Mark Morano

Environmentalism and anti-science, how GMOs prove any ideological extremity leads to anti-science

denialism — Fri, 25 May 2012 16:19:58 +0000

Environmentalism and anti-science, how GMOs prove any ideological extremity leads to anti-science

Today I read about two individuals who decided on political defections over perceived anti-science amongst their former political allies- one due to climate change, the other for anti-GMO. From the right, we have Michael Fumento, who in Salon describes his break with the right, spurred by Heartland's campaign comparing those who believe in climate change with the Unabomber, as well as a general atmosphere of conspiratorial crankery and incivility. And from the left, we have Stephen Sumpter of Latent Existence leaving the Greens over their support for the misguided anti-scientific campaign of "Take the Flour Back" to destroy a crop of GMO wheat at Rothamsted Research which carries a gene from another plant to make it aphid-resistant. Starting with the anti-GMO extremists (since I've been picking on right-wing denialism a lot lately), their movement is pretty classic anti-science and extreme. The Rothamsted Research program has been very forthright and clearly is trying to engage and communicate with the protestors, has released this video trying to engage them in a fruitful debate over their research:

and sent them a public appeal trying to explain their side and asking for dialogue rather than violence. I will quote most of it here.

We have learned that you are planning to attack our research test site on 27th May. Please read the
following in the spirit of openness and dialogue – we know we cannot stop you from taking the action you plan, nor would we wish to see force used against you. Therefore we can only appeal to your consciences, and ask you to reconsider before it is too late, and before years of work to which we have devoted our lives are destroyed forever.

We appeal to you as environmentalists. We agree that agriculture should seek to work “with nature rather than against it” (to quote from our website), and that motivation underlies our work. We have developed a variety of wheat which does not need to be sprayed with insecticides. Instead, we have identified a way of getting the plant to repel aphids, using a natural process that has evolved in mint and many other plants – and simply adding this into the wheat genome to enable it to do the samething.

So our GM wheat could, for future generations, substantially reduce the use of agricultural chemicals. Are you really against this? Or are you simply against it because it is “GMO” and you therefore think it is unnatural in some way? Remember – all plants in all types of agriculture are genetically modified to serve humanity’s needs, and the (E)-β-farnesene compound our wheat produces is already found in over 400 species of plant, many of which are consumed as food and drink on a daily basis (including the hops used in beer, to give just one example). To suggest that we have used a ‘cow gene’ and that our wheat is somehow part-cow betrays a misunderstanding which may serve to confuse people or scare them but has no basis in scientific reality.

You seem to think, even before we have had a chance to test it, that our new wheat variety is bad. How do you know this? Clearly it is not through scientific enquiry, as the tests have not yet been performed. You state on your website: “There is serious doubt that the aphid alarm pheromone as found in this GM crop would even work.” You could be right – but if you destroy our test, you and we will never know. Is that what you want? Our research is trying to shed light on questions about the safety and the usefulness of new varieties of the staple food crops on which all of us depend. As activists you might prefer never to know whether our new wheat variety would work, but we believe
you are in a minority – in a democratic society most people do value factual knowledge and understand that it is necessary for sensible decision making.

You have described genetically modified crops as “not properly tested”. Yet when tests are carried out you are planning to destroy them before any useful information can be obtained. We do not see how preventing the acquisition of knowledge is a defensible position in an age of reason – what you are planning to do is reminiscent of clearing books from a library because you wish to stop other people finding out what they contain. We remind you that such actions do not have a proud tradition.
...
Our work is publically funded, we have pledged that our results will not be patented and will not be owned by any private company - if our wheat proves to be beneficial we want it to be available to farmers around the world at minimum cost. If you destroy publicly funded research, you leave us in a situation where only the big corporations can afford the drastic security precautions needed to continue biotechnology research - and you therefore further promote a situation you say you are trying to avoid.

We end with a further concern. You may not know much about Rothamsted. You may not know that our institute is the site of perhaps the longest-running environmental experiment in the world, with plots testing different agricultural methods and their ecological consequences dating all the way back to 1843. Some of these plots are very close to the GM wheat test site, and we are extremely worried that anyone walking onto them would endanger a research programme that has been in operation for almost two centuries.

But we also see our newest tests as part of this unbroken line – research never ends, and technology never can nor should be frozen in time (as implied by the term ‘GM freeze’). Society didn’t stop with the horse-drawn plough because of fears that the tractor was ‘unnatural’. We didn’t refuse to develop better wheat varieties in the past – which keep us well-fed today – simply because they were different from what went before and therefore scary. The wheat that we consume today has had many genetic changes made to it – to make plants produce more grain, resist disease, avoid growing too tall and blow over in the wind, be suitable for different uses like pasta and bread, provide more nutrition and grow at the right time for farming seasons. These agricultural developments make it possible for the
same amount of food to be produced from a smaller area of land, meaning less necessity for farmers to convert wildlands to agriculture, surely we should work together in this?

When you visit us on 27 May we will be available to meet and talk to you. We would welcome the chance to show you our work and explain why we think it could benefit the environment in the future. But we must ask you to respect the need to gather knowledge unimpeded. Please do not come to damage and destroy.

As scientists we know only too well that we do not have all the answers. That is why we need to conduct experiments. And that is why you in turn must not destroy them.
Yours sincerely
J. A. PICKETT DSc, CBE, FRS (Professor)
Michael Elliott Distinguished Research Fellow and
Scientific Leader of Chemical Ecology
Toby Bruce (Scientist specialising in plant-insect interactions, Team Leader)
Gia Aradottir (Insect Biology, Postdoc )
Huw Jones (Wheat Transformation, Coinvestigator)
Lesley Smart (Field Entomology)
Janet Martin (Field Entomology)
Johnathan Napier (Plant Science, Coinvestigator)
John Pickett (Chemical Ecology, Principal Investigator)

The protestors, thinking they're attacking some Monsanto-like evil corporation, are so consumed with their hatred of GMO that they are spreading misinformation, refusing to allow scientists to even engage in the research into GMO, and rather than engaging the scientists in dialogue are threatening to just destroy their experiment. This is the worst kind of bullying, extremist, anti-science garbage out there. At least the creationists don't show up in our labs and start spitting in our test tubes. The climate denialists might make a lot of noise but they aren't threatening to blow up James Hansen's computer. Finally the "take the flour back" justifications are terrible:

Rothamsted have planted a new GM wheat trial designed to repel aphids. It contains genes for antibiotic-resistance and an artificial gene ‘most similar to a cow’.

This sentence is so stupid I have trouble understanding how they wrote it for public consumption. A gene can not be "similar to a cow". This makes no biological sense. We could have a gene that has similar sequence to that of a gene in a cow, but even that shouldn't necessarily be threatening. After all, if you look at our genes you'd find most of them (80 percent) have significant homology to bos taurus. This claim despite being biologically silly, is refuted by the researchers who insist the gene being studied is (E)-β-farnesene, a protein that is in many plants we already consume, that transfers natural resistance to aphids.

Wheat is wind-pollinated. In Canada similar experiments have leaked into the food-chain costing farmers millions in lost exports. There is no market for GM wheat anywhere in the world.

This is patently absurd, the absence of a market for a product that has not yet been brought to market is not an argument. Further, the evidence is that GM crops are readily adopted in the United States, and increasingly in China. The loss of millions has more to do with the unjustified panic over GM that has been created by Luddites in Europe, and finally, how is it possible to study the efficacy and safety of this technology if they're just going to show up and destroy it? It would be better studied and the results will be more openly reported by the publicly funded Rothamsted researchers than if these experiments were done behind some fence in China by Monsanto.

This experiment is tax-payer funded, but Rothamsted hope to sell any patent it generates to an agro-chemical company.

The researchers deny this and have pledged not to patent the product. However, this might ultimately be an error that is ultimately harmful to the researchers' attempts to distribute the technology. By patenting the product and licensing it, you will have a greater ability to convince an agricultural supplier to invest in, market and distribute the product. If you don't patent it, and it becomes immediately public, the inability of a corporation to have exclusive use of the patent may discourage them generally from adopting the product. They're out to make money, it's true, and the sad thing is, even if you have the best product in the world, if they can just be copied by any competitor the appeal of investing in your product will be zero. It's sad but true. I think they should patent it, and simply promise that licensing would require ethical provisions for its distribution to impoverished countries.

La Via Campesina, the world’s largest organisation of peasant farmers, believe GM is increasing world hunger. They have called for support resisting GM crops, and the control over agriculture that biotech gives to corporations.

The marketing practices of agri-business like Monsanto are extremely problematic, and it isn't just peasant farmers in other countries but farmers here in the US that object to being strong-armed by big businesses, and seemingly extorted into using Monsanto seeds over reseeding their own fields. However, this is separate from the argument that GM crops are unsafe or increase world hunger. If anything, the experience of those such as Norman Borlaug and the creation of dwarf wheat varieties should demonstrate that modification of wheat can have a tremendous impact on world hunger. I have no doubt that GM technology might in the future generate similar advances in productivity as traditional methods. It's also not the point of the research at Rothamsted which is to decrease the need for pesticide use. Yes, Monsanto sucks, what does that have to do with Rothamset? What does world hunger have to do with decreasing pesticide use? These are illogical arguments, that are a combination of appeals to consequence and straw men. Rothamsted is not Monsanto.

‘Take the Flour Back’ will be a nice day out in the country, with picnics, music from Seize the Day and a decontamination. It’s for anyone who feels able to publically [sic] help remove this threat and those who want to show their support for them.

Decontamination, what an excellent euphemism for vandalism, destruction of property, and violence. They are going to destroy the research project of publicly-funded plant researchers who are trying to answer questions about safety and efficacy of a product that could decrease pesticide use. They have justified this based on false information, biological ignorance, and a Luddite attitude towards biological technology that if anything will improve the safety of our food supply.

People have bizarre ideas about genetic modification, that somehow, transferring a gene from one species will then confer the properties of that entire species to the plant (hence the senseless cow comparison above). This is absurd. The arguments against resistant organisms don't make a lot of sense to me either, because the alternative - pesticides - share the same flaw - at the same time represent a health threat to humans as well. The idea of transferring a gene that makes a protein that we already eat in other plants hardly seems like it should even raise an eyebrow to me. I don't get the paranoia from the environmentalists on this issue. The need to feed ourselves and wrest resources from the pests and bacteria that we compete with on this planet is not static. It is constantly changing and our strength is our ability to use technology and science to our benefit. We don't refuse to research antibiotics because one day bacteria might become resistant. We develop new antibiotics.

This demonstrates though that any ideology is susceptible to anti-science when it becomes extreme and that includes environmentalism. Based on shoddy understanding of biology, paranoia about Monsanto, and misinformation about publicly-funded researchers, these morons are about to go out and destroy a scientific project. If there were a better description of a modern Luddite I haven't heard one.

Anyway. Onto Michael Fumento's article in Salon. Fumento is irritated with the right because he sees them as exhibiting the one characteristic that he has never been able to stand in anyone - hysteria.

Gosh! When did I end up in bed with Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber? Could it be because I did specialize in blowing things up while serving my country for four years as an airborne combat engineer? I also watched human beings blown up. I had friends and Navy SEALs I was in battle with blown up. My own intestines exploded on the first of my four combat embeds, three in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Took seven operations to fix the plumbing. I later suffered other permanent injuries.

Yet now I find myself linked not only with the Unabomber, but also Charles Manson and Fidel Castro. Or so says the Chicago-based think tank the Heartland Institute, for which I’ve done work. Heartland erected billboards depicting the above three declaring: “I still believe in Global Warming. Do you?” Climate scientists now, evidently, share something in common with dictators and mass murderers. Reportedly bin Laden was scheduled to make such an appearance, too.

The HI and and Morano have been shrieking about how environmentalists are worse and that this was unfair targeting of what the enviros do all the time, but no, not really. Usually when they find some example of an environmentalist calling for consequences for global warming denialism it's quoted out of context, and even if it does happen, despite being a tu quoque this was a pretty extreme campaign. Extreme enough to even turn Fumento against them. No small feat.

Now a brief interlude for Fumento to stroke his vast ego (just read his blog tagline):

This is nuts! Literally. As in “mass hysteria.” That’s a phenomenon I wrote about for a quarter-century, from the heterosexual AIDS “epidemic” to the swine flu “pandemic” that killed vastly fewer people than seasonal flu, to “runaway Toyotas.” Mass hysteria is when a large segment of society loses touch with reality, or goes bonkers, if you will, on a given issue – like believing that an incredibly mild strain of flu could kill eight times as many Americans as normal seasonal flu. (It killed about a third as many.)

I was always way ahead of the curve. And my exposés primarily appeared in right-wing publications. Back when they were interested in serious research. I also founded a conservative college newspaper, held positions in the Reagan administration and at several conservative think tanks, and published five books that conservatives applauded. I’ve written for umpteen major conservative publications – National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, among them.

Fumento is a weird guy. He really doesn't like it when people tell him he should be worried about something. To the point that he'll deny things like that heterosexuals are at risk of spreading HIV, or at least diminish the heterosexual spread of the disease. This is despite the fact HIV is predominantly a heterosexual disease outside of the US. Similarly with other epidemic concerns, scientists make a big deal out of them, he usually says, "it's no big deal", and then by virtue of prevention programs, luck, or maybe even overestimation of the pathogenicity of the bug in question, he seems to come out on top. I don't think it's a good way to view the world, because when he's wrong, he's going to be really wrong. I tend towards to more cautious side of the spectrum based on historical events like the flu pandemic of 1918. We know it can happen, we should treat emerging diseases and severe flu strains seriously.

So now that he perceives the right is the hysterical bunch, screaming conspiracies about Obama ruining the entire capitalist western world, true to form he rejects the hysteria:

Nothing the new right does is evidently outrageous enough to receive more than a peep of indignation from the new right. Heartland pulled its billboards because of funder withdrawals, not because any conservatives spoke up and said it had crossed a line.

Last month U.S. Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican recently considered by some as vice-president material, insisted that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party, again with little condemnation from the new right.

Mitt Romney took a question at a town hall meeting this month from a woman who insisted President Obama be “tried for treason,” without challenging, demurring from or even commenting on her assertion.

And then there’s the late Andrew Breitbart (assassinated on the orders of Obama, natch). A video from February shows him shrieking at peaceful protesters: “You’re freaks and animals! Stop raping people! Stop raping people! You freaks! You filthy freaks! You filthy, filthy, filthy raping, murdering freaks!” He went on for a minute-and-a-half like that. Speak not ill of the dead? Sen. Ted Kennedy’s body was barely cold when Breitbart labeled him “a big ass motherf@#$er,” a “duplicitous bastard” a “prick” and “a special pile of human excrement.”
...
Civility and respect for order – nay, demand for order – have always been tenets of conservatism. The most prominent work of history’s most prominent conservative, Edmund Burke, was a reaction to the anger and hatred that swept France during the revolution. It would eventually rip the country apart and plunge all of Europe into decades of war. Such is the rotted fruit of mass-produced hate and rage. Burke, not incidentally, was a true Tea Party supporter, risking everything as a member of Parliament to support the rebellion in the United States.

All of today’s right-wing darlings got there by mastering what Burke feared most: screaming “J’accuse! J’accuse!” Turning people against each other. Taking seeds of fear, anger and hatred and planting them to grow a new crop.
...
President Obama is regularly referred to as a Marxist/Socialist, Nazi, tyrant, Muslim terrorist supporter and – let me look this up, but I’ll bet probably the antichrist, too. Yup, there it is! Over 5 million Google references. There should be a contest to see if there’s anything for which Obama hasn’t been accused. Athlete’s foot? The “killer bees”? Maybe. In any case, the very people who coined and promoted such terms as “Bush Derangement Syndrome, Cheney Derangement Syndrome and Palin Derangement Syndrome” have been promoting hysterical attitudes toward Obama since before he was even sworn in.

Well at least he's consistent. Although he once did send me an email comparing me to Hitler. I wish I'd kept it, it was pretty funny. I tend to agree with the characterization of this as hysteria, although to be fair I think Obama is getting it worse than Bush did. After all, the accusations against Bush were often true, including the worst one. His administration did deceive us into a war in Iraq. The weapons were not there, the intelligence was inflated, and either through incompetence or irrationality we ended up in a Middle-Eastern hellhole for 10 years. The evidence against Obama, who in reality is a rather milquetoast pragmatist, being Stalin/Hitler/Marx/The Antichrist is a bit weaker.

His call is for civility, which for some reason that eludes me, is often anathema to bloggers. Civility in some sense of the word is patriarchal oppression, or censorship, or something. I don't know about that, but my general rule is I write like my mother is reading this (and she might be), so it's best not to be an outrageous turd to other people.

No, I’m not cherry-picking. When I say “regularly referred to,” interpret literally. Polls show that about half of voting Republican buy into the birther nonsense (one of the more prominent hysterias within the hysteria). Only about a fourth seem truly sure that Obama was actually born here. In her nationally syndicated column Michelle Malkin wrote regarding Limbaugh’s slut remarks, that “I’m sorry the civility police now have an opening to demonize the entire right based on one radio comment.” In a stroke she’s expressed her disdain for civility and declared the new right’s sins can be dispatched as an itsy-bitsy little single faux pas, “one radio comment.”

No, Michelle, incivility – nay, outright meanness and puerility – rears its ugly head daily on your blog, which as I write this on May 23 has one item referring in the headline to “Pig Maher’s boy [Bill Maher]” and another to “Jaczko the Jerk,” [former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko]. She calls Limbaugh target Sandra Fluke a “femme-agogue” and her supporters “[George] Soros monkeys.” Pigs? Monkeys? Moonbats? It’s literal dehumanization.

And now I'm in the bizarre position of actually agreeing with Fumento. Never thought I'd say that. Somehow his protective "never panic" mantra has been protective against the panicky insanity over the Obama presidency coming from the left, and allowed him to hold onto some core of humanity. Maybe it's an adaptive feature after all?

The new right cannot advance a conservative agenda precisely because, other than a few small holdouts like the American Conservative magazine or that battleship that refuses to become a museum, George Will, it is not itself conservative. Pod people are running the show. It has no such capability; no such desire. I find that disturbing for obvious reasons. But, based on my own conversations with liberals, I think – nay, I know – that if more of these allegedly godless, treasonous people understood real conservatism a lot would embrace many conservative positions.

And this is true. I have voted for Republicans in the past (Connie Morella was the first congresswoman I ever voted for when I was 18), and would like to be able to in the future. But I agree with Fumento (my fingers just went numb again), until they accept empiricism again, and stop pitting their ideology against science there is no way I would ever vote for one. It's unfortunate, because in the old school/Rockefeller Republican/revenue generation isn't anathema days they occasionally had good ideas to contribute, and a ideological view that was balanced by a tradition of civility and responsibility towards the country.

denialism Fri, 05/25/2012 - 12:19

Tags

birthers

conspiracies

cranks

environmental extremism

environmentalism

global warming denialism

global warming denialism

Politics

Categories

Technology

A couple of decades ago used to refer I used to refer to myself as a P.J. O'Rourke republican because I grew up in the age of sex, drugs, and rock& roll, and happily embraced that lifestyle in those days before family,career, and homeownership, reordered my priorities. There was a time when there was an intellectual version of conservatism. That was before the takeover of the right by theocrats, denialists, and asshats.

You are right about either the extreme right or extreme left being hysterical and off the hook when it comes to having a reasonable conversation. They won't give up hate because hate is the engine that powers everything they do. Do you think Limbaugh or Malkin became rich media stars by being civil? No. The moment they embrace civility their careers are effectively over and they know it.

It's a big problem. With the society broken down into screaming matches, the issues that have to be addressed - like safely feeding our population in ways that don't destroy the earth, and finding ways to power our civilization that don't either, get thrown by the wayside. The recent conference in Bonn is a perfect example. Never has the science nor the need to act been so clear as it is now with the issue of global warming - and yet, never has it been so politically off-limits for the politicians to actually do anything about it, because the public debate has been thoroughly hijacked by vested interests and extremists.

The catastrophes the extremists predict will indeed come to pass - and that will be precisely because they used their extremism to prevent society from taking meaningful action to prevent those very same worst case scenarios.

How is it that no one can stop TakeTheFlourBack from pulling up Rothhamsted's wheat? Wouldn't that involve trespassing and vandalism? Do they have law enforcement?

@Elizabeth: The security is supposedly being beefed up for this. There's also a counter-demonstration by some newly mobilized geeks. I'd watch the hashtags #dontdestroyresearch and #geeksinthepark tomorrow for updates.

It should begin to transpire around 11am BST.

@Mary: thank you for the information. I shall wish for the best for Rothhamsted and their wheat research.

I highly recommend the Biofortified blog which has been monitoring the Rothamsted situation:

http://www.biofortified.org/

It's known that money can make us free. But what to do when someone has no money? The only one way is to receive the home loans and commercial loan.

I understand there's no reason to destroy their crops because they don't plan on producing them commercially or having any large company own them, and I suppose it's fine to experiment but.... personally I wish all the GMO crops were destroyed. :/ People simply /don't/ understand what they're fucking with, and don't know what kind of effects eating this stuff will have on someone and the way they disregard it is disturbing to me. Plus, half of the tests on GMOs that are produced are untruthful because most are funded by large companies. Sure, these guys might not plan on doing anything bad with it, but I wish people would stop tampering with shit to begin with... There are probably much easier, more natural ways to get rid of aphids. Companion planting anyone? lmfao.

Would it be churlish to point out that Stephen Sumpter who has 'defected from the Greens' was a member for precisely three months, having previously defected from the Liberal Democrats? From his blog:

" One of the reasons that I took a long time to join the Green Party after betrayal by the Liberal Democrats in 2010 was the anti-science attitude that I saw with their policies supporting homeopathy and reacting against many things out of fear and contrary to evidence. Indeed, the Green Party knew that this was a problem and recently made an effort to make their policies evidence based. I joined about three months ago when I thought that things had changed but this fiasco over GM experiments has left me feeling that I cannot trust the party. Perhaps I have given the Greens less of a chance than I did the LibDems but after one betrayal I am not waiting around for another.
I no longer feel that I can trust political parties. Manifesto pledges mean nothing. Promises seem to lead to the exact opposite behaviour. Politicians happily lie and mislead the public as to their true intentions. I’ve learnt my lesson. I sent in my resignation to the Green Party a few minutes ago and I will no longer support any political party."

So despite the Green Party taking the concerns of peoiple like Sumpter seriously, to the extent of changing official policy, after three months he decides to stomp off from politics altogether because another member of the party has a different opinion to him?

I'm afraid that this betrays a lazy consumerist attitude to politics, in expecting political parties to dish up exactly what an individual wants, without anything not to their taste on the menu. The Green Party is a democratic organisation and it is open to any member to campaign within to change policy, and many do although you can reasonably expect it to take more than three months to do so; and you'd need to go through the process of trying to convince others by rational debate, something Sumpter obviously found too tiring a prospect.
I actually re-joined the party after allowing my membership to lapse (for many years I was working in an NGO where for good reason we were asked to be apolitical). I did this because in terms of the bigger picture of the challenges the world faces in terms of over-population, resource consumption and depletion, biodiversity loss, pollution, and the damage caused by the increasing inequality: the Green Party has been ahead of the game in terms of bringing science to politics for a long time. The Royal Society have just released a report "People and Planet" which reads like the Green Party Manifesto from thirty years ago: http://royalsociety.org/news/Royal-Society-calls-for-a-more-equitable-f…

I'll be arguing with colleagues within the party for a more open-minded position on GM - but since the official party line is no longer against research, I'd say a lot of progress has been made on that issue already.

As for Sumpter - well I'm sad he's left, but I'm afraid if you are going to present the 'defection' of someone that's been around for three months as something of significance, then I'm afraid you've lost all sense of proportion.

@Hillary

People simply /don’t/ understand what they’re fucking with, and don’t know what kind of effects eating this stuff will have on someone and the way they disregard it is disturbing to me.

If by "people" you mean "you" then maybe I'd buy this. I think biologists like myself do know what we're working with, we've been generating transgenic plants and animals for decades, the concerns cited are based on defective understanding of biology and paranoia equivalent to the old worry that microwaves would make food radioactive.

Fundamental ignorance of biological science on the part of the critics is not a valid reason to stop all GMO research.

You don't think it's ironic for a site called "Scienceblogs" to publish an article claiming that two examples of something constitute proof?

When did I claim that these two examples prove anything? The title of the piece asserts ideological extremism leads to anti-science and the left response to GMOs are proof that the left is susceptible too. I really only used one of the two examples to discuss this, and it's part of an ongoing debate about the relative contribution of the left versus the right to anti-science, and how ideology in general causes rifts between partisans and empiricists. I only really talked about Fumento because I thought it was interesting that the flip-side to environmentalism got so hysterical they lost one of the more crazy-right wing types.

So really you should be criticizing me by saying that I shouldn't be on scienceblogs because I wrote an article showing how one example of something constitutes proof. But that would require you to ignore everything I've written on the conflict between ideology and science since 2007.

The climate denialists might make a lot of noise but they aren’t threatening to blow up James Hansen’s computer.

But they do issue death threats to Jim Hansen and others like him.

"I have voted for Republicans in the past"

So you consider Romney extreme and the plurality of votes he received indicating extremism? That's interesting. Why am I getting the feeling we're being duped here, Mark?

There may be a difference between them though. The right denies science that applies to everyone while the left denies science that applies to themselves. Since science deals in generalities, it is much stronger against claims of the right than claims of the left, and while both may claim we don't know enough, the right will dispute what we do know while the left focuses on what we do not.

I'm not utterly opposed to GMOs, but don't understand why products with genetically modified ingredients can't be labelled as such. Give people a few generations of time to change their attitudes. Look how many decades it took for tomatoes to be accepted, but now they're everywhere.

With respect to GM crops, almost every crop eaten by humans has been genetically altered. Corn has GM sugar content. Bananas are triploid clones.
The details are what are important. Will the aphid resistant gene be spread to wild, unrelated plants and weeds?
Please show your reasoning and for me, at least, the major source of worry will be alleviated. Off the top of my head I recall a similar experiment (not aphid resistance) where the inserted gene cropped up in the wild...

Phil, the loss of the gene to the wild is unlikely as wheat does not wind pollinate as suggested by the anti-GMO advocates. It has a very short-lived heavy pollen than only pollinates in the immediate area. If the gene does enter into wild species - which would be a big jump between dissimilar species, the gene isn't harmful. The worst outcome is that the loss of the gene to other plants or crops would lead to resistance from wider exposure of the aphids to the gene product. This would be unfortunate, but resistance is not a reason not to pursue GMO as resistance is a major problem with pesticides as well, and pesticides also can harm humans, especially the workers and farmers with the greatest contact. The types of farming that prevent aphids from attacking crops without pesticides are more expensive (and therefor won't be widely adopted) and require different land use patterns that industrial farms can not or will not adopt.

Mark, a serious question. I'm pro-research, think the people trying to mess up research are ignorant at best and maybe dupes of the anti-research and anti-science nuts who would delight in pushing the left to destroy the sciences.

But.
Consider whatever gene is said to discourage these particular bugs.

Do they do a shotgun assay for the gene and protein made by it for where it may be produced in other species generally?

Do they do a shotgun assay for the receptor in other species generally, to see where else that key may fit a lock?

By shotgun I mean -- extract a sample, test it against a library of samples taken from other plants/insects, do a PCR to amplify any that matches.

I ask because long ago when PCR was newish, I had my local native grasses tested against some commercial libraries to make the "bar code" pictures to help tell them apart, and get a feel for how much each species differed across a mountainside from others of the same species.

The commercial libraries are mostly commercially valuable grains - mostly Old World plants originally.

Of course there's ample overlap to get useful information.

But the subtext of this is that most any gene product from one plant, that happens to have one effect on one animal -- may be similar in other plants and fit other receptors.

The anti-bug-gene might not be an anti-bug-gene. It may happen to knock down those bugs -- by interfering with some process more widely occurring in nature that they aren't looking for.

