On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.
I'm not convinced that that is true. For one thing, it pre-supposes there is debate, which would require an exchange of ideas, which requires at least two sides to present axioms they consider to be true with some foundational reasons why we should think that those ideas are true. That is not what is happening here. It is not clear, for a start, that many denialists think of their arguments as factual - merely as a position that they hold because they self identify with a group of people who hold that as a position - a political/tribal 'view' if you like. They expect a debate on this in much the way that two opposing political ideologies might debate for the sake of finding a common ground. So they will repeatedly make the same debunked claims, e.g. Ice mass in the Antarctic is increasing! because even though this statement is debunked by observation they expect to negotiate from some middle ground. Whether the statement is factual or not is irrelevant - what matters is that an opposing view is stated, regardless of how extreme, because after that, we try to compromise on a position that is mutually satisfactory. That is how the world works, right?
Wrong.
Reality is more powerful than ideology. Reality will always win. Doesn't matter if you reject gravity, gravity still acts. You can't negotiate for, say, acceleration due to gravity to be 4.5 m/s/s. You can't negotiate with Global Warming either. It is, and will continue to be.
People who deny it, like people who deny gravity, or a terminal cancer diagnosis after a biopsy, are in denial. Thus the term "denialist" or "denier". It describes a mental condition. It doesn't preclude debate, as an ad hominem would. It's just coincident with tthe fact that there is no debate, just a group of people reporting on observations, and another group of people stating a position absent observation or factual grounding.
The only thing that would stop it [machine sentience] is the fall of civilization.
It's hard to judge that, because we don't actually know what machine sentience is, nor how to get there, so we can't validly judge whether the efforts we make in that regard are bringing us closer to it, whether we are approaching it asymptotically, or we are making no progress at all.
Even assuming we can make, or even measure, progress toward machine sentience, dozens, perhaps hundreds of civilisations have fallen, and none of them created sentient machines. Expecting our civilisation to continue in perpetuity seems incautious.
Well, we're a Christian Nation, aren't we? Shouldn't we respect life, forgive and what not?"
Well, according to progressives, we're not...
You aren't, because there's no such thing. There's no mention of a concept of a Christian Nation in the Bible, the collective is a "church". The Old Testament has a nation (of a sort) which is Israel but they aren't bound by the political structure centering around the judges and later, kings, but around a common identity based on Abraham as the recipient of God's covenantal promises - promises which extended explicitly to Abraham's physical descendants, which is the common identity of Israel.
As for whether Christians ought to support the death penalty, the idea is absurd. For on thing, the vast majority of Christians understand that any punishment devised will ultimately apply to them, since on average the daily experience of Christians is one of persecution, loss and hazard because of their faith. To promote the death penalty, knowing that it is applied to Christians in other places and times merely on account of their faith, is repugnant to a thinking and faithful Christian.
For another, when Jesus speaks he doesn't speak in a code that allows Americans to continue doing or believing whatever they want. You've simply excused your inherited ethical code by eisegesis, instead of exegesis.
You apparently live in a fantasy world where scientists want or need you to trust them when they state facts underpinned by observation. It would, of course, be better if you were rational and took scientific findings at face value, but if you choose not to, that is entirely your responsibility and you will be held liable for that choice.
I use the word 'liable' in the sense that sometime in the future when the consequences of climate change start to hurt inevitably many will be asking who is responsible for the fact that no timely action was taken? At which point those who indulged in speculative fantasies and chose to promote those fantasies had better lawyer up.
Again, you have missed the point, but then that is not surprising.
Hardly likely, since I made the point, and thus get to say what the point is.
No increase in the Sun's output has been observed. There have been no observed climate changes on other planets coincident with the period of warming on earth. No plausible explanation has been proffered as to how adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has zero effect, contrary to experimental and direct observation.
It is thus a stupid argument that implies the people that proffer it are stupid.
You're right, how incomprehensibly silly to point out that increasing temperatures observed on multiple planets in our solar system might suggest that the Earth's warming is primarily due to something other than yuppies driving SUVs.
It would be silly to speculate on that, absent being able to provide any such observation to prove it, and absent an explanation as to why increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are NOT causing warming, per the long accepted greenhouse gas theory established 150 years ago.
