TCS Daily

A Report from the Global Warming Battlefield

By Roy Spencer - August 15, 2007 12:00 AM

In case you hadn't noticed, the global warming debate has now escalated from a minor skirmish to an all-out war. Although we who are skeptical of the claim that global warming is mostly manmade have become accustomed to being the ones that take on casualties, last week was particularly brutal for those who say we have only 8 years and 5 months left to turn things around, greenhouse gas emissions-wise.

I'm talking about the other side - the global warming alarmists.

First, NASA's James Hansen and his group had to fix a Y2K bug that a Canadian statistician found in their processing of the thermometer data. As a result, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record in the United States - 1934 is. The temperature adjustment is admittedly small, yet there seemed to be no rush to retract the oft-repeated alarmist statements that have seared "1998!" into our brains as the rallying cry for the fight against global warming.

Then, the issue of spurious heat influences on the thermometers that NOAA uses to monitor global temperatures has reared its ugly head. Personally, I've been waiting for this one for a long time. Ordinary citizens are now traveling throughout their home states, taking pictures of the local conditions around these thermometer sites.

To everyone's astonishment, all kinds of spurious heat sources have cropped up over the years next to the thermometers. Air conditioning exhaust fans, burn barrels, asphalt parking lots, roofs, jet exhaust. Who could have known? Shocking.

Next, my own unit and I published satellite measurements that clearly show a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics which all of the leading computerized climate models have been insisting is a warming mechanism (Spencer et al., August 9, 2007 Geophysical Research Letters).

We found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up from extra rain system activity, the amount of infrared heat-trapping cirrus clouds those rain systems produce actually goes down. This unexpected result supports the "Infrared Iris" theory of climate stabilization that MIT's Richard Lindzen advanced some years ago.

No one in the alarmist camp can figure out how we succeeded with this sneak attack. After all, there isn't supposed to be any peer-reviewed, published research that denies a global warming Armageddon, right?

But these volleys have not gone unanswered. From the other side of the battlefield, Al Gore and Newsweek coordinated an assault on a few skeptics with all kinds of guilt-by-association accusations. They allege that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming.

Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming. Apparently, that's okay since we all know that the federal government is unbiased and there to help, whereas petroleum companies only exist to force us to burn fuels that do nothing more than ruin the environment.

Little damage was done by the Gore-Newsweek assault, though, since the attack amounted to little more than a verbal "Well, your mama wears Army boots!" It didn't help matters that the magazine's own columnist, Robert Samuelson, published a follow-up article saying the allegation of bribes offered to scientists "was long ago discredited" and that "the story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading."

Next, I'm happy to report that we skeptics have been getting a steady stream of new recruits. In the last year or so, more and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and admitting they've had some doubts about this whole global warming thing.

In fact, chances are that your favorite TV weather person is a closet skeptic (unless it's Heidi Cullen). But please observe the "don't ask - don't tell" rule. Most broadcast meteorologists are not ready for the public embarrassment that would accompany their outing.

And lastly, I have been heartened by new scientific intelligence that we skeptics have been gathering. I can predict there are more surprises to come, with some pretty powerful tactical weapons yet to be deployed. Climate scientists are beginning to question long held assumptions - which is almost always the first step toward a major scientific discovery. So stay tuned.

Oh, and by the way, in the interests of a fair fight, the next time someone sees Al Gore, could you ask him to stop calling us "global warming deniers"? I don't know of anyone who denies that the Earth has warmed. I'm sure this has just been an honest misunderstanding on Mr. Gore's part, and he'll be more than happy to stop doing it.

The author is Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama.



Maybe Dr. Spencer should be carrying on the fight in peer-reviewed pubications
In the meantime, Newsweek has a cover story on the campaign to cast doubt on the science by science writer Sharon Begley. It begins like this:

Sen. Barbara Boxer had been chair of the Senate's Environment Committee for less than a month when the verdict landed last February. "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries. Worse, there was now at least a 90 percent likelihood that the release of greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels is causing longer droughts, more flood-causing downpours and worse heat waves, way up from earlier studies. Those who doubt the reality of human-caused climate change have spent decades disputing that. But Boxer figured that with "the overwhelming science out there, the deniers' days were numbered." As she left a meeting with the head of the international climate panel, however, a staffer had some news for her. A conservative think tank long funded by ExxonMobil, she told Boxer, had offered scientists $10,000 to write articles undercutting the new report and the computer-based climate models it is based on. "I realized," says Boxer, "there was a movement behind this that just wasn't giving up."

a propos question: Did Dr. Spencer receive $10,000 from the think tank to writer this story?

