APS and the Global Warming Scam

[SoAMadDeathWish]

How could someone who is the serious student of climate science that you pose as being not have heard of Ehrlich?

Because he's a population biologist and not a climate scientist.

In all of your deep studies of climate science, you've never come across Ehrlich's views and his influence over the subject? Wow. I guess that's what happens when one has a hasty Google search/Wikipedia "education."

Well, his work has nothing to do with climate science, seeing as how it is population biology, which isn't climate science. Do you see how that works?

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 May 2014 - 2:13 PM, said:

I said no one in population biology takes his claims seriously. And, no, neither does Stanford University, and I could care less about his leftist critics.

So, your position is that he is employed at Stanford as Professor of Population Studies and Biological Sciences, as well as President of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology, because Stanford doesn't take him seriously?

You can clearly see that I never said that Stanford University doesn't take him seriously, but rather that they don't take the alarmist claims that he published in his books seriously.

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 May 2014 - 2:13 PM, said:

It's obvious that since he has never published his claims in a peer-reviewed journal...

Where did you get the idea that he has never published in a peer-reviewed journal?

I never said that he has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal period. I said that he has never published the claims in his books in a peer-reviewed journal.

SoAMadDeathWish, on 23 May 2014 - 2:13 PM, said:

...that none of his peers in population biology take them seriously.

You just now discovered who he is, and instantly you're an expert on what all of his peers think of him and his work?

You selectively quoted me there. That quote should read:

It's obvious that since he has never published his claims in a peer-reviewed journal, that none of his peers in population biology take them seriously.

Which should answer your question.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] It is hard to think of one area of human intellectual achievement that some well-known or prominent Objectivist has not denied. Everything from abstract mathematics and modern physics, to evolution and climatology has been accused of either philosophical or political corruption. These "skeptics" are shown to be completely uninformed about the subject they criticize every single time. That Dennis L. May character was just one among many supposed Objectivist "experts" who engage in this sort of nonsense.

For the record: Dennis May isn't an Objectivist, and neither are many of the regular posters here (including Bob Kolker and me).

I disagree with Naomi's evaluation of Dennis' expertise and views. I was intending, just after Dennis left, to respond to some questions Naomi asked Dennis on another thread, but then I decided against going to the bother, considering the way Naomi approaches discussion.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I disagree with Naomi's evaluation of Dennis' expertise and views. I was intending, just after Dennis left, to respond to some questions Naomi asked Dennis on another thread, but then I decided against going to the bother, considering the way Naomi approaches discussion.

Ellen,

You certainly saved yourself some needless aggravation.

This girl is not a serious intellectual. She sees things only in a tribal "us against them" framework at root (with her "us" being the elite enlightened and "them" being the stupid people like OL members) and is on a mission to convert the heathen by snark and posture.

Notice that you have mentioned many times before you are not an Objectivist, including those people you cited. I'm about 99.9999% sure you already mentioned this to Naomi--and more than once at that. But that doesn't take in the mind of a person governed by tribal mentality. You will probably have to repeat that another 8 or 10 times for it to sink in. And even then, after some time passes...

It's comical to watch this girl congratulate herself for being the reason Dennis took time off from online posting. She thinks she did some great intellectual feat that embarrassed him or something and sent him packing when the most she did was irritate him like a child sticking her tongue out and going nyah nyah nyah.

Because of her mind games, I'm basically leaving this thread open right now to mock her. I'm saying it openly. It doesn't matter to me anymore if she says something that is true or false. I've lost interest in what she believes. She's a troll and I intend to treat her as she deserves.

(As you can probably tell, I've lost my good will with her. )

If someone else shows up to discuss climate change from the pro side and is reasonable, that would be a pleasure, but I seriously doubt reasonable discussions are possible about this issue anymore. The moment anyone broaches this topic, the tribes come out in full and start the mind games all over. And the sheer quantity and intensity of intellectual sleaze, especially from proponents of AGW, is a turnoff. This girl is a perfect example.