(b) The impact of CO2 in the atmosphere has been directly and indirectly observed.
For some reason, the anti-science crowd continues to miss the point. to disprove the theory that increased quantities of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere will net positive energy to that system they need to address the radiative properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) directly. Otherwise, a warming trend from increased concentrations is inevitable. Physics - it's a bitch.
If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here, it seems likely that the warming is caused by something which all of the planers have in common.
And if there are no such observations, we can stop pretending.
Because they are not proxies in this case. No one is suggesting that the earth's temperature should be measured by measuring the temperature on another planet.
They are proxies for measuring the output of the sun, which we already measure directly.
. If the temperature is rising on other planets in a similar fashion as the earth (if such is indeed the case), it wouldn't be a way to measure earth's temperature. It would be an extremely strong indication that either your current direct measurment of the sun's energy is broken, you are measuring the wrong energy being expelled by the sun, or there is likely another astronomical energy source that is affecting the planets.
But no such changes have been observed, making this point moot. Secondly, nobody has stated a plausible reason to doubt that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the troposphere will cause it to warm, as predicted 150 years ago and now observed, directly and indirectly. So if some (curiously unobserved) change in the sun's output or some oogie boogie radiation from deep space were causing the other planets to warm, we wouldn't conclude that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere of our own planet doesn't make it warm - we've already observed that it does, indirectly and directly.
Yes, because the fact that other planets in the same solar system are experiencing similar warming(if such is indeed the case) has absolutely no value in interpreting why this planet is doing the same
Are you saying we can't (and aren't) measuring the output of the sun directly? Why would proxies be a better measure? Detail please.
The Watts example was based solely on what looks to me to be a forged document.
Well, thanks once again for describing your feelings.
We have no evidence that forgeries always state the truth and plenty of evidence that instead they are almost universally intended to commit some variation of fraud.
And you leap from speculating that the document might be forged to assuming it was. Nice one.
Meanwhile (as noted) we have Watt's own admission that he took money from The Heartland Institute.
It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent.
She posts with regular frequency on her blog. If the above were true, we would have noticed.
The veracity of this statement is undetermined. I suspect that someone could easily parody the writings of a denialist blogger for months at a time and none of the gullible readers would recognise the difference. As I previously noted (and you apparently agree) : Watts himself has made no statement applicable to the topic of his blog (climate science) that both contradicted the mainstream science and was true. Yet even on slashdot readers will reference his blog as proof against science.
Dr Judith's approach is slightly different. She likes to frame ordinary statements in a tone of scandal, as if she has made some groundbreaking statement, or make reference to some ordinary fact in a tone of disbelief without actually contradicting or even disagreeing with it.
Reference this one - which is about someone's hurt feelings and decision to resign from sham organisation set up to try and smear a layer of apparent respectability over the ridiculous, self contradictory clutter of assertions that is climate denial. Oooh the scandal.
Or this - meant to be a summary of the NCAR - except Judith tells us she didnt read it. Well, thanks for the tip. That's a devastating critique of a paper you didn't read.
Ok, show me these bales.
Dr Judith openly admits she takes money from big oil for expressing her views. I also note that she openly admits she doesn't know whether climate is forced by anthropogenic means and to what extent. Well Judith, maybe do some reading before commenting on it.
As I was saying: I like living in societies transformed by science, I do not like living in societies transformed by government mandate, whether that transformation is rooted in science or anything else.
And as I was saying, feel free to join the Amish.
So in your mind, the idea that Jews are inferior is rational and scientific?
[snip irrelevant blather]
It's a simple question requiring a yes or no answer. Yes or No?
You might laugh, but I have heard people use similar astronomical events as proof against the anthropogenic cause of the recent warming. "Ice caps are melting on Mars!" etc. etc.
We will likely discover soon that the red spot is shrinking because in fact, it's jupiter's face and he is palming it at the the stupidity of the gullible.
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?
The first link I found had observational data from the 1940's.
Not at all. It is the attempt to transform a society based on science that is the hallmark of fascism and communism. The problem with it is that it never succeeds.
Except in case where it does, e.g. the one you live in, but apparently think is a Nazi/Communist conspiracy.
Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings and Germany's rational, scientific society acted upon that belief.
So in your mind, the idea that Jews are inferior is rational and scientific?
Am I a Nazi or a Communist?
I suspect you're ideologically closer to fascism than communism, but differences are minor.
Your feelings don't matter. What matters is proof.
Which as I see it, is on the side of Watts.
You've got a feeling that Watt's is an a-ok guy and the things he says are straight and true. I get it.
Similarly - this guy feels that science is a Nazi Communist conspiracy and therefore society should not make decisions based on scientific reasoning.
I tend to steer away from "assertions as proof" and look at actual evidence as being required in either case. In the case of Watt's, he admits to being funded by the Heartland institute but wants to quibble about the mechanics of that funding. In either case, Watt's is funded to lie, since if the Heartland Institute was interested in accurate science based commentary on the subject, they would have hired an actual climatologist. They didn't, Watt's analysis of the weather station data was flawed either deliberately or through ignorance - when corrected by actual scientists he insisted that he was right - he was paid to lie and fulfilled the terms of his employment.
And continues to lie to this day.
And what was your evidence that she lied here or even was factually incorrect?
It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent. On balance though, I'd suggest it's more likely she is just corrupt - corrupted by the bales of money she gets to preach the word of denialism to the ignorant.
"Societies transformed by science" is exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were aiming for.
Science is a Nazi communist consipiracy. Got it. I guess that means Einstein was a Nazi collaborator?
On the other hand, there has never been a society successfully "transformed by science".
He says by typing it out on THE INTERNET.
Having lived in communist countries and having relatives how lived under the Nazis, I don't have to imagine. And knowing a bit of history, I also know what leads there, and it starts with people like you.
Am I a Nazi or a Communist?
I have to tell you, I intend to quote you. You are the single greatest argument for government action on climate change I have ever come across.
Perhaps not the individuals, but the corporations who currently fund fraudulent denialists campaigns will be.
So will the capital which currently belongs to high profile denialists. Thanks to the internet we have an excellent record of who said what, when, who made a claim in contradiction to the science, was corrected, and then made the same claim again.
At the moment these behaviours are mostly tolerated, but as climate change starts to bite and community anger grows, attention will turn to those responsible for blocking action, advocating against action, launching smear campaigns against those advocating action.
Litigation is inevitable, against the corporations, yes, but also I suspect against those in the next tier down, and if they are dead, then their assets and those who hold them.
After all, action will be required no matter how late we start, and the later we start, the more expensive (since the more change, the more must be spent on adaptation in addition to mitigation). That money must be found from somewhere. It seems entirely reasonable to extract some of it from the people chiefly responsible for the mess we are/will be in.
Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
Citation needed.
The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Depending on who you ask?
Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?
Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Which is of course ironic, because you just said "mass" when you meant "surface area", and labelled the last 15 year of slower warming "a long term trend".
Incidentally, both Heartland Institute and Watts say with considerable evidence support, that the above linked document (which is the only document of the "leaked documents" to make these claims) was fake [wattsupwiththat.com]. I agree with that assessment.
Your feelings don't matter. What matters is proof.
Your sourcewatch link fails to note this defense except in passing (Heartland apparently issued take-down notices to several blogs which were hosting the allegedly defamatory work) which is quite dishonest.
You're right. Heartland's huge overreaction and stand over tactics in this case is indicative of their dishonesty. If the paper was fake (as they claimed) they would have reacted by laughing it off, not by threats.
Which is incorrect. He has for example been a coauthor on several research papers, organized the "Surface Stations Project" (a volunteer effort to document the condition of US weather stations) in 2007,
By his own admission he received $40 000 from the Heartland institute to conduct this "research" which was contradicted by an actual science project by Richard Muller some time later - Muller's results led him to abandon his previously skeptical beliefs, much to the dismay of leading denialists, including Watts himself.
and of course, commented on the state of climatology research since 2006.
He writes a blog, for which he is handsomely paid by the Heartland institute (see leaked documents above).
If they were really interested in obtaining an honest, accurate appraisal of the temperature data they should have hired someone who had actual experience or qualifications.
Typical erroneous application of the argument from authority fallacy.
