Dean: Republicans don’t believe in science
posted at 7:11 pm on February 12, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Gaffe: n 1. The accidental telling of a truth by a politician.
Howard Dean gets to the heart of the problem with AGW hysterics, albeit inadvertently, in this clip from an ABC interview posted by Mediaite today. He vents his frustration at Republicans who refuse to adopt the belief system of global warming, annoyed at the jibes from skeptics over the snowstorm that has socked in the mid-Atlantic region this month:
“One of the most disturbing things about the Republican Party over the last couple of decades is that they just don’t believe in science any more. And that is not an approach that is likely to generate any kind of creative thinking…People who use snowstorms as an example of why global warming doesn’t exist don’t understand the science and they don’t care.”
Actually, we do respect science. What we don’t do is adopt belief systems based on hypotheses from so-called scientists that use incomplete and unreliable predictive modeling, include wild conjectures as fact, pass off student dissertations as reliable research, and accept advocacy claims without testing, all while conspiring to hide contradictory evidence and scheme to ruin the careers of those who question them. Science requires that claims get tested, that predictive models that fail get discarded, that data and process remain open for review, and that critical thinking get welcomed instead of demonized.
Now, when Howard Dean wants to discuss scientifically how anyone can represent what the IPCC did as rigorous and reliable science, and how the “science” that predicted unstoppable increases in global temperatures for the last 12 years got it wrong but still remains reliable as a basis on which to enact public policy that massively intrudes on private enterprise, property rights, and energy production, well, I’d bet the GOP would welcome such a forum. But while we’re there, perhaps Dean and the scientific acolytes in the Democratic Party can scientifically explain how a group of cells with a unique, human DNA that divide and multiply within a uterus is somehow not human life.
You know, since we’re being scientific and all.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »
When the solution to a ‘problem’ is less freedom and increased confiscation of private sector wealth, the burden of proof is on those advancing the ‘problem’.
So far AGW is poppycock.
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 2:17 PM
yes it is.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 2:29 PM
Oakland – so what are you doing to keep this climate change from impacting to a great degree? My guess -very little.
CWforFreedom on February 13, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Oakland seriously do you have any other interests?
Sheesh
CWforFreedom on February 13, 2010 at 2:33 PM
Dean does not understand science. He would be baffled if he ever watched a rudimentary ‘Mythbusters’ tv episode.
percysunshine on February 13, 2010 at 2:37 PM
I certain it’s a lovely flower. I’m equally certain AGW is rapidly killing all of them.
oldleprechaun on February 13, 2010 at 2:46 PM
You have to be joking. Proof? PROOF?
What fat Al Bore makes a movie with some very glaring factual problems and that list grow larger as we find YOUR side of the aisle throwing out real science (skepticism) for WE SAY SO THAT IS WHY Kinda proof.
Garbage. The real joke is it is you jokers.. or should I say THE JOKERS want nothing more than the enslavement of others and hardship in developing countries. Yes. You do. I say so .. therefor.. it is.
Noelie on February 13, 2010 at 2:51 PM
strange that the earth saw higher carbon amounts even before man was on earth
CWforFreedom on February 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM
Well, I do have to say that when my grad school professors found out that I was both a) conservative and b) Christian, they told me that they didn’t think that I would be able to do science at the graduate level, and they did everything they could to make sure I didn’t.
Bob's Kid on February 13, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Heresy!
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 3:09 PM
So, pm123, please feel free to explain me. I’m one of the people on this web site. I sense you have little awareness of the thin ice you have walked out onto when you attempt to make generalizations regarding the backgrounds of the residents of this web site.
BTW, I have very personal knowledge of, and experience with, just how corrupted the peer review venue can be. Do you?
Yoop on February 13, 2010 at 3:29 PM
Nothing to do with CO2
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM
That alone proves you have no experience with scientists. For example, Einstein had a great deal of philosophical difficulty with quantum mechanics and refused for years to accept it. Rutherford’s work was huge, but it took many, many years before the atomic theory was generally accepted. Scientists have at least as much difficulty as other folks with having their core beliefs challenged.
nerdbert on February 13, 2010 at 3:58 PM
That’s because before they were scientists, they were humans. Humans do not appreciate being proved wrong. It injures their pride.
oldleprechaun on February 13, 2010 at 4:27 PM
When “Government Intervention into Every Aspect of Your Life” is the ANSWER, you know there’s something fatally wrong with the QUESTION.
profitsbeard on February 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM
Now the fly in the ointment. I’m no fan of Gore, so I will leave him out of it.