I think that's straightforward and understood. But do we get tests done for that sort of applicability before

The serial crackpottery of Heartland and Doscovery Institute stalwarts like Fumento and his alter ego,Tom Bethell, havelong been objects of ridicule in some conservative journals

Does the Doscovery Institute promote the view that MS-DOS was created by an all-knowing Programmer, and that the belief that computer science is based on the work of Turing, Babbage et al is just foolish propaganda from left-leaning IT departments?

Those are some long excerpts.

This is about a regular on "scienceblogs". Since Skip has been calling me a "Nazi" because I edit out obscenities about sheep which he has been putting on my blog he will certainly, not being a 100% hypocritical liar be publicly saying worse about each of the "scienceblogs" sites which censor this factual stuff.

Or alternately he won't being a 100% hypocritical liar. Lets find out.

Skip Evans of NCSE Outed
For some time I have had a self appointed nemesis on here who calls claims anonymity but appears on "scienceblogs" under the name "Skip" where he has claimed to be a scientist able to pontificate on climate change because

Furthermore, the people you are debating with are real researchers. Like Mandas, Richard S., Chris, and others I too have a track record of peer reviewed publication in the finest journals in my field. They and I have a basic demonstration of competence the likes of which a fool such as yourself will never comprehend.
That there should be, at least, some truth to his claims of validity in the field was supported by the fact that neither the site runner nor any of the named people said "who he" or that they were unable to confirm being in the same scientific club as "Skip", though it was indeed obvious his real identity was known. If you are going to accept that a lying charlatan shares equality with you you must accept being known as a lying charlatan.

Of course the idea that anybody at "scienceblogs" was in any way interested in truth or science took rather a knock when Greg Laden, who runs one of the sites, publicly claimed to be a "climate scientist" and I subsequently proved that he was in fact an unpaid assistant anthropology teacher. A more serious dent to "scienceblogs" credibility came when Greg kept his site and nobody whatsoever on their even suggested that being proven so wholly and completely dishonest and contemptuous of science was, in even the slightest way, reprehensible.

Obviously such action is incompatible with any "sciencebloggers" being in any way honest or scientific.

Anyway Skip promised me that he was going to not only come on my blog and engage, for the rest of time, on what, for him, passes as intellectual debate but also to do so on any other site I commented on (which would include the sole "scienceblog" site that allows a certain amount of free speech.. In fact he limited himself to this site since presumably making himself look like and idiot on a wider stage seemed not to be a good idea.

Occasionally his comments have contributed what purported to be a matter of fact (for example his repeated claims that the government's Chief Science adviser never made the ludicrous claim that by 2100 "Antarctica will be the only habitable continent" and that the papers reporting it were nonexistent/lying because they are controlled by deniers/mistaken). All his claims of fact were easily and amusingly proven false. The rest of his posts have focused on calling me a Nazi, saying that everybody in Glasgow shags the sheep which are everpresent in our city centre & that the proof that I am a Nazi is that I tend to delete his obscenities (though I specifically do not delete argument that attempts to be fact based).

Having at least some trace of personal integrity and not being a complete hypocrite Skip has at least been equally willing to denounce all the scienceblogs sites which censor, not obscenity but rational debate.
Being a wholly corrupt, child abusing*, animal he hasn't.

So who is this expert in climate science Skip. Well not entirely coincidentally, he turns out to be linked to a child abusing (*there did anybody think I was merely being discourteous when I said that earlier) organisation I have dealt with previously, NCSE (National Center for science Education more properly known as Nazi Child-abusers for the Suppression of Evidence).

So who is he

have a look at this account of Skip Evans, formerly of the National Center for Science Education, conversing with some of the local creationists in Madison, WI.

Skip's account. The idea of pretending to be a real scientist seems to be presaged by a comment he adds

a couple of guys talking to Larry and Kevin the Creationists decided they were sociology professors doing an experiment to see how people reacted to complete nonsense presented as fact.

Posted by: Skip
July 27, 2010 12:43 AM
With the NCSE connection, which I did not connection, it appears the world of know of when I the reported the lecture by their boss on CAGW ("you can't blame her for not answering your questions - she's not a climate expert"(. Run by the Glasgow Skeptics (with grandstanding by ecofascist Green MSP Pat Harvie, previously gay government paid youth worker though I would never match the ecofascists by saying that he had ever shagged any of the aforementioned sheep) it seems the world of anti-science spouting is even smaller and more incestuous than it previously appeared.

From the obscene thieving Nazi Child abuser's entry on NCSE

Should the disgusting animal wish to apologise or feel able make any explanation, without obscenity, or indeed should any member of BCSE feel I have been in any way unfair I extend my invitation, as normal, to give them a platform and possibly a piece of rope. If not to me it might wish to apologise to the people of Glasgow and all the sheep in Sauchiehall Street.

I am very pro-science, but I tend toward anti-GMO. My issue with GMO crops is not anti-science, but that there's not nearly enough science involved. The approval process for GMO crops is fraught with money-driven politics, and there has not been enough research to understand all the complicated outcomes of planting and consuming them. We are now discovering that Monsanto's GM wheat has managed to breed super-bugs that are resistant or immune to our most potent pesticides. Who could have guessed? Well, an evolutionary biologist could have for one. We are also discovering that GM soy products could be contributing to serious health problems. Why didn't we know this before they entered the market? Because they were rushed into production by the liberal use of donations, bribes, payola and legal intimidation, not science.

Artor, it's probably a rule on the internet, but it's a rule that I observe. As soon as someone says "I'm pro-science", or "I believe in evolution," or "I am not a racist," is the moment I know they aren't.

You either understand the science, ask questions to understand it, or you're hopeless. You are using the Appeal to Conspiracy, the same one used by anti-vaxxers for vaccines, by global warming denialists and others. Face it, you wouldn't know science if it came up and slapped you about side your little mind.

You are mere stating crap, without one tiny bit of science, without one tiny bit of evidence. You may as well tell me homeopathy works, the earth is only 6000 years old, and vaccines cause autism. Because Artor, you're a clueless dolt.

As someone who lives in Brighton probably the most left wing town in the UK with a Green MP I feel I should point out that the traditional left/right wing divide doesn't extend into the Deep Ecology and the hardcore antivax crowd. A lot of deep ecology "Greens" are Conservatives. They rail against GMO food, progressive taxes and immigrants in equal measure.
Envirnomentalism has always been overrun with woo. A lot of the classic environmentalist groups were very late in accepting Climate Change as an issue.

Climate change scientists have done to science what abusive priests did for religion. Oh, and thanks science for giving us the pesticides that made environmentalism necessary in the firsts place.
Hey Good news! I looked up consensus and look what I found:
Every single one of the scientists and organizations has their own unique definition of CO2’s effects ranging from nothing to unstoppable warming, so consensus of climate change killing our kids certainly cannot exist. It is impossible. There is absolutely no proof anywhere in the scientific world that all of science agrees our kids lives are in danger from CO2 climate chaos. NOTHING is worse besides a comet hit and the scientific world is not say it is death for all. You can’t have a little crisis.
And if all the millions in the global scientific community had condemned their own children as well as ours to a CO2 death, wouldn’t they be acting like it was the end of the world right about now?
Would you say climate change isn’t “real” if you were paid to study the effects of it?

How many climate scientists to change a light bulb?
None, but they do have full consensus that it WILL change.
The world walked away from climate change mitigation of CO2 and the world of science sat there and watched:
--Julian Assange is as climate change “crisis” denier.
-“Socialist” Canada voted in a climate change denying prime minister to a majority.
-Occupy does not mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets run by corporations.
-Canada killed Y2Kyoto and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists.
-Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two state of the unions.
None of you remaining Human CO2 climate crisis fear mongers would still be shooting your mouths off like this if there were real "legal" consequences for condemning billions of children to the greenhouse gas ovens. "A threat to the planet" –IPCC………………. The exaggeration is astounding.
It's time you lab coats started acting like its real and march in the streets with your THE END IS NEAR signs alongside the dozens of climate change protesters we still see.

So your post here is pretty much summed up as: Extremes lead to extremes.

Gosh.

Thanks for that.

Face it, there's no pressing need for GMOs and lots of money to be made, and we KNOW from two centuries of mishap how well endeavours built on the profit motive alone go.

No need for the upside and examples galore of the downsides appearing.

PS in Italy, an open air field trial, despite having been THREE TIMES refused as illegal under the rules of biological trials in Italy, STILL was going ahead (because of the extremists who wish to force GMO on the market) is only now being canned because of activists intent to violate and destroy the illegal test.

"With respect to GM crops, almost every crop eaten by humans has been genetically altered."

Then how can the GMOs be patented? You can't patent something that happens naturally.

Or is that merely a shibboleth, intended to disarm one problem with GMOs but NEVER to be used to disarm the wealth that GMOs enable?

Wow, I do think it is a simple but significant point to make that ideological extremity leads to anti-science no matter which end of the spectrum you occupy. In terms of trying to understand how people come to hold anti-science positions it's useful and hopefully will lead people to engage in some evaluation of how their ideology affects their regard for scientific evidence, especially the scientific evidence they would prefer not to be true.

As for your other points
- There is always a pressing need for innovation in increasing our food supply and decreasing cost to produce and environmental costs of food production. As long as our population is growing, and our farmland is shrinking, technology is required to advance us, or maybe one day Malthus will end up being right after all.
- There is nothing wrong with capitalism, and GMOs being "forced" on the market frankly makes no sense in the context of this discussion as this is a government-funded public experiment that the authors have repeatedly said they will not patent. I actually believe this is a mistake as it will make it harder to license and expand distribution of a beneficial product if you don't have the rights to it.
- I have no problem with wealth being generated by a new technology that may increase our food supply, decrease it's cost, or decrease it's need for pesticides or other damaging chemicals. Still, I realize Monsanto is a a nasty mean company, but that has no bearing on the current attacks on this government-funded experiment.

It is rather obvious and tautological, however, Mark.

What made it egregious was going on about anti-GMO extremists and ignoring pro-GMO extremists (the companies wanting to make money off them).

So although your point was an attempt to get you placed in the "moderate middle", you neglected to address one side.

As to your replies:

- Nope, there's no need to increase food supply. There's a pressing need to get food transported, but no need to increase food supply. In a few decades, maybe (if we continue to screw up the environment), but that can be avoided.

- There is a huge amount of things wrong with capitalism. Paris Hilton for example. When you have money, you can easily make money. And the more money you have, the bigger a say you get. This is why money doesn't trickle down, because after a few million in the bank, money is no longer something to spend, it's leverage to get your own way and someone with more money than you will be able to exert their will over you. Capitalism is what caused the Dikensian Victorian era.

And GMOs ARE being forced on the market. I told you about Italy, right? What do you think all the lobbying about letting GMOs in is all about? Why do you think the pro-GMO lobby is so against labelling their product? So that people will be forced to buy it because it's not possible to avoid.

- However, as seen elsewhere, the wealth being created will go to the wealthiest at the expense of the poorer. Given that there is no need to increase food supply, there's no benefit to increasing it to society. Just the noisy and powerful who will make out like bandits.

And again, I point you to Italy. It was ONLY because of attacks on the government funded experiment that the THREE TIMES declared illegal test in Italy was abandoned. Your thesis that attacks on such experiments are unwarranted and counter-productive are not bourne out by reality.

Your problem may well be that you're involved and know many people "on the coal face" and moreover took on the job to feed the world or reduce malnutrition.

Your employers did not employ you or your friends to make people healthy. They employed them to make more money. This is why they patent their work, as opposed to releasing royalty free.

Disclaimer, I’m a Monsanto employee, the views expressed herein are my own, and not those of my corporate overlords.

Artor : -

The approval process for GMO crops is fraught with money-driven politics, and there has not been enough research to understand all the complicated outcomes of planting and consuming them.

How much research is enough? GMOs have been around for two decades now, there are hundreds of papers on their safety, there are no credible papers showing ill effects.

We are now discovering that Monsanto’s GM wheat

Monsanto’s GM what now? Monsanto only got back into wheat in the last couple of years, there are no commercialized GM wheat lines used in agriculture.

as managed to breed super-bugs that are resistant or immune to our most potent pesticides

So lets assume you’re talking about cotton and corn here (as they’re the ones with traits vs bugs) – there are some populations in some areas which show some resistance to some Cry proteins (which interestingly in the case of corn root worm are of no use sprayed because they have to be, y’know, by the roots) – in what world are these either “super bugs” or are these our “most potent herbicides”, at the very best you’ve pointed out a reason that GM can’t just rest on its laurels – evolution happens, what works today may no longer work as well tomorrow, strategy must be used, new products, mixes of products, cyclical use of products – a product which works for 15 years and then isn’t as great… still worked for 15 years, it’s hardly an argument against ever using it, it’s an argument against coming up with the next big thing ™ (and by all accounts Bollgard II works just fine against populations with partial resistance to Bollgard I – so, do we stop using GM altogether and just have farmers return to toxic insecticides (which have exactly the same issues of resistance) or do we figure out what Bollgard III, IV and V have to look like, and how long it might be before we can return to BG I?

We are also discovering that GM soy products could be contributing to serious health problems.

Citation needed, I assume by “we are” here you mean “nobody is”, because that’s the only way to parse that and retain any sort of link to the real world.

Why didn’t we know this before they entered the market?

Because you just made the risks up, or regurgitated some crap someone else made up – although it was probably assumed that someone would make these risks up during product development, it’s just that regulatory agencies don’t really look at made up risks in any of the risk assessments.

Because they were rushed into production

Rushed through a 10 year $100M+ path through testing and regulatory, you’d almost think that if everything said about how easy it is for Monsanto to get their shit approved they’d spend a bit less on the whole process, why blow $80M+ on the end stages of testing (which is progressively more costly per year) if you can just drop a few mil into Washington? Shareholders should be highly upset at the wanton waste of money going on by the entire regulatory organization at Monsanto.

Wow -

Then how can the GMOs be patented? You can’t patent something that happens naturally

You pretty much can – plant variety protection amounts to practically the same thing. Transgenics doesn’t happen naturally though ( it’s a bit of a slippery argument really, because while they are incredibly similar to what goes on in nature anyway they ain’t exactly the same thing, which leads to spurious shit about patents) there is an inventive step in transgenics that one doesn’t get in traditional breeding, thus it is patentable.

Nope, there’s no need to increase food supply. There’s a pressing need to get food transported

Food security is better than having to rely on imports.

And GMOs ARE being forced on the market. I told you about Italy, right?

Because a scientist being screwed over on a major part of his lifes work is exactly GMOs being forced on the market. Exactly that.

And again, I point you to Italy. It was ONLY because of attacks

That’s not my reading of the situation – the researchers were denied funding as the law changed mid way through their trial – they would likely have received funding had they built greenhouses on top of their trees, or had they moved them into greenhouses, an anti-GM group took legal action to have the trials stopped, the researchers themselves have now embarked on what is probably a pretty heart wrenching task of tearing up something they’ve worked on for years (all the capitalists who want to work on GMOs move to the US, a la BASF, so the greens get left having to kick academics around, which is far easier, but not so good on the PR front)

Still, I realize Monsanto is a a nasty mean company

And you sir are a poopyhead, we shall be recinding your check.

Linky to the actual story Wow is jabbering about (which suggests my comments on funding were off the mark - an extention was applied for and denied but no demands for destruction were apparently made, the anti-GM folk spouted spurious crap about the trial and its risks, the researchers are tearing it up. Still, what's 30 years of public money down the drain to protect us from publicly funded GMOs eh? (the self fulfilling dire prophecies of the green movement, corportations control GMOs! How can we ensure this? Destroy public research! Hurrah! More patchouli Reginald?)

No demands for destruction were made. Threats of destruction were the reason why the test was abandoned.

then again, why would i expect honesty from a pro-GMO shrill, eh?

1) Unfortunately, excessive and irrational anti-GMO attitudes are not necessarily linked to political "extremism". The Green Party isn't extreme on most other issues. They're a pretty straightforward social democrat party. They do, however, ridiculously propose a ban on "genetic engineering" in agriculture.

So, from this day forward, I will concede, there is one anti-science issue that some progressive groups are associated with (while many of us don't agree). It's a result of the fact that the Greens have historical roots in the "back to the earth" movement (which I am in many ways favorably disposed to). There's nothing wrong with leading a simple, sustainable lifestyle as a substitute for frenzied consumption; I think that's a great idea. However, sometimes Luddite-ism seems to arise in those circumstances.

People who would engage in activities like vandalism, or parroting propaganda slogans that they don't understand, in an effort to rile up a mob, are not progressive by definition, though. Many of them would strongly agree with me. I would personally appreciate it if people would not use political labels that lump me with those who commit unjustified violence or advocate any kind of authoritarian system.

2) Is anti-GMO raving EXCLUSIVE to political progressives? I doubt it. Not only are the most common and aggressive science denial trends associated with the authoritarian right wing (evolution denial, AGW denial, HIV denial, cigarette/health denial), but it seems as if any hostility to science attracts them. Granted, here, it's a conflict between "anything a corporation does for profit is always right" versus "any anti-intellectual science denial is always right", but I strongly suspect that there are some right wingers who are terrified of GMO.

"1) Unfortunately, excessive and irrational anti-GMO attitudes are not necessarily linked to political “extremism”. The Green Party isn’t extreme on most other issues."

And, by "extreme" you mean "doesn't agree with me", right?

What about Monsato's extreme attitude PRO-GMO? Never mentioned, therefore you're as EXTREME as The Green Party.

"People who would engage in activities like vandalism"

Vandalism (or, rather, threats of vandalism) was the ONLY way that that Italian test was getting stopped. The courts and rulings weren't doing it.

The invasion of Iraq was government-led vandalism.

Sometimes vandalism is right.

" Is anti-GMO raving EXCLUSIVE to political progressives? I"

Your attribution to being anti-GMO as "raving" proves your pro-GMO extremism as likewise raving.

Take care of your assertions and look at the motivation that makes you assert them the way you do.

If you reply, which you obviously will, please answer the following question -

Could any evidence ever convince you that any direct genetic modification of any human food crop or livestock is ever beneficial?

(Could any evidence ever convince me that any genetic modification, or corporate policy related to genetic modification, is harmful? Of course. I'm not arguing that every single genetic modification or corporate policy is beneficial, I'm arguing against dogmatic rejection of the use of genetic modification in agriculture.)

“1) Unfortunately, excessive and irrational anti-GMO attitudes are not necessarily linked to political “extremism”. The Green Party isn’t extreme on most other issues.”

And, by “extreme” you mean “doesn’t agree with me”, right?

No, that isn't what I mean by "extreme". Why did you think it was?

What about Monsato’s extreme attitude PRO-GMO? Never mentioned, therefore you’re as EXTREME as The Green Party.

There is plenty about Monsanto to criticize. The topic here agricultural research which is not connected to Monsanto.

“People who would engage in activities like vandalism”

Vandalism (or, rather, threats of vandalism) was the ONLY way that that Italian test was getting stopped. The courts and rulings weren’t doing it.

Yes, we all get that. "Someone else was going to engage in a legal activity, so the only way we could stop them was with threats of vandalism".

The invasion of Iraq was government-led vandalism.

I may be unfair, but I take this understatement as suggesting a somewhat callous attitude. The invasion of Iraq was much worse than vandalism.

Sometimes vandalism is right.

Odd that this comes after a description of the Invasion of Iraq as "vandalism".

I don't agree, but to some degree that's semantic. Sometimes, sabotage may be right. I use the word "vandalism" to refer to unjustified acts.

” Is anti-GMO raving EXCLUSIVE to political progressives?

Your attribution to being anti-GMO as “raving” proves your pro-GMO extremism as likewise raving.

I didn't say that all possible criticism of all GMO issues is raving, I made a statement about anti-GMO raving.

YOU imply that anti-GMO speech can ever be raving.

Would you agree that there can be anti-GMO raving?

Take care of your assertions and look at the motivation that makes you assert them the way you do.

I know that sounds very pious, but it doesn't apply to the conversation here.

I did not indulge in the logical errors which you wish I had indulged in.

"Could any evidence ever convince you that any direct genetic modification of any human food crop or livestock is ever beneficial?"

I don't know what you ask that for since I've never said there's no benefit to GMOs. I HAVE said that there is no NEED for any of the benefits touted.

"I’m arguing against dogmatic rejection of the use of genetic modification in agriculture.)"

And I'm not dogmatically rejecting genetic modification. So rejoice!

"No, that isn’t what I mean by “extreme”. Why did you think it was?"

Because you don't agree with the people who are against GMOs and call them extreme. Evidentiary conclusion.

"The topic here agricultural research which is not connected to Monsanto."

Monsato does GMO organism sales. So they're connected all right.

And Monsato are the ones lobbying for GMOs because they will patent the results. This is what happens to patentable research in the USA (for example) from government tests.

"Yes, we all get that. “Someone else was going to engage in a legal activity""

You obviously DO NOT get it. The Italian courts had said "Get it down and F off". It was not legal to do the test outdoors. Illegal testing. Not legal. As in NOT "going to engage in a legal activity".

"The invasion of Iraq was much worse than vandalism."

Excellent. This underscores my point even MORE. Something WORSE than vandalism is fine because Saddam was doing something WRONG by the tenets of the USA and the UK (and possibly a few other countries).

Therefore surely vandalism (as you say, much LESS wrong) should be given the consideration as to whether it is right.

Right?

"I use the word “vandalism” to refer to unjustified acts."

And the acts of trashing the test were justified.

Ask the people who did it: they had a justification. It's just not one you agree with.

"I didn’t say that all possible criticism of all GMO issues is raving,"

You never have mentioned anti-GMO without calling it "raving" or similarly negative perjorative terms.

If there is no evidence for your assertion above, then there is no proof your assertion is truth.

"Would you agree that there can be anti-GMO raving?"

There can be *raving*. And one subject that can be used to rant and rave on are dismissive statements about GMO.

But anti-GMO stance is NOT raving.

If you have an example of anti-GMO raving, then post that raving and say "raving like this .... is damaging to [the green party]" or whatever.

But by making anti-GMO as the ONLY assertion of raving talk makes anti-GMO raving absolute. Don't do it.

"but it doesn’t apply to the conversation here."

It definitely does. You have not applied it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't apply, just that it hasn't been applied.

"I did not indulge in the logical errors"

You did. If you'd applied the thought I had advised earlier, you may have noted them.

MAybe what would help is something of a tangent.

I am entirely for Nuclear Fission. If it were run effectively and with safety as a requirement, taking into account the decommissioning.

At this stage, though, we don't have the ability to run a fission reactor economically and safely.

I am entirely FOR research into new fission reactor designs, even spending billions for it, in the hope that we find something that will work with the people we currently have.

However, I am AGAINST fission reactors being built for economic use even if it were to intend to "save" us from cAGW.

I am for science and technology properly applied.

I am against it applied recklessly or dangerously.

I DO NOT accept science (despite being a physicist by training and [sort of] vocation) just because it's science.

But I see a lot of that being the only evidenced reaction to things like nuclear investment or GMOs.

PS if you want to see the sort of faith-based support of science, pop along to Respectful Insolence and post something asking whether an animal rights activists had something to justify their actions.

Doesn't even have to support them.

You could even try just saying "I wonder if there is a justification for some of their actions here, mind."

Such apostasy is NOT ALLOWED.

"No demands for destruction were made. Threats of destruction were the reason why the test was abandoned"

If you read the actual link, rather than making shit up, the research was carried on because no demands were made (by government) that the research be destroyed (prior to the anti-GMO folk filing suit)

The research was subsequently ceased, not because protestors threatened to destroy it, but because they filed suit and the government then demanded such (this, in my opinion blows goats, but at least appears to be the proper way to do things - the research being carried out in this case ran foul of the law, and while it is a catastrophically stupid law in my view this matters not one jot)

http://www.fondazionedirittigenetici.org/fondazione/en/displaynews_en.p…

links to the organization making the demands - it is noteworthy that their statement, and the nature article, are completely at odds with the version of events you are espousing here. (also noteworthy is their claim that the authorities demanded the trial be either moved or destroyed however - which is contradictory to the nature article, although given they fluff so many of their other facts I'd lean towards them just making this up - seems a common theme amongst those opposed to GMOs)
And yet...

why would i expect honesty from a pro-GMO shrill, eh?

Expectations of honesty aren't really required when the fucking source is right there and contradicts exactly what you're saying Wow. But nice ad hominem anyway. Doubly awesome as you are quite clearly being completely dishonest about the entire affair in order to lend support to vandalism.

Vandalism (or, rather, threats of vandalism) was the ONLY way that that Italian test was getting stopped. The courts and rulings weren’t doing it.

Like here... which I'll go ahead and categorize as damned lies due to the non inclusion of statistics.

I think this is an interesting example of the effect I was trying to describe. Wow, a longtime commentator, good at evidence-based refutations especially on environmental issues, has, I think, gone off the rails here. Something about GMOs makes people totally crazy.

Generally, I'll submit my criticisms of Wow's arguments as:
1. I agree with Ewan's interpretations of these articles. These seem to indicate that Rugini was operating a decades-long experiment that suddenly became problematic. He worked within the legal system and the government to extend and protect his research project. The idea that the only way to get him to comply with the law is to be some kind of anti-GMO vigilante and personally take charge of enforcement doesn't appear to be what occurred, nor would it be an admirable example of enforcing compliance. This sounds, if anything, like a tempest in a teapot. These plants have been out in the fields for years, with no apparent harm, regulations changed making open growing illegal and it was too expensive to transplant them.
2. The attack on the Italian GMO experiment exposes the extreme stupidity of the GMO position as it was the rootstocks that were transgenic. There is some biologic ignorance going on here about the worry of spread of transgenic genes that does not make biological sense. When you engraft a plant onto a root that doesn't make the whole plant genetically identical to the root! Quite the opposite, the growing, fertilizing part of hte plant really only uses it for support.
3. Resistance is not an argument against GMOs. Resistant organisms are a problem. That is all. They are a problem for pesticides, just as they would be for the GMO. We don't halt antibiotic research because one day a resistant organism might come into being. This is a bizarre argument to make.
4. Continually tying this into Monsanto is unfair and absurd. The way patent law works, internationally, is that if there is prior art it can not be patented. Public publication of their results means it can not be patented. So saying that this research benefits Monsanto makes no legal sense. They could never patent any product based on the results of this research. In a way I think this is an error, because in order to distribute a product you often have to have some patent protection, or most companies will not take the risk of investing significant resources if they can just be immediately copied. The best way, for instance, to make sure a drug curing cancer would never be produced would to be to publish on it without getting a provisional patent. No one would touch it, and why would they? They're corporations. They want profit.
5. Technology is needed and desirable to continue to increase the amount of food generated and safety of its production for human consumption. As long as the world population is growing, we've had to use technology to keep ahead of the curve. GMOs are no exception, they are the next frontier.
6. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful. Sorry, it's just not there. And further the concern for their potential mechanisms of harm are abiological and uninformed. They sound like the plot of bad science fiction like Godzilla. Radiation causes giant lizard to attack Japan arrrgh! GMOs will make giant ants that kill everybody oh noes! What are the harms other than this continual appeal to ignorance, "we don't know their effects!" To which I say, so what? The bizarre scenarios of harm that people come up with as arguments against GMOs are as absurd as what they came up with 40 years ago against using recombinant DNA. To this day it pisses me off I have to treat rDNA as biohazardous, you could drink it!

I think there is too much emotion around food and GMOs that blinds people to the absurdity of the arguments against them.

"the research was carried on because no demands were made (by government) that the research be destroyed"

Indeed. However, this isn't required.

If you grow pot in contravention of law, then you are performing an illegal action. A demand to destroy your pot plantation is not required before your growing of illegal controlled substances becomes illegal.

Please stop making shit up.

"He worked within the legal system and the government to extend and protect his research project."

Except that the law as stated in Italy required that this be a closed environment.

The route that SHOULD have been taken is NOT to break the law then argue that the law should THEN be changed, but to change the law and THEN do what is now legal.

"nor would it be an admirable example of enforcing compliance."

And I would not call it an admirable example, but a regrettably necessary one.

