I think the GP was meant to be parody but yes, I've refered to myself as a "greenie" since the 70's. Greenpeace lost my support long before they totally lost the plot and started attacking one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century (ie: chlorinated water). Somewhere in the eighties they turned their back on the scientific principles of their founders and started using the same propoganda techniques as their opponents, this is why most (if not all) of the founders have now resigned in disgust.
Here in Australia I've had at least half a dozen people from various electricity companies knock on my door and offer to change all my bulbs to CFL's. This is despite the fact that whilst knocking they are standing under a CLF.
I have read Popper and I'm in complete agreement with your post up until you mention Steve McIntyre. I may be mistaken but wasn't it Popper who coined the term "republic of science", which is just an old fashioned term for "scientific consensus"?
To his credit McKyntre did publish his ideas and I overlooked that fact in my post. However the claim that he was refused access to data is false.
I won't bother linking to Mann's side of the story, I'm sure someone with a Phd can find that on RC. I'm also fairly confident you are aware that McKyntre's critcisims and ideas were used to hold a senate inquisition into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper. You may also recall the NAS were called in to offer an expert opinion to the inquisitors. The NAS supported Mann's conclusions but did critcise his confidence levels, clearly they did not support McKyntre.
McKyntre's paper has not withstood the test of time and he has failed to publish a follow up. Mann took the NAS critisisms on board and published an extended study in Science.
Now, as one skeptic to another, my question for you is: How was it possible for NAS to conduct a thourough review of Mann's paper if McIntyre's claims about access to data are true?
Pfft Newton: A 15th century theologian who claimed that Jesus was sent to Earth to "operate the levers of gravity", stuck pins in his eyes to figure out the "nature of light", wrote close to million words on the numerology of 666, and snorted mercury fumes on the weekends.
Actaully I felt frustrated, but that's what happens when arguing with morons.
"They pretend to be skeptical, but they really know you're right?
Exactly, some people call them lobbyists. It's other use is for people who swallow their crap and conspiracy nuts like ESR, both of whom fail to excercise self-skepticisim.
I think you missed the context of my remark or perhaps I was not clear. I agree with your post and offer this list of consenus statements from various organisations who still put their faith in the republic of science.
"Last week I was an AGW believer who was ambivalent about the harm. The abusive comments, including yours"
I would be kinder if you didn't post falsehoods and psuedo-intellectual crap from conspiracy nuts like ESR. - Actually I'm kidding, I'd still be a prick because I'm too old to suffer fools.
Fair point, I was going to use the word "consensus" but that would have been an invitation to trolls who have never heard of the term "republic of science".
"And you should probably engage your spell chekker too"
Why should anyone follow your advise when you consistently fail to do so yourself?
Regular readers of climate science stories on slashdot (some of which I have authoured) will know I've spent the last ten years debunking the kind of crap you have stolen from some psuedo-skeptical blog. I refuse to waste my time here since you have posted similar bullshit elsewhere in this article and it has been thouroughly debunked by myself and others.
You can apply some self-skepticisim and learn from your mistakes or you can keep jamming your head further up your arse, the choice is all yours.
"Here you can see the hockey stick being built in the factory"
I have to ask, who's paying you to write this shit?
There was a fucking senate inquiry into Mann's hockey stick, it was a result of demands by political hacks who thought that debunking the original hockey stick (Nature 1997) would bring down the entire mountain of evidence that supports AGW. Problem is that the senate committe called in the National Acedenies of Science to examine the claims of the political hacks.
Their testimony (pdf warning), shows that Mann was correct in his conclusions but also gave some minor critisisims about his confidence levels, those critsisims were taken on board and an extended study was published by Mann, et al in the Journal science (ie: the very people who had raised the minor critisisms).
ESR is a respected member of the OSS community and I'll take his word for it absent definitive proof."
Sorry for editing your FUD to reflect reality but I would like other readers who may fall for your (unoriginal) tecno-babble to compare the credentials of ESR (zero publications on climate science) to M. Mann, an internationally recognised climate scientist who has published over sixty papers on the subject in journals such as Nature and Science. Having said that, argument from authority will not impress an eductaed reader anywhere near as much as it seems to impress you.