"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Science is an imperfect methodical process which nearly always converges upon the truth.

The most significant aspect of science is that an indvidual, confined to a wheel chair, who must use a computer to speak, can literally change the world with his ideas.
In science, an individual can make a difference no matter what the tyranny of the masses or the sate, want us to think.
A single candle can erase the darkness.

especially when the politicians get involved.
and AGW is being driven by politics, not science.

he does, the paper that he mentions has been submitted
then to prove his point, eric cites that leading scientist, Sen. Boxer.

As to the rest of eric's typical lies.

The think tank in question received about 2% of it's funding from ExxonMobile. Most people who can think, wouldn't call 2% "long funded".

As to the $10,000 that so upsets eric, magazines that publish articles, always pay the authors of those articles.

As the story above mentions, authors of papers that support AGW are often paid much more than $10K. Why doesn't eric get upset about that?

We all know the answer. It's because eric has no interest in the truth, just spin.

Here's a few highlights I've located over the last week
IPCC author accused of fraud.

Greenland is cooling and it's glaciers growing

Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melting

So what?
"...concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries."

The German regime in the 1930s rounded up several hundred scientists to rebut the theory of general relativity. State-orchestrated research publications for political purposes usually turns out badly. Or would you care to comment on the scientific consensus on eugenics from a century ago? As to the above groups, as soon as you include "green groups" in the concensus, truth just fled the field.

You really just can't let go of your addiction to that paranoid religion, can you?
The entire edifice of the fear-inspired, childish, and shrill-voiced "man-made global warming" concept is crumbling down. It's the glorious beginning of the end, another wall of absurdity beign torn down brick by brick. Who will pay?

It figures that you can't face the music--after all, the science has been in your face from the beginning and still you persist with scattering your anti-science rubbish.

The problem with you is very obvious--you don't know or understand science, so you are at the mercy of others to explain it to you. And, since you are governed by fear, you always choose those who will fill you with doomsday lies in the name of "science".

"Peer reviewed" journals. What a fraud. What matters is repeatability and/or observations matching theories or hypotheses (depending on what field, what subject, etc). "Peer review" is only good for very rudimentary elements such as making sure the addition and subtraction were done correctly. Otherwise it's useful for nothing but getting those who already agree with you to endorse you.

Here, Lemming Mule, listen to the words of a very eminent scientist and writer (for once in your joke of a life) with earned credentials out the whazoo--he's this guy called Freeman Dyson. Ever heard of him?

"The fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests."

Dyson pours scorn on "the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models".

How do you trust someone who never studied for his Ph.D.?
As you suggest, it is not who you are, but what you can prove.

CCC - classic conservative cheerleading
This article is like the evil AlGore, the same but opposite.

I would expect juvenile sarcasm and childish parlay such as this article comprises to come from a Bush political appointee, not a real researcher!

I'm half-joking, I know researchers can be a little weird too. I read the headline and thought this would be an educational piece, that I would learn about new research showing global warming isn't happening. I do recall a couple references to new developments in global warming perspective in the article, amid the political "gotcha-ism". But then in the last paragraph Spencer says no one denies global warming is happening... so whats the point of this article then?

... I just read it again, now I get it. Its not about global warming, its about the battlefield. At least that makes more sense why its so childish.

Heres a perspective we can all try on for a change- lets get to the truth instead of worrying about winning a "war" with ourselves. But if a "war" is what is needed to motivate people to search for truth, I guess thats the cost, its too bad humans have to be so emotionally primitive.

>"Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming. Apparently, that's okay since we all know that the federal government is unbiased and there to help, whereas petroleum companies only exist to force us to burn fuels that do nothing more than ruin the environment."

Thats a joke right? Or is this an example of a scientist sick with conservatism?

Who here is naive enough to believe any scientist receives money from the federal government run by George W Bush to find support for global warming? Anyone besides the author?

Who here believes petroleum companies only exist to force us to burn fuels to hurt the environment?