If the government will not apply the law, then vigilante justice is the only way justice will be applied. This is NOT good. Applying the law would be the better option. But a WORSE option would be not to apply the law.

"2. The attack on the Italian GMO experiment exposes the extreme stupidity of the GMO position as it was the rootstocks that were transgenic"

See, this flies in the claims made that GMOs have been udnerway for 10,000 years. This flies in the counter to "but that isn't right because you don't get frog genes in corn, since they can't breed" by people saying "horizontal gene transfer". I KNOW you know about that.

I also know you're not thinking of it because you don't want to: you think you HAVE the answer, therefore don't want to look further. This is fine when you stop looking for your car keys once you've found them, but NOT when you're looking for the truth.

"3. Resistance is not an argument against GMOs"

They are an argument against the efficacy of GMOs. When the resistance of the GMO is overcome, a new patented GMO will be necessary. I guess that will happen just about 20 years after the patent was granted.

"4. Continually tying this into Monsanto is unfair and absurd."

Only if Monsato were not producing GMOs. Picking out Monsato doesn't mean that there are no other bad companies. Tying this into Monsato is tying this to AN EXAMPLE company.

"The way patent law works, internationally, is that if there is prior art it can not be patented"

Ah, so naive!

The way patent law IS WRITTEN is that way. However, for an example, the JPEG compression algorithm had already been patented by IBM but that didn't stop Forgent getting a patent on the algorithm too.

See also Apples "rounded corner rectanngular black shiny object" design patent. Plenty of prior art. Apple just included that and said "it's not like that" without having to explain why.

"So saying that this research benefits Monsanto makes no legal sense."

Companies get the patentable research results from government funded R&D all the time. Even if your assertion there were true, it still happens, sensible or not.

"The best way, for instance, to make sure a drug curing cancer would never be produced would to be to publish on it without getting a provisional patent. No one would touch it,"

Two words:

Generic Treatments.

Plus why would that be the result even if there were no examples where this is not true. You're begging the question here.

"5. Technology is needed and desirable to continue to increase the amount of food generated and safety of its production for human consumption"

There is no need to increase the amount of food generated and the futzing about of food by corporations interested only in their bottom line for the shareholders quarterly report is damaging to the safety.

We produce enough food.

We don't send it to where it's needed. And GMOs won't fix those political problems.

"6. There is no evidence that GMOs are harmful."

Do you really want me to refute that? It is extremely trivial. Not only on a "if you eat it, you can be harmed" way but also in a "this harms the efficiency of the market to produce affordable food" and "this harms the farmers producing the food" way.

If you want to make a blanket statement like that, please consider the fact that you're saying "there is NO proof of ANY GMO that causes ANY harm".

You may then wish to rephrase and limit your statement there.

"And further the concern for their potential mechanisms of harm are abiological and uninformed."

Bt is a toxin, right? And plants are being modified to produce it, right?

Mechanisms for potential harm of feeding protein to rumunants were abiological and uninformed. We still got scrapey and BSE. We then noticed that the abiological prion errors existed.

Again you're begging the question here: abiological things cannot cause a biological harm.

I KNOW you know this.

The conclusion I make to your ignorance of this is purely your ideological stance that GMOs are good and proper because YOU intend good things from research into it.

You're letting your emotion and good intentions cloud yourself to the issue.

And, while not as bad as over at Respectful Insolence, where anyone who is an eco activist MUST be wrong and CANNOT have ANY justification to their actions, you too refuse to consider that there may be justifications to the actions and responses of people against GMO developments.

I, however, am willing to see that you have some justifications to your view on it.

I just don't agree that those justifications outweigh the justifications for stopping.

You don't see any justifications and therefore do not consider whether the balance of evidence supports or refutes GMOs being produced.

And THAT is where I see you standing on the pro-GMO extremist side. Not just unwilling but apparently unable to see any justification to a counterpoint view.

Please stop making shit up.

I didn't make anything up though. That is the course of events as described by the nature article.

You sir, however, did make shit up, and apparently are blithly ignoring the fact that you did so. There was no threat of vandalism in this case, yet you have claimed there were and are utterly avoiding any discussion of the matter.

You're the one making shit up, fess up.

The case as outlined in both documents is pretty clear (with it being marginally muddy about whether or not explicit demands were made to destroy the trial following the denial of an extention (which even I'd say is an implicit message that the trial needs to cease) - Rugini had worked within the framework of the law, the law changed, he was granted one extension, but not a second - at this point Rugini's research was technically illegal - the anti-GMO group spotted this, and made legal requests through government that something be done - explicit demands were then made by the government to move/cover or destroy the research. The research was (or is being) destroyed - this is sad (for me) but perfectly legal.

At no point however did the threat of vigilante action fuel any change.

But it's me making shit up.

You loon.

Except that the law as stated in Italy required that this be a closed environment.

But only 20 years into a 30 year experiment! It's not like he conspired to break the law, they changed it midway through his work!

The route that SHOULD have been taken is NOT to break the law then argue that the law should THEN be changed, but to change the law and THEN do what is now legal.

You clearly did not read the article.

And I would not call it an admirable example, but a regrettably necessary one.

If the government will not apply the law, then vigilante justice is the only way justice will be applied. This is NOT good. Applying the law would be the better option. But a WORSE option would be not to apply the law.

Vigilanteism? Really? I think we're done here. Your ideological extremity is showing.

See, this flies in the claims made that GMOs have been udnerway for 10,000 years. This flies in the counter to “but that isn’t right because you don’t get frog genes in corn, since they can’t breed” by people saying “horizontal gene transfer”. I KNOW you know about that.

I also know you’re not thinking of it because you don’t want to: you think you HAVE the answer, therefore don’t want to look further. This is fine when you stop looking for your car keys once you’ve found them, but NOT when you’re looking for the truth.

I think you need to re-edit this paragraph for clarity. It makes no sense. I made a point about biology, that's all. The GMO was the root. The root did not have the capacity to transmit its genes, so requiring it to be enclose seems foolish. To cite this as an example of a dangerous experiment out of some risk of gene spread to the environment makes absolutely no sense and exposes the biological ignorance of the GMO opponents. I guess you trying to say that some entirely new mechanism of plant reproduction might be possible with roots suddenly sprouting stamens and uprooting everything we know about biology, but if we're going to worry about that risk, than our calibration is highly off. Have you ever worked with grafted plants? Do you understand this is a non-issue?

They are an argument against the efficacy of GMOs. When the resistance of the GMO is overcome, a new patented GMO will be necessary. I guess that will happen just about 20 years after the patent was granted.

A touch paranoid, but just because an innovation isn't 100% effective isn't a reason to generate the innovation. No need to let the perfect destroy the good. After all, this argument applied to antibiotics would have suggested we stop at penicillin. All anitbiotics generate resistance. All of them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use, study, and research new antibiotics.

“The way patent law works, internationally, is that if there is prior art it can not be patented”

Ah, so naive!

The way patent law IS WRITTEN is that way. However, for an example, the JPEG compression algorithm had already been patented by IBM but that didn’t stop Forgent getting a patent on the algorithm too.

See also Apples “rounded corner rectanngular black shiny object” design patent. Plenty of prior art. Apple just included that and said “it’s not like that” without having to explain why.

Ah yes, those technology patents are a bit fuzzier, however when it comes to scientific publications the lines are quite clear. A publication on a mechanism or innovation incontrovertibly represents prior art. Those aren't good examples of patent law applied to science.

Companies get the patentable research results from government funded R&D all the time. Even if your assertion there were true, it still happens, sensible or not.

Yes! I know! I've done it! However, before you publish you have to generate a provisional patent. And government encourages scientists to patent and develop products of government funded research. It's called "investing in science and technology". Still, if you don't file at least a provisional patent before publication you are screwed. Ask any lawyer. I was in a meeting about just this issue on Tuesday.

“The best way, for instance, to make sure a drug curing cancer would never be produced would to be to publish on it without getting a provisional patent. No one would touch it,”

Two words:

Generic Treatments.

Two words. Chronic shortages. Also, it's not like such a drug would be discovered and immediately distributed as a treatment. First you'll find an exploitable biological mechanism, then a drug to modify/target that mechanism. Then you file a patent. Then some company interested ni your pre-clinical research will say, "that's interesting, how about a clinical trial." They then dump tons of money in generating the drug, investigating saftey and efficacy, and often in collaboration with government funded investigators trials are run. Then someone needs to spend all the money to get FDA approval for the drug based on demonstration of efficacy, and for safety of the drug production. The total cost of developing a new mechanism drug has been estimated to be somewhere in the 100-150million dollar range. The drug companies themselves claim it's about 1billion per drug, but they likely are exaggerating for sympathy.

Now tell me, who would invest all that time and money if a generic producer could equally benefit from their efforts the second they gained FDA approval?

Nobody.

There is no need to increase the amount of food generated and the futzing about of food by corporations interested only in their bottom line for the shareholders quarterly report is damaging to the safety.

We produce enough food.

We don’t send it to where it’s needed. And GMOs won’t fix those political problems.

Yes we have enough food now. But the world population is growing you know. I'm looking ahead 50 years here.

“And further the concern for their potential mechanisms of harm are abiological and uninformed.”

Bt is a toxin, right? And plants are being modified to produce it, right?

Show me bt is harmful to humans. Antibiotics are toxins too. They're toxic to the organisms that operate with slightly different biology than us, but we can consume them without our protein translational machinery locking up or our cells exploding. bt is bad for insects that eat crops, not so much vertebrates. We've had these crops implemented widely since 1996. Where is the harm?

Mechanisms for potential harm of feeding protein to rumunants were abiological and uninformed. We still got scrapey and BSE. We then noticed that the abiological prion errors existed.

This is a bizarre analogy and just turning into an impossible expectations/moving goalposts argument. The mechanism was unknown, not abiological and silly. And you can't just use an appeal to the unknown to justify a freeze in technological innovation. By abiological I mean not conforming to known mechanisms of biological behaviors or plausibly consistent with things like physics and math. Worrying about a root stock causing horizontal gene transfer is kind of silly. Admit it.

The conclusion I make to your ignorance of this is purely your ideological stance that GMOs are good and proper because YOU intend good things from research into it.

You’re letting your emotion and good intentions cloud yourself to the issue.

I have no intentions regarding these products and no emotional investment specifically in GMOs. I have a big personal investment in science, and the idea that people can show up, and destroy your experiment because they don't like it is very disturbing to me. For one, because I do animal research. For another, because the reasoning of the anti-GMOs in this case is based on misinformation and ignorance. And finally, because it's simply unacceptable in this modern world to allow extremists to burn and destroy that which they don't like. We have governments, laws and democracy to prevent this kind of bullshit. Disagreeing with a legal, safe, government-sponsored experiment because you don't understand biology is one thing. To say you then have the right to show up and destroy it is another. Why shouldn't Ken Ham show up in some evo-devo lab and set fire to it? If it's enough that you disagree with something, that you have a right to show up and destroy it, I think we've lowered the bar for civilized behavior.

And, while not as bad as over at Respectful Insolence, where anyone who is an eco activist MUST be wrong and CANNOT have ANY justification to their actions, you too refuse to consider that there may be justifications to the actions and responses of people against GMO developments.

I get the business end, but I frankly find the anti-technological arguments to be modern Luddism. They aren't based on reasonable plausible biological processes. And they seem very uninterested in examples like this in which even the mere study is being attacked violently.

And THAT is where I see you standing on the pro-GMO extremist side. Not just unwilling but apparently unable to see any justification to a counterpoint view.

Again, I think the big problem people have here is with big business. But the evidence against the safety or usefulness of the technology is poor. I think they make a good argument that the business practices of companies may ultimately make the benefits of GMOs net neutral, because they behave so crappily as monopolists or exploiters of new markets. But that's a different issue. It also has nothing to do with whether or not it's ok to show up and destroy someone's experiment because you don't like corporations exploiting similar technology.

Ewan: "I didn’t make anything up though"

Yes you did. You made a strawman when you said "no demands for destruction were apparently made".

As I REPEATEDLY said, nobody has said that demands for destruction were made.

Please stop making stuff up.

Mark, you clearly did not UNDERSTAND the article. Don't filter it through your rose-tinted glasses.

"Two words. Chronic shortages. "

One antonym: WTF?

How will GMOs make the distribution of food work??? This, right here, is your rose-tinted glasses at work. You're not even listening to yourself, merely parroting the party line.

STOP DOING IT.

Since the problem with feeding humanity is NOT we have insufficient production but that we have a problem with people screwing up the distribution (for religious or political reasons), in what way will GMOs fix that problem?

Unless you've got a way to genetically modify the stupid out of humans, IT WON'T.

"It’s not like he conspired to break the law, they changed it midway through his work!"

When smoking pot was legal, when you were found smoking pot after the law changed, you were allowed to remove the illegal substances. If years later you were found smoking pot, you were a criminal.

Just because you like the research doesn't mean you ignore the law.

Hell, that's what your problem with the vandalism is. You don't think that they should be allowed to break the law on destruction of property.

But the "other side" (the one you are on) are fine breaking the law.

Maybe your unable to see the double standard you hold.

"I have no intentions regarding these products and no emotional investment specifically in GMOs."

You most definitely do. Look to your blindness about the double standard.

Dunnin Kruger has a cousin. When you're heavily involved in something, you don't see the problems and have an over-inflated view of the utility of your subject.

"Now tell me, who would invest all that time and money if a generic producer could equally benefit from their efforts the second they gained FDA approval?"

A government R&D facility.

"...destroy your experiment because they don’t like it is very disturbing to me. For one, because I do animal research"

This here is where your emotional investment comes from.

Note how blind you are to it.

Wow, that isn't a strawman, its a paraphrasing of the nature article, an explanation of what was actually said by the researchers themselves - while they were explaining why they didn't destroy the research after their extension was denied.

So no, I haven't made anything up. You however still refuse to address the massive lie that the only reason this research was destroyed was threats of vigilantism...

STILL was going ahead (because of the extremists who wish to force GMO on the market) is only now being canned because of activists intent to violate and destroy the illegal test.

And again, I point you to Italy. It was ONLY because of attacks on the government funded experiment that the THREE TIMES declared illegal test in Italy was abandoned. Your thesis that attacks on such experiments are unwarranted and counter-productive are not bourne out by reality.

remember?

So yeah, not only do you fail in your identification of a straw-man arguement (which appears only in a parenthetical aside and is tangential to anything I said anyway), you're also getting terribly excited about me making things up (when I'm not) while at the same time.... making things up (things which far from being tangential to your case are actually central to it)

Just because you like the research doesn’t mean you ignore the law.

So not only are you a massive fucking liar, you're also a massive fucking hypocrite? (Either it's ok to ignore the law when you feel you're doing the right thing, or it isn't, you can't have it both ways here)

Awesome.

"Wow, that isn’t a strawman"

OK, it was a lie then.

This is the last time because as a previously respected commentator I think you deserve it. However, the ad hominems and ALL CAPS is starting to come out and I frankly think you've lost your mind here.

Anyway

Mark, you clearly did not UNDERSTAND the article. Don’t filter it through your rose-tinted glasses.

“Two words. Chronic shortages. ”

One antonym: WTF?

I have written previously about chronic shortages of critical generics. Further, you ignore my discussion of why no manufacturer would bring a product to market without patent protection. They still have to spend hundreds of millions for the scientific efficacy and federal approval processes.

How will GMOs make the distribution of food work??? This, right here, is your rose-tinted glasses at work. You’re not even listening to yourself, merely parroting the party line.

What party? What line? Why is the responsibility of the technology to have appropriate distribution and not, you know, the farm industry. Are we talking about sentient plants? You are writing more and more sentences that make no sense. GMO to you clearly means something that it doesn't to me.

STOP DOING IT.

All caps? Really?

Since the problem with feeding humanity is NOT we have insufficient production but that we have a problem with people screwing up the distribution (for religious or political reasons), in what way will GMOs fix that problem?

Today we have supply. In the future when there are more people on the planet supply will be a challenge. Further this is again a red herring as the GMO in this case was designed to decrease pesticide use. There is more than one use for the technology and I approve of efforts to decrease the use of pesticides which also decreases the costs, health, economic and in carbon usage, of farming.

Unless you’ve got a way to genetically modify the stupid out of humans, IT WON’T.

What does this government-funded research experiment have to do with food distribution. You seem to be arguing the typical crank attack on science they don't like that there is something more important or valuable to be researched, therefore anything that isn't that line of research is worthless. Tedious. It's not the role of GMOs to fix political and religious problems.

“It’s not like he conspired to break the law, they changed it midway through his work!”

When smoking pot was legal, when you were found smoking pot after the law changed, you were allowed to remove the illegal substances. If years later you were found smoking pot, you were a criminal.

Read the articles, he went through channels, tried to get his experiment grandfathered, the government didn't seem to care that he continued it, so he did.

Just because you like the research doesn’t mean you ignore the law.

Based on the articles the researcher did not ignore the law, he sought extension and protection for his experiment through government channels.

Hell, that’s what your problem with the vandalism is. You don’t think that they should be allowed to break the law on destruction of property.

Yes. Also there is a difference between regulatory non-compliance and violence. Guess which I think is worse.

But the “other side” (the one you are on) are fine breaking the law.

Maybe your unable to see the double standard you hold.

Different kinds of laws, different kinds of actions, with different ethical implications. Not obeying a regulation (like the speed limit) I'm not that bothered by. Someone shooting a rocket launcher at my car if I'm 10 over the limit in an act of self-righteous vigilantism, that I'm more disturbed by.

“I have no intentions regarding these products and no emotional investment specifically in GMOs.”

You most definitely do. Look to your blindness about the double standard.

Not a double standard, except maybe that I don't think regulations on crops and science are equivalent to violent vigilantism. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me though. And why are we still talking about Italy? The goddamn experiment we're talking about was in England, was legal, and threatened with vandalism anyway. You keep changing the subject.

Dunnin Kruger has a cousin. When you’re heavily involved in something, you don’t see the problems and have an over-inflated view of the utility of your subject.

Plain old bias.

“Now tell me, who would invest all that time and money if a generic producer could equally benefit from their efforts the second they gained FDA approval?”

A government R&D facility.

Ha! hahahahhahhahhaaahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah.

Ok, name a drug that was researched, sponsored and approved by this government R&D facility (also imagined). That's just not the way our world works. Yeah the NIH will help you with the clinical trial, and often fund the preclinical research but they're not seeking FDA approval for the drugs, building the factories, generating the product, etc.

“…destroy your experiment because they don’t like it is very disturbing to me. For one, because I do animal research”

This here is where your emotional investment comes from.

Partially but also I see that animal research is a critical component of biological research which I think is important for legitimate reasons. Just because I'm invested in something and that makes me protective, that doesn't make my protectiveness unreasonable or unwarranted. Nor does it make my arguments false.

The destruction of a legal, government approved and funded public experiment because you disagree with it is wrong. Bypassing democratic processes, due process or even dialogue with the scientists in question shows they are extremists that aren't interested in listening to reason, or civil discourse.

Sorry to bore everyone but..

OK, it was a lie then.

How so given that the quote from the nature article is:-

The order came as a shock to Rugini. While no extension had been given, there had been no official directive from authorities to destroy the trees either.

while my paraphrasing is:-

no demands for destruction were apparently made

How is that a lie? Have you redefined the word lie to mean something different and not told anybody? Is that why you get to lie quite flagrantly about the situation (based on the old meaning of the word lie) and simply ignore the fact that you're a dishonest shit, whereas someone accurately paraphrasing an article is somehow worthy of pouring on scorn.

"I have written previously about chronic shortages of critical generics"

What? We're talking about food here. Right? Food.

We have plenty of food.

We're not getting them to mouths.

I don't care how many times you've "written about them" because that's only proof you're writing.

We have enough food. We don't have a chronic food shortage.

A shortage of food we have none.

PS why are ALL CAPS when not all caps wrong? I though a message that contained almost entirely CAPS was the wrong thing (TM).

But back to the point: We have no food shortage. Just a shortage of transport of the food to mouths.

http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002…

Food shortage: none.

“I have written previously about chronic shortages of critical generics”

What? We’re talking about food here. Right? Food.

Well we got on a tangent about patent law and you seemed to insist prior art did not matter. I was describing why it does especially in science and science publication and why generic drug companies will not bring a NME to market, ever, or rather, why a drug without a patent is unattractive to invest in.

Food shortage: none.

And I don't know how many times so far, it must be at least three, that I've said the absence of current shortage doesn't mean that with an expanding world population we might one day have the Malthusian crisis. Malthus was wrong but only because technology allowed us to adapt to higher and higher populations on earth. No food shortage now, fine, how about when we have 50 billion people on the planet? Despite this entire thing being a red herring since again, the experiment in question was for pesticide reduction.

"Well we got on a tangent about patent law and you seemed to insist prior art did not matter."

Well you started talking about how we NEED GMO food to feed people.

I'm trying to nail down the errors you have one by one.

And it is a proven verifiable fact that prior art doesn't stop a patent.

Heck, a process that isn't patentable still gets patented.

Lets agree that extremism for GMOs and against GMOs exist.

And you have one of them.

Here's why I went "We're talking about food". You said:

“I have written previously about chronic shortages of critical generics”

You have written previously about chronic shortages of food.

You insisted that we need GMOs because we're short of food.

If you previously wrote on some other paper/blog/whatever about generics (whats? drugs? Generic drugs aren't in shortage. They're being stymied by lobbying, but they can be made by, for example, the government, as India said they'd do if they didn't get a cheaper deal on some bird flu (?) treatment). then how the hell am I supposed to know that?

Or are you silently giving up without comment the meme "we need GMOs to feed the world!" that you parrot because you don't like one side (as opposed to liking the other)?

Well you started talking about how we NEED GMO food to feed people.
....
You insisted that we need GMOs because we’re short of food.

Here's what I actually said:

"There is always a pressing need for innovation in increasing our food supply and decreasing cost to produce and environmental costs of food production. As long as our population is growing, and our farmland is shrinking, technology is required to advance us, or maybe one day Malthus will end up being right after all."

I think it's true we need to continue to investigate technology in food production and protection to feed an ever-expanding population. If we halt because of unsubstantiated fears about a technology we will arrest the progress we've made and the historical inaccuracy of the Malthusians may reverse itself.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I've been very clear since the beginning why I think technology like this merits research. If you persist in making things up I'm going to just end the thread.

And it is a proven verifiable fact that prior art doesn’t stop a patent.You have written previously about chronic shortages of food.

I have not written previously about chronic shortages of food, have I? (I just googled "food shortage" and got like 5 articles from my blog, none of them having to do with food shortage -rather they were about obesity.)

Wow, I get emails every day about another generic drug shortage. We wrote about it here. Generic shortages are a daily problem in the hospital. And while you may think you know something about patent law, you clearly do not. I realize that yes, some examples of some extra legal bullshit have slipped through, largely in tech. Apple, after all, probably lost the biggest prior art cases ever with windows (xerox's damn gui wrecked their case) and the iPhone (debatable obviousness).

However, it's different with scientific discoveries where there is a clear citation and record in the scientific literature. If there is a clear example of prior art, you're screwed. Now, a lot of the fuzziness comes from the need for "obviousness" from the literature, and I think that's where they get their wiggle if the claim is based on a subjective determination of obviousness. But in an example like this it would be pretty clear cut.

It also doesn't challenge the point that a patent is still required to bring a profitable product to markets that require extensive pre-release approval, scientific study, and infrastructure investment. Citing India is not a valid counterpoint, as the regulatory structure of other countries is not comparable to ours (thankfully).

Finally, as far as me being a GMO extremist, what is it that I've said that's so extreme? Government funded research into GMO shouldn't be burned by misinformed vandals. Biotech research is worthy of study. We don't know if one day supply won't meet demand so we should continue to research into food production including GMO.

Hardly radical.

“There is always a pressing need for innovation in increasing our food supply "

And that bit is wrong.

"I think it’s true we need to continue to investigate technology in food production"

Now I agree here.

"to feed an ever-expanding population"

And now we're back to "we're not producing enough food!". Wrong still.

"Please stop putting words in my mouth"

I'm rephrasing your words so you can see how they appear to me. If you don't like it, then explain where the rephrasing is either wrong or not intended.

But don't whine about it. Do something about it.

"Wow, I get emails every day about another generic drug shortage."

And I get a lot Nigerian princes who have money they need to launder. What *I* do is try to work out if they're true.

Now, one reason why generics can be hard to get (and here I'm assuming you're USian) is because your doctor will not proscribe them, your healthcare plan won't cover them and you're illegally importing them if you get them outside the USA.

GMOs won't help ANY of that.

Moreover, I don't see how GMOs will "solve" a genuine shortage of generics.

If here you're talking about the need for patents, then patents won't help since generics are unpatented for a start, and the doctors aren't proscribing them because they're not on the authorised list, prodcing more won't change it.

And on the "patents good", governments would research drugs for cures that are necessary and won't require patents.

Something I've not noticed you admitting to when you asked "who would do this, huh?". Maybe it got missed in the wall-o-text, hence why I want to get to knocking down or getting to the root of one meme at a time.

"I have not written previously about chronic shortages of food, have I?"

Yes, in this thread you say that we need patented GMOs to solve a food shortage. This was done earlier in time than the statement I said saying you had. Ergo a factual and verifiable claim.

What's radical is your blindness through a cognitive bias against "activists" and probably a smaller one for patents and science-no-matter-what.

Your parroting of the memes for GMOs and your perpetual need to demonise or maginalise (at best) anti-GMO are likewise evidence of your pro-GMO extremism.

The causes are my inference from visible evidence.

And now we’re back to “we’re not producing enough food!”. Wrong still.

“Please stop putting words in my mouth”

I’m rephrasing your words so you can see how they appear to me. If you don’t like it, then explain where the rephrasing is either wrong or not intended.

I am done with this. You are being purposefully obtuse. If you can not understand words like "future" and "growth" I'm done with you.

“Wow, I get emails every day about another generic drug shortage.”

And I get a lot Nigerian princes who have money they need to launder. What *I* do is try to work out if they’re true.

Now you're just being an outrageous asshole. I get these emails from my hospital. Look at the article you linked and the FDA list of shorted drugs. This is a real problem. Instead of being a prick, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt that as a physician it's my business to know this stuff.

Now, one reason why generics can be hard to get (and here I’m assuming you’re USian) is because your doctor will not proscribe them, your healthcare plan won’t cover them and you’re illegally importing them if you get them outside the USA.

Read the linked article, it has nothing to do with this. They are manufacturer shortages, often from foreign made components or failure to meet expected supply, and regulatory shutdowns of facilities for contaminations.

GMOs won’t help ANY of that.

Now I think you're intellectually defective. This is a side discussion about patent protection. Nothing I said could be implied to have anything to do GMOs improving drug production. That is just bizarre.

Moreover, I don’t see how GMOs will “solve” a genuine shortage of generics.

Nor do I, no one ever suggested it. Now I realize I'm arguing with someone who can't read.

If here you’re talking about the need for patents, then patents won’t help since generics are unpatented for a start, and the doctors aren’t proscribing them because they’re not on the authorised list, prodcing more won’t change it.

You are now exposed as profoundly ignorant. You have no idea what your talking about when it comes to drugs, patents or frankly anything. You are suggesting I'm making arguments that I am not. I am talking about patents being necessary for investment in drugs that are novel mechanistically. The putative cancer drug I initially suggested for example, and the role of scientific evidence required for federal regulatory approval and distribution of such drugs costing on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

And on the “patents good”, governments would research drugs for cures that are necessary and won’t require patents.

Besides being yet another fragment, this flies in the face of the entire history of science and drug discovery, patent law in our constitution and internationally, our economic system, our existing manufacturing infrastructure, and how we perform science in this country.

Something I’ve not noticed you admitting to when you asked “who would do this, huh?”. Maybe it got missed in the wall-o-text, hence why I want to get to knocking down or getting to the root of one meme at a time.

This sentence doesn't have enough structure to evaluate.

“I have not written previously about chronic shortages of food, have I?”

