Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.
Comments
29,041 - 29,060 of 46,242 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
kristy

Palm Bay, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30739
Jun 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
A flawed paper getting through is not the same as a denier paper getting rejected because it is obviously fraudulent or unsupportable. People make mistakes and the fact that the paper was withdrawn shows that science works. If there was evidence of fraudulent behavior on the part of a reviewer, then it may be that he or she should be removed from list.
Exactly how was the Spencer and Braswell paper fraudulent?

Wagner's reason for resigning:

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing."

Obviously, the Australian hockey stick paper did not go through a rigorous peer review. The peer review did not identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. The errors were found in internet discussion forums. Exactly the same circumstances, yet the editor for the Spencer paper resigns and the editor for the Gergis paper does not.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30740
Jun 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly how was the Spencer and Braswell paper fraudulent?
Wagner's reason for resigning:
"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published. After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing."
Obviously, the Australian hockey stick paper did not go through a rigorous peer review. The peer review did not identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. The errors were found in internet discussion forums. Exactly the same circumstances, yet the editor for the Spencer paper resigns and the editor for the Gergis paper does not.
Resigning is much different than being ousted!
IAmDigitap

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30741
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Resigning is much different than being ousted!
In any case GLOBAL WARMERS who THAWT T.R.E.E.M.O.M.I.T.U.R.S.

wuz MODURN SINT SURS

are as usual, being found U.T.T.E.R.L.Y. wanting.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30742
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
In your world climate science is settled.
Yes. In the real world, science does occasionally come to conclusions (i.e. theory) which is solidly supported but may have minor refinements to be added.

While science acknowledges that even the solidest theory could be overturned by new data, it is extremely unlikely and the science is good enough to be used in practice.

I wonder sometimes why science is so disparaged by the denialists. Every convenience and even our daily lives are the RESULT of science (applied by engineers). Yet somehow denialists seem to think we can ignore the science we don't like? It is a very strange mental division to acclaim the results of science (modern standards of living) yet deny the validity of the source of those gains. Weird.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30743
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Resigning is much different than being ousted!
But his fault was in letting a faulty science paper to be published, thus lowering the respect and credibility of the journal. I am sorry that he was not sharp enough to spot the flaws in the paper beforehand, but I respect his standing aside to let a more observant or critical editor take over.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30744
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder sometimes why science is so disparaged by the denialists. Every convenience and even our daily lives are the RESULT of science (applied by engineers). Yet somehow denialists seem to think we can ignore the science we don't like? It is a very strange mental division to acclaim the results of science (modern standards of living) yet deny the validity of the source of those gains. Weird.
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility that a goodly proportion of the folks you feel are "disparaging science" are in fact not disparaging science per se - only disparaging the mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas.

This is not at all an unreasonable view, when history (the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward disasters in China, e.g.) as well as present-day experience (Scientology, e.g.) provide so many examples of the ills and horrors that can result when proponents of such movements succeed in foisting their ideologies off on the masses as "scientific."

It is unfair and intellectually dishonest to brand such folks with disparaging labels such as "denialist," when all they are standing up for is an open airing of the true social agenda to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the "scientific" camoflage.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30745
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility that a goodly proportion of the folks you feel are "disparaging science" are in fact not disparaging science per se - only disparaging the mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas.
This is not at all an unreasonable view, when history (the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward disasters in China, e.g.) as well as present-day experience (Scientology, e.g.) provide so many examples of the ills and horrors that can result when proponents of such movements succeed in foisting their ideologies off on the masses as "scientific."
It is unfair and intellectually dishonest to brand such folks with disparaging labels such as "denialist," when all they are standing up for is an open airing of the true social agenda to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the "scientific" camoflage.
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature. The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.

There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.

It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30746
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature. The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.
There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.
Anything other than what you believe in is a conspiracy to you. It is blantantly obvious that the UN's goal, overall, is to govern the world. It has been using science and any other way it can to try to pry sovereign countries of their individual rights. It's attempting to infringe on the US 2nd amendment with global small arms treaty. It is attempting to stick it's nose into the US voting laws. The latest is LOST. Look it up if you don't know what that is. It has been talking about a "global tax". And, the list keeps going. If you don't see this huge political agenda, that is your own shortsightedness, or, possibly naivety. In a perfect world, all the politicization shouldn't enter into the MMCC debate. However, it has weaved it's way so far into it, I don't think there is any chance of cutting it out completely and scrutinizing just the raw science of it.

What you continuously seem to get confused over is not that people are denying the climate is changing. They're not. They are arguing against it being man made. THAT IS THE PLAIN, SIMPLE, FACT that you overlook in your arguments in calling skeptics 'denialists' and other denegrating terms.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30747
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
To promote such a position in my opinion is conspiratorial in nature.
"Conspiratorial??" My goodness! How so? Who exactly are the parties to this "conspiracy?" I had no idea - please let me know who my fellow conspirators are ASAP so I can get together with them in whereever the Evil HQ is and wreak even more eeeevul.
Also - I had no idea that in merely suggesting a possibility I was actually "PROMOTING A POSITION!" Talk about a reactionary response ...
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
The phrase, "mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas." is at best a political statement in itself.
Of course! That's the whole point! As far as I'm concerned, there's no real controversy worth debating outside of the academic literature insofar as the actual science is concerned. The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political. The UN and their creature the IPCC is a POLITICAL body.