However, this was a very incomplete “discussion” that relied on sound bites rather than in-depth discussion.
The main premise presented is the assertion that warming drove carbon dioxide increases in the past. We can learn from the past, but to say that the past replicates the present has very little support. There were no massive burnings of carbon fuels in those past epochs as there are now (billions of tons of carbon dioxide, net into the atmosphere each year). If you want to compare the past with the present, you need somewhat the same conditions. There is an explanation for carbon leading temperature that doesn’t base itself on carbon dioxide being irrelevant (a patently ridiculous claim in and of itself).
Also, the sound bites were designed to completely ignore other forcing factors of temperature that are well known. No mention was made of the solar influence, the influence of aerosols and of sulfates (a result of burning coal), the oscillations in the ocean currents, and others. The picture is just not as simple as carbon dioxide in, temperature out, and attempts, such as in this short video to make it seem so, are very misleading.
What makes climate science so complex is the presence of many influences on climate, and the potential feedbacks of temperature rise, among other things. Those who try to make it seem simple (yes, like Gore) are not well informed.
It would have been better to have shown the complete discussions in the interviews with the scientists, and to have had comments from dissenters; otherwise it is just as much a propaganda piece as is “inconvent Truth”.
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:05 PM
Modern scientists will believe anything that will get them a government grant.
Dhuka on February 13, 2010 at 5:05 PM
May I suggest that you reread that portion of your post, and keep rereading it until you understand what it is that you have just posited.
OldEnglish on February 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM
I guess you are including researchers for the FDA, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Agriculture, OSHA, and a number of others? And does “anything” include deceit (which will almost always get you in the end)?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:16 PM
Of course if they had said CO2 is responsible for temperature increases you’d think it was a very complete “discussion”.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:17 PM
I have; what’s your point?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM
your global warming is a LIE..get it a LIE used by ‘scientists’ for political purposes. get a clue, there is no global warming…and the climate has changed since there has been a climate duhhh..
why don’t you give up oil and gas, don’t drive a car or use public transit?? put your money where your mouth is.
pathetic.
right4life on February 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM
I doubt he/she will understand what they said.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:18 PM
oh yeah and it sure got that global warming BS didn’t it???
truth hurts.
right4life on February 13, 2010 at 5:19 PM
If we caluclate the global temperature using all the surface stations that NOAA deleted … and took away their “adjustments” that conveniently adjusted upwards … then the so-called warming would disappear.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:20 PM
None of those groups would exist or get funding if they didn’t have a ‘problem’ to fix.
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 5:21 PM
I wish there was global warming…historically warm periods are the best times for people…things like the ‘little ice age’ are disasters, where lots of people die.
right4life on February 13, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Maybe that’s the real intent after all. It’s well known how visceral the enviro-nazi’s hate people. They constantly scream for population control, abortion, euthanasia and suicide.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:24 PM
Humans can tolerate warming, it’s the cooling that causes existential problems. Even if we were descending into an ice age, I would be against humans attempting to change the climate. It is just so stupid…
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 5:25 PM
very true, it was the ‘scientists’ who came up with eugenics in the first place. these ‘scientists’ are just part of the progressive movement.
right4life on February 13, 2010 at 5:27 PM
Not only can we tolerate it, we thrive in it. Crops grow further north, fewer people die. That’s a scenario liberals just don’t like.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:29 PM
My brother is a scientist who has worked for decades, mainly as the beneficiary of government grants. I couldn’t imagine a more dedicated researcher than he. Every year he has to prove that his research has resulted in significant and useful findings, or he gets nothing the next year. He is extraordinarily competent and rock-solid in his honesty. He’s not wealthy, but loves what he does.