Yes, in this thread you say that we need patented GMOs to solve a food shortage. This was done earlier in time than the statement I said saying you had. Ergo a factual and verifiable claim.

An entirely fabricated and bullshit claim as I've demonstrated 4 times now. I'm talking about future need. Future need, future need, future need. The world population is growing. It's that simple. Your continual refusal to understand this, and your insistence I'm saying something I'm not now just stinks of intellectual dishonesty.

What’s radical is your blindness through a cognitive bias against “activists” and probably a smaller one for patents and science-no-matter-what.

However, you can not say a single one of my statements is radical. I just "feel" like a GMO/Monsanto parrot to you.

Your parroting of the memes for GMOs and your perpetual need to demonise or maginalise (at best) anti-GMO are likewise evidence of your pro-GMO extremism.

Paranoia, foolishness, unsubstantiated nonsense. I parroted nothing. I'm criticizing the vandalism of a government research project, the demonstrable biological ignorance of the opponents, and the tendency of individuals, including yourself to abandon all reason when it comes to your ideological biases.

What have we seen from you in this thread wow? Paranoid conspiracy theories - this is all for monsanto, patent law doesn't matter because monsanto is all powerful. I'm just a monsanto puppett. blah blah blah. Citing articles unrelated to the situation being criticized then refusing to admit that you misread, and misrepresented them. Impossible expectations for safety issues related to GMO, suggesting prion disease as an example of how we can't know everything, therefore we should do nothing. Finally the logical fallacies. The red herring of the italian case. The suggestion that vigilantism is needed if government regulations are not obeyed. The continual failure to understand basic concepts in biology and botany.

You are ignorant and unaware of it, and frankly, on this issue you are a crank. I don't argue with cranks. Thread closed.

Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt?

denialism — Fri, 18 May 2012 03:05:55 +0000

Is the holocaust denial/climate change denial comparison apt?

Many of the climate change denialist sites have been up in arms by comparisons of climate change denial to holocaust denial. In particular Marc Morano at climate depot has had multiple articles attacking and expressing hysterical outrage at these comparisons.

We know they don't like the comparison, but the question is, is it apt?

One article in particular from Micha Tomkiewicz, who is himself a holocaust survivor, has earned the ire of climate denialists around the web because in addition to the comparison of the tactics of global warming denialists and holocaust deniers, he additionally creates a moral comparison. While not saying it's as bad a holocaust denial, Tomkiewicz does suggest they might be denying the possibility of a future holocaust:

I make my "climate change denier" claim for one reason. It's easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it's much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don't repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it's hard to see a genocide - any genocide - coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.

I don't know that I would state the problem in these terms but then I have a very different background from Dr. Tomkiewicz. In general people who engage in denialism are ideologues who use similar rhetorical tactics, and that's where my comparison ends. The commonality is denial, and all those who engage in denial aren't automatically morally comparable to Holocaust deniers. After all, the ideology fueling denial comes from all sides of the political spectrum, and ranges from hateful (anti-semitism) to political (libertarianism vs global warming) to even well intentioned compassion (animal rights extremism vs biological science). Usually, the desire to make the comparison to Holocaust denial comes from the denialists themselves, as they wish to create a straw man argument to distract from their dishonest rhetoric. When we describe denialism we are describing the use of conspiracy theories, cherry-picking, fake experts, moving goalposts and logical fallacies to argue against legitimate science. It is not a description of people who might disagree with a scientific theory or even a scientific consensus, as scientists routinely disagree over interpretation of data and it is possible for consensus to be overturned. However, legitimate debate occurs in the scientific literature, and not by alleging fantastical conspiracy theories and denial of data.

Worse, using the Holocaust itself to score rhetorical points is a slimy tactic, and it is insulting to those who survived the Holocaust to raise petty disputes to the level of the worst crime in history.

The comparison between climate denialists and other denialists should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, and it should end there. Holocaust denial and climate change denial share many features, as does evolution denialism, HIV/AIDS denialism, vaccine crankery, 9/11 trutherism etc., that is they use rhetorical tricks to deny a body of evidence that contradicts an ideological position. In fact, Deborah Lipstadt's Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory is an excellent book to read because in rigorously exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of Holocaust denial, she also uncovers the tactics used by other denialists.

Holocaust deniers have conspiracy theories to explain away the documentary evidence and personal experiences of holocaust survivors. The first Holocaust denier Paul Rassinier alleged a zionist/soviet conspiracy to invent the Holocaust. They latch on to minor inconsistencies in the historical records of extremely complex events to suggest that the records are flawed, or that vastly fewer Jews were murdered by the Nazis. They cite historical evidence from revisionists like David Irving, a fake expert who was very publicly castigated for shoddy and outright false scholarship after he made the mistake of suing Deborah Lipstadt for libel in Britain over her book (a classic silencing move by denialists). Holocaust deniers create impossible expectations for the level of evidence required to prove the holocaust occurred. Finally, logical fallacies, like David Irving's attempt to create a moral equivalency between the Allies and the Nazis for the allied bombing of Dresden is a classic tu quoque.

Climate change denialism shares all of these features. Denialists like Inhofe (Morano's boss) allege a global warming "hoax". This conspiracy theory suggests that thousands of scientists worldwide are all operating from the same playbook (the Protocols of the Al Gore), falsifying data for the purpose of creating regulations to restrict business, and secretly working to create one world government. Or that somehow peer-review and grant rewards only go to those who back the consensus, the classic "grantsmanship" conspiracy theory that is contradicted by the fact that scientists encourage and reward revolutionary results as long as they are well-grounded in data. It sounds ridiculous, but these are their arguments. How one could possibly manage to make thousands of people fabricate evidence for peer reviewed journals all to say the same thing and not be detected is beyond belief. And before the cranks show up and suggest the East Anglia emails are of any significance, let's move on to number two:

The cherry picking of papers, often from journals that are overrun by cranks like Energy and Environment, and even the cherry-picking of individual data points or time periods is rampant. The theft of the East Anglia emails, which were then cherry-picked and quoted out of context to create the false appearance of deception on the part of scientists is another excellent example. Despite the actions of the involved scientists being cleared by multiple investigations of the emails (context is everything), denialists still harp about climategate as if it's actually a thing. Instead it's excellent evidence of their willingness to engage in dishonest editing to serve their ideological goals, just as creationists will attempt to misquote Darwin or other evolutionary biologists out of context to suggest they're really skeptical of evolution or racist.

Global warming denialism is rife with fake experts. The Oregon petition and various other lists generated by climate change denialists are full of MDs, meteorologists, and the occasional AC repair man. These are not climate experts. Similarly, I am not an expert in climate change despite having degrees in physics, medicine and physiology. I don't contribute to the literature, and I don't have the technical expertise needed to challenge real climate scientists that are the true experts in this field. I am something of an expert in crankery though, so when you have cranks like Christopher Monckton, who asserts he's a member of parliament when he's not (they even had to send him a letter telling him to stop), who routinely makes the same debunked arguments over and over, and makes other bizarre claims like that he's discovered a cure for HIV, then I'm going to weigh in and call bullshit. Part of the problem is the Dunning-Kruger effect, people who are incompetent have a great deal of difficulty recognizing competence in others, while inflating estimates of their own competence. Cranks and denialists are probably incapable of judging whether someone is a legitimate source or authority. This is where crank magnetism comes from, as long as an "expert" agrees with them, their otherwise ludicrous views and behavior have no bearing. Intellectual consistency and expertise in the field in question has no relevance in their eyes as long as they spout out BS that fits with their ideological biases.

Global warming denialists are excellent at moving goalposts, they're still arguing about the damn hockey stick graph after all, despite its validation by multiple other methods. Some early criticisms which actually enetered the literature might have represented a legitimate attempt to debate the findings scientifically, but after being affirmed by the NAS, replicated by other investigators, and expanded upon using other methods, the denialists still are not satisfied. They still will never accept the conclusions. No additional data, no worsening trend, no publication in the legitimate literature will ever make a dent. They reject the research because of ideological conflict, not because they have a legitimate scientific beef with the data.

Finally, logical fallacies are rife. From the appellation "warmist", to crowing that Al Gore is fat and has a big energy wasting house, fallacies are not rare with this movement. The holocaust denier comparison itself is a straw-man argument, as most of us who are attacking their tactics emphasize that the similarity is in their actions, not their motivations. My favorite piece of nonsense comes from Inhofe, who argues God made the earth and is the only one who can destroy it (he's not the only one who has argued this). Where to begin with such nonsense? This is the type of argument that people use and believe to argue against actual data and scientific papers. God made the earth! Science can't be right because God said otherwise! Really? It's sad this blog is even necessary when that is the level of debate from one of global warming's leading critics.

The reason these arguments are denialist isn't because they disagree with theory, and it isn't because they disagree with scientific consensus. It's because they're challenging scientific theories and consensus with conspiracy theories, quote-mining, crank experts, and rhetorical tricks. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree, it's when you use these tactics to disagree that you're engaging in denialism, and these tactics are indefensible.

Ultimately I disagree with Tomkiewicz, respectfully. I do not think that a moral comparison need be made between holocaust deniers and climate change denialists. The only comparison needed is between their tactics, which are dishonest and intellectually bankrupt. The suggestion of moral equivalence will only serve to alienate those that identify with these arguments because of their ideological affinity with the libertarian cranks promoting it. Libertarians, after all, truly believe the path to happiness is unregulated industry, and some Randian ideal of unfettered supermen whose unenlightened self-interest will lead us to greatness. They don't want to let global warming spin out of control because they hate humanity and want the world's population to suffer.

The real way to win over the undecided is to attack the tactics of the denialist, to educate people that denialist rhetoric is not legitimate debate, and to mock the fools that think that "God will protect us" is a legitimate scientific argument. Debates should have minimal standards, including intellectual honesty and substance, and scientific debate should have even higher standards including reliance on peer-review and publication in legitimate scientific journals. Climate change denialism does not meet the standards for legitimate debate, it relies on conspiracy theories, bogus experts, cherry-picked data, crank journals, and appeals to the almighty. Climate change denialism is rightly criticized for being denialist, but moral comparisons of these denialists to the anti-Semitic deniers of the Holocaust is a distraction, and will not help sway anyone to the side of science.

denialism Thu, 05/17/2012 - 23:05

Tags

Denialism

global warming denialism

global warming denialism

With condolences, AGW denial by my own predictions and resulting body count from just kinetic damage from ~2002 to 2010 should be comparable to the horrors of the Holocaust and the denial that made it possible. âA. ... 2. ... With condolences, the global warming earthquake loss of so many Haitians and now 1 more Chinese soul mean GBRWE predictions have been the tombstones and other markers of ~1 to 2.5 million dead and dying from violent global warming catastrophes not including any fireballsâ (âGBRWE 2/7 - 13/10''s Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activitiesâ; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 2/7 - 13/10, 2/6/10). However, extremist Republicans and Christians think they can sponge of the lives of their grandparents in lieu of actual service to humanity. Holocaust and denier are not interchangeable just as predicting a free lunch from EssoKoch is not the same as predicting a hurricane or earthquake with AGW. To avoid his employers killing with AGW and not stating whose side was gramps on, âComparing skeptics as a whole and me personally to Holocaust deniers ... whose grandfather risked his life and caught a bullet fighting the Nazis in World War II, that is one of the most offensive, disgusting, incendiary attacks a person can makeâ (âGiving The Global Warming Bully A Free Pass â; Written By: James M. Taylor; The Heartland Institute; forbes.com, 5/16/12). Perhaps Taylor writes from the DPRK for hard currency, âWas North Korean leader Kim Jong Unâs grandfather a traitor?â (Michael Woods, Staff Reporter; thestar.com, 5/14/12).

You Global Cooling Deniers really crack me up.

"The comparison between climate denialists and other denialists should come from the fact that they argue the exact same way, and it should end there."

It does, except for the whining martyrs of denailism who continue to whimper they are sooo put upon by being called nazis.

They are the only ones making the connection. And incorrectly (holocaust deniers are not necessarily nazi or even neo-nazi: they just deny any and all evidence of the Holocaust. This can be because they're fervent christians (as nazis were), just hate "kike's" or are plain old bitter and twisted a-holes).

There is no denial in the new Levitus etal paper on ocean heat that confirms Trenberth's travesty of being unable to explain the "missing heat".

"The real way to win over the undecided is to attack the tactics of the denialists..." Lord knows you can't sway them with your "facts" or your ever changing Alarmist icons like polar bears or glaciers. So this years meme of "Look! Bad weather! It's Global Warming!" isn't working for you? Your fallback position is smearing the other side? Uh, OK, that should overcome the steady decline in CAGW belief since 2007. That should help pass some serious legislation. That won't keep the opposition angry and energized.
I take it you don't actually want to accomplish anything, you just want to appear to be intellectually superior. Good. You'll remain the pretentious, arrogant minority that you've always been. Now I'll get back to reminding as many people as possible what insufferable, bigoted, hateful scumbags you people are.

Windy, please don't misrepresent Levitus. Trenberth couldn't explain the missing heat at the time. Levitus, more recently, found we could: it's going into the lower oceans, at a rate of two Hiroshima bombs per second.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oce…

Mark discusses moving the goalposts, but this is just holding them steady with stolen out of context email quotes while denying a goal has been scored.

The comparison is idiotic at best.

And you need only look at the comments of someone like Ozonator to understand that both sides have their fair share of kooks and Zeolots.

The challenge is to avoid becoming one of them.

Mike Mangan first asks,"Your fallback position is smearing the other side?"

and then goes on to opine, "Now I'll get back to reminding as many people as possible what insufferable, bigoted, hateful scumbags you people are."

LOL you just couldn't make it up! Well, I guess he did.....

This is one of those comment threads where I wonder if anyone actually reads beyond the title. Mangan, do you support the climate change hoax? Are you a conspiracy theorist? Do you really think we should buy into the idiotic idea that thousands of scientists are colluding to lie in the scientific literature?

You can cite examples of idiocy from the lay press, but I don't see any real challenges to the science, other than windy's lame attempt.

Finally, I argue against the moral comparison, not for it. So I really don't see what the smear is beyond attacking these rhetorical tactics. Does that mean you agree with the use of these tactics? So cherry picking and fake experts are ok in your opinion?

@#6

Do you know Dana1981 who you link to? Do you know his occupation? How about Tom Curtis who also weighs in on the discussion you linked?

It is funny that you link to people with financial interests in promoting global warming as a valid source of information. I have problems with the conflict of interest and would say that you're the one that is misrepresenting Levitus. And I am ROTF with the Hiroshima bomb nonsense as that should have been a strong clue to you that Dana1981 is not a climate scientist but rather a PR person. Thanks for the laugh but no thanks on the faux science site you link.

Child, you are at the beginning of a thought. You try to use logic, but fail to use it on your self. You need to start the process over. The skeptics hold the null hypothesis - Show me the money. The CAGW position is based on 3 fallacies. Argument from ignorance - It must be CO2 because I have yet to learn of anything else it could be. Argument from authority - You must believe me because I am smarter than you. Argument from the crowd - The consensus must be true. You add several more fallacies in your post. Wiki has a couple of good lists of fallacies that you need to study. One does not need to be a dairy farmer to know the smell of manure.

*I* am arguing for the moral comparison.

But I suppose that, since MarkH allows this on, this is "proof" he supports the use of denial to describe climate deniers.

Of course, he ALSO allows people on saying that AGW is a hoax and therefore this would be proof that he is a climate denier too.

Or the predicate is bull.

I know which seems most likely to me.

"Trenberth couldn't explain the missing heat at the time."

That's not it either.

Trenberth's "calamity" was that we didn't have the deep ocean network necessary to see and measure where the heat was going.

The heat was going to places where we didn't have anywhere near enough the number of sensors needed to track the heat budget.

The ocean deeps.

He knew where it was going. It was only missing in so far as something going in to a black box is "missing" when you do the sums of in and out: some has gone to "The Black Box", but you can't tell any more than that, and if you want to know what's happened to the inputs, that's a travesty.

But it isn't "missing" as in "We don't know where the stuff is going" but "off our sensor network".

"people with financial interests in promoting global warming"

Hmmm. How much financial interest?

Compare to Heartland.

"The skeptics hold the null hypothesis - Show me the money."

That isn't a null hypothesis. It's a negative slur.

Child, you need to start some learning before you can dare berate others for being wrong.

"The CAGW position is based on 3 fallacies."

This should be a hoot.

"Argument from ignorance - It must be CO2 because I have yet to learn of anything else it could be."

AFTER trying everything else. If, after all the possible answers have been found inadequate, whatever is left, no matter how improbably, must be the answer.

I'm afraid YOU are the one who is ignorant.

Try reading some history:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

and stop arguing from an ignorant position.

"Argument from authority - You must believe me because I am smarter than you."

So the dumber the person, the more you should believe them.

So I guess you ask the credenza to operate on your dicky ticker, aye?

There is no fallacy of argument from authority, only a fallacy when it's a FALSE authority.

A medical doctor would be a FALSE AUTHORITY for climate science, for example.

"Argument from the crowd - The consensus must be true"

So therefore, since the consensus is that the earth is round, it MUST BE FLAT!

And since medical consensus has it that you cannot fly by jumping off tall buildings, YOU CAN FLY!!!

Of course, the reason why there is a consensus is because all the evidence points toward it.

But I guess you don't like that view.

Despite the actions of the involved scientists being cleared by multiple investigations of the emails

I've had some of the tinfoil-hatted denialist crowd actually use these investigations to back up their own conspiracy theories: since there were SO MANY investigations that all uniformly cleared the scientists, the initial claims must have "touched a nerve" and been more right than could have been allowed, thus the coordinated smokescreen of fake exonerations. It's brilliant, Holmes!

Likewise, they'll claim that the underlying scientific concepts (i.e. that the greenhouse effect exists) can't be "settled", because people are still debating it. This is VERBATIM a Holocaust-denier fortune cookie.

As for Inhofe, I wonder if in his blinkered creationism he has ever even heard of terrible things happen that didn't destroy the entire world? Like, say, the 2004 South Asian tsunami that killed about 300,000 people? They all died but we're still here, so.... what, nothing happened? Does he actually think that the pro-science side believes that Earth will be completely rendered lifeless or physically destroyed?

It's hard to get cretins like Inhofe - reminds me of the Douglas Adams line describing the rhinoceros: "You tend to try to imagine the mental life of other animals, but when confronted by one with a brain smaller than its nostrils, you tend to fail."

The CAGW position is based on 3 fallacies

No, the scientific position is based on 3 incontrovertible facts.

1. There are such things as greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere. CO2 is one of them.

2. Humans are creating more greenhouse gases than would otherwise have existed.

3. This is - TO WHATEVER EXTENT - raising the global average temperature and - TO WHATEVER EXTENT - going to have an impact on our civilization.

Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on how big the warming will be and how much we should exert ourselves to reduce it or adapt to it.

Tinfoil-hatted gutter ignorant denialist conspiracy kooks who are the moral and intellectual equivalent of Holocaust deniers can continue to disgrace themselves by claiming that 150 years of laboratory observations of atmospheric chemistry are actually all a lie, or that oil digs itself up and spontaneously combusts, or that scientific careerism is best advanced by saying the exact same thing that everybody else is saying.

I'm glad I could help you distinguish that difference. You're welcome.

"The reason these arguments are denialist isn't because they disagree with theory, and it isn't because they disagree with scientific consensus. It's because they're challenging scientific theories and consensus with conspiracy theories, quote-mining, crank experts, and rhetorical tricks. It's perfectly acceptable to disagree, it's when you use these tactics to disagree that you're engaging in denialism, and these tactics are indefensible."

Absolutely 100% correct. Denialism is defined by the techniques used, whether in denial of evolution, climate change, or the effects of fast food on your waistline.

And angrily invoking the Holocaust is simply a logical fallacy - one of the rhetorical tricks.

Mark,
We the American people are going to establish a Reality TV Grand Jury Star Chamber live from Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. The truth is this scam was debunked by Prof. R.W.Wood at Johns Hopkins University in 1908. I remember seeing the bronze plaque in his honor on the wall at Rowland Hall when I was a physics grad student in the 80s. I got my Ph.D. in physics there in 1989. My first publication was in Astrophysicist Journal on using atomic theory to measure the electron temperature of solar flares a 5 million degrees, 1000 times coronal temperature. Baliunas and Soon tried to do further work in this area, but were forced by ecofascist Holdren at the Kennedy School to withdraw their paper or be fired from Harvard. When the Clintons got into power I was removed from my office at General Atomics at gunpoint. I was blacklisted and when I went back to law school to fight back, I was forcibly injected with an MMR overdose part of Healthcare pilot program and nearly died from the resulting pituitary daemons. I am lucky to still be alive as Obama has also come after me branding me a domestic terrorist. Academic Physics started to rot at the 1923 Solvay Conference bankrolled by Bohr's father in law the head of the Danish central bank. Since then physicists have been claiming God is dead. By the 70s academic physics died. Since then new physics like quantum cryptography developers in the coffee shops. As brain dead as academic physics is, climatologist compare to us physicists as a butcher would compare to your carving skills. MDs like you are so arrogant and foolish because your guild the AMA arrogated life and death over us herd animals alright. In fact the MDs were the most avid backers of Hitler in the 30's and the truth is this AGW hoax is meant to kill 1000 times as many people Hitler. You and your gang of arrogant and iv
ignorant Sophists are the ones to be sent to FEMA camp for re-education in the near future as soon as I can convince the public of the truth of my assertions. If you really think there are too many people in the world then stop being a hypocrite and kill yourself today. It will spare the public the expense of re-educating you.

Mushroom George:

There is a pejorative term for individuals who, as you do, make unequivocally false claims.

I call Poe on Stan Lippmann. No one can spew crap that ridiculous and mean it, right? Right?

Hoofnagel, you are a pretentious twit. (Ad hominem at the level of your blog so your fans will understand) Please re-read the definition of a crank, re-stated below:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.
Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.
Cranks rarely if ever acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.
Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, and often appear to be uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

This behavior accurately describes You and the alarmist commenters of this blog (echo-chamber)... It's comical that alarmists tend to argue a perpetual straw-man fallacy (it feeds their confirmation biases) and then they fail to recognize the counter-productive behavior in themselves. Example: (Your comment) "Climate change denialism does not meet the standards for legitimate debate, it relies on conspiracy theories, bogus experts, cherry-picked data, crank journals, and appeals to the almighty."
This 'crank' behavior tends to become chronic in people afflicted with OCD. Please seek help, so others aren't exposed to or influenced by your deluded mania(s). After all, you and your friends are saving the Earth, help is a small price to pay. You're like a superhero! Hahahahahah....

I am still waiting for one of these critics to really defend the tactics of denialism. Sure they're angry to have it pointed out, but I'd like to see them defend the conspiracy theory that climate scientists are fabricating data as is routinely suggested by the cranks, that their use of experts like Monckton is appropriate to cite as an expert, as denialists like Watts at WUWT still does. I want an explanation for why they reject the findings of a dozen scientific agencies that cleared the CRU researchers and still refer to those emails as proof of anything other than their own dishonest cherry picking of scientists words. I want to know why they still complain about the hockey stick graph despite its validation by the NAS and confirmation using other methods and by other researchers. Even when the Koch brothers tried to hire someone to disprove the findings of the researchers they're so critical of, the hired gun confirmed the findings they wanted to challenge! Why are these tactics ok? You don't seem to deny that my examples are false. How is this ok?

There is not a significant challenge to the dominant facts of climate change in the literature. It's happening on blogs and in right wing media, not in journals like Science and Nature.

Stan Lippmann - What a wonderful parody you have presented. Your post clearly shows the extremism, fallacies, and contradictions evident in many denialist arguments.

You were trying to be sarcastic, I hope. Because your post is a parody...

Stan, you seem to think all science stopped in 1908 unless that's a typo. If it had you wouldn't be using your computer to post on here: you would need to send forth a carrier-pigeon (AKA a fly-by-wire!!). You then go on to attempt to argue-from-authority by posting a bit of your CV before things descend into chaos. Do they really make folks who finish working at General Atomics clear their desks at gunpoint and if so why? Perhaps someone from that organisation (never heard of 'em personally but then I'm not a PhD in solar whatever) might pop in to explain? After all, as I am sure you would say WRT climatology, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Another test problem from the deniers, corporate horrors, and other ilk, it would have taken less time to google my name and AGW earthquake prediction than to get inspired from a jerking-knee and a free lunch.

Posted by: Mark Edward Gillar | May 18, 2012 6:13 AM
Posted by: Matt | May 18, 2012 10:12 AM

âJul 17, 2010 â¦ My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies â¦ By Dr. Roy Spencer â¦ it only takes one of us to be right for the IPCCâs anthropogenic global warming (AGW) house of cards to collapseâ (reality abuse by icecap.us). âEarthquake prediction is impossible. â¦ it is just too complicated. â¦ defined by three variables: you have to say when an earthquake will occur, where it will hit, and what strength it will haveâ (âWhy Earthquakes Are Still Impossible to Predictâ, Lars Ceranna, German Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources; editor: Thilo Kunzemann; knowledge.allianz.com, 4/7/09).

One of the things that pseudoskeptics & denialists never seem to get is that those of us who accept the science as it is would, generally, prefer (as they do) for it not to be true.

This is why 'denialist' is an apt description, since it applies to anyone who engages in denialism as defined here, whereas the usual counter-label 'warmist' is not.

The majority of people who accept the science of AGW most certainly do not want the world to get warmer at the rate it is now getting warmer. In fact, it's usually denialists who argue warmer is necessarily better, making them 'warmists' at the same time.

Speaking personally I have a very selfish motive for wanting to mitigate AGW, which is to secure the interests and future prosperity of my 8-month-old and of the children of my relatives & friends.

I'm not a "warmist", for sure. I'm a "stabilist". I want the relatively stable climate of the past 3000 years in which human civilisation managed to get going and flourish to continue, and any change to be at geological time-rates i.e. over tens of thousands of years, which is a rate at which ecosystems can adapt to. Here's to a stable climate, I say!!

Since when does Monkton or anyone who does not subscribe to AGW deny that the climate is changing? They are not "climate change deniers" so, if you want to smear people with nasty labels - get your facts right.

You can always tell people who are losing the argument they revert to ad hominum attacks.

Mark, while I broadly agree with your article, there is one point I disagree with. You say the tactics of deniers are deceptive and intellectually bankrupt. However, the 5 tactics of denial are not merely a cynical strategy - they can occur at a psychological level. When science threatens a person's worldview, confirmation bias causes them to cherry pick. People attribute greater expertise to those who confirm their beliefs, which is why the fake experts strategy is so successful. People instinctively distrust science that threatens their values, and distrust of science leads to conspiracy theories. The flip side of confirmation bias is disconfirmation bias, the vigorous resistance to threatening evidence, which can manifest as impossible expectations.

So I'd be careful in labelling climate denial as deceptive, except in the sense that people are often deceiving themselves. But deliberately deceiving other people? I think in the majority of cases, it's more likely that ideology is influencing people to process evidence in a biased manner. And it's almost always impossible to tell what's really going on in a person's skull - whether they're a biased ideologue or intentionally misleading people.

So understanding the how of denial, your 5 tactics, is crucial to knowing how to respond to climate myths. But understanding the psychological processes behind denial is also important as it provides insights into how we might reduce the influence of climate denial.

Stan Lippman sounds not like a Poe, but like someone whose brain chemistry isn't working right. He mentions being forced out of his office at gunpoint. He also doesn't trust doctors and their injections...

Dr. Lippman, I hope you feel better someday and your thoughts calm down again.

John Cook, yes. The arguments, certainty, cluelessness, dismissals of internal inconsistencies and utter lack of understanding of scientific methodology are exactly like what I saw in the religious fundamentalists I lived with growing up. The impression I got was that they spent most of their time lying, but were simultaneously unaware of it.

I thought at the time that they were primarily motivated by fear of death ("Please god be real and I'll believe.") but I don't think so now. Looking at GW denialists, most of whom do not seem to be motivated by religion, and I have to rethink the other fundy-like mindsets.

