How reaction to Spencer & Braswell underlines the corruption and politicisation of science

I want to tell you a story.  Are you sitting comfortably?  Then I’ll begin…

Once upon a time there was a big, shiny, expensive computer system upon which programmes were run.  The programmes were written by very clever scientists to create projections of what things might be like in the future.  They called these projections ‘models’.

Some places had got very dry over the years so the very clever people wrote a programme to see what the models said was going to happen.  After the very clever scientists entered all the information and parameters they thought were important, they ran the models.  When the models came back they suggested that unlike in the past, the rain would no longer make anything outside wet.

Now, because the models were developed by a small group of some clever very scientists in very big universities who had been given a lot of public money to carry out research, they were accepted as actual fact by politicians who said there was a big problem that only they could solve.  Being part of the establishment, the media wrote lots of stories about this endorsing what the politicians said and telling people things would have to change.

Because of what the computer models had suggested, the government decided that everyone must install complex and expensive systems to use water from a brand new source to irrigate grass, trees, flowers, crops and bushes because lots of places were drier and the rain won’t make anything wet in future.  So with other governments around the world they made lots of new laws and created big plans and spent billions and billions of pounds, dollars, euros, roubles and yen to convince people of the need for this expensive change to watering things.

They also gave lots of peoples’ money to a lot of new campaign groups and businesses to go into schools and companies to tell them to had to change the way everything is watered.  It also gives lots more money to other scientists to start from what the small group of very clever scientists has already decided and find more reasons to agree with them and arrive at the same conclusion.

But all this seemed strange to a lot of people who thought there was still lots of rain and it was still making everything outside wet.  A lot of people were not convinced and they were called sceptics and they started to point out problems with the claims from the very clever scientists.  The governments were very angry because they were making lots of deals to spend money on big corporations they were friends with to develop solutions that everyone would have to use, making owners and shareholders very rich while ordinary people were left with less money. The media wrote lots of nasty things about the sceptical people and because the media was so clever and always right about everything they called those people ‘deniers’.

Not all very clever scientists agreed with each other.  Some of them became sceptical and started to examines in detail the real world observation of what happens when it rains.  Amazingly, when they looked outside and examined lots of data records, they found that not everything was drying up after all and the rain was still making things outside very wet and therefore the basis for everyone installing the government mandated water systems was flawed.

The sceptical scientists wrote a paper about this, and it was examined and tested by other very clever scientists in their discipline in a process called peer-review, before being accepted and published by a journal called ‘Remote Sensing’.  Those people who were not convinced by the need for watering change pointed at the paper as evidence that not everything was as the government and their very clever scientists made it seem.  They argued that the small group of clever scientists supported by the government might be getting things wrong and government should wait for more evidence before taking such sweeping, expensive and draconian action.

The media largely said nothing about the paper because after spending so long saying rain wasn’t making things outside wet anymore they don’t want to be proved wrong.  And besides, some of their pension plans depended on money made from investments in the new watering processes being made by the government’s corporate friends.

A little while later, the editor of the paper-publishing journal ‘Remote Sensing’ said he didn’t agree with the paper because of all those very clever scientists who believed rain wasn’t make things wet anymore because their computer models had been saying so for a long time now. So the editor resigned in protest and the media attempted to discredit the sceptical scientists, citing that one of them once had to alter a previous paper many years previously, and that he is in some way odd because he is a committed Christian.

The media agreed with another very clever scientist who said that the paper must by defintion be flawed until it satisfied all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fit the computer models.  He said this even though computer models are only as good as the data put into them by humans who are nowhere close to understanding all the complex relationships that causes nature to do what it does.  Although common sense and science in years gone by would have it that real world observation is the only reliable measure of any changes in nature and has the capacity to invalidate computer models, this very clever scientist and his friends had turned science on its head by claiming computer models have the capacity to invalidate observed reality.