The true "deniers" in all this are those who would deny this obvious fact - it's a purely political controversy; NOT scientific. The only reason the science comes into it at all is that one side in the debate is using science as a tactical rhetorical device.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30748
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a difference in promoting social change as being scientific and promoting scientific principles because they withstand the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
You insist on pressing a scientific debate - but you're fencing with ghosts. No one actually CARES about the science. BORING. There's no scientific controversy worth debating (outside of the review comments and correspondence in the academic literature).

The science debate you want to have is a red herring. A Judas goat. A side-show to lure in the Rubes.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not just the denialists who are for open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas. In order for the anti global warming movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for those denying to demonize the science because they have little else to offer. It is much easier to be against something than it is to have support for that position.
Yeah, well that makes it pretty clear you're just another crypto-social engineer doggedly pretending to defend the holy flag of "science" rather than man up, engage and defend your political and social engineering agenda on its broader merits (or lack of merit).

No - some of us that you are so pleased to label as "denialists" couldn't care less about an "open airing of the true science to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the political agendas." No - we want and open and honest airing of the true warmist/alarmist POLITICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC AGENDA to see whether it withstands scrutiny when stripped bare of the spurious SCIENCE smokescreen.

And no, many of those you label as "deniers" have no interest or need to argue or "demonize the science." Take all the AGW "science" you feel compelled to argue incessantly and take it all as given and accepted, in fact. Argument over. Now comes the hard part you don't want to step up to - SO WHAT?! How about we just end the fuss and drama, and get on with making all the preparations necessary to live in a world that's 3 deg. C warmer?

But that option cannot be allowed to be recognized as an option worthy of discussion, can it? Because it drags the TRUE warmist/alarmist ideological, political, and socioeconomic revolutionary game plan out into open - where it's rapidly seen to be indefensible.

Nope - in order for the warmist/alarmist movement to have any teeth, it is paramount for them to insist on making the argument a false one about "the science" because they have little else to offer.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30749
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Conspiratorial??" My goodness! How so? Who exactly are the parties to this "conspiracy?" I had no idea - please let me know who my fellow conspirators are ASAP so I can get together with them in whereever the Evil HQ is and wreak even more eeeevul.
Also - I had no idea that in merely suggesting a possibility I was actually "PROMOTING A POSITION!" Talk about a reactionary response ...
<quoted text>
Of course! That's the whole point! As far as I'm concerned, there's no real controversy worth debating outside of the academic literature insofar as the actual science is concerned. The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political. The UN and their creature the IPCC is a POLITICAL body.
The true "deniers" in all this are those who would deny this obvious fact - it's a purely political controversy; NOT scientific. The only reason the science comes into it at all is that one side in the debate is using science as a tactical rhetorical device.
"The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political."

While that may be true, the fact is that the science supports the premise. If it did not, then there would be no fight. Some just do not want science to get in the way of their agendas. If the skeptical scientists can solidly support their position we would see a change in the premise. Unfortunately, that has not happened.

It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone. This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.

Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30750
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone. This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.
Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.
An RW bias, huh? This link is not about MMCC. However, it IS about how an agenda can affect(align) the "science" you and others continue to insist is not politicized by the(highly ethical - LMAO!) IPCC.
-------
Homeland Security-Funded Study Pushing Tea Party Terrorism Narrative

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/11/homeland...
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30751
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer I suggest lies in remaining open to the possibility that a goodly proportion of the folks you feel are "disparaging science" are in fact not disparaging science per se - only disparaging the mis-use and co-option of science as a stalking horse and camoflage by those whose real purpose is to advance certain 'revolutionary' political and social engineering ideologies and agendas. This is not at all an unreasonable view, when history (the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward disasters in China...
Good gawd. Another teabagger convinced that the entire world scientific community is in cahoots with the ghosts of Mao and Lenin.

I appreciate your attempt to explain the insanity of climate science deniers, but insanity it remains.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30752
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
"The very fact that there is controversy and debate going on AT ALL reveals the fact that this whole AGW/Warmist/Denialist food fight is PURELY political."
While that may be true, the fact is that the science supports the premise. If it did not, then there would be no fight.
While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution, when the real crux of the controversy is a continuation of decades- and even centuries-old ideological feuds between free-market capitalists, socialists, statists, anti-corporatists, antiglobalists, neo-Luddites, environmentalists, over global wealth and income distribution, etc.