The good news is that the drift of the public seems to be going in the right direction even with Obama making his efforts to magically decree facts into existence, although those interested in the money and power available if crap like cap and trade (or similar) ever pass keeps them fighting hard for their shot at graft and corruption. So they should not be underestimated. I do admit, the gobs and gobs of unearned money are tempting.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

The public isn't stupid. It may have bad taste, and it can be manipulated short-term, but long-term, it isn't stupid. Notice that the climate change people have had an awfully long time to make their case and they are now losing ground big-time. This despite oodles of money thrown at the media over decades, bullying scientists the world over, an Academy Award for a documentary, on up to the recent bogus claim by Obama that this is "settled science." They are losing and they can't seem to stop it.

Correction: an Academy Award for a science-fiction movie posing as a documentary.

I think our schools have taught young people that lying--even blatant lying--is a tool, not a moral issue. That's why they are so casual about doing it. No big deal. Truth is merely a tool, too. If one doesn't work to get someone to agree or shut up, use the other. The payoff is to control others, not convince them.

I also think these young people become perplexed when faced with those who get mad at being lied to. It's not that they are immoral. They are amoral. They never learned to think in terms of right and wrong and the self-respect that comes with it. (Notice amoral folks tend to be very unhappy.)

I think that is true of a sizable percentage of college students today. I'd guess about a fourth to a third, but that's just a guess from the informal method of hearing my husband's and other professor's reports of the amount of cheating and the nonchalantness those found guilty of cheating generally display, as if they're simply irritated by the nuisance of being caught and feel no sense of wrong-doing.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's an interesting addition that riffs off of the Bengsston case:

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

By Axel Bojanowski

May 23, 2014

Spiegel Online

Rather than quote from this article, I want to make a comment. Take the perspective of someone who is not a climate expert. Then go to that article and read it. That's no big sacrifice since it is written for the mainstream anyway.

What impression do you get?

I'm not talking about the merits of the science (although I clearly have my views on that), just the behavior of the experts re their disagreements. Look at what they are saying and doing.

Would you agree to submit to brain surgery if the brain surgeons acted like that with each other?

So is it any wonder the public is tired of this crap?

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Also for the record: I strongly disagree with the philosophy of scientific method Bob presents in post #78, but I'm not going to try to get into that debate on this thread.