They are clearly not motivated by reason or evidence, which is why they are immune to them. I think the explanation involves:
1. Tribalism. They have a fierce need to have the right beliefs, and seem to think their identification of belonging to the right tribe depends on having the right beliefs.

2. Simpleness and certainty. They appear to have a need to have the world explained, but not have a particularly strong need to have that explanation fit reality. Now that they have explanations for everything they don't want to have to rethink it all, settle for a lot of uncertainty, and expect the world to be very different when they're old, especially on the say-so of some Hated Other.

3. They have a hard time following consequences. If X, then Y, is an annoying and disorienting task for them. This is why they tend not to be scientists, nor very interested in science fiction. And they have no trouble making two assertions in a row which contradict each other. They will repeat a pseudoargument shortly after it's been refuted - they treat arguments like jabs in a street fight. Just because one punch gets blocked doesn't mean you can't try it again when you see an opening (which of course drives us crazy).

kermit, 4.42pm - an interesting and thoughtful post!

Jon @30:

Your post smells rather strongly of straw. What is being denied is any one of (or multiples of):
- the Earth is warming significantly now
- the warming is caused by humans via emission of fossil-fuel IR-trapping gases
- the warming (and other effects of the emissions) has significant, even severe ecological and economic consequences

If you suggest any of these are not true, I should like to direct you to the attention of the Heartland Institute's recent proposed billboard campaign.

This has, as far as I have seen, always been made clear by those criticizing climate science denialists. Everyone (except perhaps young-earth creationists) accepts the reality of past climate changes. As an aside, climate science denialists tend to deny the significance of past climate shifts with regards to understanding present climate (particularly vis-Ã -vis climate sensitivity to radiative forcings).

Further, denialism is something people do, and people who do denialism get called denialists, in the same manner that people who do dentistry get called dentists, people who do economics get called economists, and so on. It is no argumentum ad hominem, but rather a description inferred from observed behaviour.

Your post also displays a common cognitive flaw displayed by pseudoskeptics & denialists: the notion that AGW is something one 'subscribes to' or 'believes in'. This is utterly and unequivocally false. The conclusion that AGW is a real and serious phenomenon follows from the interlocking support of a very large mass of theory, experiment, and empirical observation.

=====
Further to the comments by John Cook & kermit on the psychology of denialism as revealed in observed behaviour, I'm sure I don't need to share (but will share anyway) Altemeyer's online text The Authoritarians and the research it refers to probably sheds light on those who engage in denialism for sincere if self-misleading reasons.

The Fear Machineâs Pitbull is climate change and liberals are the leash.
Climate change is costing progressivism votes and could keep Liberals out of power for a decade because condemning the voter's children to a CO2 death has spurred a backlash. A wave of former believer rage has arrived:
-âSocialistâ Canadian voters voted in a prime minister accused of being a climate change denier to a majority government no less!
-The Occupywallstreet movement is the leading edge of progressivism and does not support âanythingâ about CO2 (bank funded carbon trading stock markets)
-âSocialistâ Canada killed Y2Kyoto.
-Obama has not mentioned a climate crisis in two state of the unions.
Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE and Liberalism and journalism had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run âCARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETSâ to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.

Dearest mememine69;

give a man a fish and he eats for a day. teach a man to fish and he eats for life. see something by mememine69 and the rubber stamp industry may give you a free lunch.

Two words:

Henrik Svensmark.

Why are we talking about denialists. Can;t we just talk science.

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3779-henrik-svensmark-the-cosmic-ray…

I don't deny the holocaust, that Oswald was Kennedy's killer, that jetliners brought down the WTC buildings, that Jesus was a historical figure, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that Obama has released a facsimile of a Hawaiian birth certificate, or that humans release CO2 into the atmosphere.

But the anti-concept "denialism" is fallacious idea based on definition by non-essentials. I do deny there is evidence of UFO's, the coherence of creationism, that there is evidence for ESP, and many other things. Whether you call me a denialist or not, I am aware of the warm spells during the Roman and Middle Ages and the cold snaps between and after those periods.

I am aware the last warming period ended in 2000. And I am aware there is no evidence man's effect on the climate exceeds statistical fluctuation. And I am hugely aware that redistribution schemes presented in pseudoscientific terms are not scientific, but leftist programs dressed up in pseudoscientific arguments. And I know that if you are reduced to calling me a denialist you are admitting you have lost the argument.

I don't deny the holocaust, that Oswald was Kennedy's killer, that jetliners brought down the WTC buildings, that Jesus was a historical figure, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that Obama has released a facsimile of a Hawaiian birth certificate, or that humans release CO2 into the atmosphere.

But the anti-concept "denialism" is fallacious idea based on definition by non-essentials. I do deny there is evidence of UFO's, the coherence of creationism, that there is evidence for ESP, and many other things. Whether you call me a denialist or not, I am aware of the warm spells during the Roman and Middle Ages and the cold snaps between and after those periods.

I am aware the last warming period ended in 2000. And I am aware there is no evidence man's effect on the climate exceeds statistical fluctuation.

Janvones, your 99% the way there then. Explain to me why when evolution deniers and holocaust deniers, and 9/11 cranks use these tactics of conspiracy mongering, cherrypicking, crank experts, moving goalposts and logical fallacies it's unconvincing, but when global warming denialists do it it's ok?

You even use one of the classic denialist cherry picks of global warming ending in 2000, a well known cherry picking canard. That it's statistical fluctuation does not fit with observation and expected cyclical trends.

You don't like the label clearly, but how can you defend the routine use of these tactics by the leading global warming denialists like Inhofe, Heartland, Watts, Morano, etc.? You just repeated a cherry pick. Rather than joining in with these bozos you should consider looking into why you feel this theory is in conflict with your ideology, and whether it really is the evidence that you object to.

Fuck off

This is all a simple matter of radiative transfer in ionized gas, the subject of my Ph.D. Thesis. The simple reason the Government wants me dead is because I know the simple truth. Of course the truth will come out in the end. You think I'm not serious, Mark, but won't you be surprised when I convince the Grand Jury to indict you for treason and mass murder.

I do not fear the World Warming. I do fear the solutions that are needed to stop World Warming.

From the appellation "warmist", to crowing that Al Gore is fat and has a big energy wasting house, fallacies are not rare with this movement.

The charge that Al Gore is fat is rather fatuous coming from the denialists as Marc Morano is a lot fatter then Al Gore.

Nonsense. Al gore has the wider girth but he spends more money on better suits to disguise it.

Stan, I think you should consider Olanzapine, or maybe Risperidone for that problem. Or a Pullitzer for best Poe.

In general people who engage in denialism are ideologues who use similar rhetorical tactics, and that's where my comparison ends.

Climate skepticism is not so much rooted in denialist ideology as it is in the alarmist tactic of hyping the science. The failure to realize this has cost your side the debate.

The skeptics have always been on firmer ground. It is easier to acknowledge the earth has warmed than it is to predict catastrophic warming in the future.

It is easier to acknowledge that carbon-dioxide has contributed to modern warming than it is to bet heavily on water-vapor feedbacks amplifying its effect by two or three times.

It is easier to admit that the CRU, Michael Mann and the IPCC have pushed climate science beyond the bounds of credibility than it is to defend them.

It is also easier to acknowledge the Holocaust existed on the weight of readily available evidence than it is to base predictions of future Holocausts on computer models without fully understanding the controlling variables.

GregS@47:

It is easier for me personally to admit that the CRU, Michael Mann and the IPCC have pushed climate science beyond the bounds of credibility than it is to defend them.

Emphasized extra text added to clarify point that the objections are derived more from personal incredulity than scientific understanding.

Defending The CRU, Mann and the IPCC is a folly which cost the alarmists desperately needed credibility. Their reasons for continuing down this path are a mystery that can only be found in the deep psychology of tribalism.

Any credible movement would have tossed then all under the bus years ago.

In this essay, Mark Hoofnagle unwisely repeats the claim that the CRU scientists were "cleared by multiple investigations" without revealing that all panels but one declared illegal activities to be out of scope. In other words, to be cleared, one actually has to be investigated.

The only investigation to look into illegal activities, the one done by the British Information Commission's Office, found that The CRU scientists had violated the law on numerous occasions but since the statute of limitations had passed, they were not prosecuted.

Felons as world leading climate scientists?

As for Michael Mann, NASâs National Research Council concluded only that "Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th Century were PROBABLY warmer than at any time in the previous 400 years" which never was in dispute and is about as controversial as saying day is probably warmer than night. Their other conclusion "and PERHAPS at any time during the previous 1,000 years." is hardly a ringing endorsement given the word "perhaps".

Mann still hasn't explained the unexplainable "divergence".

As for the IPCC, well, AR5 will be the last hurrah. Their entirely political process is entirely broken. Hopefully, but probably not, a new scientific (and ethical) process will emerge to replace what is currently nothing but eco-advocacy.

GregS@49:

{multiple unsourced claims about the CRU and Michael Mann}

Cite? To the originals, not pureÃ©d versions from denialist Websites.

ROAD MAPSregS, while you're at it, would you care to comment on NASA's observations that support not only Mann & co., but the IPCC as well?

What about the US Navy's Climate Change Roadmap?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on these, as you've obviously spent a fair bit of time thinking about this subject, and are not easily swayed by arguments from authority.

What a piece of drivel. Holocaust denial is denial of historical truth. Climate denial (does that term even make any sense?) is the recognition of the vanity of those few who think they can tell the future. Mankind has proven over and over again that nobody does that very well. Your turn to deny that.

I read your post an agree completely - except that you have the sides inverted.

The side that seems immune to science, evidence, and is insistent on a meme that defies logic is not the skeptics but the AGW priesthood.

In the 80's an 90's some of this was tolerable. It seemed ludicrous to claim to read a human signal in a trend that started 200 years earlier, but atleast that trend was continuing. But with each passing year even that becomes weaker Claim whatever you will, the planet has fallen out the bottom of even the mildest alarmist predictions, and appears intent on remaining out for some time to come.
As more and more is emerging, we find the quality of the science of alarmists to be spectacularly bad. It is becomes harder to accept that this is incompetence rather than malice.

I would ask for a single alarmist prediction that has proven true. Sea Level is not rising, Glaciers and Ice are not disappearing, land temperatures are rising negligibly if at all, and ocean temperatures are even more stable than land.
Even the new meme's of more volatile weather have been shredded - on a planet of 1/2 billion square kilometers, there will be numerous instances of record breaking weather every day - but that frequency is not changing. Even if we had another Katrina or Andrew this coming hurricane season it has been almost 6 years since a hurricane made landfall in north america. The sun has in arguably become less active, and is likely to remain so for some time - corresponding to demonstrable astronomical cycles, and earth's climate has followed. Sol, is laughing at the cult of AGW. The "missing heat" is neither high nor low. Under real scrutiny the results of older work is proving either the result of cherry picking or not reproducible. Our remote sensing capabilities are approaching the level necessary to put this idiocy permanently to rest. Increasingly the high priesthood of AGW is in the position of explaining why the overwhelming majority of new data is inconsistent with the warming thesis.

The natural position of a real scientist is skepticism regardless of the claim.

Skeptics may run the gamut from lunacy to intelligent and ration - but so do warmistas. Ultimately the lunatics of one group are going to be able to claim victory and even the rational thinkers of the other are coming away with egg on their faces.

AGW propenents have taken a single weak fact that CO2 making up less that 4/100 of a percent of the atmosphere is a green house gas and is increasing and constructed a Malthusian disaster upon that, when real science - even their own science demonstrated that CO2 alone in the most favorable scenarios would not produce sufficient warming to pose any problem, they had to construct runaway positive feedback thesis without foundation. It is increasingly likely that atmospheric water is a net negative feedback, rather than a strong positive one. The effects of cosmic rays once derided as lunacy are now scientifically certain - the only argument remaining regards their strength.
And on and on.

But most warmists are deaf and blind to real science. It is inconceivable to them that nature might reward rather than punish humanity that their irrational political values are not enshrined in the behavior of the universe - and might even be antithetical to it.

This kind of crap rates publication in a "science" blog?

The Germans, like the Soviets, employed slave labor in order to supply their military machines. In Germany, massive numbers of non-Jews were conscripted into service to fight the War, leaving the German civilian labor force rather thin.

The question for many is why would the Germans kill sorely needed, able-bodied, Jewish laborers? I can see them doing in old & infirm Jews, but why would they kill able bodied persons?

Food for the Germans was in short supply. So, when it came time to eat, I suppose the slave laborers were always at the end of the line. Perhaps that would explain why many of them in the camps were so thin.

Non-Jewish Germans starved as well, as British & American bombing raids disrupted & in many cases destroyed the German means of food production & distribution.

Plus, as the Allies advanced on Germany from all directions, its outside food sources were cut off.

I'm not denying the Holocaust. I believe many Jews died during the War. But some of the things written & said about how they died don't make sense & need to be looked into further.

It's easy to tell who the bad guys are in this little debate:

The evil ones are those like this author who demonize their opponents by comparing them to "Holocaust Deniers".

Holocaust deniers are among the most contemptible villains on earth; they are anti-Jewish bigots who celebrate the most vicious, racist mass murderer of the 20th century.

What sort of sick individual smears his opponents in such a twisted, sadistic manner?

Does that really sound like the characteristic of a "scientist" who is confident in persuading others with the strength of his "science"?

How is such a comparison even remotely logical? The Holocaust actually happened, as the mass graves attest and hundreds of witnesses are on tape. Whereas CAGW is a just a theory which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable -- just like a goofy religious cult.

Another characteristic of Warmists is that they routinely censor their opponents, just like this comment will probably be suppressed by the author.

{multiple unsourced claims about the CRU and Michael Mann}

Cite? To the originals, not pureÃ©d versions from denialist Websites.

Usually I don't do research for people who could easily find the information themselves but in your case I will make half an exception... I will cite the readily available data on the CRU that is (a mere Google click away) and let you educate yourself on Michael Mann.

BBC: Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws'

The Telegraph: University scientists in climategate row hid data

"Would you care to comment on NASA's observations that support not only Mann & co., but the IPCC as well?"

I see nothing on that page to support Mann or the IPCC, or for that matter anything that a climate skeptic would disagree with.

We all know that CO2 levels have been rising and that the climate has warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. None of these things are at issue.

At issue in the past is what climate science can say about past temperatures, specifically whether Michael Mann's proxies can accurately measure climate for the last 1,000 years when they cannot accurately measure the climate for the last 50 years. (study up on the "divergence problem" to come up to speed on Mann.)

Predictions by the IPCC on future climate depends heavily on speculation that ignores 100 years of climate science and the work of tens of thousands of scientists. We have known since Svante August Arrhenius first speculated on the role of CO2 in the atmosphere that a doubling of CO2 would cause an approximate rise of 1C.

The IPCC denies this and instead has created a lurid, unproven, highly speculative theory of positive (water vapor) feedbacks to amplify Dr. Arrhenius's predictions and generate alarm.

As of today, no one has actually observed positive (water vapor) feedbacks yet much has been written (speculated) about them and all of the IPCC's projections are based on them.

The term for critical issue is called climate sensitivity. In other words, how strongly will the earth respond to increases in CO2.

Without strong positive feedbacks, the earth will warm only as much as Dr. Arrhenius and tens of thousands of other scientists said it will.

To give you an idea what a warming of 1C would look like and what the world will be like in 100 years, drive 80 miles south and observe the climate there (at least in the Midwest, the climate warms approx. 1C for every 80).

Speaking personally, I have driven 80 miles south and see little there that is different from home. Farmers still use the same variety of corn, the trees are of the same species, the weather is unmistakably the same. Even local building code require frost footings to the same depth.

One wonders what all the fuss is about.

As a side note, I have found that skeptics are far better educated on the basics of climate science. Why is that?

By the way, even though there is no observable evidence of strong positive water vapor feedbacks, the very definition of a "denier" is whether one believes in them without reservation - or not.

There is no debate about global temperatures because there are thermometers.

There is no debate about CO2 emissions because there are detailed records.

There is no debate about the correlation of global temperatures and CO2 emissions because

1) Global temperature rose sharply from 1910 to 1942 over which time CO2 emissions increased from 3.5gt/year to 4gt/year,

2) Global temperatures decreased from 1942 to 1975 over which time CO2 emissions increased from 4gt/year to 20gt/year because of the rapid post war industrialization,

3) Global temperatures increased from 1975 to 1998 over which time CO2 emissions increased from 20gt/year to 25gt/year,

4) Since 1998, as even Phil Jones admits, there has been no statistically significant global warming yet global CO2 emissions continue to rise at unprecidented rates and now stand at well over 31gt/year.

Note that the rate of warming for the last 14 years, is BELOW the level predicted by AGW godfather, James Hansen in 1988, for the best case scenario in which MAN STOPS PRODUCING ANY CO2 WHATSOEVER for 24 years.

So there is only 23 years of the last 102 during which both global temperature and CO2 emissions increased rapidly (from 1975 to 1998).

So the debate is over for educated people:

Mann-made global warming alarmism is like Creationism for Leftists -- a pseudo-religious scam to enrich politicians like Barack Obama, Al Gore and their government-funded lackeys like Michael Mann and Phil Jones.

GregS @ 57:

Usually I don't do research for people who could easily find the information themselves

You made the particular claims of demonstrated dishonesty. You, therefore, have the obligation to support those claims. That is how this business works. It is not "Here are my claims; it is up to you to disprove them". You have to make the positive case for them.

That you do not grasp this is fairly good evidence you don't know what you are talking about.

Now to your 'support', which are news items, not the originals as required. The BBC article you linked says:

Officials said messages hacked in November showed that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been".

But too much time has passed for action against the University of East Anglia.

So, not that the research was wrong or false but that they mishandled FOIA requests. BFD. If memory serves, the FOIA slow-walks were due in part to claims that at least some of the data was proprietary and in part to claims of abuse of the FOIA system (many multiple requests for the same info from the same people, done so as to halt research).

The Telegraph article is on the same subject. Once again, BFD. And no evidence in support of your claims against Mann, which as I noted above, you are obligated to provide since you are the one making the claims..

So....you are basing your entire claim:

that the CRU, Michael Mann and the IPCC have pushed climate science beyond the bounds of credibility

on the fact they didn't respond to procedural data requests with sufficient alacrity.

And you wonder why you get called a denialist?

GregS @ 58:

At issue in the past is what climate science can say about past temperatures, specifically whether Michael Mann's proxies can accurately measure climate for the last 1,000 years when they cannot accurately measure the climate for the last 50 years. (study up on the "divergence problem" to come up to speed on Mann.)

Except of course, we actually have CO2 concentrations and O isotope temperature proxies for the period in question (unless you plan on claiming those data are incorrect), allowing us to see the correlation between temperatures and other proxies quite well. The divergence "problem" has been demonstrated to be a function of the rate of CO2 concentration increase, if my memory serves.

Which means your statement is word salad to someone with some actual background.

lurid, unproven, highly speculative theory of positive (water vapor) feedbacks

Seriously, dude? Higher global temperatures = more oceanic evaporation = higher average amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere = increased infrared absorption. It's about as speculative as tonight's sunset.

Speaking personally, I have driven 80 miles south and see little there that is different from home.

And once again, we can all see its about your personal incredulity, seasoned with a few lightly understood talking points from RW denialists.

I have found that skeptics are far better educated on the basics of climate science.

Yeah, you've really demonstrated that here...

FF@56:

Another characteristic of Warmists is that they routinely censor their opponents, just like this comment will probably be suppressed by the author.

And ironically this may be the least inaccurate statement you've made!

Mark Hoofnagle, a charlatan with delusions of grandeur.

Author writes: "I am still waiting for one of these critics to really defend the tactics of denialism."

This author doesn't know what he's talking about. The word "denialism" implies the denial of truth. Whats the truth? I attended a lecture given by Ben Santer recently. He began the talk by saying that the Science isn't settled. If Santer says the science isn't settled, why should we believe this know-nothing who is writing outside of his field?

Here's an on-line debate.

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/glikson/glikson-versus-nova.pdf

Read the whole thing. Read both sides. Who do you think wins?

Re Jack Foster @ #62

The link given by Mr. Foster is to a discussion between a climate scientist, Andrew Gillikson and a Science writer, Joanne Nova. Ben Santer is not one of the participants in the discussion. Apparently, Ms. Nova cited a publication by Dr. Santer in which she claims that he made such a statement. Given the record of global warming deniers in quote mining and misrepresenting the statements of climate scientists, I have no confidence in her accuracy.

According to Wiki, Ms. Nova has BS degree in microbiology. I see no publications in the peer reviewed literature on the subject of climate change written by her.

I would no more trust Ms. Nova to pontificate on climate science then I would trust her to pontificate on quantum mechanics. Attached is a link to an article debunking some of her claims.

http://www.desmogblog.com/debunking-joanne-nova-climate-skeptics-handbo…

Re contrarian @ #45

Obviously, Mr. contrarian has never seen Mr. Morano, who makes Rush Limbaugh look positively svelte.

Re Jack Foster @ #45

My apologies to Ms. Nova who is not quoting Dr. Santer as making the statement attributed to him. I misread Mr. Foster's comment as he is claiming that Dr. Santer made the statement in a lecture at which he was present. However, given the track record of climate change denialists, like their evolution denying pals, of quote mining and misrepresenting statements made by climate scientists, I have no confidence in the accuracy of Mr. Foster's representation. Provide a written transcript or the online presentation of this alleged lecture.

Re Dave Thomas @ #62

Dave Thomas, a congenital nonentity.

"You made the particular claims of demonstrated dishonesty. You, therefore, have the obligation to support those claims. That is how this business works. It is not "Here are my claims; it is up to you to disprove them". You have to make the positive case for them." - NJ

I do not know your background, perhaps you are not familiar with how things work in the English world.

When someone references NASâs National Research Council then provides a quote (text surrounded by quotes), they are quoting from NAS's National Research Council. You can find the referenced text by Googling "National Research Council" and enclosing the text in quotes or you can follow the link provided in Mark Hoofnagle essay above.

It is also customary in the west to have some understanding of the issue before accusing someone else of "demonstrated dishonesty".

Except of course, we actually have CO2 concentrations and O isotope temperature proxies for the period in question (unless you plan on claiming those data are incorrect), allowing us to see the correlation between temperatures and other proxies quite well. The divergence "problem" has been demonstrated to be a function of the rate of CO2 concentration increase, if my memory serves. - NJ

Uh.... Michael Mann expertise is in dendrology, (look up what a dendrologist does). He reconstructs temperature history by (primarily) using tree ring proxies. His work does not focus on CO2 at all.

The divergence refers to the manner in which proxies "diverge" from the modern temperature record. The proxies show dramatic cooling while the temperature record continues to climb. Hence, "hide the decline".

Obviously you know nothing about NAS, Mann, The IPCC, climate science or any other subject at hand. Why are you here? Please step back and allow someone with knowledge to argue for "your side"

Except of course, we actually have CO2 concentrations and O isotope temperature proxies for the period in question (unless you plan on claiming those data are incorrect), allowing us to see the correlation between temperatures and other proxies quite well. The divergence "problem" has been demonstrated to be a function of the rate of CO2 concentration increase, if my memory serves. - NJ

Just to clarify, "O isotope temperature proxies" do not provide sufficient resolution to reconstruct temperatures of the last 1,000 years, which is why Michael Mann and company used tree rings and sediments to fashion their famous "hockey stick".

GregS @ 68:

perhaps you are not familiar with how things work

Classic example of projection. De rigueur for creationists (evolution deniers).

In science and law, if you want to make a case, you have to do so, not simply assert what you wish and then demand that others disprove your assertions.

Recall: You commented about the British Information Commission's Office investigation without quoting them or linking to the specific report. When pressed, you offered news items that discussed not the accuracy of the science performed but issues with the administrative procedures associated with FOIA.

This all in response to a challenge to your comment @49:

In this essay, Mark Hoofnagle unwisely repeats the claim that the CRU scientists were "cleared by multiple investigations"

which was an accurate description of the investigations into the science published.

In the 2nd case, you offered quotes you claimed were from a NAS NRC report, but provided no link to the original so that anyone could verify the accuracy and context they were being used in. In fact, it seems you attempted to double-down on this by claiming:

you can follow the link provided in Mark Hoofnagle essay above.

when insofar as I can tell, none of the 15 hypertext links in the original piece lead to anything by the NAS. Furthermore, attempts to search Google and the NAS site for the phrase you put in quotes provided no matches. This, of course, returns to the original point about your failure to provide accurate attributions in support of your assertions.

Quote-mining and deceptive attributions are also de rigueur for creationists (evolution deniers).

Michael Mann expertise is in dendrology

You figured that one out, huh, Sherlock? I shall have to inform him of this when we meet in Charlotte this November.

Reading my comments for comprehension shows nowhere did I claim Mann worked with CO2 or O isotopes, merely that those geochemical data illustrate the hockey-stick phenomenon very nicely. Mann's work on the tree rings matches up quite well with this until the modern era when they diverge, which, as I noted is believed to be a function of the sharp increase in atmospheric CO2.

Hence the "Nature trick" and "hiding the decline" are simply shorthand terms between colleagues for correcting a data set for a confounding variable.This was what all of the investigations found as noted in the original post.

Misrepresenting the actual research is de rigueur for creationists (evolution deniers).

Obviously you know nothing about NAS, Mann, The IPCC, climate science or any other subject at hand.

Projection again. You just can't give it up!

As you can see, I have spent a few decades defending science against creationists; it hasn't been difficult to show that those arguing against the science found in climate change research are using the same tactics. Hence the term deniers is very much apropos. Thank you for helping me to demonstrate the point.

Hi SLC. I'm willing to have a conversation, if we just keep it to the issue and stay away from ad homs and insults. Can we be old-fashioned Southern Gentlemen? (I'm from the South of San Francisco!) We could talk about the debate link I posted. Did you read it yet?

Seriously, I don't know what a "denialist" is. Does anybody deny . . . the climate? Does anybody deny climate change? (I would even add that very few believe that mankind has no impact on the climate.)

So I guess a "denialist" must be anybody who disagrees with any aspect of the opinion of . . . who? The guy using the term "denialist"? What. A non-believer? Science isn't about belief vs. non-belief.

Here's a list of over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers supporting the skeptic position:

Recall: You commented about the British Information Commission's Office investigation without quoting them or linking to the specific report. When pressed, you offered news items that discussed not the accuracy of the science performed but issues with the administrative procedures associated with FOIA.

My issue was with Mark Hoofnagle assertion that the CRU scientists were "cleared". They were not. They were found in violation of the law but only escaped prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired. Maybe breaking the law is no big deal in your world but in this post WaterGate world, it is a big deal.

Reading my comments for comprehension shows nowhere did I claim Mann worked with CO2 or O isotopes, merely that those geochemical data illustrate the hockey-stick phenomenon very nicely. Mann's work on the tree rings matches up quite well with this until the modern era when they diverge, which, as I noted is believed to be a function of the sharp increase in atmospheric CO2.

When you meet with Micheal Mann in Charlotte this November, ask him to explain the divergence to you. Hint, the divergence problem ONLY concerns tree-ring data and only in the Northern Hemisphere. For a basic primer, try reading something more aligned with your knowledge level, like wikipedia: divergence problem

Why people find it necessary to hook up things like Evolution and God, or Climate and Economic System, is beyond me. Proving Evolution does nothing to prove or to disprove God. Oneâs opinions and assessment of what the facts are in the two areas are NOT connected, except in the simplistic sorts of tautologies that fill the media.

I can see that weather varies and where I am climate does too, but not much. It appears to have been getting warmer in the US Pacific Northwest for at least 120 years. Even so it is often cool and cloudy and it still rains frequently. But we donât get icebergs in the harbor anymore nor do we drive fully loaded freight trains across mile-wide frozen rivers, not around here, not any more.

Does that mean we must immediately dismantle the American Gated Community, with housing status procuring educational certifications procuring higher employment status procuring more expensive housingâ¦.the whole caste system depending on socialized infrastructure, cheap energy, and considerable pollution? Well that depends more on what sorts of political interventions one favors, than it does on what one thinks about the climate.