The most important thing to him is in being correct. He admits that he isn’t always so, and that often he makes mistakes (some big and costly). But, I never doubt that he is making the best use of his grant money as possible.
To lump “scientists” into a category that is equivalent to a band of thieves is reprehensible. I can only hope to be as competent in my work as many, many of them are in theirs.
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Yes. Power, control, money … and once they get it, they start to deal with the “undesirables”.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:31 PM
Could you tolerate warming if it were to lead to massive disruptions in agriculture?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Most scientists today will not get grants unless some aspect of their research incorporates AGW.
No scientist will get a grant if their research is to disprove AGW.
That’s how it works.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Wow. Good catch on the link, Keemo, which in turn links to the BBC interview of Phil Jones, by environmental reporter, Roger Harrabin!
For Phil Jones to now admit that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today, is indeed huge — not that the very naming of “Greenland” shouldn’t have been more of a clue as to what the weather was like way back then!
Even if it were just that admission alone, it would now opens the floodgates. But it wasn’t alone.
That BBC reporter deserves an enormous amount of credit for getting that (and a few other juicy admissions against interest) out of Jones in his interview — admissions that will inevitably help blow the entire “science is settled” meme right out of the sky.
1. Jones admits to a “bunker mentality” although he immediately accuses the other side of the same fault — without any support for that accusation.
2. He concedes he’s not good at paperwork! Geebus!
3. He admits the system of surface temperature reading may well have been flawed.
4. He concedes the sources of some data may be “insufficiently clear.”
That often expressed claim that the “science is settled” was of itself so unscientific, that it should have tipped anyone with half a brain that there was a problem with the IPCC construct. It did indeed tip some people — Steve McIntyre, Richard Lindzen, and a number of others. But they were all unjustifiably attacked, either as industry hacks, or as unqualified critics.
Why is it, one wonders, that the British press has run so far and so fast with this unfolding story, especially The Times with a series of stories, but also The Guardian and The Mirror. Now even the BBC is jumping in with both feet.
Damn! With a few very minor “oh-by-the-way” exceptions, our press outlets seem to have simply bypassed this gigantic story altogether.
For crying out loud . . . these IPCC folks were deliberately attempting a complete reordering of the entire international economic structure with their scare mongering.
Unfortunately, in the process all of them have now given science itself a bad name. Boy, that fool Howard Dean just came out and said that Republicans hate science! Hey, nice timing Howard!!
There are going to be a ton of really embarrassed media folks and politicians in this country who will now have to shift their long-held and frequently expressed views.
And of course, bloggers will have a field day with posting “then-and-now” video clips.
But Keemo . . . as for Oakland and Bayam . . . I wouldn’t waste my time.
Trochilus on February 13, 2010 at 5:33 PM
That you seem to assert that this particular cycle is different, in cause, to all previous cycles, merely because of a small additional factor.
OldEnglish on February 13, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Exactly how does warming disrupt that? The MWP had no such disruptions. Humanity flourished.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:34 PM
Really? What’s your definition of carbon fuels? Does a burning tree fit into that definition?
Ever hear of a volcanic eruption? [whispers]They release carbon dioxide! Google it!
mossberg500 on February 13, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Useful to whom, and in what manner? There is no logical reason why a scientific result must be useful – merely correct.
OldEnglish on February 13, 2010 at 5:37 PM
What would you say? Are there differences between now and then?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Demonstrate efficacy…is that better?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Possibly during that time (though we don’t really know, do we?)
Now, what about when the climate changed going into and coming out of this period? How did people fare then? Do we know? How would we fare now with drastic climate changes?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 5:42 PM
I’m pretty sure we’ve have some record of disastrous events if they occurred. Geez, you are really hooked into this scam aren’t you? The MWP was over hundreds of years. It wasn’t “drastic” as you nuts think every climate event is.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM
Irrelevant if those differences are insignificant. It is up to science to prove that this cycle is different, in large measure, because ….