Both yourself and ESR seem blissfully unaware that when it comes to reproducing scientific studies the source code is about as relevant as the brand of slide rule that a 1960's scientist used. You simply cannot demonstrate that all but the most trivial code is bug free, therfore scientists prefer to reproduce results using the same data and methods with different code. This is a much more robust test and is the reason why the internet is littered with independent source trees that implement the same methods using the same data.
"changing rainfall patterns can hurt you a lot more"
Agreed!
Example: I live in SE Australia, we (as in the CSIRO) have discovered to our dismay that a 20% drop in rainfall results in a 60% drop in run-off into rivers and dams. Our grain harvest has been down by 50% or more for 8 of the last 10yrs. Entire forrests of 600yr old red gums have witherd and died. Every state capitial is on water rationing and scambling to build some of the world's largest desal plants (powered by coal of course). The dramatic fire and dust storms you read about in the news are trivial when compared to our water problems.
In the 1990's Tasmania had plans to use their massive hydro potential to export power to the mainland, dams were built and undersea cabling was installed. It was a good idea but since completion the dams have not had enough water to turn the turbines and the undersea cables are used to IMPORT power from coal fired plants on the mainland.
We are not the only ones who will wittness this slow motion train-wreck, southern Europe and California have been showing similar but less dramatic trends over the last decade or so.
The irony here is that the "shift in language" was demanded psuedo-skeptics in the 1990's, some scientists thought they had a point and complied with their demands by switching to the more neutral term.
Of course none of this matters to anybody except the psuedo-skeptics who will continue distorting the facts right up until the day they spontaneously combust.
You make seroius errors of fact in your first post and now I'm supposed to accept that you have corrected the studdied opinion of every scientific institution on the planet.
Well yeah, the industrial revolution was well and truely under way by 1800 and they had no pesky regulations to stop them pumping soot into the air and killing "large numbers" of people with pea soupers. (in case you need a further hint, soot melts ice)
This is the same industry that is funding (apprently effective) propoganda such as this infamous "we call it life" commercial and more recently the icecap web site.
"So, you're saying, "Cut off funding for anyone who questions the official position that this is an urgent global crisis that demands massive government intervention"?"
No, he is saying that the question of whether AGW is real has been reasearched for over 100yrs, culimanating with two decades spent on what is probably the largest scientific effort ever undertaken by mankind. He is also saying there is zero eveidence in the scientific litrature to dispute the OBSERVATION that pumping half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150yrs has already fucked up the climate.
Giving money to the engineers to fix the mess and avoid pumping another half a trillion tons into the atmosphere over the next 40yrs is exactly what every respected scientific institution on the planet has been loudly advocating for at least a decade. Some institutions such as the US National Acedemy of Science (NAS) have been warning their government about the OBSERVED problem since the 1950's
But yes, this is science and they could all be wrong. No matter how unlikely that possibility is you can still use the philosophical point to engage in wishfull thinking and prey that an oppressed genius will emerge from his basement and demonstrate why every physicist since Fourier (circa 1824) has been mistaken about the physical properties of CO2. Regardless of philosophy that position is not rational, let alone scientific.
In short the only people calling for more reasearch on the basic question of whether humans are effecting the climate are vested interest who want to delay action and the ignorant who lap up thier anti-science propoganda.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the GP was meant to be parody but yes, I've refered to myself as a "greenie" since the 70's. Greenpeace lost my support long before they totally lost the plot and started attacking one of the greatest public health advances of the 20th century (ie: chlorinated water). Somewhere in the eighties they turned their back on the scientific principles of their founders and started using the same propoganda techniques as their opponents, this is why most (if not all) of the founders have now resigned in disgust.
Here in Australia I've had at least half a dozen people from various electricity companies knock on my door and offer to change all my bulbs to CFL's. This is despite the fact that whilst knocking they are standing under a CLF.
"So how many DOES it take to screw in a light bulb anyway?"