Whoever is poorer is likely to suffer, period. I suppose in theory something else could be done (only in theory: folks can increase their living standards, most securely in liberal market democracies, but there are no known examples of any society empowering and uplifting its poor out of poverty from the outside. Only of changes in which groups or qualities got to be tickets into or out of poverty). So in theory if Bangladesh could be kept out of the sea, perhaps its drowning would be genocide. Yet I dispute using that word in such cases. It has nothing to do with their âgensâ you see, only location and povertyâ¦

I do not agree to curtailing leading edge progress or even the spread of middle group comforts in order to save Bangladesh. So there now you have it. First I think rich getting a good life and the middle an acceptable life is worth mass death for some poor who are in the way. Particularly as the poorâs plight is NOT part of what makes the good things happen, itâs more like the other way around, if ENOUGH of those good things can happen, the poor may find means to become less poor, as hundreds of millions are doingâ¦

I also donât think much of collective stewardship â itâs an oxymoron, as is public policy. There are some kinds of government intervention I am all for: recently the political establishment in New York City took an axe to their building and zoning codes to greatly reduce regulatory barriers to property owners wishing to make economically attractive investments in the energy efficiency of their buildings. That sort of thing is a win for all except the lions of the old somewhat more fossilized order...and a win for freedom.

A lot can happen that would tend to address climate concerns through those kinds of pro-freedom means. One need not even care about the climate to see other good reasons why some changes do make great senseâ¦

The Denialism dispute is I think a shibboleth: there are two values almost every American challenges but professes to uphold: (1) if we have both a Problem and at least one Solution, why then Something Must Be Done! and (2) Horrid consequences to real people should in principle be prevented. Yet we have private automobiles and more harm done in a typical year to us by them than by our worst enemies in a year of warfare.

So in reality, some problems are preferable to their solutions, and some horrid things are just going to be allowed to happen, usually to whomever is hindmost.

If RealClearScience had not linked to this blog I never would have found it. It is subtitled, "don't mistake denialism for debate..." After reading this article, I say: don't mistake this blog for an intelligent contribution to the issue.

The evil ones are those like this author who demonize their opponents by comparing them to "Holocaust Deniers".

Holocaust deniers are among the most contemptible villains on earth; they are anti-Jewish bigots who celebrate the most vicious, racist mass murderer of the 20th century.

What sort of sick individual smears his opponents in such a twisted, sadistic manner?

Does that really sound like the characteristic of a "scientist" who is confident in persuading others with the strength of his "science"?

How is such a comparison even remotely logical? The Holocaust actually happened, as the mass graves attest and hundreds of witnesses are on tape. Whereas CAGW is a just a theory which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable -- just like a goofy religious cult.

Another characteristic of Warmists is that they routinely censor their opponents, just like this comment will probably be suppressed by the author.

It's interesting how common comments are like this that suggest that I'm engaging in censorship, and say I'm creating a moral comparison between holocaust denial and climate denial.

I think it shows the inability or unwillingness of the climate change denialists to actually read and process my argument. I explicitly rejected the moral comparison between holocaust denial and climate change denial. The only comparison between the two is the similarity in argumentation. In fact this is an example of it, because this is a straw man argument. I argued no such thing. Similarly:

So I guess a "denialist" must be anybody who disagrees with any aspect of the opinion of . . . who? The guy using the term "denialist"? What. A non-believer? Science isn't about belief vs. non-belief.

What a piece of drivel. Holocaust denial is denial of historical truth. Climate denial (does that term even make any sense?) is the recognition of the vanity of those few who think they can tell the future. Mankind has proven over and over again that nobody does that very well. Your turn to deny that.

I actually define denialism quite explicitly, multiple times, and link to our original definition but no one seems to read it or address the issues I brought up.

Is the climate hoax not a ludicrous conspiracy theory?

Aren't the CRU emails, which some commenters have actually brought up to support their cause, an excellent example of denialist cherry picking.

How can anyone regard their experts like Monckton as legitimate? Who is the keynote at this year's Heartland denialfest? Marc Morano. These guys are cranks, with no legitimate scientific expertise.

How many times has the hockey stick been validated, and how do they respond? Just by again attacking Mann despite his results being validated by other researchers.

How many times, even in this comment section have we seen the same straw man? That denialism is just disagreement with consensus. No! It was explicitly described as not this. It is the use of these tactics which are similar between the two groups. No one can argue that conspiracy theories vs science, that the ludicrous conspiracy theories should win. It just goes around in circles of people redefining the issue in terms that they can attack, rather than addressing the noted similarities between holocaust and climate denialism. How boring.

Re Jack Foster @ #71

Without the context of the alleged statement of Prof. Santer, there is no way to judge as to whether it represents his views on the subject of climate change. Given the propensity of denialists to quote mine and misrepresent the views of climate scientists, just as the creationists quote mine and misrepresent the views of evolutionary biologists, without the full text of what the scientist said, I have no confidence that Mr. Foster has accurately presented Prof. Sauter's position.

Re Jack Foster @ #72

The problem with the list provided in Mr. Foster's link is that we have only the word of the author of the post that he/she has correctly characterized the content of the papers cited. All too often, the compilers of such lists depend on the fact that few of their readers have either the time or resources to investigate this issue. Given the propensity of deniers of all stripes to misrepresent the content of articles published in scientific journals, little confidence can be placed in their characterizations.

By the way, I note that the web site linked to by Mr. Foster is the product of 4 individuals whose areas of expertise are described as follows:

Andrew - Computer Analyst
Doug - Computer Engineer
Karl - Computer Scientist
Mike - Electrical Engineer

Not an atmospheric physicist or climatologist among them. This greatly lessens any confidence one might have in their ability to understand and accurately interpret the publications they list.

However, I note that a number of articles authored or co-authored by well known global warming denialists. These include:

Richard Lindzen, Richard Pielke, Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, and Willie Soon.

I would also note the presence of far right wing "think tanks" such as the Dishonesty Institute, the George Marshall Institute, and the Heartland Institute among the denialists industry. All supported by cretins like the Koch brothers.

Godwin's Law should apply to MarkH

Re Jack Foster @ #76

Attached are links to articles analyzing the list posted on Popular Technology.

http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition?page=4

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-s…

By the way, here is an example of an instance of misrepresentation by the denialists.

Professor Peter deMenocal, of the Earth Institute, Columbia University, told the Carbon Brief when asked about the inclusion of his paper on the list:

"I've responded to similar queries over the years. No, this is not an accurate representation of my work and I've said so many times to them and in print.

The second link posts several instances of misrepresentation in addition to the one that is posted above.

First of all, kudos to Mark H for actually reading the comments and responding to them in a civil and thoughtful way. This is what I think. We have an issue of science that is an extremely important issue, because it doesn't just involve some academic empirical question; it ultimately involves policy decisions which impact all of us. Therefore, the issue has been politicized. Therefore we have a broad spectrum of relatively ignorant people on both sides becoming advocates (pro and con) for scientific hypotheses. You call the relatively-ignorant advocates on the right "denialists". OK. So what do you call the relatively-ignorant advocates on the left?

I don't know what the truth is. I know that there's a debate going on, and I've followed it closely. Will I argue strongly for one side or the other? Only as counter-balance, but I confess that I don't know the truth; nobody does. The issue seems to boil down to climate sensitivity to CO2, which there's no real consensus about. The IPCC suspects it's between 2 and 4, but acknowledges there's broad uncertainty. As I look at it, historically CO2 levels trail temperatures. In the past we've seen strong correlation between CO2 and temps with large swings in temperatures (10 degrees) leading to small swings in CO2 (90 ppm). To me, that seems like a small response of CO2 to large temperature swings caused by . . . something else. (Sure, there's probably some small feedback factor.) There have been several papers recently arguing for lower sensitivities, even below 2. The lower sensitivity turns out to be, the less cause there is for alarm.

So in this environment of uncertainty, at what point does somebody become a denialist? If I think climate sensitivity is 1.5, am I a denialist? Certainly I'm a denialist if I lean to numbers below 1 . . . as some Scientists do . . . right? Where exactly is the dividing line?

The issue should be about the science, not about the ignorant advocates. If you label everyone who argues that climate sensitivity is low (as many scientists do) a "denialist" then you make it about belief, not about science. Science is not about belief. If you label everyone who argues for alternate primary causes (as many scientists do) a "denialist" then you make it about belief, not about science. Again, science is not about belief.

Ben Santer believes the consensus is correct. But he recognizes that the science is not settled. In the lecture that I heard, he made a strong case for anthropogenic global warming, but he acknowledged that the climate is a complex thing and that there's much uncertainty. Good scientists understand the difference between science and belief. The science is not settled.

Thanks.

P.S. -- "The noted similarities between holocaust and climate denialism" are superficial at best. There's a world of difference between the politicization of science and the denial of historical fact.

@Ozonator with people like you on our side the denialists don't need to argue at all, they can just shut up and they've already won.

If the Warmists want to persuade average citizens that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is imminent, perhaps they could:

* Make bloody movies in which childrens' heads explode, unless they agree with AGW.

* Create a hockey stick graph to show how current warming is unique in all of human history. When disproved, create a different graph and pretend it's really the same, and besides it doesn't matter anyway.

* Allow their AGW movement to be defined by a famous political hack who demands that everyone sacrifice like paupers to prevent armageddon, while jetting between his lavish mansions and begging for carnal favors like a "crazed sex poodle".

* Allow their AGW movement to be founded by "scientists" who make highly exaggerated temperature forecasts starting in 1988. Then when these dire forecasts are not remotedly realized, allow the same forecasters to keep making more goofy exaggerations based upon the same flawed models.

* Gloss over the fact that, contrary to every computer model, there has been no "statistically significant" rise in global temperatures in the past 15 years.

* Refuse to publically debate the "science". Instead, claim the "science is settled", the "debate is over", the "scientific consensus" is universal, then create fake internal memos to show that the evil "deniers" are in the pockets of the oil industry.

* Allow the powerful IPCC to be run by a railroad engineer who laces the "science" with unsupported stories from popular magazines, casual anecdotes, and who removes every trace of terms of scientific caution from histrionic claims of the certainty of a rapidly melting planet.

* Make certain the "science" is pushed by true believers in "the cause", who undermine the peer review process, "lose" original temperature measurements, stonewall every freedom of information request, apply "very artificial" corrections to computer code, "hide the decline" to mask the fact that temperature "proxies" have the exact opposite trend from actual temperature measurements. Then when these "scientists" are exposed, instead of firing them, whitewash their obvious corruption with mumbo-jumbo from "independent" investigators.

* Compare anyone who doubts this flaky "science" to a Holocaust denier -- apologists for the most grisly mass murderers in human history. Make sure even top "scientists" in the AGW scam, smear their scientific opponents with the term "denier".

Re FreedomFan @ #82

Gee, Mr. FreedomFan, shill for the Koch brothers.

Re Jack Foster @ #80

I would agree with Mr. Foster that equating global warming deniers with Holocaust deniers is somewhat of a stretch. IMHO, better comparisons are with evolution deniers, HIV/AIDS deniers, ozone depletion/CFC deniers, cigarette smoking/lung cancer deniers, etc.

Re Jack Foster @ #79

Of course, climate change is not settled science, anymore then evolution or astrophysics is. Biologists still disagree about the relative contribution of natural selection and genetic drift to evolution. Astrophysicists were surprised to discover that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, leading to the dark energy proposal. Even more astonishing was the finding that only 5% of the total gravitating mass in the universe consists of conventional matter (e.g. electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, and photons).

It is always possible that new information will come to light that will modify the current consensus on climate change. However, the point is that it would be foolhardy pin our hopes on the arrival of such information, given the potential gravity of the situation that will ensue should it not happen.

"Holocaust deniers have conspiracy theories to explain away the documentary evidence and personal experiences of holocaust survivors."

How do holocaust conspiracy theories compare to warming conspiracy theories? Here from Climate Audit. (Mark, can you imagine treating reviewers this way in your field?)

"In response to the identical inquiry from CRU, Mann immediately sent the residual series to Osborn, warning him that the residual series were his âdirty laundryâ, provided to Osborn only because he was a âtrusted colleagueâ. Mann asked Osborn to ensure that the âdirty laundryâ didnât fall into the wrong hands, an assurance that Osborn readily gave."

http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/16/schmidts-conspiracy-theory/

Now admittedly, this issue probably doesn't affect the science very much. Still, it's evidence that the political advocacy that we see in debate threads also exists within the science. Nobel Cause Corruption (look it up) is alive and well within this field.

To SLC: Thanks, I don't totally disagree with you. So we should continue to closely monitor the science, and to move cautiously regarding policy.

Re Jack Foster @ #85

Oh come on Mr. Foster, Climateaudit is the web site of Marc Morano, former aide to whackjob Senator James Imhofe and current shill for the Koch brothers. He has no more credibility in the scientific community then does Lord Monckton. You will have to do better then that.

Umm. No it's not. Climate _Depot_ is the web site of Marc Morano.

Re Jack Foster @ #87

I stand corrected. However, Steve McIntyre ain't much better then Marc Morano. An example of McIntyre's quote mining below.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/steve_mcintyre_quote_mining_ex…

@GregS

"When someone references NASâs National Research Council then provides a quote (text surrounded by quotes), they are quoting from NAS's National Research Council. You can find the referenced text by Googling "National Research Council" and enclosing the text in quotes or you can follow the link provided in Mark Hoofnagle essay above."

Ah, yes, you said:

"As for Michael Mann, NASâs National Research Council concluded only that "Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th Century were PROBABLY warmer than at any time in the previous 400 years" which never was in dispute and is about as controversial as saying day is probably warmer than night. Their other conclusion "and PERHAPS at any time during the previous 1,000 years." is hardly a ringing endorsement given the word "perhaps"."

Of course, the word "perhaps" does not appear anywhere in the NAS report on temperature reconstructions of the past 2000 years. In fact, you did not quote from the source, but invented your own quote and then used your own words to "prove" your point.

Here is what you are so terribly misquoting:

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R2

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified."

Thank you for illustrating so ably one aspect of the denialist tactics that MarkH points to. In a moment of clarity I hope you might consider what other things you may be wrong about (hint: water vapor feedback).

It is interesting that those who label others "denialists" actually engage in the same kind of conduct and have a similar belief system as those who actually did persecute the Jews.

1. A single, unquestioning belief in the superiority of themselves over others ("Your not a Climate Scientist!")

2. Suppression of dissidence. Exhibit A, ClimateGate emails speaking of having editors fired. Preventing the publication of opposing views.

3. Dehumanizing your opponents. "Big Oil Shill"

4. And this is more in line with a cult...belief in a single, supreme philosophy (Nazism, Communism, etc.) I.e, the earth is warming, man is causing it, and we need more government control to stop it.

And if I may ask, if AGW is sooo certain, so settled, an established scientific fact, then why should anyone be funded to study it anymore? The federal budget for 2011 proposes $2.6 billion. Why? It's as solid as the fact that water boils at 212 degrees F at 1 atmosphere. Where are the studies about boiling water?

Maybe we should accept it and then defund it. Somehow, I don't think all these climate scientists" are going to so easily give up the government gravy train.

When opponents use Godwinâs Law, they have already lost the argument. In this case, warmists have nothing else to say.

Re Larry @ #90

A little like folks like Mr. Larry giving up riding the Koch brothers gravy train.

Could we go back to the original question? Is it 'apt'?

I'd break it down into 2 segments: (i)Are the two events comparable in infamy? (ii)Are they as certain as each other?

Answers IMO: no and no. (i) The notion that millions will die if temperatures rise by a few degrees is absurd. Warm centuries have been advantageous to agriculture (ii) The holocaust is historical fact; some future thermageddon - even if such a prediction had merit - lies in an uncertain future. It'd be daft to be as certain about the existence of your great grandchildren as you are about your great grandparents.

So I say it isn't apt.

"(i) The notion that millions will die if temperatures rise by a few degrees is absurd."

Really? How many people live within 20ft of sea level? Now, how many people die in floods (and include the consequential increase in disease and ill health).

"Warm centuries have been advantageous to agriculture"

Proof, please.

"1. A single, unquestioning belief in the superiority of themselves over others ("Your not a Climate Scientist!")"

So? If you were to get legal representation and find out a local plumber was doing your defence, you'd be whining "You're not a solicitor!".

"2. Suppression of dissidence. Exhibit A, ClimateGate emails speaking of having editors fired."

Except that didn't happen. Exhibit A for how you're a loon.

"3. Dehumanizing your opponents. "Big Oil Shill""

Nope, you're still human if you're shilling. You're just shilling.

"4. And this is more in line with a cult...belief in a single, supreme philosophy (Nazism, Communism, etc.) I.e, the earth is warming, man is causing it, and we need more government control to stop it."

Single philosophy???

1) the earth is warming
1) man is causing it
1) we need more government control to stop it

Only if you can't count to two is that a single philosophy.

1) Earth warming: fact of measurement.

2) Man isn't causing the warming. They're causing an increase in the GHG concentrations.

3) The Market has been able to pursue a course without government intervention to solve the problem. Therefore the only way they'll stop making #2 worse is if they#re forced to. This is no different from a police force to stop me stealing your stuff or a standing army to protect your country from my invasion.

"1. A single, unquestioning belief in the superiority of themselves over others ("Your not a Climate Scientist!")"

Wrong. Non climate scientists can certainly contribute to knowledge. But most skeptics of global warming don't even know the basics and cannot be expected to have anything to contribute. This is how we treat expertise in our society, and why you would never allow even a brilliant auto mechanic to operate on you.

"2. Suppression of dissidence. Exhibit A, ClimateGate emails speaking of having editors fired. Preventing the publication of opposing views."

Noting was suppressed. A skeptical editor had bypassed the peer review process and some scientists decided not to publish in that journal anymore.

"3. Dehumanizing your opponents. "Big Oil Shill""

Compare with: "Somehow, I don't think all these climate scientists" are going to so easily give up the government gravy train." So it's okay for you to call someone a fraud for personal gain, but not others?

"The earth is warming and man is causing it" is not a philosophy, it is a finding based on evidence. AS for solutions, you are welcome to propose solutions that do not rely on government intervention.

"And if I may ask, if AGW is sooo certain, so settled, an established scientific fact, then why should anyone be funded to study it anymore?"

Because liars like your bestest pals evah continue to say "Oh, you have to prove that you've included EVERYTHING".

If you deniers were actually worried about a scam to get funding, you'd stop asking for yet more proof.

The problem is you're scared of the actions required because they are an anathema to your dogma.

I seen, just this morning, over on another climate sci-blog, one of the usual denialist suspects casting doubt on the murder of trayvon martin. Is there no barrel-bottom they will not scrape?

Chek retorts to: "(i) The notion that millions will die if temperatures rise by a few degrees is absurd."

With "Really? How many people live within 20ft of sea level?"

Jeez, mate, if they can't manage to outrun a 3mm-per-annum tsunami maybe the gene pool's better off without 'em. Even a duh-brain like you would have time for a nap - even plant some crops!

"Chek retorts to: "(i) The notion that millions will die if temperatures rise by a few degrees is absurd."

With "Really? How many people live within 20ft of sea level?""

Except he doesn't.

Posted by: Wow | May 21, 2012 7:29 AM.

And in New Orleans, a 0.08mm per year tsunami caused HOW much damage when it finally broke the levees?

Wow (if that's your real name): My apologies for confusing you with another member of the Church of Global Warming - one 'Chek'.

Since you raise the subject of New Orleans, may I ask you: If the seas had not been rising in the past century, might the New Orleans disaster have happened anyway? Could it be that you are taking an 'outlier' event and attributing undue significance to sea level rises?

Brent: if they can't manage to outrun a 3mm-per-annum tsunami maybe the gene pool's better off without 'em.

You disgrace yourself with your glib misanthropic know-nothingism. Yourself, and everything you claim to believe in. The 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Asia is believed to have killed nearly 300,000 people - of whom nearly one-third were children, who died precisely because they couldn't run fast enough nor hold on tight enough to survive.

Gene pool's better off without 'em, huh?

And let me guess - it's just part of a normal discussion to death-wish tens of thousands of people who live elsewhere and are poorer than you, but if an environmentalist tried something that would raise your taxes, why, they'd be like Nazis, amirite?

Reminds me of the no-talent legacy brat Jonah Goldberg's glib know-nothing response to the news that a F4 hurricane was bearing down on a city built below sea level: "ATTN Superdome residents - Grow gills!"

Wingnut denialists don't know anything about how the world works and their first response to any news of a problem is to death-wish people different from themselves. It comes so much more easily than learning. Goldberg later claimed to have been shocked when bad things actually happened and people actually died after Katrina, and I believe he really was sufficiently stupid to have not been able to foresee things that any reasonably well-read 7th grader would have anticipated. You, Brent, likewise may have been unaware of how quickly, easily, and brutally the lives of many thousands of people can be snuffed out by environmental disasters, quite likely due to the same deficiency as Goldberg.

"Jeez, mate, if they can't manage to outrun a 3mm-per-annum tsunami maybe the gene pool's better off without 'em."

running away only works if you've got somewhere to run to.

Brent: If the seas had not been rising in the past century, might the New Orleans disaster have happened anyway? Could it be that you are taking an 'outlier' event and attributing undue significance to sea level rises?

In a word, No. Not only are sea levels rising, but the number of extreme weather events is increasing, making the rise in sea level more destructive.

One measure of this is insurance company losses. Munich Re, one of the world's largest insurers, publishes their assessment of losses due to extreme weather events.

Here's an interesting discussion of the results.

Or, here's a link to a summary graph.

How does your understanding of "outliers" fit into this picture?

"running away only works if you've got somewhere to run to"

And if you have nothing to lose from leaving it behind.

Mark Hoofnagle: How boring.

It's less boring here than it is on most "sceptical" sites. On Mr. Watts' site, for example, the constant parade of self-satisfied strawman pummelers and ad hominem pile-ons is the only kind of discussion allowed. At least here you're allowed to ask the question. On Watts' site, use of the word "denial" is reason to have your posts removed, because that would distract from the ongoing claims of censorship of contrarian ideas in the mainstream media.

Maybe the problem is that denialism is fundamentally boring. After all, mindlessly repeating the same claims (see above) to support a foregone conclusion, while refusing to engage with the actual evidence, is a thankless task. Unfortunately, this is the problem; those who lack either the education or the imagination to understand the evidence, continually demonstrate their inability to change their views based on a critical re-evaluation of the facts.

Global Warming Causes Everything!

A complete list of things caused by global warming

Don't listen to the mass murdering deniers.

It is urgent for us to tax air and stop Global Warming before it melts the planet and kills us all.

Please, please everyone, stop exhaling and farting that dangerous "pollutant" carbon dioxide. Remember it is for the children.

"Of course, the word "perhaps" does not appear anywhere in the NAS report on temperature reconstructions of the past 2000 years. In fact, you did not quote from the source, but invented your own quote and then used your own words to "prove" your point."

You can find the quote I used, word for word, at the link MarkH provided in the 12th paragraph above, which reads "Global warming denialists are excellent at moving goalposts, they're still arguing about the damn hockey stick graph after all, despite its validation by multiple other methods."

Click on the words "multiple other methods" The link will take you to an article on Climate Progress website. You will then find the words I quoted, word for word from the BBC, in the middle of the page.

I do admit to an attribution error, like I said the words come from a BBC article, not NAS.

What you provided from NAS confirms the BBC report that I quoted. Confidence in Mann's reconstruction holds only for the last 400 years, which is about as controversial as asserting that day is usually warmer than night.

Beyond that, the NAS Report (that you quoted) contains a bizarre sentence "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."

How could that be?

We all know from "the divergence problem" that climate proxies are inaccurate for last 50 years (being way too cool), so how could NAS make such an odd claim?

What fun. I really like this link to the 1,000 climate papers because it demonstrates the cherry-picking point very nicely, as well as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Even as a non-expert I noted some immediate problems with the list. The first based on their "highlights", which I assume means their best evidence, and "general" which appear to most directly contradict GHG contribution to climate, is how poor of quality in general the journals they are citing are. I love for instance that Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is right up there in the top. Also there are a lot of "reply to", "supplementary data" and "addendum" contributions, which appear to be padding, typical to these kinds of lists, and should not be considered "peer reviewed" papers. I'm growing less impressed by the second.

It's a warning sign, but good science happens in small journals too, and I've published in quite a few, so we're not done, and even with padding there are actual articles in there despite the intellectual dishonesty of such behavior. Next after looking at titles you see who the scientists are, Lindzen, Scafetta, Patrick Michaels (the famous subtractor of inconvenient lines before congress), Idso (uh oh, lots of contributions from carbon boy Idso), and I get even more bored with this list. It's the usual players. But still, it's not impossible that even some of these characters might have contributed something legitimate, they ostensibly passed peer review after all.

So let's start looking through a few of these on the basis that sampling will give an overall impression of the whole. I even wanted to bias it towards the list so I went for some of the more reputable journals. I started with Scafetta's contributions (including Scafetta 2009 and S&W 2007), because I'm at least familiar with some of the basic physics and can still read an equation or two. They are interesting, and I read them all the way through, but once you look at the data they cease to be reliable models (oh no models!) of a real forcing of climate due to anticorrelations between temperature proxy and expected forcings during time-periods that were not emphasized in these papers. Turning to the experts I see that this modeling is unsophisticated and very problematic. Even if this model were true it would only increase the contribution of the sun to the observed increase in temperature, and not refute that GHG and man-made influences aren't a significant driver of climate, just a smaller one. On to the next paper, let's give Idso a chance since it looks like he's got a paper in Science from 1982! Science! A real journal? It's true, however the problem is this paper would appear to be a poor member of this list since the predictions Idso made in 1982 - that models are wrong and negative feedbacks would prevent increasing temperature, are notably wrong. If you don't subtract the models you don't like (as Patrick Michaels did) and look at Hansen's 1981 climate projection it did quite well. So I'm three papers in (looking at the higher quality journals) and I'm finding two contributions that are problematic at best, and one which would seem to show they've been making bad predictions since 1982. That's after you ignore the crappy journals, the padding with "replies" and "supplemental data" and people who have a history of pretty dramatic and public dishonesty.

Should I waste any more time with this? This is the problem with these lists. They seem impressive to the uninitiated, 1000 is a big number! But with just minimal picking they unravel. It's just padding, some refuted junk, some ineffectual and incomplete challenges, and a bunch a of cranks churning away on the fringes of academic publications. Is there proof there is no warming? Nope. Is there proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I'd be surprised, and most of the papers clearly acknowledge at least this basic fact. Is there a consistent and contradictory alternative explanation? No, it's a bunch a half-assed nonsense that's all over the place. It's not like they have an alternative explanation, they have a (padded) thousand quasi-alternatives that shoot off in every direction.

Dunning Kruger all over again. They think this is impressive but it's not. I'm bored.

"Holocaust denial and climate change denial share many features, as does evolution denialism, HIV/AIDS denialism, vaccine crankery, 9/11 trutherism etc., that is they use rhetorical tricks to deny a body of evidence that contradicts an ideological position. - MarkH"

I cannot help but notice that the tricks you condemn like: rhetoric, conspiracy, cherry-picking and logical fallacies are the very stock and trade of any good prosecutor and defense attorney.

I also cannot help but notice how the concepts of truth and denial differ between the fields of science and law. In law, the concept of truth is scrupulously avoided while the rules of evidence are much more strict.

For instance, the Legal System depends upon the concept of discovery whereby everything is shared between all contesting parties, often even the press, and anyone who tries to pull a Phil Jones, âWhy should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.â might find themselves disbarred.

But mostly, the law works on the assumption that BOTH SIDES of the debate engage in rhetoric, conspiracy, cherry-picking and logical fallacies and therefore the entire legal system rests on the wisdom of twelve ordinary civilians to make sense of what the experts and authorities say.

"Confidence in Mann's reconstruction holds only for the last 400 years."