You need to be more slick with your framing Spencer, this makes you look like Ann Coulter, its so obviously deceptive. Only an idiot thinks oil companies exist to hurt the environment. They exist to make money, DESPITE the damge their product does to the environment when burned. We can hardly blame them for the desire to continue to make money, but the continued use of their product is at odds with the health and longevity of our civilization. Its logical we seek alternatives, its necessary. Whats the point to continue to promote the use of petroleum when this fact is so obvious? Money would be the first obvious likelihood. Big Oil has lots of it, and theyr'e spending lots of it to promote bunko views like the author offered. Second logical likelihood is simple ideology, which isn't logical, and frankly signals the absence of critical thought. That would be especially disappointing from a scientist.

I suppose this means my check for $10,000 is not in the mail? Those rat bastud oil fiends lied to me again.

and the fat lady sang; "adios global warming"
Thanks for your lucid summary, Dr. Spencer. Just as Kyoto has been shown to be a walking dead man for years, global warming alarmists are now earning horse laughs from us ordinary folks, as well as from the honest scientists.

What hoax will the pinkos and other control freaks use next, a looming bird-flu pandemic perhaps? It'll be interesting and amusing to see what issue they seize on to distort next (with the enthusiastic help of our lefty media, of course); to terrorize folks into giving them political power they cannot win openly at the polls. Maybe we should set up a watch committee to keep tabs on the professional scare-mongers.

Are you serious?
You ask: "Who here is naive enough to believe any scientist receives money from the federal government run by George W Bush to find support for global warming?

Your nemesis has proposed $5,500,000,000 in FY2006 for federal research and development....

Also, try Googling "NSF grants climate research" for a long list of the millions granted to scientists for research. Where does that money come from?

Next: Bottled water
" "This country has some of the best public water supplies in the world," the New York Times said in an editorial earlier this month.

"Instead of consuming four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of water a year in individual-sized bottles, we need to start thinking about what all those bottles are doing to the planet's health." "

"...concluded a report by 600 scientists from governments, academia, green groups and businesses in 40 countries."

And you know for a fact that everyone of those scientists agrees with every word of the summary put together by the politicians?

peer review
How can a "study" be peer reviewed, when the authors of the study refuse to release their raw data and the code used to process it?

Response to bobjones
Come now- the issue is not deny global warming or admit it. I admit global warming- I just don't believe its effects will be as bad as the mainstream thinks, and I certainly think there are alternative ways of dealing with such effects as there may be.Most of all, I think climate science is far less certain and far more complex than mainstream scientists are making it out to be. That is the point of the article.

one name to prove that bob jones is a fool
"Who here is naive enough to believe any scientist receives money from the federal government run by George W Bush to find support for global warming?"

Does the name Hansen, ring any sick little bells with you?

A curious position
from the Times, given that it's so gung-ho on recycling. Never mind, the Times obviously believes that consistency is for small minds.

Here's two more names
I wonder if the names Gavin Schmidt, or Tom Wigley ring any bells either?

Oh yeah, and all of these fine gentlemen are protected by virtue of their place in the public service from having to reveal their methodologies for review. Instead, they can have it rubber-stamped by their friends.

The real issue, Bob, is the degree to which public policy making has been perverted by non-elected officials.

Getting the data
My bona fide is that I served in the Air Weather Service from the late '40's to the early '50's. I measured and recorded surface weather (as a weather observer) and then upper-air weather (as a rawinsonde operator). I assume the data I collected has become part of the baselines for talking about the global-warming controversy. I might note that I have not seen comments from the persons who actually collected data.
We also have the weather forecaster who interprets and predicts the weather. They don't collect. Their biggest job is to advise pilots on air routes and weather conditions at their destinations and to warn them of possible weather problems.
Finally we have the climatologists who study the weather, have Ph.D.s, and write letters.
What about "meterologists"? They report weather stuff on TV and have great looking hair. As part of their job they try to be funny.
I'll bet climatologists and forecasters never plotted a real map with real data. I'll wager they never had to guess the height of a cumulus cloud. Or calculated the average daily temperature, in my time the easiest thing to do.
What they (used to) did was draw in fronts, isobars and isotherms. And on occasion I did those things.
Certainly in my day weather measurements were unreliable. Try reading a mercury thermometer at 0400. Try insuring that weather balloons will rise at 1000/ft per minute at 2400 GCT. Does Mr. Gore know how to calculate a basic dew point? Will the forecaster get angry at you if your observation does not match his prediction?
Given the unreliabilities, the weather station locales, etc., I don't see how anyone can assert that the average temperature has risen, dropped, or remained the same over the past 100 or 50 years.