It would have all been very confusing if one of the very clever scientists had not been caught out saying that even if they had to redefine what scientific peer-review is, they would somehow close down any views from sceptical scientists, even though doing so would utterly corrupt science and the correct way of furthering it.  But after putting complete faith in computer models and using them as the basis for lots of incredible projections that have never become reality, he had to put his own interests before his duty to science.

And for the ordinary people, nothing changed.  The governments continued to press ahead with their financially ruinous plans.  The media continued to exaggerate every story that fitted their narrative while refusing to cover any story that contradicted them.  The computer models continued to churn out projections that did not reflect observed reality.


The real story is carried in the words of the sceptical scientist, Dr Roy Spencer on the excellent Watts Up With That? blog.  The media hatchet job is most prevalent in the Guardian and on its broadcast arm, the BBC.  Dr Spencer goes on to explain the findings in layman’s terms on his own website.   In response to the resignation of Wolfgang Wagner, Dr Roger Pielke Snr puts the politicisation of science into context.  And the ludicrous position on observations having to fit in with computer models as advanced by Dr Pete Gleick, and Dr Phil Jones’ comment about keeping sceptical papers out of the public domain, are both covered by Indur Goklany on WUWT.

What we are seeing is anti-science.  We are experiencing pseudo science that aims not to question or challenge, but to reinforce the validity of a body of opinion that is yet to make the jump from theory to fact.  It is being done to fit a political agenda.  It is a corruption of science and the latest example of why people should be sceptical of the claims made about climate change and its causes and effects

In closing, one comment left on Watts Up With That? sums up the situation superbly and deserves to be repeated widely to help others understand what really is going on:

This is all part of the same pattern that has characterized the warmists’ approach to climate “science” since the last century. They come up with models and use these to produce predictions which are then baptized as sovereign truth. In real science, they would have been required to demonstrate the predictive validity of their models before their predictions would be granted any confidence – and when observations contradicted predictions, they would have been expected to revise their models instead of beating the data until it fit the model outputs. Instead, thanks to Algore, Hansen, left-wing politicians looking for regulatory and legislative mechanisms to control the polity and extract more tax dollars, and a compliant left-leaning media hungry for “imminent disaster” headlines, the burden of proof has been shifted to those who challenge the modellers instead of being left where it belongs: with the modellers who still have not demonstrated the validity of their models. I simply cannot believe we are still discussing a theory that, 20 years after it went mainstream, has yet to produce a single scrap of confirmatory empirical evidence.

The extent to which the AGW true believers have warped the scientific method to serve their pecuniary and political ends is simply breathtaking. Climate science represents the greatest perversion of the scientific method since the Enlightenment. It is phlogiston, phrenology and Lysenkoism all rolled up into one big, fat, corrupt boil desperately in need of lancing.

28 Responses to “How reaction to Spencer & Braswell underlines the corruption and politicisation of science”

  1. 1 Headley_Grange 04/09/2011 at 2:52 pm

    All models are wrong. Some models are useful.

    (I think George Box said this first. I say it a lot)

  2. 2 John Coles 04/09/2011 at 4:27 pm

    The truth will out, but only after we have wasted a lot of money.
    Meanwhile, Dave the Spineless remains a fervent believer: of course, he is not influenced by the fact that his father-in-law makes thousands of pounds out of windmill generators Perish the thought.

  3. 3 Climate Change Con....... 04/09/2011 at 4:46 pm

  4. 4 Climate Change Con....... 04/09/2011 at 4:47 pm

  5. 5 Climate Change Con....... 04/09/2011 at 4:50 pm

    Dr Roy Spencer :

  6. 6 Brian H 04/09/2011 at 6:16 pm

    “the paper must by defintion [definition] be flawed until it satisfied all of the observations, agrees with physical theory, and fit the computer models.”

    At the moment, that’s quite impossible. None of the three is currently compatible with any of the others. Therefore all papers are flawed.

  7. 7 Climate Change Con....... 04/09/2011 at 7:30 pm

    Looking at the BBC’s article on this subject, anyone noticed the following description under Dr Roy Spencer’s photograph :

    “Dr Spencer is a committed Christian as well as a professional scientist”

    Where did Dr Spencer’s religion appear in the peer reviewed paper ? Nowhere. So why does Richard Black have to make reference to it? In order to portray Roy Spencer as some fundamentalist, which he is not ?