This is simply untrue. The NAS claims "less confidence" can be placed in reconstructions going back to 900 AD, not zero confidence. This is the same conclusion that Mann had, as in 1999 paper his error bars are wider before 1400. (This is why the BBC--and even people like Roger Pielke, Jr.--say that the NAS report vindicated Mann. It did.

Also, you have no idea what you are talking about wrt the Divergence problem, which is not close to universal among proxies, or even tree rings.

I cannot help but notice that the tricks you condemn like: rhetoric, conspiracy, cherry-picking and logical fallacies are the very stock and trade of any good prosecutor and defense attorney.

Yes, because that is how to build a rhetorical argument that can win over an audience more on emotion than accuracy. Denialists love it - hence their overwhelming preference for stage debates instead of written correspondence - and if you think the "lawyers do it too" card will make a gang of SCIENTISTS find it a smidgen less disreputable, I'm afraid you are mistaken.

"We all know from "the divergence problem" that climate proxies are inaccurate for last 50 years (being way too cool),"

that's really quite impressively wrong. well done.

the divergence problem only affects tree-ring-based proxies. and only a fairly limited set of high-latitude proxies at that. see eg. the last couple of IPCC reports (Â§2.3.2.1 of TAR, for instance). or the NAS report. or indeed a fair proportion of the palaeoclimate-related literature from the last decade or two. or the bottom half of http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png if you'd rather look at pretty pictures.

you may also wish to look up the supplemental material from Mann's 2008 Science paper for a reconstruction that doesn't rely on any tree-rings at all (and hence is not affected by the divergence problem). you'll be amazed at how much it resembles a hockey-stick ;-)

"so how could NAS make such an odd claim?"

of course, if you'd actually bothered read the NAS report...

"Also, you have no idea what you are talking about wrt the Divergence problem, which is not close to universal among proxies, or even tree rings."

Really?

Go to IPCC AR4 Chapter Six. See IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 - 6.6 The Last 2,000 Years

Scroll down to graph labeled "NH Temperature Reconstruction" and look closely at the graph. For a better view, copy the graph into paint and zoom-in on the right-hand side.

The Divergence is there in all its blazing glory.

Notice how none of the proxies, including MH1999 follow the instrumental record? In fact, few of the proxies even make it into the last quarter of the 20th century because their declines were hid.

Now tell me. How can proxies that cannot reach the 0.0 line in the 20th century prove that the 0.0 line was not exceeded in 10th century? Inquiring minds want to know.

That is "the divergence problem" that plagues Palaeoclimatic Proxies.

But proxies are not all that interesting. The really fascinating question is "what compels climate fundamentalists to act like their christian fundamentalist cousins?"

Why must every word from the IPCC, Mann and the CRU be defended to the death? Why must it all be literally true?

Climate science will survive the demise of Michael Mann, the IPCC and the CRU just as Christianity survived the demise of creationism.

Why deny this?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/recent-northern-hemisp…

Another new paper that diverges from the CO2 drives climate hypothesis. Mark (this author) is unimpressed with a thousand papers showing the real climate scientists have a broad range of views. Oh, his faith is strong! Of course, he's writing out of his field, and the fact that he knows better than all of these scientists writing within their field should be extremely embarrassing. But ideologues are rarely embarrassed.

Science isn't about belief.

TTT: Please don't read into my tsunami-gene-pool thing any mockery of the poor people who died in the two recent disasters. If it appears callous, then I'm sorry. I meant no offence.

My point was rather this: we should distinguish between genuine catastrophes and fake fantasy ones set in the future. At 3mm per annum, sea rise is no risk whatsoever.

To the question "Is it apt to draw parallels between global warming and the Nazi holocaust?", I say NO.

The previous Pielke Sr. posting is interesting, too; though it's a bit psychoanalytical for me. I prefer the papers that focus on the science.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/guest-post-by-kiminori…

Hmmm, you are alleging we're acting like the fundamentalists. This is the classic denialist turnabout, "no you're the denialist".

Well, not really. We are not alleging conspiracy theories, we don't really need to. Agents like the Koch brothers are pretty explicit about their desire to fund political think tanks to challenge an existing body of data. It's really all out in the open. We don't really need to cherry pick, it's all in the IPCC and in the lead journals. The theory represents the overwhelming majority of published papers in the literature, not relying on the Canadian Journal of Irreproducible Results, but rather Nature and Science (see Oreskes). Our experts are coming from the National Academies (of every single country in the world by the way supports global warming). I think that the false equivalence analogy fails as always. Finally, we routinely admit how happy we would be if we were proven wrong. I can't tell you how happily I would be to have egg on my face for criticizing the cranks if it turned out we aren't having an impact on climate, fossil fuels are infinite in capacity, and god's creation is perfect and indestructible. That would be lovely, more than worth my own chagrin at having been wrong. And I still wouldn't feel too bad about calling out the denialists because, after all, it isn't so much the position they take that is wrong, but the methods of conspiracy, cherry-picking, relying on false experts, moving goalposts and logical fallacies that make their arguments unscientific. Even if, by some miracle, they're right, and Al Gore is using mind control to make every climate scientist in the world fabricate data for Science and Nature, denialism still would not represent legitimate debate. We've seen their pathetic attempts to justify the literature supports their position, that is where the true debate lies, and they're losing. Hence the debate enters the political arena and the blogosphere, the jury to use GregS' analogy, and guess what? OJ did it.

"the divergence problem only affects tree-ring-based proxies. and only a fairly limited set of high-latitude proxies at that. see eg. the last couple of IPCC reports (Â§2.3.2.1 of TAR, for instance). or the NAS report. or indeed a fair proportion of the palaeoclimate-related literature from the last decade or two. or the bottom half of http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.png if you'd rather look at pretty pictures."

If I was your boss and you were a prosecutor trying to send a 20yr old black kid to the electric chair based on this data, I'd demote you to charging public urination cases.

Look at the graph you just presented. Half the proxies show the temperature dropping dramatically in the last quarter of the 20th century. We all know from the instrumental record that temperatures rose - hence is the divergence. You didn't even provide the instrumental record as a reference. I wouldn't let evidence like that anywhere near an intelligent juror.

One simply has to ask the question, as any good defense attorney would, if the trees are not dependable thermometers, why make them the central icon of IPCC AR4? Why include them at all?

The ClimateGate Emails answer the question - why. The Hockey-Team was interested only in controlling the message. It had nothing to do with science.

If you want to go down with The Hockey-Team be my guest but I think coping with energy policy and long-term carbon-forcing issues are far more important than maintaining a climate fundamentalist lock on the public debate.

To the question "Is it apt to draw parallels between global warming and the Nazi holocaust?", I say NO.

This is a response that is "not even wrong". One would note that no one has made this comparison. At worse Tomkiewicz said that in the future global warming might represent a holocaust. It certainly hasn't happened yet, and I don't think there is enough certainty in what form climate change will take to suggest such a callousness on the part of the denialists. I certainly think their position is very high risk, and that's why I don't like it.

You should also note that I said no to Tomkiewicz' comparison as well, except I split the issue into two separate phenomena. Is it true that they use the same methods of argumentation, the emotional rhetoric that sways the jury as GregS put it? The answer is demonstrably yes. Is there a moral equivalence between the ideology and motivations behind the forms of denial? The answer is no. I explicitly disagreed with Tomkiewicz' moral comparison. I don't think they get to denial from hate and bigotry, or wish for harm to come to others. To simplify grossly, they are ideologically convinced that harm comes from regulation and government, therefore any science that would suggest a need for regulation or government is false.

But that doesn't change the fact that denial, no matter what its focus, takes the same form. Comparisons can be made between those that deny in general, in that denial has a predictable pattern. That is the only comparison that is apt.

Ligne @ 103. Mate, we're talking about 3mm per annum. You say that "this only works if there's somewhere to run to."

Ligne, your fingernails grow faster than that. The point is that, even if this (post Little Ice Age springback)rise in sea levels continues, its very slow indeed.

Greg H @ 104: I'm sure that the graphs of escalating insurance losses you linked to are authentic. No disrespect, but the disasters per-se are only part of the story; a major contributor to those upward curves must be the values of the goods insured. This reminds me of a conversation between two people arguing about the rise in burglaries since the good old days. One guy says, "Yeah, and if they'd broken into your house in 1938 what would they have found to steal? A MANGLE?"

The previous Pielke Sr. posting is interesting, too; though it's a bit psychoanalytical for me. I prefer the papers that focus on the science.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/guest-post-by-kiminori…

Eh. It's a strawman if you ask me. I don't think anyone discounts the existence or effects of any of those other drivers, it's just the magnitude of the effects. His river picture (b) would perfectly represent the view of the science as well, if he merely increased the volume of CO2's stream.

MarkH@120: I get it. Your question relates to the closed minds of those opposed to all regulation and government. And not to the past catastrophe of Nazism compared to the predicted catastrophe of AGW. Point taken.

What I genuinely don't get (and would welcome your comment on) is this: How does 'denial' differ from 'scepticism'. In my book, healthy scepticism sometimes results in the sceptic buying into the very thing he was contesting.

Some British statesman of the 1930s was mocked for having changed his opinion. He said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do YOU do sir?!" I'll drink to him.

GregS:

"Look at the graph you just presented. Half the proxies show the temperature dropping dramatically in the last quarter of the 20th century. We all know from the instrumental record that temperatures rose - hence is the divergence."

You are reading that graph wrong. The colored lines are the different forcings (CO2, solar, etc.) The reconstructed temperature is the greyed area.

"It's interesting how common comments are like this that ... say I'm creating a moral comparison between holocaust denial and climate denial."
-MarkH

Do you really think there is anyone foolish enough to buy this goofy, pseudo-sophisticated denial?

Perhaps that's why comments like this are so "common" ... one might say there's a universal "consensus" that this term represents a repulsive smear job. Why not just argue that folks who disagree with you are like pedophiliacs, but not "morally" of course ... that's makes about as much sense.

"We don't really need to cherry pick, it's all in the IPCC and in the lead journals." I agree that the IPCC represents the consensus, but the consensus isn't as narrow as alarmists present it to be. The recent 4th assessment report even gives a 10% chance that recent warming is not anthropogenic. And of course, Science doesn't work by consensus. Science is empirical. Ultimately, I believe that good science will indeed win the day.

Thanks for the conversation.

A sad commentary Mark. You wasted an entire article without ever noticing you had no subject. What is a "denialist" in this context? A denialist IS NOT someone who doesn't believe climate is changing - that's a straw man. Climate changes all the time, year to year, century to century, millenia to millenia - you don't find any significant number of people who believe climate is static outside of environmentalist fantasies. Better questions could be "Is current climate change catastrophic?"; "Is current climate change anthropogenic?". But the term denialist is applied to people who claim that "Science doesn't support turning over a 5% of the world's economy to some uncontrolled world organization to address climate change." - and if you haven't noticed that some of the climate conferences recommended trillions of dollars a year out of a 70 trillion dollar world economy, you haven't been paying attention - no wonder you don't know what people are upset about. That's not science, it's politics, and the term "denialist" is being used heavily in that situation.

In general the post is naive and one-sided. You note that there are conspiracy theorists who are opposed to climate change politics, but don't notice that some supporters of climate change politics claim every disagreement is due to the malevolent influence of "the Koch brothers" and "Big Oil" - which is its own conspiracy theory. You notice that some people won't accept the exoneration of the UEA email scandal, but don't address the documented breaches of the peer review process - backup data must be made available for published results and for a number of results this data is still not available. That doesn't mean the results are wrong, but it does mean they are not documented properly and that the peer review process did not work correctly.

Beyond that, your description of libertarians is silly - libertarians want limited government, not no government. And your understanding of Ayn Rand and modern politics is completely misguided - Ayn Rand never describes "supermen" - her characters are talented, but are throughly human private individuals. They can build a building or run a railroad, not stop the seas from rising. Technocracy is a strong current trend which relies on super human bureaucrats to solve the worlds problems - the obvious examples are economists in the current governments of Greece and Italy, but more relevant for this discussion would be a global organization controlling a static climate to maintain an optimum environment for humans defined as the holocene average. It would work as well as the economists are doing in Greece.

"A denialist IS NOT someone who doesn't believe climate is changing - that's a straw man. Climate changes all the time..."

Stopped reading here. This is a common argument from fake skeptics. But you are just substituting your definition of "climate change" (climate changes all the time!!!) for what is obviously meant--climate change caused by human GHG emissions and land use changes that will continue during the next century.

I find this very odd. Do you think anybody is accusing you of not believing in ice ages?

Brent @121 provides a grab-bag of cheesy rhetorical tactics to ignore the facts. KIDS! Don't try these at home:

I'm sure that the graphs of escalating insurance losses you linked to are authentic.

Start by inferring that the source is only "probably" authentic. WTF? These people are f*cking accountants, working for one of the world's largest insurers.

No disrespect,

When you disagree with someone, it's ok to patronize them as well.

but the disasters per-se are only part of the story; a major contributor to those upward curves must be the values of the goods insured.

Yeah, well this argument, per se, must be a failure. If you'd actually looked at the linked chart, it's counting the number of weather events, not monetary value. I know you understand the difference, but misreading sources to suit your own beliefs is a basic denialist habit, isn't it?

This reminds me of a conversation between two people arguing about the rise in burglaries since the good old days. One guy says, "Yeah, and if they'd broken into your house in 1938 what would they have found to steal? A MANGLE?"

When you don't have a point to make, distract with made-up drivel.

What I genuinely don't get

Breant Hargreaves is a denier troll who is well known at Deltoid for pretending to sincerity ... but he can never keep it up for more than a few posts.

A denialist IS NOT someone who doesn't believe climate is changing - that's a straw man.

Yes, indeed that's a strawman -- your strawman. A denialist is someone who denies the evidence.

"Science doesn't support turning over a 5% of the world's economy to some uncontrolled world organization to address climate change."

And the reason they deny it is usually rooted in political ideology. That's the starting point for denialists such as yourself and Brent, and starting from the ideological position you seek out any snippet from denialist blogs and oil industry shills that fits your selective perception and selection bias.

but the consensus isn't as narrow as alarmists present it to be. The recent 4th assessment report even gives a 10% chance that recent warming is not anthropogenic.

The assessment is conservative and already out of date.

And of course, Science doesn't work by consensus.

You have no idea how science works, and this blather about consensus from denialists is special pleading -- what they want people to accept in place of the consensus is what they believe. The fact is that every single claim that is accepted as scientific fact, from the age of the universe to the laws of thermodynamics, is in line with scientific consensus. Scientific consensus is the only legitimate basis for claiming that something is a scientific fact. Scientific consensus is not "democracy", which is a matter of preferences. Scientific consensus is agreement among those who are most familiar with and best able to understand the available empirical evidence. Scientific consensus is an empirical observable, and is the best possible evidence for whether something is true (but, like all empirical evidence, it is not proof, and the truth could still lie elsewhere).

Ultimately, I believe that good science will indeed win the day.

Good science says, overwhelmingly, that global warming is caused by human industry. Since denialists are primarily motivated by ideology, that good science will never "win the day" with them.

one might say there's a universal "consensus" that this term represents a repulsive smear job

One might say a lot of things that aren't true. It's called "lying".

Posted by: FreedomFan

Again, global warming denialism is primarily motivated by political ideology.

"Denialist".... what does it mean? This thing needs parsing and dissecting.

One who denies universally accepted historic fact?
One who disagrees with the majority?
One who challenges convention?
One who denies the 'universally' accepted future?

It has religious/political overtones rather than scientific. Would it be "denialism" to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or Ohm's Law? And would there be a phalanx of activists trying to shout down an Ohm's Denier? I think not.

Was it Pascal or Montaigne who wrote "Nothing is so fiercely defended as that which cannot be proven"? That phrase neatly sums up the desperate need of AGW believers to shout down those who question their futurology. They need to: once the public catches wind of how badly they've been conned by the Green Meanies, the whole rotten Lysenkoist edifice will come tumbling down.

If Global Warming is real science, what are the falsifiability criteria? (BTW, did you hear that an attempt to row from Canada to London was cancelled yesterday. Ice too dangerous! Git in th' hole!)

If I was your boss and you were a prosecutor trying to send a 20yr old black kid to the electric chair based on this data, I'd demote you to charging public urination cases.

Denialists live in a world of counterfactuals where they come out right, so as to avoid how wrong they are in this world. For instance, Brent likes to ask questions about whether "Warmistas" (i.e., rational informed people) would change their minds if certain extremely unlikely events that disproved AGW were to occur.

Look at the graph you just presented.

What makes you think you're competent to understand it?

The Hockey-Team was interested only in controlling the message. It had nothing to do with science.

That's a lie.

"You are reading that graph wrong. The colored lines are the different forcings (CO2, solar, etc.) The reconstructed temperature is the greyed area."

When the conversation was about temperature proxies, why would I assume that a graph with no supporting text would be about temperature proxies rather than forcings? Silly me.

Here is the text you should have linked though I question its relevance since it is mostly model simulations and said little about proxies.

But let's get back to the question at hand, if there are proxies that accurately track modern temperature (that also go back 1,000 years), let's see them.

The simple fact is - no such things exist. The Hockey-stick is a metaphor, not the literal word of science.

Think like a Lutheran, you don't have to believe in Noah to be a Christian, nor do you have to believe in the unerring word of Micheal Mann to believe in climate change.

GregH @ 129: No, you didn't understand my point about mangle thefts. It's this:

A graphical representation of hospital records showing the number of i-Pods swallowed year-on-year since the 1920s will say little about throats, little about diet, much about.... [no, I'd be labouring the point and you STILL won't grasp it!]

Press reports of Carribean hurricanes from 1491 to 1991 will show an upward trend. This is because [labouring!]

Would it be "denialism" to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or Ohm's Law? And would there be a phalanx of activists trying to shout down an Ohm's Denier? I think not.

Again Brent with the counterfactuals. Of course that would be denialism, especially if the denial were widespread and politically motivated. A real life example is the assertion by Creationists -- aka evolution deniers -- that evolution is contradicted by the 2LOT. There is indeed a phalanx of activists who push back at that denialism.

Was it Pascal or Montaigne who wrote "Nothing is so fiercely defended as that which cannot be proven"? That phrase neatly sums up ...

... Brent's fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, in this case compounded with hyperbole. To infer from fierce defense of P that P cannot be proven is stupid, inept, and grossly intellectually dishonest.

once the public catches wind of how badly they've been conned by the Green Meanies, the whole rotten Lysenkoist edifice will come tumbling down.

As I said, Brent is incapable of maintaining a pretense of sincerity for long.

why would I assume that a graph with no supporting text would be about temperature proxies rather than forcings?

No assumptions are necessary; the colored lines are identified on the graph as "natural and anthropogenic forcings".

Silly me.

A rare moment of honesty from a denialist.

The simple fact is - no such things exist. The Hockey-stick is a metaphor, not the literal word of science.

More lying.

"Some British statesman of the 1930s was mocked for having changed his opinion. He said, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do YOU do sir?!" I'll drink to him."

i doubt you'd like Keynes, Brent: i think you'll find he was a bit too much of a fan of government intervention...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Mann_et_al._2008_…

i doubt you'd like Keynes, Brent

Brent lies. At Deltoid he has repeatedly been given facts that refute his position, and has even accepted some of them, but has stayed resolute with such ideologically drenched idiocy as "once the public catches wind of how badly they've been conned by the Green Meanies, the whole rotten Lysenkoist edifice will come tumbling down".

"Would it be "denialism" to deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics or Ohm's Law? And would there be a phalanx of activists trying to shout down an Ohm's Denier? I think not."

Ohm's law? probably not. they're well in the realms of batshit insane by that point, and green ink is terribly hard to read.

as for Thermo2: have you really never heard of perpetual motion machines? that flavour of denialist are two a penny, and are shouted down all the time. see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion or http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

... Brent's fallacy of affirmation of the consequent, in this case compounded with hyperbole

I should have also mentioned fallacy of appeal to authority, in this case confabulated authority, as neither Pascal nor Montaigne seem to have said any such thing.

"You should also note that I said no to Tomkiewicz' comparison as well, except I split the issue into two separate phenomena. Is it true that they use the same methods of argumentation, the emotional rhetoric that sways the jury as GregS put it? The answer is demonstrably yes - MarkH"

Mark, you missed the point.

The law assumes BOTH SIDES engage in rhetoric, conspiracy theories, cherry-picking and logical fallacies. It also assumes that what one side insists is a fact, the other insists is a fallacy . That is why we have an adversarial system of law that rarely if ever utters the word "truth".

The use of the word denial implies that truth is knowable and absolute. While indeed some things are knowable, most are not - and in the realm of climate change, most things are knowable only to those who are very uncomfortable with uncertainty and doubt.

As for climate change denial, we see very little of it.

What we see instead is the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, using climate science as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism.

hah, i knew i should have asked the google oracle before posting! http://aboutohmslaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/ohms-law-is-wrong-for-this-b…

i'm actually a bit surprised that there doesn't seem to be more, considering what a bitch it is wrt power transmission. and that it may well stray into hi-fi woo territory too.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/recent-northern-hemisp…

Another new paper that diverges from the CO2 drives climate hypothesis.

The paper does no such thing. That's like saying that a study showing that many of the people who died in Hiroshima were smokers diverges from the "hypothesis" that smoking produces fatalities. The lead author asks,

"The question to ask is how far must the tropics expand before we start to implement policies to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, tropospheric ozone and black carbon that are driving the tropical expansion?"

You could have found that quote yourself if you were intellectually honest, rather than someone who cherry picks and spins articles by Pielke and others who match your confirmation bias.

But ideologues are rarely embarrassed.
Science isn't about belief.

Pot/kettle/black, own goal.

"Hence the debate enters the political arena and the blogosphere, the jury to use GregS' analogy, and guess what? OJ did it."

I remember the end of OJ's trail quite well. What I remember most was the news coverage of all those black folks clapping and leaping in joy.

Were they wrong to do that?

Were they denying the truth?

Or was there something else going on there? Let me tell you, after 30 years in criminal justice - there WAS something going on all over the country with the law and black folks.

Maybe what the world needs is a Johnny Cochran of Science.

One who will insist the IPCC publish a minority report and seek minority opinion.

One who will insist that all evidence be archived and freely available to everyone whose life is affected by it.

One who will point out that climate scientists at the CRU broke the law, just like Richard Nixon, and their crimes should not be shoved under the rug.

One who will tell the faithful that The Hockey Stick is a metaphor, not a truth.

As for climate change denial, we see very little of it.

What we see instead is the hypothesis of catastrophic global warming, using climate science as a shield to deflect legitimate criticism.

More lies.

One who will point out that climate scientists at the CRU broke the law, just like Richard Nixon, and their crimes should not be shoved under the rug.

There have been numerous commissions. Your posts reek of intellectual dishonesty Greg, and it's clear that you know nothing of climate science and little concern for the search for truth.

"This reminds me of a conversation between two people arguing about the rise in burglaries since the good old days. One guy says, "Yeah, and if they'd broken into your house in 1938 what would they have found to steal? A MANGLE?""

stealing a mangle probably makes sense if you don't have any morals, and you currently have to wring your washing out by hand...

What I genuinely don't get (and would welcome your comment on) is this: How does 'denial' differ from 'scepticism'. In my book, healthy scepticism sometimes results in the sceptic buying into the very thing he was contesting.

Healthy skepticism involves questioning the facts, true. But it also means eventually accepting facts when they've been adequately demonstrated by scientific methods. That acceptance is tenuous of course, but in general, the data remains true even if the interpretation changes periodically, or the theory is amplified, just as Newtonian physics is still true. The data obtained over those centuries isn't wrong, it just didn't fit with out experiences at higher relativistic speeds or on quantum scales.

Denialism, on the other hand, is characterized not just by questioning but by the assertion of less likely alternatives, hypotheses that do not fit the data (often creating more questions than they answer), and they respond to criticism of their hypotheses by rejecting others' arguments using the tactics I described. It's a way of walling off one's ideology from the reality of the outside world. Even skeptics can be susceptible to this way of thinking. Michael Shermer, after all, denied global warming for several years. It is very likely that this is due to the fact that he is a libertarian, the dominant ideology in conflict with the science in this instance. Eventually, his skepticism won out over his ideology, and he now accepts the science, although he often still falls in with the minimizers.

Ideology is the enemy of rational thought, and reason is actually a very poor tool to use to change people's minds. It's the fascinating new result coming out of the study of ideological differences that is making this more clear (google Haidt and Mooney on this stuff). Human modes of thought haven't changed too much in the last few millenia. We have heuristics, shortcuts to find patterns and adapt to new information. We usually come to the conclusion before we know the evidence based on our biases and experience, and only after we've formed the opinion, we use reason to justify our position. So what comes naturally to humans is to have your beliefs first, and the reasons for them later.

Science is new and revolutionary because it has upended this process. It is highly unnatural and counterintuitive mode of thought for humans. It may propose explanations, but doesn't adopt them fully until data is obtained that is consistent with that conclusion. It is actually very difficult for humans to think scientifically, and it takes training, as science often conflicts with what we would consider common sense. We all think we're rational and have the best evidence for our beliefs, but we usually don't, and our natural biases will ensure we think we're perfect descendents of Aristotle even if we're arguing like Stan up there. But in reality our dominant mode of thought is opinion followed by rationalization.

So a skeptic is one who has trained themselves not to jump to the conclusion and then dig in and relentlessly defend with "reason" what is ultimately their first opinion. The skeptic, understands that most human conclusions (cough religion cough) are mostly just rationalized opinion, and naturally questions others' conclusions because they're rarely well-researched. They then acknowledge the way to find out answers lies in acquiring data through reliable methods, testing hypotheses, then ultimately holding or rejecting those hypotheses based on the data obtained. It's not just asking questions, or rejecting conclusions outright, but an acceptance of the process, the only known process, that reliably finds the right answer. Even then those conclusions must be held with skepticism, but that shouldn't be an excuse to allow intellectual paralysis and inaction. We must operate on the best information we have.

So I would encourage people who think they're skeptics or want to be skeptics to start with a very careful examination of their own ideology and how it contributes to how they are biased to see the world. If anything is going to sabotage you and suubject you to illogical biases it's going to be your political ideology, whether left or right.

"Your posts reek of intellectual dishonesty Greg, and it's clear that you know nothing of climate science and little concern for the search for truth."

we-ell, it's all progress of a sort: they've progressed from "all the data was fudged -- AGW is a lite!" to "aaah, but they didn't do all the paperwork properly -- AGW is a lie!". soon enough it'll be "Phil Jones was caught speeding last year, and Michael Mann has a goatee -- AGW is a lie!"

But mostly, the law works on the assumption that BOTH SIDES of the debate engage in rhetoric, conspiracy, cherry-picking and logical fallacies and therefore the entire legal system rests on the wisdom of twelve ordinary civilians to make sense of what the experts and authorities say.

That "assumption" (I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word) derives from the adversarial nature of the enterprise among parties with conflicting interests. A jury of twelve ordinary citizens would not be a good way to adjudicate scientific questions. TTT in #112 responds well to your nonsense. It is revealing, though, how you admit that you are not to be trusted as a party acting in good faith.

And even in the law, the system you tout is severely lacking: http://obrag.org/?p=60789

Maybe what the world needs is a Johnny Cochran of Science.

Dear God. That might be the most horrible idea ever advanced on this blog. But I get where you're coming from Greg, I briefly considered law before medicine. I even did an internship with the DC public defender's office. I respect that you think an adversarial system is an effective method for determining truth. But science is different and one of the reasons I chose science is that it's unlike the law. It's not about what you can get away with rhetorically, but what you can demonstrate in a way that others, using your methods, can then demonstrate for themselves. It's a better system, and any appeal to make science more like the judicial system is not going to fly with scientists. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what we want. It's not about what you can convince others of using tricks, emotional appeals, the glove doesn't fit, etc. It's frankly nobler than that. It's unemotional, systematic, replicable, and most importantly, not a popularity contest. Although if you want to extend the metaphor, I think denialism in the courtroom would be more like jury nullification, than a legitimate legal argument.

Anyway, enough of this legal nonsense. The systems aren't comparable, and I'm starting to get the difficulty you're having arguing with my other commentors.