Nice try...but a little off
It's interesting to note Dr. Hansen's take on this "discrepancy", something that he has directly addressed recently:

"Contrary to some of the statements flying around the internet, there is no
effect on the rankings of global temperature. Also our prior analysis had
1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it
continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998
temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty. Somehow the flaw in 2001-2007 U.S. data was advertised on
the internet and for two days I have been besieged by rants that I have
wronged the President, that I must "step down", or that I must "vanish".
Hmm, I am not very good at magic tricks."

If it's the oil, gas and/or coal industry that's paying you, you may want to consider looking for a new source of income.

margins of error
The problem is that the warming that these "scientists" have claimed to have found, is substantially less than the margin of error to begin with.

As to whether 1934 was previously the warmest.
The GISS data quite clearly showed that 1998 was warmer, and Hansen and others were frequent commenters in the media regarding how significant this was.

If Hansen is now saying otherwise, then he's been caught in another lie.

My objection to global warming has always been rooted in epistemology, not science.

First, can computer models predict the future? It depends on too many variables, such as the number of known variables, unknown variables and the volatility of each type of variable relative to all other variables.

If a computer model predicts that at the outset of some chain of causation, variable x and y in coincedence will produce variable z, but due to the emerge of unknown variable w in coincedence with variables x and y variable u is produced, then the entire model's predictive capacity is useless from the outset on. This is what Dyson criticizes in the computer models, and rightly so.

Besides, do the math yourself: If these computer models were so accurate, wouldn't Wall Street still be spending billions on them instead of cursing Black and Scholes behind pressed linen napkins?

What was the CO2 level in 1934?
Isn't that when Chevy launched their first Suburban?

Why small reductions are important.
First, the US has what most observers believe to be the best maintained system of climate sensors on the planet.

Yet people like Anthony Watts have demonstrated that significant portions of this network are poorly maintained, if they are maintained at all.

Now the AGW'ers would have us believe that they can "fix" all of the problems with the climate network by applying "adjustments" to the data. (The truely scary thing is that for many stations, these adjustments can be up to 3 or 4 degrees Celsius.)

They do this by looking for discontinuities in the record. For example, if a station is moved, there will be a step function jump in the data at the time of the move. The problem here is that many of the problems with the stations did not occur over night. Encroachment by development occured slowly, over decades. Each years increase is so much less then the yearly variance that it is impossible to seperate. And since it is occuring at the same time that global warming is allegedly happening, how do you isolate one signal from the other?

They tell us that they can compare stations in the same region. If one station rises, but the others don't, the rising station was probably caused by encroachment. This only works when only the one station is being encroached upon. Yet it is easy to see that development is happening, even near "rural" stations. A recent study of UHI in Barrow, Alaska, a town of only about 10,000 people, found a UHI of between 5 and 10 degrees. So the belief that "rural" stations are clean stations is shown to be problematic at best, absolutely false at worst.

Then we find that a mistake of this magnitude has been made. (0.15 degrees is one 4th the warming that they claim to have found for the entire century.)

Makes you wonder why the AGW proponents refuse to release their raw (unadjusted data) as well as the formulas by which they make their magic adjustments.

Additionally, even the IPCC has admitted that at least 1/4th of the warming of the past century is due to changes in the sun. (The IPCC refuses to acknowledge that cosmic rays play any part in cloud formation, even though several, peer reviewed, articles have found such a connection) Cosmic rays play at least as much a role as does direct solar energy, in regulating this planets environment.

1/4th of the increase is due to this computer glitch.
1/4th the increase is due to increased solar radiation.
1/4th the increase is due to decreased cosmic radiation.
1/4th the increase is due to increased UHI.

Doesn't leave a lot for CO2 to be responsible for.

another of the record years was back during the 20's.
must have been all that dancing, heating up the air.

Anyone who knows of the Gaia Hypothesis knows that 1) that the earth's atmosphere is a very complex system, with inputs from the sun, land, water, and organisms, and 2) the models are based on only a few inputs, which are not enough to give any sort of accurate output, as anyone familiar with chaos theory knows.

Bottled water is a necessity in some areas
True that places like Chicago and NYC have pretty good tap water. Many other places, however, do not. There you really do need bottled water, and/or an RO system in your house.