OldEnglish on February 13, 2010 at 5:49 PM
ClimateGate’s Phil Jones Says Global Warming Debate Not Over, Explains ‘Hide the Decline’
This ship has hit a HUGE iceberg…
Sharr on February 13, 2010 at 6:22 PM
A big enough volcanic eruption can lead to a global catastrophe. If Yellowstone erupted it could kill the majority of Americans and have worldwide consequences much greater than when Tambora erupted in 1815.
dedalus on February 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM
That nothing compared to what man can do with a little CO2 … at least that’s what the climate commies say.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Howard Dean’s an idiot to be sure, and it’s pure demagoguery to claim that “Republicans don’t believe in science”. However, the fundamentalist Christian subset of the GOP is pretty clearly anti-science. And by fundamentalist Christian subset, I’m referring to the creationist, end times, AGW denier (as in it’s a hoax as opposed to I’m a skeptic with questions type) wingnuts.
dakine on February 13, 2010 at 6:53 PM
Obama’s propaganda website lies on day one.
But what do I know? I’m just a scientist who is also a creationist, AGW is a hoax, end times wingnut.
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 6:59 PM
It is a hoax numbnut … and I’m not a “fundamentalist”.
The scammers revealed their hand the second they said there was a problem and their very first solution was a carbon tax.
darwin on February 13, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Utah votes no confidence on climate change hoax.
daesleeper on February 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM
A tax is logical if one believes that there are externalities associated with CO2. Users would need to pay not just the market price for the commodity but for the impact its use has on the community.
dedalus on February 13, 2010 at 7:42 PM
Humbly, thanks for the best laugh of the day. Lib think goes in circles!!!
chai on February 13, 2010 at 8:21 PM
Am I the only one here who thinks that Howard Dean is a horses’s ass?
Winebabe on February 13, 2010 at 9:09 PM
If temperatures rise 3 degrees, many experts agree that its possible that the climate could warm, and some say that it may result in potentially catastrophic natural events that could WHAM
*Saltysam quietly puts sledgehammer back in tool shed, starts up the f250, heads to the butcher shop, selects quality marbled NY steaks, goes home, starts up BBQ, feeds family, we all fart…laugh, live, love.*
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Apparently, because I saw him come out one.
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM
You were there?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 9:48 PM
We’ll all die.
Okay?
Get over it.
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 9:54 PM
Those witnessing a cycle in mid-flux will perceive such flux as “drastic” doubly so if they assume the system they inhabit to be a static one rather then dynamic.
I’m sure as the Medieval Warming Period drew to a close those at the tail end thought the heavens must be angry at them and think the cycle at work (which spans longer time frames then what human perception often allows for) to be “sudden” but they didn’t have any SUVs to blame.
All of which is why ask warmists to outline for me what they think the Earth’s proper static state is supposed to have been before we fell out this paradise. If you can’t
Sharr on February 13, 2010 at 10:02 PM
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 10:05 PM
You’re missing a key element. They would pay the market value for the commodity, but they would also pay the market value for the right to use the commodity.
In other words, the right to use becomes a commodity in itself.
Ultimately, as usual, those on the lower end of the economic scale would suffer the most. Of course, you would have to factor in the possibility that they would enjoy a potentially 1/2 of a degree average lower temperatures over the next 50 to 100 years, so they’d have that going for them anyway.
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 10:06 PM
Certainly better than an increase of several degrees, no?
oakland on February 13, 2010 at 10:15 PM
It might be akin to trucks paying higher tolls to use bridges based on the additional wear and tear they put on the resource.
Whatever shortcomings there are in the big-government types that are pushing for eco-compliance, isn’t the possible decreased reliance on oil a geopolitical positive for the US? The less money flowing to the Saudi’s and the Iranians means fewer funds for terrorists or weapons programs.
dedalus on February 13, 2010 at 10:18 PM
I think it is quite ironic that the main result of Obama-nation is that now a person of common sense and a wish for freedom can seriusly doubt:
the media, actors, journalists, climate “scientists”, Harvard graduates, most writers, the House, the Senate, the EPA, the NYT, the Wash. Post, CBS CNN MSNBC NBC and on and on and on.
Obama-nation has undermined the credibility of all our major cultural institutions. Amazing indeed, and what an accomplishment!
Dhuka on February 13, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Well, after careful consideration, I’m extremely skeptical at this point that it is not a hoax.