    I wonder if Richard Black will publish the fact that one of Britain’s chief climate alarmists, Professor Bob Watson has, in the past addressed Evangelical aid organizations :

    “Watson, the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was among the scientists and government officials addressing Christian aid group representatives learning about current and long-term effects of climate change on hunger, refugees, and human health…..”

    and here’s a statement that Dr Robert Watson, climate alarmist, put his name to in 2002 :

    “Forum 2002 Statement


    Climate scientists and Christian leaders call for action

    Human-induced climate change is a moral, ethical and religious issue.

    -God created the Earth, and continues to sustain it. Made in God’s image, human beings are to care for people and all creation as God cares for them. The call to “love the Lord your God and love your neighbour” (Matthew 22:37–39) takes on new implications in the face of present and projected climate change. God has demonstrated his commitment to creation in the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ who “reconciles all things” (Colossians 1:20) calls his followers to the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18,19).

    -Human induced climate change poses a great threat to the common good, especially to the poor, the vulnerable and future generations.

    -By reducing the Earth’s biological diversity, human induced climate change
    diminishes God’s creation.

    I wonder if Richard Black will put that in his next post on Robert Watson’s propaganda?

  8. 8 jazznick (@jazznick1) 04/09/2011 at 7:46 pm

    Good article, it’s like we’re in a slow motion car crash, but are strapped into the back seat with no way of improving the outcome !

    You could compare this whole AGW fiasco to a kangaroo court.

    The defendants (mankind) are charged with causing the death of the planet
    (although the planet is zooming around quite happily).

    The prosecution are the UN’s IPCC who’s purpose is to “fit-up” mankind for the ‘crime’ rather than searching for the truth of the matter.
    (Oddly much of mankind think that the ‘IPCC’ IS searching for the truth of the matter and is on their side – but that is a myth !!)

    Indeed, even when separate inquisitions have been set up to satisfy doubters among the ranks of mankind the worthy ones have managed to be questioned by an equally worthy person who avoided asking any really sensible questions.

    Mankind is not allowed a defence as guilt has already been determined prior to the trial by persons far too worthy and liberal to be questioned.

    Any attempt by mankind to defend itself is met with a well funded
    cabal of ‘rich merchants and land owners’ who enjoy seeing mankind taxed
    into oblivion ‘as it’s all for their own good’.
    This worthy elite have many friends in high places who know how to play the system.
    These equally worthy people are under an illusion that they are God’s gift to mankind and that they always know best ; but they are deluding themselves.
    There are even more worthy people in a place called EU. These people
    are not just too worthy to be questioned, they are mostly not even seen
    and require no one to like them at all !

    This is just as well as even THEY are not worthy enough to run the planet.

    It is thought that the ultimate worthy ones come from a place called UN, it was thought to be Morhdorh: this is untrue, but you can see it from there.

    In order for those from UN to run the planet, rather than leave it to locals,
    they need to CONTROL everyone.

    Carbon is the ‘ring’ – my precious – they must have it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  9. 9 Delphius 05/09/2011 at 1:27 am

    I’ve been saying this for years on my blog, especially when the climategate scandal broke. Computer models can be made to show anything and are not the gospel truth the warmists make them out to be.

    Models that are nowhere near following real-time observed data are not accurate enough to predict the future. I’ve yet to understand the basis whereby observed data is frigged to fit the model and not the other way round.

    There are so many factors that should be input into climate modelling that are omitted because of various factors (usually arrogance and politics), so many factors that influence climate we have yet to discover its ludicrous to claim the models as anything other than speculation. You would be better off using pine cones: at least they have a provable track record in the short term.

    When the hypothesis was put forward this year that the lull in sunspots could cause a new Maunder Minimum, without a hint of irony, the warmists pooh-poohed the idea because there was no proven causal link between sunspots and climate. Yet we’re told to accept man made global warming as fact without a causal link as well.