~~

Adam, I've only glanced at the paper you cite in post #79, but it looks like it's one from a person who thinks there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect." A small percentage of "denialists" literally deny that greenhouse gases produce any warming. Be wary.

~~~

Naomi, re post #80: Have you anywhere said what you mean by "AGW"? The term is elastic. I'm taking you to mean the idea that human-produced CO2 is having a "disruptive" to "catastrophic" effect on climate dynamics.

If this is your meaning, then, turning a question back at you:

[...] why can't you find even a single reputable source which refutes it?

A few minutes with a search engine would turn up plenty. But since you'll predefine "reputable" as confirming it...

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

For the record: Dennis May isn't an Objectivist, and neither are many of the regular posters here (including Bob Kolker and me).

I disagree with Naomi's evaluation of Dennis' expertise and views. I was intending, just after Dennis left, to respond to some questions Naomi asked Dennis on another thread, but then I decided against going to the bother, considering the way Naomi approaches discussion.

Ellen

He may not have been an Objectivist, but he most certainly was a crank who didn't know anything about physics.

I disagree with Naomi's evaluation of Dennis' expertise and views. I was intending, just after Dennis left, to respond to some questions Naomi asked Dennis on another thread, but then I decided against going to the bother, considering the way Naomi approaches discussion.

Ellen,

You certainly saved yourself some needless aggravation.

This girl is not a serious intellectual. She sees things only in a tribal "us against them" framework at root (with her "us" being the elite enlightened and "them" being the stupid people like OL members) and is on a mission to convert the heathen by snark and posture.

I never claimed that I was a serious intellectual. I'm just somebody who posts on the internet and studies sciencey stuff as a hobby. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I just like to argue with people (but I also like to win! ) . Not for its own sake, it's just how I learn, and arguing with Objectivish people and libertarians is how I came to Rand and similar intellectuals in the first place.

Notice that you have mentioned many times before you are not an Objectivist, including those people you cited. I'm about 99.9999% sure you already mentioned this to Naomi--and more than once at that. But that doesn't take in the mind of a person governed by tribal mentality. You will probably have to repeat that another 8 or 10 times for it to sink in. And even then, after some time passes...

I actually never said that Ellen was an Objectivist, nor do I care whether or not she is.

Because of her mind games, I'm basically leaving this thread open right now to mock her. I'm saying it openly. It doesn't matter to me anymore if she says something that is true or false. I've lost interest in what she believes. She's a troll and I intend to treat her as she deserves.

(As you can probably tell, I've lost my good will with her. )

If someone else shows up to discuss climate change from the pro side and is reasonable, that would be a pleasure, but I seriously doubt reasonable discussions are possible about this issue anymore. The moment anyone broaches this topic, the tribes come out in full and start the mind games all over. And the sheer quantity and intensity of intellectual sleaze, especially from proponents of AGW, is a turnoff. This girl is a perfect example.

The good news is that the drift of the public seems to be going in the right direction even with Obama making his efforts to magically decree facts into existence, although those interested in the money and power available if crap like cap and trade (or similar) ever pass keeps them fighting hard for their shot at graft and corruption. So they should not be underestimated. I do admit, the gobs and gobs of unearned money are tempting.

Michael

I'm not trolling anyone. I will admit that I am arrogant and that my style can be very direct and annoying, and the discussion can get kinda pointed at times. I'm not perfect, and I can get frustrated with people at times, just like anybody else.

But I'm always willing to let bygones be bygones. Even with Selene. I know we don't have a pretty history, but if he posts something that he thinks is worth talking about, I always give it careful consideration, and give my reasons for disagreeing when I disagree. Even if I disagree very forcefully, I never arbitrarily dismiss what anyone says, nor do I quote them selectively, or "play mindgames" in any other way.

I never give up on people, no matter what they've said or done, so long as what they're saying now has some merit. With regard to reasonable discussion, I stated my reasons for believing what I believe earlier in the thread, and I simply asked others to do the same. I don't think that that is at all unreasonable.

I like to debate and argue, and that is what I do. What I really dislike is when things get all personal and stuff. That being said, Michael, in all honesty I think you've brought in some baggage from the past that I had nothing to do with and you're dumping it all on me. That's just how I see it, and I think it's uncool.

Like I said, I don't really like to make things personal, but I have to defend myself when I think I'm being accused of stuff I didn't do. You can continue to mock me all you like, but I've said my peace on this subject.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Also for the record: I strongly disagree with the philosophy of scientific method Bob presents in post #78, but I'm not going to try to get into that debate on this thread.

~~

Adam, I've only glanced at the paper you cite in post #79, but it looks like it's one from a person who thinks there is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect." A small percentage of "denialists" literally deny that greenhouse gases produce any warming. Be wary.

~~~

Naomi, re post #80: Have you anywhere said what you mean by "AGW"? The term is elastic. I'm taking you to mean the idea that human-produced CO2 is having a "disruptive" to "catastrophic" effect on climate dynamics.

If this is your meaning, then, turning a question back at you:

[...] why can't you find even a single reputable source which refutes it?

A few minutes with a search engine would turn up plenty. But since you'll predefine "reputable" as confirming it...

Ellen

That is what I mean.

I don't define "reputable" as confirming AGW. By "reputable" I mean a source that is either a paper by climatologists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or other work that is based on such peer-reviewed research.

As to why I can't find it, I guess it simply doesn't exist. Like I've said, if you can show it to me, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Dennis] may not have been an Objectivist, but he most certainly was a crank who didn't know anything about physics.

You do say some inadvertently funny things.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But I'm always willing to let bygones be bygones.

Who the hell wants that?

Just because you don't respect yourself doesn't mean I have to respect you to make up for it.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't define "reputable" as confirming AGW. By "reputable" I mean a source that is either a paper by climatologists in a peer-reviewed scientific journal or other work that is based on such peer-reviewed research.

As to why I can't find it, I guess it simply doesn't exist. Like I've said, if you can show it to me, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

I.e., "reputable" to you means certified by the very people who won't allow dissenting papers to be published in the major journals.

There's plenty of work which has been checked thoroughly by competent critics and published in sources other than the major journals. Happy searching.

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I.e., "reputable" to you means certified by the very people who won't allow dissenting papers to be published in the major journals.

There's plenty of work which has been checked thoroughly by competent critics and published in sources other than the major journals. Happy searching.

Ellen

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

If you think that dissenting papers are rejected, not because they have failed to meet the standards of scientific rigor, but because of a political agenda that is enforced by a world-wide conspiracy of governments and climate scientists, then the onus is on you to prove it.