That’s too bad, because I love science, and I think the bloodsucking Marxist freaks have ALWAYS used science, not as a rigorous academic discipline for good works, but for a antithetical tool against the classically liberal and religious virtues that underpin the strength of the West.
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 10:25 PM
Great question. Gotta eat dinner. Be right back!
Saltysam on February 13, 2010 at 10:27 PM
There is no real scientific question but that the developing baby is human after conception. This is of course far more settled science than evolution or global warming.
But many of the same people who will claim Republicans are “against science” will still pretend that the baby is just a lump of tissue right up until the point of birth, and therefore can be destroyed at any moment.
Such people have no right to call anyone else “anti-science.” Which is exactly my point.
But let’s not stop there. If the developing baby is human, then we have already answered the moral debate. It can’t be moral to kill human life for convenience, not even for the convenience of a woman avoiding a nine-month pregnancy.
Now you’re right that the moral question is not properly a question of science, but those seeking to justify abortion will still twist science to try to support their preferred claim.
In much the same way, we see homosexual advocacy groups try to claim that science proves that homosexuality is an inborn trait. Even though the question of the morality of homosexuality has nothing to do with science, they rightly understand that if they can convince people that science proves homosexuality is inborn, then many will decide it must not be immoral, after all.
It’s a very dangerous thing to try to hitch “science” to whatever advocacy wagon you’re trying to push. This is exactly why the government should not start interfering with science or pushing research to politically desirable ends. And there is no better way to push research to the correct conclusions than to fund the groups that have the hypotheses you want to favor.
There Goes The Neighborhood on February 14, 2010 at 12:29 AM
We agree on the division between science and morality. Regarding, homosexuality you are right that the scientific question doesn’t matter. For those who live by a moral code that restricts sexual behavior according to various criteria, then they are right to identify homosexual acts as wrong. However, should the US government? I’ve thought the government should abide by the “harm principle” advocated by Locke and Mill. Essentially, the government should avoid involving itself in acts that don’t involve harm to others.
dedalus on February 14, 2010 at 12:46 AM
I disagree. It’s more like a situation I’ve witnessed on Lake Tahoe. They disallowed more moorings for boats on the lake. Now, if you want one you have to purchase one from someone else. You can’t just put a mooring in the lake for your boat, regardless of your resident status. What this does is skyrocket the value of a mooring. What was once a right for anyone, has turned into a commodity.
Literally, what was once worth about a hundred bucks (the cost to make a mooring), is now worth anywhere from $25K to 50K (maybe even more).
Obviously, it is now just a luxury for the well heeled.
In short, yes I would agree, but if that is the reason to do this, then the discussion should take place on the merits of that, and not this ridiculous hoax of a government controlled climate.
That said, I still think that is a poor excuse for the cap and trade BS. We have severely limited the use of our own petroleum and nuclear resources in the US. Had we not done this, our reliance on foreign sources for cheap energy would not be a factor.
And furthermore, if we were a willing nation to keep reliable cheap energy in abundant supply, our economy would be robust. And a robust economy is the only REAL catalyst for a clean, healthy environment in a modern world. AND, the abundance created by a robust economy would accelerate the realization of other types of energy resources yet to be discovered, invented and improved.
I think we have it all backwards. We should always seek first, to free the world from the chains of tyranny and expand economic freedom. From this, wealth and abundance are created, spurring a more healthy and clean world.
Poverty is deadly.
Saltysam on February 14, 2010 at 12:54 AM
Certainly?
No.
Possibly?
Yes.
In science we begin with the premise that a hypothesis is possible. If we reach the point that a hypothesis is certain, it would be the result of contradictory possibilities proven invalid.
Saltysam on February 14, 2010 at 1:13 AM
We’re certainly in agreement that morality is not the realm of science. And I’m certainly not asking the government to do anything at all about homosexuality, positive or negative.
My point is that all too often some in the government have an agenda — whether abortion, or cap-and-trade, or same-sex “marriage” — and try to harness up science to their agenda. And this kind of pressure on scientific researchers to come up with the “correct” answers leads to the perversion of science.