It might surprise you to learn, but scientists actually are required to know the scientific method and in general to contend with expert opinion on a subject you need to in fact have some expertise yourself. When I need a mechnanic I don't go to a guy who blogs about mechanics - I got to a mechanic. When I need a doctor, I go to a doctor - not someone who blogs about doctors. Similarly, when I need an opinion about climate, I go to someone with actual qualifications, not some who blogs about people with qualifications, but whose knowledge of the subject is demonstrably less than my own.
I note that as of 2012, the time of the above document you refer to, he would have been engaging in his above efforts for around six years. That actually would have made him qualified for this imaginary role.
Because he writes a blog? Is this a joke, or is your argument really as flawed as it appears?
We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication.
First, that wouldn't have been particularly difficult to achieve. She would just need a confederate with access to the AR5 report.
But she didn't.
The way the report is assembled, there are hundreds of people with access to part or all of the drafts of the document. Second, where is actual evidence that she might have said falsehoods in this case?
Because she claimed that AR5 would halve the rate of measured sensitivity and said she knew this because she had seen a draft. In fact, the sensitivity did not change under AR5. Her remarks were part of a coordinated effort to discredit AR5 prior to publication.
He also claims that he isn't actually paid by Heartland Institute.
Leaked internal documents from Heartand say differently.funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."
Also Watts is not a scientist. If they were really interested in obtaining an honest, accurate appraisal of the temperature data they should have hired someone who had actual experience or qualifications. But they didn't want an accurate rendering of the data, they simply wanted denial.
Slashdot Mirror
What many skeptics "deny" is that global warming is likely to be big problem. They agree that global warming exists at some level.
Agreed - they believe several fundamentally contradictory things at once. This is yet more evidence that their position has no basis in fact.
Why should we take someone like you seriously who argues against strawmen?
You are begging the question by assuming that it matters whether you take the facts seriously, either to me or to anyone else.
On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.
I'm not convinced that that is true. For one thing, it pre-supposes there is debate, which would require an exchange of ideas, which requires at least two sides to present axioms they consider to be true with some foundational reasons why we should think that those ideas are true. That is not what is happening here. It is not clear, for a start, that many denialists think of their arguments as factual - merely as a position that they hold because they self identify with a group of people who hold that as a position - a political/tribal 'view' if you like. They expect a debate on this in much the way that two opposing political ideologies might debate for the sake of finding a common ground. So they will repeatedly make the same debunked claims, e.g. Ice mass in the Antarctic is increasing! because even though this statement is debunked by observation they expect to negotiate from some middle ground. Whether the statement is factual or not is irrelevant - what matters is that an opposing view is stated, regardless of how extreme, because after that, we try to compromise on a position that is mutually satisfactory. That is how the world works, right?
Wrong.
Reality is more powerful than ideology. Reality will always win. Doesn't matter if you reject gravity, gravity still acts. You can't negotiate for, say, acceleration due to gravity to be 4.5 m/s/s. You can't negotiate with Global Warming either. It is, and will continue to be.
People who deny it, like people who deny gravity, or a terminal cancer diagnosis after a biopsy, are in denial. Thus the term "denialist" or "denier". It describes a mental condition. It doesn't preclude debate, as an ad hominem would. It's just coincident with tthe fact that there is no debate, just a group of people reporting on observations, and another group of people stating a position absent observation or factual grounding.
What *is* "thinking", anyway? It has got to be more than reasoning, right?
Dunno. What are your thoughts on it?
The only thing that would stop it [machine sentience] is the fall of civilization.
It's hard to judge that, because we don't actually know what machine sentience is, nor how to get there, so we can't validly judge whether the efforts we make in that regard are bringing us closer to it, whether we are approaching it asymptotically, or we are making no progress at all.
Even assuming we can make, or even measure, progress toward machine sentience, dozens, perhaps hundreds of civilisations have fallen, and none of them created sentient machines. Expecting our civilisation to continue in perpetuity seems incautious.
There is nothing inevitable about it.
Well, we're a Christian Nation, aren't we? Shouldn't we respect life, forgive and what not?"
Well, according to progressives, we're not...