[Selene]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

Out of curiosity, you being the resident imbecile asserting that position, please point us helpless lost folks to the exact page of the peer-reviewed journals wherein the "scientific standards" are clearly stated.

Thks

A...

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Ba'al Chatzaf,

I just recently checked out the book Global Physical Climatology, by Dennis L. Hartmann again. I understand you had some concerns about the natural causes of climate change. The book devotes a whole chapter to the effects of ocean currents on climate and another chapter to all other causes of natural climate change such as variations in solar output, volcanic eruptions and stratospheric aerosols, and the orbital parameter theory of Ice Ages.

I think you could benefit greatly from reading it.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

Out of curiosity, you being the resident imbecile asserting that position, please point us helpless lost folks to the exact page of the peer-reviewed journals wherein the "scientific standards" are clearly stated.

Thks

A...

Everything you could ever ask for:

http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/index.html

For any journal, you can go on their site, look at the section for authors and find their guidelines.

EDIT: More information here http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/index.html

[Selene]

About Nature Welcome to Nature, the weekly, international, interdisciplinary journal of science.

Citations and Impact Factor

Nature is the world's most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2012 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2013). Its Impact Factor is 38.597. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a calendar year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA.

Aims and scope

Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public.

Nature's mission statement

First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.

Nature's original mission statement was published for the first time on 11 November 1869.

History of the Journal Nature

History of the Journal Nature has specially commissioned essays and videos, and timelines and an interactive forum, bringing to life the science published in Nature since 1869.

Contact the journal

Provides contact details for editorial, subscription, librarian and advertising departments.

About the editors

Like the other Nature titles, Nature has no external editorial board. Instead, all editorial decisions are made by a team of full-time professional editors. Information about the scientific background of the editors may be found here.

A full list of journal staff appears on the masthead.

Nature Awards

Nature currently supports two awards. The Nature Awards for Mentoring in Science are run by Nature, and recognise key scientists who have made outstanding contributions to mentoring younger scientists. In addition, Nature supports the Eppendorf Young European Investigator Award, which is given annually to a young scientist who is chosen by an independent scientific panel.

So wouldn't Erlich fit in here:

Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public.

Hmmm, interesting standard,

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

And it's such a good thing people on the inside keep falling to the outside and complaining about all the bullying and fanaticism on the inside.

It's so nice to ignore all that.

I know where I have seen this pattern before: Scientology.

They used to persecute the dissenters just like the AGW people are doing now. Lots of money and power to do it, too. The AWG zealots use different tactics, but have the same level of dirty tricks as Scientology. And they have even more money and power.

The great thing about the Internet is that it is taking down Scientology because the gatekeepers were not able to restrict access to insider information. Man did they holler "conspiracy" and all kinds of stuff, but they couldn't stop the flood of information.

This is the same thing that is taking down the fanatics in the AGW movement. Unfortunately too many scientists have been toadies to them.

And too many useful idiots like this person here who worship the wrong myths and call them science.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not trolling anyone. ...

I never arbitrarily dismiss what anyone says, nor do I quote them selectively, or "play mindgames" in any other way. ...

What I really dislike is when things get all personal and stuff. ...

Heh.

It's a good life when you can do it, then when called on it, say you don't and actually believe the facts went away.

Abracadabra...

(And the public keeps drifting and I keep getting happier by the moment...)

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

And it's such a good thing people on the inside keep falling to the outside and complaining about all the bullying and fanaticism on the inside.

It's so nice to ignore all that.

I know where I have seen this pattern before: Scientology.

They used to persecute the dissenters just like the AGW people are doing now. Lots of money and power to do it, too. The AWG zealots use different tactics, but have the same level of dirty tricks as Scientology. And they have even more money and power.

The great thing about the Internet is that it is taking down Scientology because the gatekeepers were not able to restrict access to insider information. Man did they holler "conspiracy" and all kinds of stuff, but they couldn't stop the flood of information.

This is the same thing that is taking down the fanatics in the AGW movement. Unfortunately too many scientists have been toadies to them.

And too many useful idiots like this person here who worship the wrong myths and call them science.

Michael

Have you considered the opposite possibility? What do you think of this: US Climate Scientists Pressured on Climate Change

Or this: NASA 'played down' global warming to protect Bush

Or this: White house cuts 'global warming' from report.