I'd say about 10, one to do it the first time and the other 9 for the dupes.
Check the tread, I was not the one who brought religion into the discussion.
I love the smell of burning stawmen.
I have read Popper and I'm in complete agreement with your post up until you mention Steve McIntyre. I may be mistaken but wasn't it Popper who coined the term "republic of science", which is just an old fashioned term for "scientific consensus"?
To his credit McKyntre did publish his ideas and I overlooked that fact in my post. However the claim that he was refused access to data is false.
I won't bother linking to Mann's side of the story, I'm sure someone with a Phd can find that on RC. I'm also fairly confident you are aware that McKyntre's critcisims and ideas were used to hold a senate inquisition into Mann's 1997 hockey stick paper. You may also recall the NAS were called in to offer an expert opinion to the inquisitors. The NAS supported Mann's conclusions but did critcise his confidence levels, clearly they did not support McKyntre.
McKyntre's paper has not withstood the test of time and he has failed to publish a follow up. Mann took the NAS critisisms on board and published an extended study in Science.
Now, as one skeptic to another, my question for you is: How was it possible for NAS to conduct a thourough review of Mann's paper if McIntyre's claims about access to data are true?
PETA applauding a new technology derived from animal experiments.
Pfft Newton: A 15th century theologian who claimed that Jesus was sent to Earth to "operate the levers of gravity", stuck pins in his eyes to figure out the "nature of light", wrote close to million words on the numerology of 666, and snorted mercury fumes on the weekends.
If you go back to my original reply you might just spot that I was answering his irony with sarcasm.
"I'm sure you felt awfully important though."
Actaully I felt frustrated, but that's what happens when arguing with morons.
"They pretend to be skeptical, but they really know you're right?
Exactly, some people call them lobbyists. It's other use is for people who swallow their crap and conspiracy nuts like ESR, both of whom fail to excercise self-skepticisim.
"Are you really that sure of yourself"
On this subject, yes.
I think you missed the context of my remark or perhaps I was not clear. I agree with your post and offer this list of consenus statements from various organisations who still put their faith in the republic of science.
"Man it's a good thing the earth is only billions of years old, or the 100+ years of scientific research might just seem insignificant in comparison."
Man it's a good thing that reasearch over the last hundered years has convinced you that the Earth is billions of years old.
"Wattsuppwiththat really rocks as a site, so do noconsensus, climateaudit and climateskeptic"
None of whom have published a single paper on the subject. And speaking of religious fundies, guess which "side" the discovery institute is on.
"Last week I was an AGW believer who was ambivalent about the harm. The abusive comments, including yours"
I would be kinder if you didn't post falsehoods and psuedo-intellectual crap from conspiracy nuts like ESR. - Actually I'm kidding, I'd still be a prick because I'm too old to suffer fools.
Fair point, I was going to use the word "consensus" but that would have been an invitation to trolls who have never heard of the term "republic of science".
A slashdotter who knows the limits of his own knowledge, very refreshing. :)
"And you should probably engage your spell chekker too"
Why should anyone follow your advise when you consistently fail to do so yourself?
Regular readers of climate science stories on slashdot (some of which I have authoured) will know I've spent the last ten years debunking the kind of crap you have stolen from some psuedo-skeptical blog. I refuse to waste my time here since you have posted similar bullshit elsewhere in this article and it has been thouroughly debunked by myself and others.
You can apply some self-skepticisim and learn from your mistakes or you can keep jamming your head further up your arse, the choice is all yours.
"Here you can see the hockey stick being built in the factory"
I have to ask, who's paying you to write this shit?
There was a fucking senate inquiry into Mann's hockey stick, it was a result of demands by political hacks who thought that debunking the original hockey stick (Nature 1997) would bring down the entire mountain of evidence that supports AGW. Problem is that the senate committe called in the National Acedenies of Science to examine the claims of the political hacks.
Their testimony (pdf warning), shows that Mann was correct in his conclusions but also gave some minor critisisims about his confidence levels, those critsisims were taken on board and an extended study was published by Mann, et al in the Journal science (ie: the very people who had raised the minor critisisms).
