Slashdot Mirror
Climate Contrarians Seek Leadership of House Science Committee
An article at Ars examines three members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are seeking chairmanship of its Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said in an interview, "My analysis is that in the global warming debate, we won. There were a lot of scientists who were just going along with the flow on the idea that mankind was causing a change in the world's climate. I think that after 10 years of debate, we can show that that there are hundreds if not thousands of scientists who have come over to being skeptics, and I don't know anyone [who was a skeptic] who became a believer in global warming." James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has a similar record of opposing climate change, as does Lamar Smith (R-TX). Relatedly, Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer, has posted an article highlighting how U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the Senate's Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, has declined to answer a question about how old the Earth is, calling it "one of the great mysteries."
"You mean like Richard Muller who quite famously denounced anthropogenic global warming only to come to the same conclusion by his own means? Yeah, that opinion piece by him opens with 'Call me a converted skeptic.'"
You mean the same Muller whose co-researcher, immediately after his "revelation", accused him of fudging his research?
That Muller?
The problem is, we've turned most every science question into a political one and so its turned into:
If AGW exists and it will negatively impact my quality of life if new legislation is enacted, then it only makes sense that those people will deny that AGW exists, irrespective of the evidence for or against AGW.
If AGW doesn't exist and it will negatively impact my quality of life if the government doesn't do something (for example, if they don't subsidize "alternative" energy and you've got a large stake in said "alternative" energy), then it only makes sense that people will say that AGW exists, irrespective of the evidence for or against AGW.
Even "unbiased" scientists will never truly be "unbiased" because like everyone else they act in their own self interest and creating predictions that will lead to more funding (or recognition of their deeds) will benefit them.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
"When (to cut through the misunderstandings) Spencer offers him a simple observational experiment he can do himself to prove the theory, he dodges it and accuses Spencer of shifting the goalposts. It's no wonder Spencer (a practicing climatologist with better things to do) didn't bother to engage further."
Quite an astounding analysis.
But everyone here seems to keep forgetting: Latour isn't relying on his own analysis. He's using long-known and oft-proven principles. Among them (which I have found it necessary in this discussion to raise several times) the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law.
I notice that EVERYONE on the AGW "side" of the argument has ignored that the models violate this specific law... and none of them have offered an explanation of this.
So... as I have asked several times here on Slashdot... please show me how your pet theory gets around this law. Then I might be motivated to actually accept it. But you must do that first.