    The whole MMGW fiasco brings science into disrepute.

  10. 10 Rereke Whakaaro 05/09/2011 at 9:48 am

    I used to be a modeller (I am now a member of Modellers Anonymous).

    I used to write simulations of electronic circuits so we could mathematically “test” them to destruction without actually setting fire to anything.

    Electronics obeys and follows the laws of physics, so you might think that it would be easy. But you would be wrong. There was always “stuff” that we couldn’t understand, that made the models differ from reality. On one occasion, we discovered that the thickness of the copper on the printed circuit board, and the distance between the various conductors, had a significant impact on how the circuit performed – who would have thought?

    We made this discovery by adding “fiddle-factors” – a highly technical concept, and not for the faint of heart – until the model appeared to work in the way the real mockups in the lab actually worked.

    We then had to figure out what, in the real world, could give the same effect as the “fiddle-factors” – as I said, not for the faint of heart, but that was how we finally identified the hidden ingredient.

    In Climate Science, they should be doing the same thing, because it is a valid (if frustrating) research technique. But I don’t believe they are.

    They have certainly added “fiddle-factors” to the models (because that is what you have to do to have any chance of mapping reality), but they have not gone to the next stage of trying to answer what, in reality, could require those “adjustments”.

    They know it isn’t CO2, because they will have tried that. But they have not looked any further because they have already announced that CO2 is the answer, so why look for anything else? They can just leave the “fiddle-factors” in place and quietly “forget” they are there.

    The trouble is though, that people like Roy Spencer are still pushing the boundaries of what is known about this science, so their “fiddle-factors” are starting to look a bit thin around the edges, and if Dr Spencer comes up with a plausible explanation for the “fiddle-factors” that isn’t CO2, there will be a lot of egg-on-faces.

  11. 11 Julian Williams in Pembrokeshire 05/09/2011 at 12:27 pm

    I think this is an important moment. Phil Jones famously once wrote in a climategate email: “Kevin (Trenberth I presume?) and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Now they have been caught red-handed suppressing papers that have been able to get through their pal reviewed firewall and do not fit in with their pre-conceived notions of how climate works.

    The fight back about climate change has to happen on two levels; AWG doctrine has to be defeated scientifically and politically. The war is is on two fronts. But there is a third front, scientists across the disciplines, have to understand that terrible damage has been done to the reputation of the science community which is dependent on public funds. Scientists have been much to slow to object to the way green science has been twisted by the proponents of the models and then politicised. The institutions that science depends upon to link their work to the public have jumped in to support bad practice, such as when Nurse used his position in the Royal Society to make a program for the BBC to denigrate “the deniers”. The science journals too, Nature and New Scientist, have taken sides and become overt propaganda machines.

    This event is a wake-up call to them. It is good to see one scientist with high standing in the green community, Dr Roger Pielke, has at last stood up and said enough is enough, and attacked Trenberth in unequivocal terms for his corrupt practices. This is perhaps a tipping point because at last the scientists are saying to these clowns who have up until now been above criticism in certain quarters, your methods stinck, you stink and we, the scientific community, need to attack your reputations so that we can cleanse the reputation of the science community.

    Wagner’s resignation has really stirred up a reaction against corrupt green science. We need to fuel the flames. Thank you Autonomous mind for bringing this incident to a wider audiance.

  12. 12 mfosdb 05/09/2011 at 3:35 pm

    Where are the students? The protestors of today are the bloggers exposing injustice and corrupt government. Today’s blogger-protestors are mostly angry middle aged men and women.

    The students have all been sublimated by political propaganda into believing that they are fighting for righteous causes.

    But these causes, such as the insidious wind turbine, have been chosen for today’s gullible students by established political and corporate interests.

    Only when students come to realise that they are being hoodwinked into rebelling against their own inclination to oppose the established vested interests, can real change begin.

    The vanguard of truth against the lies and theft of politico/bureaucratic/corporate interests are blogs such as this and EUReferendum. The second rank has to be the young. Not the anarchistic idiots who riot and steal for fun, but young people with a belief that the world can be changed for the better.