Specifically, we have here the pro-choice, the-fetus-is-just-a-bunch-of-tissue Howard Dean calling skeptics of AGW anti-scientific. And in complete obliviousness of the irony, he says that people who don’t “believe” in global warming are opposed to science.
Not impressed.
There Goes The Neighborhood on February 14, 2010 at 1:24 AM
Come on. It’s not about global warming, or cooling.
It’s about power and control — by our elite Marxists.
Environmentalism is just the latest form of communism.
Dhuka on February 14, 2010 at 2:02 AM
…and not so new, either.
Saltysam on February 14, 2010 at 2:10 AM
oakland on February 14, 2010 at 6:56 AM
FIXED
IowaWoman on February 14, 2010 at 8:44 AM
oakland will claim you’re working for “big oil”.
darwin on February 14, 2010 at 8:53 AM
What would be a positive for the US would be using our own natural resources. Natural Gas,Oil,Coal. This would create Jobs and free us from reliance on foreign resources.
IowaWoman on February 14, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Global warming has been proven (the literature is peer reviewed doncha know) to produce sunshine, clouds, rain, fog, snow, hail, sleet, floods, drought, heat, cold, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, more tornados, fewer tornados, glacier growth, glacier recession, more ice, less ice and any other weather I just can’t think of at the moment.
Global warming also produces lots and lots of money for some people and less and and less money for everyone else.
Isn’t global warming amazing?
darwin on February 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Good luck with that one,oakland. Being that Iowa is big on growing not drilling. My comment after that one will convince oakland that I am. LOL
IowaWoman on February 14, 2010 at 9:02 AM
Dean is a clown and that can be proven scientifically, via his actions in any public position of responsibility he’s ever held.
Also, I often am curious as to why a physician becomes a politician, is it that the he forgot how to scientifically diagnose the common cold?
MSGTAS on February 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM
He’s a committed communist.
darwin on February 14, 2010 at 9:27 AM
Yes, that is good. Nuclear is even better. However, if the effort isn’t global the Indians and Chinese will keep the price of crude at a high enough level to continue funding Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs and other undesirables.
dedalus on February 14, 2010 at 12:09 PM
Here’s all I have to say on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o
Pilgrim on February 14, 2010 at 8:26 PM
The CRU e-mails indicate that the peer review process was subverted for this science. Editorial boards of peer review journals were tampered with to assure that only people with a positive view of AGW were gatekeepers of articles submitted for peer review. Hence, in this area of science, peer-review is no longer a measure of correctness.
The conclusion is always stated at the outset. In a scientific paper, that’s called the abstract. Even newspaper articles are written that way, because the editor may decide to chop the bottom N column inches of the article off for some nice advertisement or more important article — so the writer better make sure their article can survive such editing with minimal loss.
On to your other points. OK, try these:
a) Snark from the AGW group — in particular, Phil Jones: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate
Note the interesting statements about tree ring data. Suddenly, tree ring data no longer tracks temperature, because, if one believes the tree rings, the temperature is decreasing, and the AGW folk know that this isn’t the case. It’s only happened over the last 50 years, so they discarded the last 50 years of tree ring data to make the model behave properly.
The question which immediately leaps to mind is: Isn’t the data earlier than 50 years old also suspect? If not, why not? That is a question Jones amazingly never addresses.
Now, let’s look at an AGW proponent’s website: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-without-tree-rings.html
In order to construct the hockey stick without tree rings, Mr. John Cook has to rely upon (see his last graph — Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions) how the HAD and CRU instrumental data diverge from the other graphs. If that isn’t a sign that either something is wrong with the other graphs or that something is wrong with the HAD and CRU data, I don’t know what does.
Then the Russians chime in with their criticism of the HAD and CRU data: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/
And then there’s the cherrypicked tree ring data:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
No wonder the CRU people are suddenly disparaging tree ring data — after basing their tree ring analysis on exactly 12 special trees from the Yamal survey!
You can see where this is going, and it isn’t good for AGW enthusiasts — I’m going to cease using the word “scientist” when referring to them from now on.
unclesmrgol on February 14, 2010 at 8:46 PM
And I thought Joe Biden was stupid.