In areas with significant agriculture, agrichemicals are prevalent in the groundwater/surface water, and municipal systems don't do anything but pass them on, with an overlay of chlorine. Bottled/RO water is very necessary in those places.

We live in a mostly free-market system. If the consumers like bottled water, let them have it. Geez. Tell the mayor of San Francisco that there are bigger problems than bottled water.

Except Samuelson was wrong about the amount of Exxon funding
"A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science." -

So you think Barbara Boxer is like Hitler?
If you really think that there's a parallelism between the state-supported German attack on relativity and the science of Global warming, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you cheap.

Tell this to the specialists involved
They seem to have much differnt ideas, no matter what Dyson or Crichton say.

You don't believe it? document why?
You're dubious? Fine. State your reasons and show your research

So how is climate change science different from any other branch of science??
It operates by the same rules as all the others. Why single it out for particular distrust?

So the idea is that we shoulnd't fund research into global warming??
...because we know the answers before we look? How does this work?

And you believe this why?
Almost all the people who know most about the science disagree with you. But you know more than the "mainstream" scientists and are sure that the non-mainstream scientists (??) have it right. Why?

The 1934 number is for the US
For the world as a whole, 1998 was hotter.

I didn't say the federal government under George W Bush doesn't fund research. I'm saying the federal government under George W Bush doesn't fund the research to find support for global warming. Indeed, I hope, expect and demand that all research funded by the federal government is NOT commissioned with the intent to support politics.

It will be used by politicians, because they'll use whatever they can to further their own agenda, but commissioning research to support a pre-determined position is the game of private industry, not government. At least I sure hope thats the case.

Unbiased sources don't use phrases like:
"adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics"

"to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action"

"organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science"

All three do the same thing. They use a presumption that their position is correct to assert that their opponents are wrong to even give voice to a contrary position. This is not the language of science. It is the language of politics.

Maybe another attempt at an analogy will help you out. There exists a discrepancy between the visible mass of the galaxies and the rates of rotation. Let us say that I am a proponent of the theory that most of the universe's mass is dark matter and you are a proponent of the theory that there is an error introduced by using the gravitational constant, i.e., it isn't really a constant. This is not at all like the AGW argument, but not the way you think. The analogy actually has incredibly precise data with many separate data points, infinitely fewer variables, and far less uncertainty as to the factors and mechanisms involved.

Continuing the analogy - I proceed to voice my position that dark matter is 90+ % of the universe. You voice your position that the gravitational "constant" needs tweaked. I declare that you seek to confuse the public and have no right to use such disinformation tactics to cloud the scientific understanding.

That's not the language of science.

They're not unbiased. That doesn't mean the information is wrong.
And your analogy is missing an important element.

>I proceed to voice my position that dark matter is 90+ % of the universe. You voice your position that the gravitational "constant" needs tweaked. I declare that you seek to confuse the public and have no right to use such disinformation tactics to cloud the scientific understanding.

If I were voicing the position on behalf of a company that sold gravitational constant futures, you might have a point.

I do trust science, when there is some.
Most of what AlGore depends upon is unvalidated models.

How can you trust 1934 world temperatures or 1998 world temperatures?
What made the glaciers melt in 1922?

you better read the article again too
The article is about the battlefield. Thats all it is is a bullet point list of arguments in paragraph form. Each bullet point in the body is a point refuting that warming exists, but then Spencer says no one disagrees that warming exists in the last paragraph.

What makes you think the effects won't be as bad as the mainstream thinks? Gut feeling? Or have you read something that gives you that impression? I won't bash you for saying its a gut feeling. Only an expert could form a valid opinion about that. I've seen experts comment about it, and all I've seen from them refers to more extreme weather patterns, more drought. I have seen arguments on right-wing websites that say it won't be that bad, that it might even improve because of warming... they aren't experts, their political ideologues. I'll go with what the experts say, and I'll go by what I witness outside. It sure seems like weather has been more extreme that last few years or so, but its not a trend yet, just an indication so far.

What alternative ways of dealing with such effects do you have in mind? I didn't realize we were doing anything to deal with it so far. The federal government certainly isn't. State governments are just now starting to enact legislation to deal with it. I think we need to find ways to deal with it before we find alternative ways to deal with it.