You aren't, because there's no such thing. There's no mention of a concept of a Christian Nation in the Bible, the collective is a "church". The Old Testament has a nation (of a sort) which is Israel but they aren't bound by the political structure centering around the judges and later, kings, but around a common identity based on Abraham as the recipient of God's covenantal promises - promises which extended explicitly to Abraham's physical descendants, which is the common identity of Israel.
As for whether Christians ought to support the death penalty, the idea is absurd. For on thing, the vast majority of Christians understand that any punishment devised will ultimately apply to them, since on average the daily experience of Christians is one of persecution, loss and hazard because of their faith. To promote the death penalty, knowing that it is applied to Christians in other places and times merely on account of their faith, is repugnant to a thinking and faithful Christian.
For another, when Jesus speaks he doesn't speak in a code that allows Americans to continue doing or believing whatever they want. You've simply excused your inherited ethical code by eisegesis, instead of exegesis.
I use the word 'liable' in the sense that sometime in the future when the consequences of climate change start to hurt inevitably many will be asking who is responsible for the fact that no timely action was taken? At which point those who indulged in speculative fantasies and chose to promote those fantasies had better lawyer up.
Again, you have missed the point, but then that is not surprising.
Hardly likely, since I made the point, and thus get to say what the point is.
No increase in the Sun's output has been observed. There have been no observed climate changes on other planets coincident with the period of warming on earth. No plausible explanation has been proffered as to how adding greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has zero effect, contrary to experimental and direct observation.
It is thus a stupid argument that implies the people that proffer it are stupid.
You're right, how incomprehensibly silly to point out that increasing temperatures observed on multiple planets in our solar system might suggest that the Earth's warming is primarily due to something other than yuppies driving SUVs.
It would be silly to speculate on that, absent being able to provide any such observation to prove it, and absent an explanation as to why increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are NOT causing warming, per the long accepted greenhouse gas theory established 150 years ago.
(a) there are no such observations
(b) The impact of CO2 in the atmosphere has been directly and indirectly observed.
For some reason, the anti-science crowd continues to miss the point. to disprove the theory that increased quantities of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere will net positive energy to that system they need to address the radiative properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) directly. Otherwise, a warming trend from increased concentrations is inevitable. Physics - it's a bitch.
If other planets are observed to be experiencing a similar warming to that being observed here, it seems likely that the warming is caused by something which all of the planers have in common.
And if there are no such observations, we can stop pretending.
Because they are not proxies in this case. No one is suggesting that the earth's temperature should be measured by measuring the temperature on another planet.
They are proxies for measuring the output of the sun, which we already measure directly.
. If the temperature is rising on other planets in a similar fashion as the earth (if such is indeed the case), it wouldn't be a way to measure earth's temperature. It would be an extremely strong indication that either your current direct measurment of the sun's energy is broken, you are measuring the wrong energy being expelled by the sun, or there is likely another astronomical energy source that is affecting the planets.
But no such changes have been observed, making this point moot. Secondly, nobody has stated a plausible reason to doubt that pumping millions of tons of CO2 into the troposphere will cause it to warm, as predicted 150 years ago and now observed, directly and indirectly. So if some (curiously unobserved) change in the sun's output or some oogie boogie radiation from deep space were causing the other planets to warm, we wouldn't conclude that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere of our own planet doesn't make it warm - we've already observed that it does, indirectly and directly.
Yes, because the fact that other planets in the same solar system are experiencing similar warming(if such is indeed the case) has absolutely no value in interpreting why this planet is doing the same
Are you saying we can't (and aren't) measuring the output of the sun directly? Why would proxies be a better measure? Detail please.
The Watts example was based solely on what looks to me to be a forged document.
Well, thanks once again for describing your feelings.
We have no evidence that forgeries always state the truth and plenty of evidence that instead they are almost universally intended to commit some variation of fraud.
And you leap from speculating that the document might be forged to assuming it was. Nice one.
Meanwhile (as noted) we have Watt's own admission that he took money from The Heartland Institute.
It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent.
She posts with regular frequency on her blog. If the above were true, we would have noticed.