One who will point out that climate scientists at the CRU broke the law, just like Richard Nixon, and their crimes should not be shoved under the rug.

One who will tell the faithful that The Hockey Stick is a metaphor, not a truth.

The first point you have to give up on. They have been cleared by every investigation so far. The unwillingness to accept that there was no scientific misconduct is just evidence of ideological obstinance.

The hockey stick is a proxy reconstruction that has been validated by other investigators using other methods, and Mann's original paper has stood up to pretty amazing scrutiny. The more you complain about it, the more it appears it's just ideological motivation. Which I have to ask, you wouldn't happen to be a libertarian would you?

It's not about what you can get away with rhetorically

Denialism, OTOH, is, as Greg admits and the denialists here so well have demonstrated.

They have been cleared by every investigation so far.

Greg either knows this or has no basis for making any statements about the emails. Either way, he's a grossly dishonest person ... and he has acknowledged that we should assume that about him; that he will "engage in rhetoric, conspiracy theories, cherry-picking and logical fallacies", and that he will "insist" that those fallacies are facts. Missing from his argument is any sort of independent way of determining whether something is in fact a fallacy. Missing from his portrayal of the law is any mention of judges or canons of ethics. The fact is that a trial is not just a free-for-all "debate" where the jury decides the winner. Most of the assertions made by deniers here and elsewhere would never be allowed in a courtroom.

Brent @134: "Denialist" what does it mean... This thing needs parsing and dissecting.

I have two suggestions for you:

1. Go back and read the original post that started this "discussion". READ ALL THE WORDS, not just the ones you think are there.

2. No disrespect intended, but when people label you a "denialist troll" on the internet, do you ever wonder if it could be true? Have you ever considered the possibility that you're not cut out for this kind of discussion?

Brent @137: I think what you're trying to say is "correlation doesn't equal causation", but you're not sure you know what you're talking about (you don't). I do understand that you're trying to evade the point though. (See suggestion 2, above.)

"That's pretty much the exact opposite of what we want. It's not about what you can convince others of using tricks, emotional appeals, the glove doesn't fit, etc. It's frankly nobler than that"

Mark, I understand where you are coming from but let's flip the argument on its head. Why not make the law more noble like science? Instead of a messy adversarial system populated by fast-talking hucksters like Johnny Cochrane, why not rely on a consensus system where everyone works toward the truth?

Why have prosecutors. Why have defense attorneys? Why not just a judicial system based on an authorative panels of experts?

Why not? Well, I wouldn't want to be a mean-looking 20 year old black kid in such a system. I am not saying our messy system is THAT much better - but it is better.

One could extend the argument. Why not have a noble one-party consensus political system? Of course we know why not, that is what they have in China where there is no check on corruption.

As for your point about The CRU, sorry but they did break the law. Here is a link to the ruling by the British Information Commissioner's Office.

Please keep in mind that both legislative panels as well as the Oxburgh and Meir Russel panels explicitly declared investigation into illegal activities to be out of scope.

Where would we be if Congress did that with WaterGate?

From only one of the ICO Findings. Note the word: prosecution.

Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information. Mr Holland's FOI requests were submitted in 2007/8, but it has only recently come to light that they were not dealt with in accordance with the Act. The legislation requires action within six months of the offence taking place, so by the time the action taken came to light the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone.

I remember the end of OJ's trail quite well. What I remember most was the news coverage of all those black folks clapping and leaping in joy.

Were they wrong to do that?

It depends on why they did it.

Were they denying the truth?

Many of them were.

Or was there something else going on there? Let me tell you, after 30 years in criminal justice - there WAS something going on all over the country with the law and black folks.

False dichotomy. Of course there was and is a long history of discrimination and miscarriages of justice against blacks in the U. S. But OJ was not a good defendant to attach that to because a) he had divorced himself from the black community and b) he was guilty and that was clear from the evidence.

Maybe what the world needs is a Johnny Cochran of Science.

Someone who explicitly manipulated sentiment about past wrongs in order to get his guilty client off and score a big personal gain? Could you possibly score a bigger own goal? We already have a Johnny Cochran of climate science -- the libertarians and free market dogmatists who make up most of the denialist community, the denialist bloggers, the Heartland Institute, etc. -- and we know who their client is, a client as guilty as OJ. And we are all Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

It is remarkable just how poorly reasoned are the comments from the ideologically driven denialists here, and Greg's are far from the worst.

"Which I have to ask, you wouldn't happen to be a libertarian would you? - Mark H"

No, I am a civil servant. Libertarians are rather rare in civil service, though one was spotted several years ago. :)

"The hockey stick is a proxy reconstruction that has been validated by other investigators using other methods, and Mann's original paper has stood up to pretty amazing scrutiny. The more you complain about it, the more it appears it's just ideological motivation."
-MarkH

Here's a good way to test the veracity of this tired Warmist meme:

Go to Wikipedia "Global Warming Controversy".

See if you can find the original Mann / AlGore hockey stick (IPCC TAR WG1 2001). Hint: It's buried halfway through the article. (Another hint: Never believe any controversial article featured on Wikipedia.)

Then compare it to the temperature reconstruction featured prominently at the top of the article, which resembles a "bowl" more than a "hockey stick".

Compare; see if you believe that Mann's original "hockey stick" looks anything like the "bowl-shaped" graph created by real scientists.

It's amazing how folks who claim to stand in awe of "science" are ready to keep bitterly defending the Mann / AlGore hoax.

Instead of a messy adversarial system populated by fast-talking hucksters like Johnny Cochrane

An admission about what AGW deniers are.

Why not just a judicial system based on an authorative panels of experts?

You know nothing about science, or pretend to know nothing.

Well, I wouldn't want to be a mean-looking 20 year old black kid in such a system. I am not saying our messy system is THAT much better - but it is better.

Snort. Tell that to Emmett Till. Weren't you the one who said "there WAS something going on all over the country with the law and black folks"?

You reek of intellectual dishonesty. But then, you have told us that we should assume that about you.

I will confess to something other than being a civil servant. I am what you might call a climate Lukewarmer with a view somewhere between Judith Curry and the younger Roger Pielke. I say that with the full awareness that in some quarters it might qualify me as a heretic, if not an apostate.

Yes, I run into a lot of "deniers" in those blogs but I find them, more often than not, quite delightfully well-informed.

Contrast this to the constant din of "it's worse than we thought!!" climate related stories in the popular press.

The ones that climate scientists rarely criticize in public.

Like I said on my first comment on this blog, "The skeptics have always been on firmer ground. It is easier to acknowledge the earth has warmed than it is to predict catastrophic warming in the future.

It is easier to acknowledge that carbon-dioxide has contributed to modern warming than it is to bet heavily on water-vapor feedbacks amplifying its effect by two or three times.

It is easier to admit that the CRU, Michael Mann and the IPCC have pushed climate science beyond the bounds of credibility than it is to defend them."

I'm starting to understand! In your world,"delightfully well-informed" means "agrees with me", or "is able to retain their belief that AGW is untrue, no matter what evidence is presented". Not much of a life for a thinking person, is it?

Contrast this to the constant din of "it's worse than we thought!!" climate related stories in the popular press.

You offer no rebuttal to any of these claims. Rather, you repeatedly demonstrate that you know nothing about climate science. For you, it's all about what's "easy to acknowledge" based on your ignorant, unscientific impressions.

It is easier to acknowledge that carbon-dioxide has contributed to modern warming than it is to bet heavily on water-vapor feedbacks amplifying its effect by two or three times.

Actually, ignorant "lukewarmers" are betting heavily against the empirical evidence ... heavily indeed, considering the stakes if they are wrong. Of course it's easier to acknowledge that you have a stomach ache than it is that you have stomach cancer that needs to be operated on, even if over 90% of the doctors you have consulted say so. But such ease has nothing to do with rational assessment.

Again, it's remarkable just how poor the reasoning of deniers is. And "lukewarmers" are deniers -- as I said, it's about denial of the evidence.

It is easier to admit that the CRU, Michael Mann and the IPCC have pushed climate science beyond the bounds of credibility

Incredulity is not an argument.

What happened to all of the comments? The comment numbering is gone and a bunch of the most embarrassing for Warmists have been deleted.

Good question. I'll see what I can do about attaching numbers.

I knew something would go wrong from the port. It could be that there is a window when they copied everything over that is now lost.

The Holocaust was the most widespread and egregious genocide agsinst one religious group in human history. One third of Europe's Jews (six million innocent men, women and children) were murdered by Nazi Germany only because they were Jews. Those who deny this possess no logical postulation, since captured German war records (see US National Archive) prove the extermination of six million Jews. That is added to the testimony of Nazi leaders and German armed forces leaders at Nuremberg, which corroborate the admission of the murder of six million Jews. Thus, Nazi records alone prove the murder of millions of Jews.

Climate change denial is just as illogical as Holocaust denial. However, climate change is not the same as the extermination of millions of people deemed inferior. The comparison is illogical and incongruous. Denying the fact that the Earth has warmed significantly as a result of carbon emissions related to human activity is illogical. But it pales in comparison to the Holocaust.

Victims of climate change will include all manner of humans, regardless of religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality. Victims of climate change live all over the world. Victims of the Holocaust were primarily, but not exclusively, Jews – i.e. members of one particular religion. They lived primarily in Europe.

One has nothing to do with the other. The Holocaust was aimed at Jews. Climate change affects everyone, regardless of nationality, race, religion or ethnic origin. They are mutually exclusive arguments. As such, they are non-sequitur.

A better comparison between The Holocaust and Climate Change would be to weigh the cost of over-estimation to under-estimation.

If The Holocaust consensus were found to have grossly over-estimated the tragedy, it would threaten our historical understanding of the event by making legitimate claims harder for the public to accept.

On the other hand, if those who under-estimated the tragedy were proved wrong, it would only undermine their credibility and strengthen the public's willingness to accept the true number.

There are only a handful of people who "deny" that our climate is changing, just as there are only a handful of people who deny The Holocaust. But the reason we are here is because of those who have unwisely painted the people with whom they disagree with the brush of denialism.

Every time a member of the public finds themselves on Climate ETC, Lucia's site or even WattUpWithThat, they come away with the knowledge that these people are not denying climate change, they are quibbling about numbers and symbols. They can occasional be proved dead-wrong but to call them denialists only destroys the credibility of those who use the term.

These people may be guilty of under-estimatation but they do not pay as high a price as those who make wild claims about extreme weather, polar bears and Himalayan Glaciers.

Worse is when the IPCC is found to have gotten itself out on a limb.

What happens when a regional cooling trend is amplified in the Arctic and sea ice comes roaring back for a few decades? (Which is VERY possible)

What happens when the acceleration of sea level in the 20th Century is proven to be mostly aquifer depletion? (and that is very possible too)

What happens when GRACE shows that glacial melt is not anywhere near what we have been reading in the papers?

What happens when we learn that the proponents of AGW are outspending the skeptics by a thousand to one?

But more important – what happens when alternative energy schemes are proven not only to be too expensive, unreliable and uneconomical but dollar for dollar less effective at cutting CO2 emission than gas-fired power-plants? (As is the case)

What I fear is a strong fatal public backlash against environmentalism itself.

There are only a handful of people who "deny" that our climate is changing, just as there are only a handful of people who deny The Holocaust. But the reason we are here is because of those who have unwisely painted the people with whom they disagree with the brush of denialism.

Greg, now you're engaging in what is usually referred to as concern trolling and I don't buy it. You also don't realize that a huge component of holocaust denial is minimalization, such as performed by David Irving, and has a direct corollary to this "no one denies climate is changing" argument. It's not that they deny the holocaust, they just don't think it was as big as those dirty zionists claim. Similarly, it's not that we're denying climate changes, we just think it's getting cooler and everything is going to be ok.
Minimization is just another strategy, and is more common form of holocaust denial because it is not as radical, but it's still holocaust denial.

I have made it explicitly clear, in the article and in comments below, that climate change denialists are denialist for the form of their arguments, and not for disagreement with consensus. You doubt that people deny climate change, but are you following the Heartland denialpalooza? Have you not seen your buddy Watts defend Monckton, a ludicrous fraud and crank? How about the advocacy of absurd conspiracy theories by people at the top of our government like Inhofe and his mouthpiece Morano? Denialism is a real thing, it really does happen, and it needs to be challenged and exposed for what it is.

No need for concern for our scientific chops. We're going to be alright. And it's not disagreement we dislike. It's absurd conspiracy theories, denial of data, frank incompetence in evaluating data (seen throughout the thread, just follow Boris' rebuttals), crank experts etc.

It's not debate we don't like, it's denialism we find distasteful.

I hear you when you say it not debate you don’t like, it’s denialism you find distasteful. As for me, it is much the same, but I find exaggeration far more distasteful than denial.

No, I am not a concern troll because our concerns are very different. I believe that Progressives and Environmentalists have damaged the nation's ability to transform the energy sector by chasing symbols rather than solutions. Like I said, dollar for dollar we can cut more CO2 emission by moving to gas fired generating plants than building windmills or solar collectors.

I addressed the issue of David Irving quite clearly. He only undercut himself, not history, by understatement. But what he is doing is not as serious as overstating history because that undercuts public confidence. Naturally, his aim IS to undercut this confidence by weaseling the facts - but that only goes so far.

The climate debate is quite different, one side is pushing a “message” to prod the public into action by exaggerating fears. The other side is pushing against those fears.

The problem is the penalty for pushing fear and being wrong is always greater than the cost of pushing against fear and being wrong. In that sense, Watts, Morano and Inhofe will always have the advantage.

What I am seeing on this page is a failure of partisans to see their opponents in themselves. Both sides engage in the exact same conspiracy theories and minimalization tactics. You yourself raised the specter of Koch (Big Oil) and minimalized ClimateGate.

Sorry but the effective skeptics like Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts and lukewarmers like Judith Curry have no connection to Koch or Big Oil and you entirely missed the point of ClimateGate which is the IPCC would be better off without lawbreakers like Rajendra Pachauri, Phil Jones, Micheal Mann, just as the nation was better off without Nixon after WaterGate.

Climate change will under intense fire in the coming decade as the lesson from the failures of alternate/green energy schemes in Europe and the US wind their way into the public consciousness.

This is a time to reconsider the message and the messages rather than focus on the opposition.

Judith Curry posted a great piece on The Heartburn at Heartland

I hope it serves as a cautionary tale for all sides.

Mark, since you seem willing to engage in these conversations, would you care to address denialism as its own topic?

At least in my mind, denialism is almost always a proxy fight over symbols rather than substance. I see the creationism debate more as a struggle against outsiders than as a religious issue. The same can be said of the dust up over vaccines which is over a fear of over-reaching authority.

Similarly, I view the urge to fight against “denialism” more as a manifestation of progressive politics attacking the core beliefs of those it believes to be political rivals. In this battle, partisan positions get elevated to truths.

For illustration, let's take creationism. To be clear, I am not a creationist, quite the opposite. I look for biological and evolutionary answers to societal problems, being far more interested in a criminal's medications, peer culture and impulse control than the horrible thing they might have done.

So I look at creationism more as a social phenomena than a scientific question.

Looking at it that way, it is clear why facts will never sway a creationist - their interest is social cohesion, not science. Even though they poorly articulate it, they are driven by perceived threats against their community - therefore attacks against their arguments only reinforce their fears and resolve.

Quite tellingly, progressives almost never launch bitter denialist attacks against the Amish, who perhaps are the most denialistic of all groups.

But it was not always that way.

Down here in Southern Minnesota and Northern Iowa we have an enduring memory of National Guardsmen chasing Amish children through corn fields to enforce compulsory school attendance laws.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) pretty much put an end to that which ultimately opened the door to home-schooling, voucher laws and on-line education.

Ironically, it may have been the progressive urge to enforce compulsory schooling that ultimately shot a hole in the center of the progressive political world – public education.

The take away is to quietly assert the facts – and leave politics out of it – no matter what the other side does.

Hey, remember how they 'outed' that Gleick fellow by text analysis?

We're running software to identify if "User Illusion" (wha???) has previous. My money is on a christian name beginning with J.

GregS (May 24 7:46 pm):

If you want to say ridiculous things such as:

Similarly, I view the urge to fight against “denialism” more as a manifestation of progressive politics attacking the core beliefs of those it believes to be political rivals. In this battle, partisan positions get elevated to truths.

then go right ahead.

But don't think you won't get called out for it. Because it's ridiculous. And given the statement you made about the anti-vaccine movement in the same comment as the above cite (go review Respectful Insolence elsewhere on ScienceBlogs to get an idea of what they're all about) one gets the feeling you've got ridiculous views on a number of science-policy intersections.

The mainstream climate science position is espoused by nearly every practicing climate scientist and nearly every national, international, or otherwise major association of scientists.

The reason it has reached that state of acceptance is because mainstream climate science is currently supported by a massive, interlocking web of physics theory (from Fourier through to the Cold War atmospheric & ocean research), experiment (in the lab & in computer models) and empirical observation.

Against this interlocking web of theory, experiment & empiricism, we have the kinds of BS you continue to spout about the UEA-CRU hack, baloney about progressive tribalism, physics crankery (by the likes of, say, Christopher Monckton), defending charlatans like Watts & Curry (the latter is now allowing threats of violence against climate scientists free reign on her blog, by the way).

It's BS, and like any BS it needs to be called out.

SLC, May 20, 10:01 am

The criticisms are out dated and completely refuted,

Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Rebuttal to "Don't Be Fooled: Fossil Fools Fund Latest Climate Skeptic Petition"

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4033

Rebuttal to "Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading." Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=4034

MarkH May 21, 1:03 pm

Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a peer-reviewed science journal (ISSN: 1976-7633)

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MA…

You have demonstrate your intellectual dishonesty by lying about the counting method of the list,

Counting Method: Only Peer-Reviewed papers are counted. Supplemental papers; Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses, and Submitted papers are not counted but listed as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the over 1000 counted papers,

Peer-Reviewed Paper Count: 1000+

Supplemental Paper Count: 50+ (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Rebuttals, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers)

Your subjective cherry picking of "good" journals and non-peer-reviewed criticisms of any of the papers is meaningless. When you publish a peer-reviewed criticism of any of the papers on the list let me know.

What has been shown is you don't even do the very basics of reading explicit notes on the list before lying about it being "padded" with supplemental papers.

Your strawman argument about the list not being a unified theory is refuted by the purpose of the list which again is explicitly stated,

Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW or ACC/AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,

Ah, I saw that they were listed but didn't realize they were not counted. You could see how that could appear to be padding. As far as the quality of the journals? The Asia-pacific journal of atmospheric sciences is not Nature. The peer-reviewed literature consists of a variety of journals of different quality, your list is assembled of what one would call lower-tier journals. Expecting someone to publish a "peer-reviewed criticism" of these papers is an unrealistic expectation and largely irrelevant. For one, no journal is going to take comments to the editor on papers from 2-20 years ago. Second, they're not going to publish them because the problem isn't the papers but your interpretation of them. For instance the science reference I cited does not support your belief that AGW is somehow untrue, if anything it's evidence of the failure of Idso to make a valid prediction.

Finally, lists like these are pretty typical denialist drivel. This strategy is classic, and boring, and based on a brief sampling of what you offered there's no there there. When you look closely you see the articles are being misinterpreted, were wrong, or come from low rent journals.

No I cannot see how someone failing to read the explicit notes would be considered relevant, I actually consider it intellectually dishonest.

I am well aware you only believe two journals exist on the planet but this is not the case as the list references 291 peer-reviewed journals.

The "quality" argument is purely subjective and irrelevant to the scientific validity of a paper. The Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal.

Failure to publish a peer-reviewed criticism makes your arguments against them meaningless. Journals will publish criticisms later on if they are shown to be valid.

Can you please quote where my list makes the claim that AGW is "untrue"? You seem to not be able to read anything properly and knee-jerk jump to conclusions.

Your arguments are typical alarmist propaganda; cherry picking papers, strawman arguments, unsubstantiated claims and ad hominem. All are invalid arguments.

Your list is entirely predicated on AGW being "wrong", poptart.

What do the Moranogate emails reveal?

tlambert — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 18:32:37 +0000

What do the Moranogate emails reveal?

Randy Olson (maker of Sizzle) has an interview with Mark Morano.

RO: Are you an anti-evolutionist?

MM: Haha, not at all. In fact, you know it's not an issue. The implication of your question is that somehow the skeptics are aligned with creationists. In all my years of dealing with Senator Inhofe the subject of creationism and evolution never even came up. Someone even did an analysis of it in our scientists report, and I think they may have only found one or two creationists out of 700-some names.

Wait, that was my analysis. I looked at the people who were on the Discovery Institute's Darwin dissent list and Morano's and found these names: Edward Blick, David Deming (Correction: Deming says that he accepts evolution but rejects natural selection as the mechanism) , Guillermo Gonzalez, Robert Smith and James Wanliss. Can you count higher than Morano? And these are just the creationists on the Discovery Insitute's list. There are also Chris Allen, Roy Spencer, and maybe Ross McKitrick and Tim Ball. No-one has done an exhaustive check, so there are likely more.

Morano:

Like one of their favorites -- they love to say, "Every single scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society, they all agree, they all agree!" They always do that, leaving out the fact that surveys of the actual rank-and-file scientists showing vastly, radically different story.

Who do you believe, Morano, or your lying eyes?

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Morano:

Beyond that eco-fears have prevented the wide use of DDT in these countries, so there have been deaths of many people that could have been prevented by modern pesticides.

Actually, due a little something called evolution:

So the people with significant responsibility for the resurgence in malaria were the chemical companies that stymied efforts to reduce the agricultural use of pesticides. And it was chemical companies that helped set up the astroturf junkscience site that has attempted to blame Rachel Carson for causing the resurgence. Nice. It's like a hit-and-run driver who, instead of admitting responsibility for the accident, frames the person who tried to prevent the accident.

Morano:

Among my circle of skeptics, within 3 or 4 days after the story broke, we actually had open emails about what would be the best name.

So it sounds like there were emails where Morano and his "circle" conspired to use some sort of trick to hide to hide the fact that there was nothing to the stolen emails. What else did they discuss? It would be irresponsible not to speculate. I call on Morano to release all his emails to clear this matter up.

tlambert Sun, 03/07/2010 - 13:32

Tags

Happy Blogiversary To Us!

denialism — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:28:59 +0000

Happy Blogiversary To Us!

It's been two years now since we said hello to scienceblogs, and had our introductory posts on Conspiracy, Unified theory of the Crank, and the denialist deck of cards.

Lately reading a recent profile of a crank, Marc Morano in the NYT, which was sent to me by the crank himself. I can't help but be amazed how our initial description has held up.

For one, throughout the article, it's wonderful how wihtout realizing it, Morano exposes the the fact he's living in a bizarre fantasy world. Starting with the questionable reality of his confrontation with Al Gore:

For example, Mr. Morano said he once spotted former Vice President Al Gore on an airplane returning from a climate conference in Bali. Mr. Gore was posing for photos with well-wishers, and Mr. Morano said he had asked if he, too, could have his picture taken with Mr. Gore.

He refused, Mr. Morano said.

"You attack me all the time," Mr. Gore said, according to Mr. Morano.

"Yes, we do," Mr. Morano said he had replied.

Mr. Gore's office said Mr. Gore had no memory of the encounter. Mr. Morano does not care. He tells the story anyway.

Then his pride over being a swift-boater:

He then jumped to Cybercast News Service, where he was the first to publish accusations from Vietnam Swift-boat veterans that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, then the Democratic presidential nominee, had glorified his war record. Many of the accusations later proved unfounded.

Mr. Morano is proud of his work, which he says is not advocacy but truth seeking.

Or the bizarre way he justifies including scientists who completely disagree with his position on his BS AGW dissenter list:

Kevin Grandia, who manages Desmogblog.com, which describes itself as dedicated to combating misinformation on climate change, says the report is filled with so-called experts who are really weather broadcasters and others without advanced degrees.

Chris Allen, for example, the weather director for WBKO-TV in Kentucky, is listed as a meteorologist on the report, even though he has no degree in meteorology. On his Web site, Mr. Allen has written that his major objection to the idea of human-influenced climate change is that "it completely takes God out of the picture." Mr. Allen did not respond to phone calls.

Mr. Grandia also said Mr. Morano's report misrepresented the work of legitimate scientists. Mr. Grandia pointed to Steve Rayner, a professor at Oxford, who was mentioned for articles criticizing the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 international treaty on curbing carbon dioxide emissions.

Dr. Rayner, however, in no way disputes the existence of global warming or that human activity contributes to it, as the report implies. In e-mail messages, he said that he had asked to be removed from the Morano report and that a staff member in Mr. Inhofe's office had promised that he would be. He called his inclusion on the list "quite outrageous."

Asked about Dr. Rayner, Mr. Morano was unmoved. He said that he had no record of Dr. Rayner's asking to be removed from the list and that the doctor must be "not to be remembering this clearly."

Yes, clearly, Dr. Rayner must not be remembering how he never said anything in support of the denialist position on warming. Only Marc Morano is ever correct.

It's amazing to me how people who are so clearly cranks can remain so influential, especially on a topic as important as global warming. We clearly have more work to do.

denialism Thu, 04/30/2009 - 04:28

Tags

cranks

global warming denialism

global warming denialism

Happy Blogiversary!

Happy blogiversary!!!!

Happy blogdayversary.

http://climatedepot.com/a/128/Statement-on-NYT-Profile-Mainstream-media…

The rest of the story on Gore encounter:

Excerpt: The Times reports "Mr. Goreâs office said Mr. Gore had no memory of the encounter" with me in 2007 during a flight in which Gore rebuffed me. Yet, according to Joe Romm of Climate Progress, Gore appears to remember the incident after all.

Romm reports in an April 10 post: "I happened to be speaking to Gore today and he remarked on this Morano fable and said he just doesnât remember it happening the way Morano describes."

Hmm. Gore tells NYT that he has "no memory of the encounter" yet Romm says Gore "doesn't remember it happening the way Morano describes."

Since Gore cannot seem to recall his encounter with me very well, I have â for the first time ever â publicly released the full report of our airplane encounter in 2007:

http://climatedepot.com/a/128/Statement-on-NYT-Profile-Mainstream-media…

Re: Rayner:

Excerpt: The New York Times also focuses on Steve Rayner of Oxford who initially claimed to the paper that he asked to be âpulled from [the report] numerous times. and despite being told he would be removed, he still remains." After I challenged that assertion, it appears Rayner changed his recollection. I told NYT reporter Kaufman in an email: âCan you ask [Rayner] to produce his request to me and the alleged assurance he would be removed? I can tell you definitively that I never made any such assurance to him.â

Shortly after my challenge, Rayner told the Times that his initial claim of asking to be removed "numerous times" was not accurate. âTo be honest, I have never followed up, but assumed that they would comply. What is to be done?" Rayner told the paper.

Rayner was indeed included in the Senate report, but he never spoke with me â the only person responsible for the report -- to protest his inclusion. Rayner never asked me to be removed and I never told him he would be âremoved."

Rayner was included in the report for several reasons. About half the climate debate today is predicated on the UN and Stern Reviewâs âitâs cheaper to act now than wait.â That is why the report includes a few economists. Rayner rejects the UN approach completely, which qualifies him as a dissenter of the UN approach. He has also written about âbizarre distortions in public policyâ by downplaying adaptation to climate change. He has also challenged tropical disease risks from climate change. Raynerâs wholesale rejection of UN âsolutions,â his focus on adaptation and his key debunking of alarmist points, qualified him to be in the report. There is obviously a wide range of opinion and views on man-made global warming, from Bjorn Lomborg and Pat Michaels to even complete skeptics of the greenhouse gas effect. The Senate report features the full range of views and unlike a âlistâ the actual quotes of the scientists were included in the report with web links for further reading. That is why it is a "report" and not a "list." Rayner was not misquoted or labeled in his entry, his words were complete and featured web links for further reading. Rayner clearly rejects the so-called âsolutionsâ and much of the alarmism proposed by Gore and the UN.