05:53 PM.
On the topic, I recently stumbled across this useful guide on 'how to be a denialist'.
Here's the recommended tactics:
* 1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
* 2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
* 3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
* 4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
* 5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
* 6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? -- Diethelm and McKee 19 (1): 2 -- The European Journal of Public Health
With this guide in hand, try analysing postings in response to anything to do with climate change on this website. It's very enlightening and great fun.
Thanks odious.
Two more non arguments to add to the pile.
"No one rules if no one obeys" - Tao
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill." - "The First Global Revolution", A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider 1991
Kill all the plants! Curse them and their distribution of Carbon Dioxide. Photosynthesis is the biggest threat to the Earth. It has even made the ice caps on mars melt.Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
THE WAY TO SAVE THE WORLD IS TO HAVE A CARBON TAX! AND YOU YUPPIES THEN COMPLAIN THAT PETROL IS TOO HIGH WHEN THE CARBON TAX IS AN ADDED 12 CENT ON A LITER.
Why didn't people just accept that it's a fraud after climate gate? They even admit the Earth's been colling now, it's so annoying, it's all out that it's a fraud.
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 - Telegraph
Why do people go on by what the media says? Why don't we accept what the government and U.N says?
Reply With Quote