The veracity of this statement is undetermined. I suspect that someone could easily parody the writings of a denialist blogger for months at a time and none of the gullible readers would recognise the difference. As I previously noted (and you apparently agree) : Watts himself has made no statement applicable to the topic of his blog (climate science) that both contradicted the mainstream science and was true. Yet even on slashdot readers will reference his blog as proof against science.
Dr Judith's approach is slightly different. She likes to frame ordinary statements in a tone of scandal, as if she has made some groundbreaking statement, or make reference to some ordinary fact in a tone of disbelief without actually contradicting or even disagreeing with it. Reference this one - which is about someone's hurt feelings and decision to resign from sham organisation set up to try and smear a layer of apparent respectability over the ridiculous, self contradictory clutter of assertions that is climate denial. Oooh the scandal.
Or this - meant to be a summary of the NCAR - except Judith tells us she didnt read it. Well, thanks for the tip. That's a devastating critique of a paper you didn't read.
Ok, show me these bales.
Dr Judith openly admits she takes money from big oil for expressing her views. I also note that she openly admits she doesn't know whether climate is forced by anthropogenic means and to what extent. Well Judith, maybe do some reading before commenting on it.
As I was saying: I like living in societies transformed by science, I do not like living in societies transformed by government mandate, whether that transformation is rooted in science or anything else.
And as I was saying, feel free to join the Amish.
So in your mind, the idea that Jews are inferior is rational and scientific?
[snip irrelevant blather]
It's a simple question requiring a yes or no answer. Yes or No?
We will likely discover soon that the red spot is shrinking because in fact, it's jupiter's face and he is palming it at the the stupidity of the gullible.
It's not clear that the childish belief is theirs rather than yours.
... So, using your own logic here: why is it that when we see comparisons of "warming" and ice starting from 1937, rather than 1979, we see no warming pattern or ice loss?
The first link I found had observational data from the 1940's.
Not at all. It is the attempt to transform a society based on science that is the hallmark of fascism and communism. The problem with it is that it never succeeds.
Except in case where it does, e.g. the one you live in, but apparently think is a Nazi/Communist conspiracy.
Einstein left because the scientists in Germany had concluded that Jews were inferior human beings and Germany's rational, scientific society acted upon that belief.
So in your mind, the idea that Jews are inferior is rational and scientific?
Am I a Nazi or a Communist?
I suspect you're ideologically closer to fascism than communism, but differences are minor.
Well, thanks for letting me know.
Your feelings don't matter. What matters is proof.
Which as I see it, is on the side of Watts.
You've got a feeling that Watt's is an a-ok guy and the things he says are straight and true. I get it.
Similarly - this guy feels that science is a Nazi Communist conspiracy and therefore society should not make decisions based on scientific reasoning.
I tend to steer away from "assertions as proof" and look at actual evidence as being required in either case. In the case of Watt's, he admits to being funded by the Heartland institute but wants to quibble about the mechanics of that funding. In either case, Watt's is funded to lie, since if the Heartland Institute was interested in accurate science based commentary on the subject, they would have hired an actual climatologist. They didn't, Watt's analysis of the weather station data was flawed either deliberately or through ignorance - when corrected by actual scientists he insisted that he was right - he was paid to lie and fulfilled the terms of his employment.
And continues to lie to this day.
And what was your evidence that she lied here or even was factually incorrect?
It's true - there might be another explanation - that she is mentally incompetent. On balance though, I'd suggest it's more likely she is just corrupt - corrupted by the bales of money she gets to preach the word of denialism to the ignorant.
"Societies transformed by science" is exactly what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were aiming for.
Science is a Nazi communist consipiracy. Got it. I guess that means Einstein was a Nazi collaborator?
On the other hand, there has never been a society successfully "transformed by science".
He says by typing it out on THE INTERNET.
Having lived in communist countries and having relatives how lived under the Nazis, I don't have to imagine. And knowing a bit of history, I also know what leads there, and it starts with people like you.
Am I a Nazi or a Communist?
I have to tell you, I intend to quote you. You are the single greatest argument for government action on climate change I have ever come across.
So will the capital which currently belongs to high profile denialists. Thanks to the internet we have an excellent record of who said what, when, who made a claim in contradiction to the science, was corrected, and then made the same claim again.