Frankly, apart from providing the warmist/alarmist camp with the latest trendy meme to use as leverage, the real scientists and their science are just so much curious but ultimately unimportant baggage in this discussion, to be shuffled off into the corner out of the way when the real nut-cutting begins.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Some just do not want science to get in the way of their agendas.
No doubt - and equally, there are some others that some just don't want to openly and honestly admit the "science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
If the skeptical scientists can solidly support their position we would see a change in the premise. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
Fair point, when the premise in question is truly a scientific matter.

But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is also obvious that the whole thing has taken on a partisan tone.
I would suggest instead it is obvious this is a pre-existing and long-standing partisan fight that has merely moved into a new battle-space (i.e., AGW). It's not the partisan tone that is new ...
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
This is obvious when one scrutinizes the studies showing this very thing. However, the so called independents align more with the science thus showing that there is a definite political RW bias.
Science is not and has never aligned with a liberal agenda....or a RW one for that matter. While there may be political biases among individual scientists, the scientific method is apolitical.
Sorry, amigo - that's just denial on your part. Liberals have no superior claim for being on the side of scientific truth than their partisan foes.

This isn't a matter of scientists aligning with partisan agendas (with some exceptions that are readily reconiled by recognizing the principle that when a scientist crosses the line into advocating a political position, he or she is no longer a scientist), it's a matter of scientists as innocents having their work and names co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, by partisan political actors pushing ideological and political agendas.

When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives.

And liberals are no less prone to demonize, deny, and denigrate science and Nobel Prize-winning scientists when it doesn't happen to support their partisan liberal agendas (e.g., Milton Freedman, to take a blatant example)
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30753
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

*these are matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
Teddy R

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30754
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Good gawd. Another teabagger convinced that the entire world scientific community is in cahoots with the ghosts of Mao and Lenin.
I appreciate your attempt to explain the insanity of climate science deniers, but insanity it remains.
You either misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent my point - experience unfortunately suggests it's probably the latter.

I believe the world scientific community (with certain notable exceptions - a few scientists that have decided to stop being scientists in order to dabble as amateurs in politics) that is largely the innocent and unwitting tool in the Great AGW Controvery.

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30755
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

You climate blamers look your own children in the eyes and condemn them to a CO2 demise. Love the planet with fear?

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30756
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Interesting score on this page.
Alarmists 0 Sceptics 9
Scorers:
Teddy R (6) fishaholic (2) kristy (1)

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30758
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Earthling-1 wrote:
Interesting score on this page.
Alarmists 0 Sceptics 9
Scorers:
Teddy R (6) fishaholic (2) kristy (1)
Earthworm -1

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30759
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution, when the real crux of the controversy is a continuation of decades- and even centuries-old ideological feuds between free-market capitalists, socialists, statists, anti-corporatists, antiglobalists, neo-Luddites, environmentalists, over global wealth and income distribution, etc.
Frankly, apart from providing the warmist/alarmist camp with the latest trendy meme to use as leverage, the real scientists and their science are just so much curious but ultimately unimportant baggage in this discussion, to be shuffled off into the corner out of the way when the real nut-cutting begins.
<quoted text>
No doubt - and equally, there are some others that some just don't want to openly and honestly admit the "science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.
<quoted text>
Fair point, when the premise in question is truly a scientific matter.
But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method.
<quoted text>
I would suggest instead it is obvious this is a pre-existing and long-standing partisan fight that has merely moved into a new battle-space (i.e., AGW). It's not the partisan tone that is new ...
<quoted text>
Sorry, amigo - that's just denial on your part. Liberals have no superior claim for being on the side of scientific truth than their partisan foes.
This isn't a matter of scientists aligning with partisan agendas (with some exceptions that are readily reconiled by recognizing the principle that when a scientist crosses the line into advocating a political position, he or she is no longer a scientist), it's a matter of scientists as innocents having their work and names co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, by partisan political actors pushing ideological and political agendas.
When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives.
And liberals are no less prone to demonize, deny, and denigrate science and Nobel Prize-winning scientists when it doesn't happen to support their partisan liberal agendas (e.g., Milton Freedman, to take a blatant example)
"While the science may support the premise, that by itself is of little interest or value in reaching a useful or practical resolution"
Meaning that all you have for an argument is a conspiracy theory.

'"science" is merely a convenient rhetorical cloak to mask their real agendas.'
In other words reject science if it does not support your favorite conspiracy.

"But when the premise is one of advocating the necessity of radically re-structuring societies, lifestyles, economies, and re-allocating global wealth and political power, these are not matters scientists are not qualified to deal with, and not amenable to inquiry by the scientific method. "
Double negative here, but I think I follow what you are trying to spin. We are talking about the science, not the political ramifications thereof.

"When liberals decide there is mileage to be gained for their liberal agendas by aligning with some scientific argument that happens to support it, they are no more or less shy about snatching up that rhetorical weapon for their quiver than are conservatives. "
There is nothing wrong with aligning WITH scientific argument. It is when science is rejected for political purposes that things become problematic.

Nice try at spin and flabbergast but the fact remains that the scientific method is apolitical.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••