I agree with you its very complex. Definitely too complex for me to understand, probably too complex for scientists not involved with climate science to fully understand. AlGore sees a major problem, he has set out to deal with it, I don't question his sincerity in the effort, but I would agree to questions of how certain he is about it. He acts very certain but I agree there are questions of certainty in reality. Regardless, I support doing something to deal with it now, even if its futile in the long term, versus sticking our head in the sand and acting like it doesn't exist or we can't do anything about it, when we don't know for sure the answers to these things.

But, if you're a conservative it likely means you stopped thinking critically about it, therefore my logical and pragmatic comments are invisible to you. If you don't ask questions, you better be sure you know the answer. THE answer, not YOUR answer.

It is different in several ways from the vast majority of scientific endeavors
The "rules" for different fields are adapted to the conditions found. For example, the study of chemistry relies on very carefully controlled experiments, with many different highly accurate instruments, repeated many times, and then the data is compared to incredibly accurate models that have been developed and proven over decades of experimentation with countless reactions. When something doesn't fit the expectations to within four decimal places, everyone looks for the error. Was it instrumentation? Calculation? Contamination?

The study of paleontology relies almost entirely upon "natural experiments", human observation and description, a limited number of observations, and only a few gross generalizations from previous work to compare to. Only something fundamantally different than all other observations would be flagged as a likely error.

Yes, there is the "scientific method" and ideally, all science is based upon its rigorous application, but the differences above are very real.

So the question is, what are the conditions found in the field of climate change studies? I propose that if you created a scale of 1 to 10, with chemistry being a 1 and paleontology being a 10, climate change is a 9.5.

James Hansen? Is that the one Mark? I've heard of him. Isn't he the one thats all about the hockey stick, or the models? I've only heard of him because of right-wingers bringing him up.

Gavin Schmidt? Tom Wigley? Nope, never heard of either of them. I tell you though, if they're allowed to obscure their methodologies from review, I won't put much stock in what they have to say.

Given our public policy to this point is to do nothing, I don't see how its perverted. Except perhaps that doing nothing is perverted, thats more likely the case. And if non-elected officials are having THAT MUCH influence on policy makers, seems to me the problem is with the policy makers. You heard it here: Worst President Ever.

Logical fallacy
Ad hominem fallacy. The source of a statement is irrelevant to the validity.

You could assume that a company that makes only false claims in regards to their product and never makes true claims to counter false accusations by another interest group. You would be wrong. I'll grant that they may very well do it more though.

But you go beyond that claim. You assume that science funded by a company only reaches false conclusions and never reaches sound conclusions to refute the false conclusions of another interest group.

This is even much more wrong. For one thing, it presumes that all scientists are like one of OJ's lawyers - "Tell me what you want the truth to be and I'll pimp out my mother if that's what it takes to fool people into believing it". I'll call this scenario "A".

A far more likely cause of science deviating from the path is political or religious dogma. The examples are too numerous to even question the phenomenon. This is the mechanism that is proposed for the AGW crowd. I'll call this scenario "B".

From my experiences with you, I can say with certainty that I have much more exposure to the world of science than you do, and it is my opinion that it is infinately more likely that scenario "B" is in play.

Only problem is, 99 percent of the scientists are lined up on other side it looks a little fishy when most of the voices on the short end are supported by outside sources with vested interests.

> For one thing, it presumes that all scientists are like one of OJ's lawyers - "Tell me what you want the truth to be and I'll pimp out my mother if that's what it takes to fool people into believing it". I'll call this scenario "A".

Not at all. Again, if 99 percent of the scientists are on one side of the question, the side not funded by the interested party, it looks like most of them are not like OJ's lawyers, but only a minority of a minority may be.

>A far more likely cause of science deviating from the path is political or religious dogma.
First you have to show that science has deviated. According to the vast majority of scientists, it has not.

>From my experiences with you, I can say with certainty that I have much more exposure to the world of science than you do, and it is my opinion that it is infinately more likely that scenario "B" is in play.

You're completely wrong about this. But if you want to show - rather than boast about - your scientific expertise, go for it.

That's not what the scientists say, but what do they know??
And who made you a better judge of the science than them?

You'd be really surprised, but scientists who work in the field disagree
But what do organizations like the National Academy of Science or the American Geophysical Union know about this stuff compared to an expert like you.

It's not me that's making the judgment
It's the best experts in the field. Why are you sure they're wrong?

Consensus Science 1530 AD: The sun orbits the earth.
One man can make a difference.

Ain't science great!

TCS Daily Archives