At the moment these behaviours are mostly tolerated, but as climate change starts to bite and community anger grows, attention will turn to those responsible for blocking action, advocating against action, launching smear campaigns against those advocating action.
Litigation is inevitable, against the corporations, yes, but also I suspect against those in the next tier down, and if they are dead, then their assets and those who hold them.
After all, action will be required no matter how late we start, and the later we start, the more expensive (since the more change, the more must be spent on adaptation in addition to mitigation). That money must be found from somewhere. It seems entirely reasonable to extract some of it from the people chiefly responsible for the mess we are/will be in.
Ah. You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?
Citation needed.
The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?
Depending on who you ask?
Has there been a warming trend over the last 15-17 years, or hasn't there - and how, in the name of Zombie Tyndall, is that a 'long term trend'?
Just curious. I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.
Which is of course ironic, because you just said "mass" when you meant "surface area", and labelled the last 15 year of slower warming "a long term trend".
Do you think the crust under the ocean is not floating on the the SAME liquid mantle?
Incidentally, both Heartland Institute and Watts say with considerable evidence support, that the above linked document (which is the only document of the "leaked documents" to make these claims) was fake [wattsupwiththat.com]. I agree with that assessment.
Your feelings don't matter. What matters is proof.
Your sourcewatch link fails to note this defense except in passing (Heartland apparently issued take-down notices to several blogs which were hosting the allegedly defamatory work) which is quite dishonest.
You're right. Heartland's huge overreaction and stand over tactics in this case is indicative of their dishonesty. If the paper was fake (as they claimed) they would have reacted by laughing it off, not by threats.
Which is incorrect. He has for example been a coauthor on several research papers, organized the "Surface Stations Project" (a volunteer effort to document the condition of US weather stations) in 2007,
By his own admission he received $40 000 from the Heartland institute to conduct this "research" which was contradicted by an actual science project by Richard Muller some time later - Muller's results led him to abandon his previously skeptical beliefs, much to the dismay of leading denialists, including Watts himself.
and of course, commented on the state of climatology research since 2006.
He writes a blog, for which he is handsomely paid by the Heartland institute (see leaked documents above).
If they were really interested in obtaining an honest, accurate appraisal of the temperature data they should have hired someone who had actual experience or qualifications.
Typical erroneous application of the argument from authority fallacy.
It might surprise you to learn, but scientists actually are required to know the scientific method and in general to contend with expert opinion on a subject you need to in fact have some expertise yourself. When I need a mechnanic I don't go to a guy who blogs about mechanics - I got to a mechanic. When I need a doctor, I go to a doctor - not someone who blogs about doctors. Similarly, when I need an opinion about climate, I go to someone with actual qualifications, not some who blogs about people with qualifications, but whose knowledge of the subject is demonstrably less than my own.
I note that as of 2012, the time of the above document you refer to, he would have been engaging in his above efforts for around six years. That actually would have made him qualified for this imaginary role.
Because he writes a blog? Is this a joke, or is your argument really as flawed as it appears?
We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication.
First, that wouldn't have been particularly difficult to achieve. She would just need a confederate with access to the AR5 report.
But she didn't.
The way the report is assembled, there are hundreds of people with access to part or all of the drafts of the document. Second, where is actual evidence that she might have said falsehoods in this case?
Because she claimed that AR5 would halve the rate of measured sensitivity and said she knew this because she had seen a draft. In fact, the sensitivity did not change under AR5. Her remarks were part of a coordinated effort to discredit AR5 prior to publication.
He also claims that he isn't actually paid by Heartland Institute.
Leaked internal documents from Heartand say differently. funding climate change deniers Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 a month), James Taylor who has written a lot about Climategate through his Forbes blog, and Anthony Watts ($90,000 for 2012) to challenge "warmist science essays that counter our own," including funding "external networks (such as WUWT [Watts Up With That?] and other groups capable of rapidly mobilizing responses to new scientific findings, news stories, or unfavorable blog posts)."
Also Watts is not a scientist. If they were really interested in obtaining an honest, accurate appraisal of the temperature data they should have hired someone who had actual experience or qualifications. But they didn't want an accurate rendering of the data, they simply wanted denial.