Or this: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science

Or this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/va-supreme-court-tosses-cuccinellis-case-against-u-va/2012/03/02/gIQAeOqjmR_blog.html

Or how about all this "government money" going to "mainstream climate research scientists and organizations."

Or how about this too?

Or how about this particularly funny incident.

Or would you like even more money?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

That's your game, not mine. I ain't defending Bush. He's a big government progressive just like Obama and the people behind AGW are.

But that doesn't mean I think that crap you linked to is A-OK, either. A pox on them all.

The Republican brand of progressive likes wars and nation-building. The Democratic brand of progressive likes social issues, distribution of wealth and global warming. Both love crony capitalism and screwing over everybody but their insider clubs.

They keep the public fighting over these things to keep people busy hating each other and ignore the fact that both grow the government and expand its powers, mostly through debt.

You defend the Democratic progressive agenda, so you're just another suck-up seeking to suckle at the teats of the government and call that science.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

I think it would be a good thing, and still is in some areas, but that it's never a good thing to presume about an article that appears in any source, and that you recite the "peer review" catechism like a religionist.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's a peer-reviewed paper on climate change:

Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements
by Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao
American Journal of Agricultural Economics

Abstract:

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.

I caught this on a Google search and landed at a conservative climate change watchdog site:

Peer reviewed paper: It’s OK to lie about climate
by Craig Rucker
April 4, 2014
CFACT

From the article:

You won't find it shocking to learn that suppressing inconvenient facts, lying about climate science and exaggerating tales about natural weather are deliberate strategies for global warming campaigners.

What will shock you is that two professors not only candidly admit it, but published a paper in a peer reviewed journal touting the beneficial effects of lying for pushing nations into a UN climate treaty in Paris next year!

The title of their study?

“Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements.”

. . .

Take a look at this advance draft from CFACT President David Rothbard for one of our upcoming Just the Facts radio broadcasts:

. . .

"According to Kevin Glass of Townhall.com, the paper claims that the urgency of climate change makes it OK to deceive the public about the projected consequences of global warming. They don't actually use the word “lying,” but by calling for “informational manipulation and exaggeration,” they certainly think the ends justify these very questionable and over-heated means.”

Love those peer-reviewed standards of excellence when it comes to climate change...

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

That's your game, not mine. I ain't defending Bush. He's a big government progressive just like Obama and the people behind AGW are.

But that doesn't mean I think that crap you linked to is A-OK, either. A pox on them all.

The Republican brand of progressive likes wars and nation-building. The Democratic brand of progressive likes social issues, distribution of wealth and global warming. Both love crony capitalism and screwing over everybody but their insider clubs.

They keep the public fighting over these things to keep people busy hating each other and ignore the fact that both grow the government and expand its powers, mostly through debt.

You defend the Democratic progressive agenda, so you're just another suck-up seeking to suckle at the teats of the government and call that science.

Michael

Ok, first of all, no.

What I'm trying to get at is, doesn't this funding of AGW-skeptics by Cronies like Exxon Mobil and other to discredit AGW, and censorship of climate scientists by the government (specifically the Bush administration) kind of call into question the credibility of AGW skepticism? (just as you claimed that government funding of climate scientists calls into question their credibility).

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I think it's a good thing that peer-reviewed journals have scientific standards and reject papers which fail to meet those standards.

I think it would be a good thing, and still is in some areas, but that it's never a good thing to presume about an article that appears in any source, and that you recite the "peer review" catechism like a religionist.

Ellen

Actually, I would say that it often is a good thing to presume that a non-peer-reviewed "scientific" article is bullshit, seeing as how that is what pretty much all of them are.

Peer-reviewed research represents the best evidence, theories, and arguments that humanity has in any given field. The problem with religionists is not that they extol the virtues of peer-review, but that they take things on faith rather than evidence.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I'm trying to get at is, doesn't this funding of AGW-skeptics by Cronies like Exxon Mobil and other to discredit AGW, and censorship of climate scientists by the government (specifically the Bush administration) kind of call into question the credibility of AGW skepticism? (just as you claimed that government funding of climate scientists calls into question their credibility).

You're starting to glimpse the issue from your fog.

The government funds climate research.

The government funds climate skepticism. (What do you think a crony is?)

When you say one discredits the other, where are you?

Not much, but a start.

Michael