    How to wake them up from their digital stupor and shake them into demanding a decent future is the real challenge.

    They, as yet, do not seem to realise that they will have to pay the bill for cleaning up the appalling mess our present kleptocracy is making.

  13. 13 Richard Lawson (@DocRichard) 05/09/2011 at 4:51 pm

    The reason that the editor of Remote Sensing resigned was that the paper he published was inadequate.
    1 No argument is advanced to support the claim that clouds are the cause, not the effect, of surface changes.

    2 his model “has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, (ocean current cycle) and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave.” (Trenberth) In using simple models, the SB11 is using the central skeptic technique of cherrypicking – taking a partial, not complete, view of the data.

    3 SB11 do not supply error margins on their figures. This is an astonishing fundamental error of method.

    4 When the data is re-worked using more relevant timescales and error margins, there is a better fit between the observations and the models, particularly the model that factors in the ocean current changes.

    These are the substantive reasons for the editor’s resignation.

  14. 14 Julian Williams in Pembrokeshire 05/09/2011 at 5:27 pm

    Richard Lawson says “These are the substantive reasons for the editor’s resignation.” NO THEY ARE NOT:

    The paper went through peer review, and afterwards there is always opportunity for other scientists to add comments and give substantive reasons about why they disagree with the findings and methods of the paper. The editor has a duty to facilitate that process. But no one has challenged the paper, which makes one think that perhaps your reason are not as substantive as you claim.

    It is usual for peer reviewed papers to be argued over and corrected by further investigation. Instead of allowing this process to go forward the editor resigns in a blaze of publicity without giving clear reasons, and without having reasons to retract the paper, other than to say that the peer reviewers who were chosen at random and at arms length from prestigious universities, happened to be sceptical (heretics?) of the establishment view. This is a quasi-religious reason to resign, not a scientific one.

    Dr Pielke, who is very well respected in this field, is very categorical that there are very dirty tricks going on to suppress this paper, which he finds to be well written by scientists who are open to debate and corrections. He thinks the objections aby Trenberth are about avoiding a proper analysis and discussion of a peer reviewed paper. And that this behaviour is anti-science.

    Read what Dr Pielke has to say;

  15. 15 Shevva 05/09/2011 at 5:53 pm

    @Richard Lawson,

    Then why did he not say so? Your just guessing.

  16. 16 Autonomous Mind 05/09/2011 at 7:57 pm

    Richard Lawson,

    Many thanks for your comment. I would be very grateful if you would direct me to the resource where Wolfgang Wagner lists your points as the rationale for his resignation. A URL would be greatly appreciated.



  17. 17 Louis Hissink 06/09/2011 at 11:38 pm

    This current development in climate science is unsurprising – the same mindset affected the nascent science of geology during the early 19th century when Lyell and the Whigs hijacked geology for political purposes.

    It’s taken over 200 years for some of us in geology to realise what Lyell did, turn geology into pseudoscience.

  18. 18 Louis Hissink 06/09/2011 at 11:50 pm

    200 years ? 170 years more like it – my apologies for innumeracy

  19. 19 Oliver K. Manuel 07/09/2011 at 4:10 pm

    In 1971 world leaders accepted the Bilderberg decision that Earth’s heat source is stable, “in equilibrium” [1].

    It certainly is not!

    Experimental data and observations on the Sun were hidden, ignored or distorted for the next four decades (1971-2011) [2].

    Climate change continued, impervious to efforts to direct the force that powers the Sun, the Earth, and the evolution of life [3, 4].

    Our current dilemma: The integrity of science was compromised for the benefit of society in 1971. Can the integrity of science be restored without damage to society in 2011?