TomLawler on February 15, 2010 at 6:06 AM
The abstract (of which the piece in question had none) is essentially a summary of the work for those who are attempting to determine its relevance to the need of the user. It includes the postulate or hypothesis, a brief description of methods and results as well as a conclusion (also in brief). The work in question was not a journal article that was subjected to peer-review and obviously displayed the writer’s bias, to which he directed all of his “evidence”. This was not the work of a competent scientist acting competently. It is a farce.
The CRU (and IPCC) has problems that must be addressed in order to restore credibility. So, there are problems on all sides of the debate. Let’s see how this plays out, but let’s not ignore the vast amount of work that supports the general concept of anthropogenic global warming; it is very compelling.
oakland on February 15, 2010 at 7:39 AM
Uncles, I read your first point and the CRU statements. If you carefull read what they wrote, there is a reference to address your concern there. I haven’t read that reference (don’t have access to it), but it would seem that one needs to give them credit for addressing that legitimate concern.
You indicated other concerns as well. I suggest looking at peer reviewed literature rather than biased sources (and I am aware that there is no such thing as a lack of bias in any arena; however, many popular publications are biased toward the views of the intended audience, understandably).
Also, I have found it useful to go to a university library and peruse the literature. In doing this, one can learn to see how legitimate science is conducted. A good piece of scientific literature will lack statements that imply that their findings are absolute or definitive but will instead indentify weaknesses in their conclusions, along with suggestions for further research that will make the picture more clear. Scientific literature is generally not pursuasive, in that the author’s bias is revealed at the outset and all succeeding paragraphs dedicated only to supporting the bias. Good literature will refer to opposing views and attempt to deal with them, based on the evidence accrued in the study (or even corroborating evidence outside the study). So much of the literature cited on this site and others (regardless of which side of the issue it supports) is persuasive, as would be expected. Very little true scientific literature is available online, due to copyright (which is why is suggest a visit to a university library). However, there are various scientific organizations that can summarize the literature for us and refer us to sources of information. These organizations, as you will see, often highlight information that may appear to support a variety of views, and you will see admissions of that fact, because that’s proper scientific reporting.
oakland on February 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM
Yeah, what he said.
Seriously though, maybe Dean is confused by the mainly-conservative stance against AGW because, after all, most conservatives believe in a creator God. So why wouldn’t we just accept the religion of AGW since we’re already predisposed to do so.
Extrafishy on February 15, 2010 at 9:17 AM
Science is not something one believes in.
With that said-Hey Dean-registered Republican active voter who is a SCIENCE teacher here.
And I am talking about REAL science-peer reviewed, experimentally tested, accurate data with conclusions to match kinda science teacher.
Go figure-I am like the Unicorn-rare, according to Dean.
Badger40 on February 15, 2010 at 10:15 AM
I agree this is such a huge problem in scientific circles off all persuasions.
I think that ANY organization, no matter what it is, that receives govt grant $$ should be required to post their data & all related work immediately ONLINE for all to see.
If you don’t want to share, then don’t accept govt $$.
Badger40 on February 15, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Good thing the Federal government still mandates catalytic converters which generate CO2.
Akzed on February 15, 2010 at 10:22 AM
He’s the DNC’s designated AGW troll.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:28 AM
I’m still waiting for this proof.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:29 AM
What would you call a scientist who set out to make sure that nobody who disagreed with them could get their work published?
What would you call a scientist who tried to destroy the career of anyone who disagreed with them?
Because the so called scientists that you are defending have done all this and more.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:31 AM
http://www.ClimateDepot.com.
Akzed on February 15, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Since it won’t, why the question?
It’s been much warmer in the not to distant past, and mankind thrived.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM
Since nobody knows what caused the previous warmings, there isn’t a scintilla of evidence, that the same causes are not behind the current warming.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Idiocy, feeding desperation. Or perhaps it’s the other way around.
Reams upon reams of historical documents all pointing to the fact that humanity flourished during this time.
Reams upon reams of archialogical evidence, all pointing to the fact that humanity flourished during this time.
MarkTheGreat on February 15, 2010 at 10:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next »