ESR is a respected member of the OSS community and I'll take his word for it absent definitive proof."
Sorry for editing your FUD to reflect reality but I would like other readers who may fall for your (unoriginal) tecno-babble to compare the credentials of ESR (zero publications on climate science) to M. Mann, an internationally recognised climate scientist who has published over sixty papers on the subject in journals such as Nature and Science. Having said that, argument from authority will not impress an eductaed reader anywhere near as much as it seems to impress you.
Both yourself and ESR seem blissfully unaware that when it comes to reproducing scientific studies the source code is about as relevant as the brand of slide rule that a 1960's scientist used. You simply cannot demonstrate that all but the most trivial code is bug free, therfore scientists prefer to reproduce results using the same data and methods with different code. This is a much more robust test and is the reason why the internet is littered with independent source trees that implement the same methods using the same data.
"changing rainfall patterns can hurt you a lot more"
Agreed!
Example: I live in SE Australia, we (as in the CSIRO) have discovered to our dismay that a 20% drop in rainfall results in a 60% drop in run-off into rivers and dams. Our grain harvest has been down by 50% or more for 8 of the last 10yrs. Entire forrests of 600yr old red gums have witherd and died. Every state capitial is on water rationing and scambling to build some of the world's largest desal plants (powered by coal of course). The dramatic fire and dust storms you read about in the news are trivial when compared to our water problems.
In the 1990's Tasmania had plans to use their massive hydro potential to export power to the mainland, dams were built and undersea cabling was installed. It was a good idea but since completion the dams have not had enough water to turn the turbines and the undersea cables are used to IMPORT power from coal fired plants on the mainland.
We are not the only ones who will wittness this slow motion train-wreck, southern Europe and California have been showing similar but less dramatic trends over the last decade or so.
The irony here is that the "shift in language" was demanded psuedo-skeptics in the 1990's, some scientists thought they had a point and complied with their demands by switching to the more neutral term.
Of course none of this matters to anybody except the psuedo-skeptics who will continue distorting the facts right up until the day they spontaneously combust.
That is one of the most intelligent and eloquent posts I have read on slashdot for a long time.
You make seroius errors of fact in your first post and now I'm supposed to accept that you have corrected the studdied opinion of every scientific institution on the planet.
Get off my fucking lawn, NOW!
Not yet, but wait untill the conspiracy theorists spot my dyslexic typo.
Well yeah, the industrial revolution was well and truely under way by 1800 and they had no pesky regulations to stop them pumping soot into the air and killing "large numbers" of people with pea soupers. (in case you need a further hint, soot melts ice)
This is the same industry that is funding (apprently effective) propoganda such as this infamous "we call it life" commercial and more recently the icecap web site.
Somone spray this troll with CO2, his pants are on fire.
"So, you're saying, "Cut off funding for anyone who questions the official position that this is an urgent global crisis that demands massive government intervention"?"
No, he is saying that the question of whether AGW is real has been reasearched for over 100yrs, culimanating with two decades spent on what is probably the largest scientific effort ever undertaken by mankind. He is also saying there is zero eveidence in the scientific litrature to dispute the OBSERVATION that pumping half a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere over the last 150yrs has already fucked up the climate.
Giving money to the engineers to fix the mess and avoid pumping another half a trillion tons into the atmosphere over the next 40yrs is exactly what every respected scientific institution on the planet has been loudly advocating for at least a decade. Some institutions such as the US National Acedemy of Science (NAS) have been warning their government about the OBSERVED problem since the 1950's
But yes, this is science and they could all be wrong. No matter how unlikely that possibility is you can still use the philosophical point to engage in wishfull thinking and prey that an oppressed genius will emerge from his basement and demonstrate why every physicist since Fourier (circa 1824) has been mistaken about the physical properties of CO2. Regardless of philosophy that position is not rational, let alone scientific.
In short the only people calling for more reasearch on the basic question of whether humans are effecting the climate are vested interest who want to delay action and the ignorant who lap up thier anti-science propoganda.