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

    1. “The Bilderberg model of the photosphere and low chromosphere,” Solar Physics (1968) vol 3, 5-25….3….5G

    2. “Deep, historical roots of Climategate” (2011)

    3. “Neutron repulsion,” The APEIRON Journal (2011) in press

    4. “Origin and evolution of life constraints on the solar model,” Journal of Modern Physics (2011) vol 2, 587-594

  20. 20 Pangolin 16/09/2011 at 11:26 pm

    So you radicals should really open your own universities, with your own science departments, alternative names for your degrees to make it clear you are NOT within the bounds of the other LIBERAL brand of science and publish your own journals.

    Just don’t to forget astrology and phrenology in your science departments along with your global-cooling department.

  21. 21 Autonomous Mind 17/09/2011 at 2:20 pm

    Awww, how sweet a new troll who has manfully struggled over from the warmist, vegan site to chuck around more invective and keep people distracted from the issues and the evidence. You are most welcome.

  22. 22 Geremy 27/09/2011 at 5:49 pm

    Now, let me be clear, I’m not trolling you, but after reading what you wrote, I have to say that you’re not doing your argument any favors. First of all, sure, you may have a valid disagreement with climatologists who are proponents of certain ideas about the climate, but your mocking tone, replete with the style in which you wrote (you used the word very more often than most children’s book authors), discredits you. It’s this sort of discourse, this frame of mind that ruins the conversation. How can you be a credible source of information when you fail to keep your composure and simply mock those who disagree with you?

    Further, your arguments, which I hope are intended not serious in any way, oversimplify the postion of those with whom you disagree. I’m not sure what, exactly, you’re talking about in terms of “rain not making things wet anymore”, or why you seem to think that climate change theory is predicated simply on surface temperature measurements and computer generate models…. Most people who believe the climate is changing do believe it is getting warmer, However, a warmer climate would be a wetter climate. Given the changing nature of the mid latitude weather, which is simply a results of atmospheric exchange between the equator and the poles, local climates would theoretically change. Inland nothern climes in some areas would become drier, but places such as most of continental Europe would become warmer and wetter that they currently are. There would always be the possibility of Gulf Stream submergence (which has come about in the past) making Europe a colder and thus drier place for a spell….but something like that is difficult to predict. Anyhow…your commentary regarding rain seems rather silly.

    Regarding models: This is one way in which people are attempting to corroborate or dispel climate change hypothesis. However, most of the supporting arguments for global climate warming are currently predicated on “real world”, as you say, tangible accounts. Changes in micro climates, which include the rapid reduction of large bodies of ice and changes in biological activity in highly sensitive ecosystems, are the primary reference points for those studying change. Paleo sedimentologists have more to do with driving the science than do modelers. Why? Incompleteness of records…limited amount of data…..small sample size. Do you see where I’m heading? Surface weather data are incomplete, and we have an dearth of accurate historical information. Let me be up front in saying that nauseatingly irresponsible portrayal and analysis of existing information has been presented by both side of the debate. For instance, while there is nothing intrinsically wrong with Spencer’s work, his claims regarding the significance of his finds (in his press release), are what trouble me. He has thirty years or so of surface weather data…..which, given the relatively small amount of data we have on surface temperatures (monitoring stations are non existent over large swaths of the globe and tephigrams provided by weather balloons are in short supply), don’t yield a very complete data set. Basically, Spencer and other climatologists who seem to thing that this whole thing is a bout warming, and theoretical modeling are on the front end of the debate, because their brand of research is tangible, and can be readily communicated through visual media. It is not owing to the fact that their research is at the leading edge of information science regarding climate change. It’s a part of the argument, but certainly not the entire thing.

    You complain heavily of the costs of measure taken to hedge against climate change. you have a choice. You can assume that everything will stay the same as it is today regardless of the actions of you or anyone else. Or, you can recognize the history and nature of the Earth, as well as that of humans. The Earth’s climate does change, whether or not that change is anthropogenic (that debate is still very much alive obviously). In fact it has tended to change dramatically over the millenia. To disavow and ignore that would be ignorant. Human civilisation, at its current scale, is highly susceptible to even moderate change, because our communities are large, and thus quite slow to react to change. Some areas of the world rely heavily of particularized feature of their climate to survive. for instance. I live in Reno, NV, where we rely on winter snow pack in the Sierra Nevada for provide water. It has been snowing more here recently than usual, which is what you’d expect to happen at altitude in the event of warming (warmer air holds more moisture, but at high altitude, it is still easily cold enough to produce snow). The trouble is, we’re also receiving more winter rain, and the snow is coming later, and melting more rapidly than before. Snowpack acts as a time release capsule for use, basically keeping river levels relatively high even after the valley we live in has not seen rain for months. Additionally, it allows aquifers to be recharged by releasing water into the soil slowly. Were that moisture to come in the form of rain, it would come in greater amounts, but we would not be able to use it, at ti would either run off the surface rather than percolate into aquifers, or would evaporate. So…you see, more rain or less rain isn’t always the issue. It’s more complicated that that. Anyhow, rather than sit on our thumbs here in Reno, believing that nothing will ever change or waiting to find out whether climate change can be affected by humans, we are attempting to mitigate….because we know climates change on their, and that there is credible evidence to suggest we are on the verge of such a shift. No…there is no positive proof, but that’s no reason to stand idle. I won a jacket…because on any given day, it might be cold. How do I know that? It’s happened before.

    I digress, but will leave you with one other thought and a conclusion. Homans destroy things. We have a history of it. We have had a tendency to nearly irreparably deplete resource based and destroy things like water supply before realizing and/or admitting our mistakes. So this we know, we ignorantly break things that sometimes threaten our survival in given places. We should always assume that we’re currently engaged in such practices. The conclusion: the climate change debate is too heavily politicized. too many people with narrow minds and little information attempt to weigh in n the subject definitively. People mock one another, and disrespect those they disagree with. People on all side of this debate have been irresponsible, and the entire albatross of an idea has become untracked. What you wrote above does nothing to help change that, and does nothing positive in terms of opening the discourse, or providing helpful and relevant information. You are every bit as troublesome as those your criticize, and either misunderstand the entire situation, or are willfully lying through your teeth for your own purposes. Shape up blogger.

  23. 23 Pangolin 27/09/2011 at 7:14 pm

    Geremy_ That was a very detailed and well reasoned post. It had one basic problem. It referred to what is known as “evidence” that was collected as “data” in physical “reality” and was collated and interpreted by “scientists” in peer reviewed “journals.”

    Which would be all well and fine if we were discussing say, medicine, or the chemistry of epoxies. But this is a conversation about climate change and therefore major bits of evidence like say, the melting of the arctic ice cap, are completely discarded in favor patchy writings about grape growing in England in the medieval period. (while ignoring that grapes can be grown in Northern England NOW, lousy grapes)

    The real issue is that any effective response to climate change is going to gore somebodies financial ox and probably preclude massive diesel 4×4 SUVs. Which means a LOT of people can keep their cash flow going only if they lie about climate change. So they do. Constantly.

    Remember “we don’t believe smoking causes cancer” from the tobacco companies. Those people. We like to call them “Republicans.”

  24. 24 Brian H 13/10/2011 at 9:18 am

    Both G. and J. seem to assume that some “effective response” is possible, mitigation-wise.

    It ain’t. Neither politically nor per physics. The alterations proposed for CO2 reduction would have tiny fractional temperature effects, even by the IPCC’s numbers.

    Yet the economic and hence human survival consequences of making the attempt would be severe.

    It’s simply stupid policy. And neither of the world’s two largest-population regimes are going to make more than token reductions. So the issue is globally moot.

  25. 25 Brian H 13/10/2011 at 9:20 am

    correction: G. and P. , not “G. and J.”

  1. 1 Réchauffement médiatique » Blog Archive » L’affaire Spencer et Braswell Trackback on 05/09/2011 at 5:19 am
  2. 2 Huge roundup on bizarre journal editor resignation | JunkScience Sidebar Trackback on 06/09/2011 at 4:53 am
  3. 3 Recent Energy and Environmental News – 9/18/11 « PA Pundits – International Trackback on 20/09/2011 at 11:03 am
Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive