Blinded With Science

It’s the study the Left is going batshit over:

Just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974, according to a paper being published today in American Sociological Review.

That represents a dramatic shift for conservatives, who in 1974 were more likely than liberals or moderates (all categories based on self-identification) to express confidence in science. While the confidence levels of other groups in science have been relatively stable, the conservative drop now means that group is the least likely to have confidence in science.

Naturally, this is being touted as clinching proof of the wisdom of liberals and idiocy of conservatives (and independents, apparently, since their trust is about as low). This has even caused people to dust off the “smart enough to be dumb” canard because educated conservative are less likely to trust science.

There’s only one problem. As Nick Gillespie points out, the question was not about trusting science but about trusting scientists. And scientists have, over the last few decades, done a lot to earn this distrust.

There was Paul Ehrlich, who became a celebrity while being spectacularly wrong on overpopulation. There’s Algore, massively overstating the case on … everything. There was the EPA study of second-hand smoke, which was so riddled with distortions that Judge Osteen threw it out. There was the CDC study that claimed obesity killed 400,000 Americans, later revised down to 26,000. The CSPI first forced trans-fats down our throats, then yanked them back while blaming “industry”. A major study that claimed autism was caused by vaccines turned out to be a fraud. And while the BEST study has confirmed their results, the sloppy research at East Anglia did global warming theory no favors. Just recently, a study came out claiming that even a little red meat shortens your life. But that study may be flawed as well.

Look, I’m a scientist. I love science. I’ve spent literally half my life in astrophysics, one of the most inter-disciplinary of the sciences. I love doing public nights to bring science to the public and drag my daughter out to look through a telescope at least once a week.

I love science for many reasons. I love it because it’s cool. Last month, I was co-I on a proposal to put a telescope on a suborbital rocket and launch it into the atmosphere. How cool is that? I love it because of the sense of discovery. Last week, I discovered a star hidden in the light of its binary star companion. No one had ever seen it before.

But the chief reason I love science, as Astropixie likes to say, is because science works, bitches! The polio vaccine doesn’t work sometimes. Rockets don’t fail to launch if they’re not in the mood. Stars explode when they’re supposed to. Science works.

However, there as arisen a startling lack of humility among some of the most prominent scientists. It’s an attitude I find mysterious since among the many qualities of science is that it is humbling. But I see early results presented with the certainty of Newton’s Laws. Skepticism is blamed on shadowy industrial magnates. And the failure to correctly predict — prediction being the absolute key feature that distinguishes science from mysticism — is shrugged off. And that’s not even getting into “scientists” like Andrew Wakefield who fake their results. There has arisen a stunning tendency to do what one tobacco policy analyst calls science by press release, where preliminary and often improperly analyzed data is given banner headlines.

Part of the blame lies in our media. It’s no accident that trust in scientists began to decline as their media exposure rose. The media loves dramatic headlines. They flock to studies that make big bold statements and ignore those that are more tentative and cautious in their conclusions. And often, they simply ignore the cautions. PhD Comics ran a great cartoon a few years ago on the science news cycle, where tentative hypotheses are blown up into dramatic definitive statements.

And, to be fair, part of the blame lies in us, the public. The pace of scientific progress — particularly in genetic engineering and cloning — frightens many people. The lack of scientific success some fields like curing cancer frustrates some people. Our expectations of science have come to exceed what it is capable of.

But again and again, I return to the basic lack of caution among some of our most prominent scientific figures. Since this will eventually result in a discussion about Global Warming, I’ll go with it. Would it kill the IPCC head to say something like: “No, we’re never 100% sure of anything. But we’re 99% sure the planet is warming and tens of thousands of pieces of evidence support this. We’re mostly sure it’s manmade — the temperature patterns don’t match any other hypothesis. We’re pretty sure this will be a bad thing.” And it would kill them to leave off discussions about what to do about global warming, a subject about which most climatologists are simply not qualified?

(One other note: I can’t help but think that if the numbers were reversed, we’d be hearing a different narrative. If liberal faith in scientists were declining, we’d be hearing that this because liberals are naturally open-minded and skeptical and don’t believe what they’re told.)

I’ll give Gillespie the last word:

I do not doubt that conservatives are, in their heart of hearts, jugheaded buffoons who simply want to will away inconvenient truths by plugging their ears and covering their eyes when faced with cognitive dissonance. I’m confident that they argue from authority when it serves their purpose and then are muy skeptical when confronted with authority they don’t like. I’m metaphysically certain that many are repllent and repulsive and altogether awful and that they tend to love dogs and cats in the abstract more than they do their fellow human beings in the flesh. In all this, I suspect, they are incredibly similar to liberals and, alas, libertarians, and everyone else.

Exactly. Most of our institutions have low levels of trust. The military and small businesses we trust, but everyone else must pay cash. Congress, in particular, usually has approval ratings in the teens and the most frequent response to that number is, “Who are these freaks who approve of Congress?!” Conservatives may distrust scientists, but they have happily embraced the products of science, from medicine to communications.

That’s not being cynical about facts; that’s being cynical about people.

Comments are closed.

  1. sahrab

    Its the fault of blog authors as well. How many times has an author cited a study about the rise of some aspect of Global Climate Change as proof that Man Mad Global Climate Change is real?

    Thumb up 1

  2. Dave D

    Scientists are not trusted if they:

    1) Rely primarily on political/industry organizations for thier funding.

    2) Mention the word “concensus” or any of its synonyms.

    How to fund science independent of political or industrial priorities is the real problem. The more polarized/cynical we get as a society, the less we trust research funded by “the other side”.

    Thumb up 3

  3. Seattle Outcast

    My problem with what passes for “science” these days is that I can debunk 90% of it just using basic statistics.

    I see the issue as having a variety of basic problems:

    1) Mass media needs stories, but is so scientifically illiterate it can’t differentiate between BS and hard science

    2) Researchers are always looking for more money, so they publish studies with statistically meaningless results but butter it up to imply otherwise

    3) Too much of it is politically motivated

    4) Nobody is willing to accept that they can be proven wrong

    5) Celebrities using junk science to promote a pet cause

    Thumb up 2

  4. Seattle Outcast

    Even worse is when it isn’t even practiced at all – “global warming” being the prime example of the day.

    Take a group of politically motivated (green) “researchers” that also rely on continued funding for their jobs, add in the UN (snort, laugh), and then start to cherry pick data to arrive at specific conclusions, exclude conflicting data, flat out lie, revise historical data, hide original data sets, create a non-existent “consensus”, ostracize all that don’t fall into line, recruit morons in the media, and then install loyalists at Wikipedia to “monitor” the appropriate web pages.

    In the end you get the last IPCC report that was approximately 2/3 gray literature, overseen by people heavily connected to green/political organizations, unfalsifiable (everything is “proof” of AGW), and based on debunked computer models.

    When it comes to global warming you have to have faith, because there is no data…

    Thumb up 2

  5. mrblume

    2) Researchers are always looking for more money

    No way. It’s like money in politics. It wouldn’t affect anyone’s behavior.

    Thumb up 1

  6. AlexInCT

    I trust the scientific method

    I don’t trust humans to practice it honestly.

    THIS ^^^^^

    And when so many in the “scientific community” have whored themselves to insane ideas that are clearly political in nature, practically always attacked to insane left of center policies/solutions, you can understand why conservatives hold the scientific community that pisses all over the real scientific process in contempt. Nothing has done more harm to the credibility of science than that the ridiculous notion of consensus science. There is no consensus is science: there is right and there is wrong. Real science determines right by a brutal and crushing scientific method and process that has no room for consensus of any kind.

    Thumb up 2

  7. AlexInCT

    No way. It’s like money in politics. It wouldn’t affect anyone’s behavior.

    I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning!

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    There’s only one problem. As Nick Gillespie points out, the question was not about trusting science but about trusting scientists. And scientists have, over the last few decades, done a lot to earn this distrust.

    From the paper:

    Although the confidence variable has its limitations (Peterson 1981; Smith 1981), it is the most frequently asked question relating to science in the GSS and the only repeated science item going back to 1974. I examined the 2006 to 2010 GSS in supplementary analyses because it contains a wide variety of items that probe different aspects of public trust in the scientific community. These analyses suggest that the confidence measure used in this study is a reasonable approximation of a favorable disposition toward science.

    http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf

    If the analysis has been done, and approximation is reasonable, then is there really a ‘problem’?
    Either Mary Ritenour also pointed this out to Reynolds and he ignored it, or he failed to do a basic check of the quote.
    Seems clear to me that some people don’t like what the science shows but seek to blame the scientist (usually as part of a nutjob conspiracy) instead of shifting their thinking (because that might start to undercut their ideology). There is a significant amount of evidence on this blog, including in this very thread. It’s hilarious to see people deny it though, given how transparent it all is.

    And scientists have, over the last few decades, done a lot to earn this distrust…….There’s Algore, massively overstating the case on … everything.

    1. Al Gore isn’t a scientist. I’m sure you’re well aware of this Hal. So I’m not sure why you would you try to claim that he is.

    2. Al Gore has overstated the case on everything? I’m sure what you actually mean is that he worded a handful of things in AIT (out of hundreds or thousands) in a way that wasn’t as accurate as it could have been. Significantly different to “overstating the case on everything”.

    And while the BEST study has confirmed their results, the sloppy research at East Anglia did global warming theory no favors.

    What was sloppy? The very existence of climate science is apparently not doing climate science any favours. But then those sorts of people are morons and irrelevant. No matter what side of the political spectrum they’re on.

    Yes sensationalist media reporting (and a lack of understanding of what the actual science says and the context within which it should be viewed) and our 24 hour news cycle don’t help. But whatever happened to people taking responsibility for their own reactions?

    I trust the scientific method

    I don’t trust humans to practice it honestly.

    I have significantly more trust in scientists than I do in random people on the internet who contiinually make unfounded/unsupported vague accusations and insinuations as if they mean anything to anyone other than other people who do the same thing. But that’s just rational and logical.

    Thumb up 1

  9. Poosh

    omg, have you read the sh*t they wrote about this in Salon? We’re all of an authoritarian disposition, and that’s why we’re not accepting the authority of potentially politically selected and motivated scientists…

    Thumb up 2

  10. hist_ed

    As I understand it, The BEST study confirmed that it’s been getting warmer since 1950. Though its lead author said “Yup this proves that man dun it” there was nothing in the study that adressed why the warming happened. 1950 is also an interesting year to pick given that it this was the vallet of 20th century temps. It was far warmer in the 1930 than the 1950s.

    Sorry Jimk, I couldn’t help myself. I await your smiting for posting about That Which Shall Not Be Named (TWSNBN).

    Thumb up 1

  11. Seattle Outcast

    Salon is basically a sounding board for idiots.

    I was reading just a couple days ago that of the three political groups, conservatives and “independents” were capable of “thinking like their opposites”, while liberals were totally unable to do so.

    Liberals are so wrapped up in their own little world of make-believe, they can’t actually perceive any thought process that is different than their own.

    Thumb up 1

  12. briggie

    4) Nobody is willing to accept that they can be proven wrong

    I agree with that, but you also have to look at it from the other side. I am an engineer, and I am also rather knowledgeable in computers and technology. It seems whenever someone finds that out about me, they always seem to ask random questions about something out of the blue. A lot of times it is a problem of some kind or something in a topic I have no knowledge of. This is fine and all, but a lot of times it is an all or nothing approach. It always seems that it is expected of me to come up with the 100% correct answer every time. If I don’t know or am wrong about something, I get all kinds of scathing criticism. Kind of hard to tell others that it would be nice if I could come up with the correct answer to everything on the spot, but that is not how problem solving works. Not sure if anyone else gets that, but that is just my experience. I can see why a lot of of technical minded people can be very defensive about their ideas/theories.

    Also, from Lee Smolin in his book where he criticizes string theory:

    We must respect the efforts of others, even if we disagree with them.

    Yeah, I don’t think the “Internet Age” has helped with that part.

    Thumb up 1

  13. Section8

    Scientists are discovering new planets orbiting other stars daily
    Scientists are discovering ways to modify foods to resist drought, and provide a better yields at harvest
    Scientists are discovering ways to combat ailments
    Scientists are discovering ways for better travel though space
    Scientists are discovering new life in the ocean
    Scientists are discovering new life on land
    Scientists are mapping out the human genome with great accuracy, and getting better all the time

    Basically all kinds of great stuff coming from science. But when we talk science is any of this relevant as far as science these days? Does discussing any of these topics determine if you are “pro-science” or “anti-science”. Look how fast this thread became a “climate science” discussion.
    Nothing about biology, astrophysics, chemistry or any other branch after Hals original post. Granted some of these branches can cross over with others, but unless they cross over into climate science, they are irrelevant.

    Are these examples or any other outside of the narrow view of climate science even considered science in discussion anymore?
    “Oh, you think climate science is politisized? That must mean you are “anti-science.”
    This is because climate science is clearly what defines all science these days. Please, the only reason climate science is the defacto God of sciencies these days
    is because of the politics surrounding it. If there is a political agenda behind any branch of science, this would be the one for the very reason
    that in order to save the earth, governments will have to run everything.

    Obama has been taking the axe or attempting to take the axe to NASA since he’s been in office. Where’s the uproar from the “pro-science” left?
    You know why there hasn’t been any? Because the only real science these days is climate science, and as long as no one goes after that, fuck everything else, it’s not science, or it’s a nice to have but who cares really. You can’t raise taxes or promote new legislation by finding another planet 50 lightyears away.

    Thumb up 7

  14. Mississippi Yankee

    IMO rational people do themselves a dis-service when they equate made-made global warming with mere political posturing. It is a full blown ideological imperative. If enough “useful idiots” and influence seeking politicians can be brought on board every left leaning academic (is that rhetorical?) will start to envision themselves joining the the + side of the ensuing oligarchy. The One World Order where unlimited funding will see them to their glorious end. Putin, the EU and a second Obama term… and most will never see it coming.

    BRAVO on the guaranteed comment maker too. When I saw CM skulking around late last night/ early this morning after a his brief sabbatical I wondered how you would lead him. Again BRAVO!

    Thumb up 1

  15. Miguelito

    The lack of scientific success some fields like curing cancer frustrates some people.

    When I was in my teens, I had a subscription to Discover. During the time when AIDS was first really being studied, I remember there was an issue that had tons of detail on HIV. It showed all this info about how the virus is transmitted, exactly how it binds to what in the body, exactly how it would break down the immune system and such… and I recall thinking: How can they possibly know so much detail about something, yet not be able to stop it or cure it?

    All these years later, and I often think the same thing about many types of cancer and such. Medicine has always been odd in this way.

    Look at how we’ve been “so close” to fusion power for at least 20 years now too… they fully understand so much of that process, yet can’t quite figure it out. Some say it might not be possible to actually control it at levels to produce useable power (at least I could swear I’ve read that).

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    Hilarious as always.

    As I understand it, The BEST study confirmed that it’s been getting warmer since 1950. Though its lead author said “Yup this proves that man dun it” there was nothing in the study that adressed why the warming happened.

    The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years the land surface warmed by 0.911 °C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that The urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature

    The lead author was Richard A. Muller. I don’t recall, and cannot find now, any quote from resembling “Yup this proves that man dun it”. What he did say was:

    When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups…Global warming is real. Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate. How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.

    Which would be the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204422404576594872796327348.html

    1950 is also an interesting year to pick given that it this was the vallet of 20th century temps. It was far warmer in the 1930 than the 1950s.

    What starting year would you prefer? The aim of the exercise was to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses. Are you suggesting that analyses in the 1930’s was inaccurate and it wasn’t that warm? Or did you misunderstand the aim of the exercise entirely?

    Liberals are so wrapped up in their own little world of make-believe, they can’t actually perceive any thought process that is different than their own.

    So why are so many conservatives intent on creating their own little realities when it comes to certain areas of science? Why the break from the apparent norm?

    Thumb up 1

  17. CM

    Even worse is when it isn’t even practiced at all – “global warming” being the prime example of the day.

    Take a group of politically motivated (green) “researchers” that also rely on continued funding for their jobs, add in the UN (snort, laugh), and then start to cherry pick data to arrive at specific conclusions, exclude conflicting data, flat out lie, revise historical data, hide original data sets, create a non-existent “consensus”, ostracize all that don’t fall into line, recruit morons in the media, and then install loyalists at Wikipedia to “monitor” the appropriate web pages.

    In the end you get the last IPCC report that was approximately 2/3 gray literature, overseen by people heavily connected to green/political organizations, unfalsifiable (everything is “proof” of AGW), and based on debunked computer models.

    When it comes to global warming you have to have faith, because there is no data…

    Ironically that was a data free post…..

    Thumb up 0

  18. CM

    Nothing about biology, astrophysics, chemistry or any other branch after Hals original post. Granted some of these branches can cross over with others, but unless they cross over into climate science, they are irrelevant.

    So why do most conservatives not trust the science coming out these branches? After all, as you point out, the study was about much more than just climate science? Did the conservatives answer from the basis that science = climate science? If so, why?

    Thumb up 0

  19. Mississippi Yankee

    If the earth’s temperature has risen 0.911 °C since 1950 (which encompasses my entire life -blame me) why hasn’t the oceans risen? Shouldn’t place like NYC and Miami be more Venice-like? Gondola anyone?

    And please don’t use sandy beach erosion as an example. We all know the difference.

    Thumb up 1

  20. CM

    Would it kill the IPCC head to say something like: “No, we’re never 100% sure of anything. But we’re 99% sure the planet is warming and tens of thousands of pieces of evidence support this. We’re mostly sure it’s manmade — the temperature patterns don’t match any other hypothesis. We’re pretty sure this will be a bad thing.”

    You know full well how that would be grossly misinterpreted and misused by the usual suspects. So it would do precisely nothing to ‘restore trust in science’ amongst conservatives. it would likely make things worse.
    I’m sure you also know full well that there are abundant discussions about uncertainties throughout climate science (within individual pieces or research, and meta-analyses). The IPCC have worked hard on trying to put across the differing levels of certainty in ways that more people can understand.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-6.html
    And they’ve since adopted new guidelines on dealing with scientific uncertainties in 2010 for the next round after taking into account the reaction to the 2007 effort.

    And it would kill them to leave off discussions about what to do about global warming, a subject about which most climatologists are simply not qualified?

    Who are “they”? The 0.001% of climate scientists that are interviewed in the media? Or the subset of that who mention mitigation/adaptation?
    I’m sure you know that the entire Working Group 1 report of AR4 is only ‘Physical Science Basis’ behind AGW.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    If the earth’s temperature has risen 0.911 °C since 1950 (which encompasses my entire life -blame me) why hasn’t the oceans risen? Shouldn’t place like NYC and Miami be more Venice-like? Gondola anyone?

    And please don’t use sandy beach erosion as an example. We all know the difference.

    Why don’t you do the research yourself? It’s all out there and easily accessible, and you certainly won’t believe me (or any link I provide).
    But you won’t, you’d rather rely on unmitigated garbage like:

    IMO rational people do themselves a dis-service when they equate made-made global warming with mere political posturing. It is a full blown ideological imperative. If enough “useful idiots” and influence seeking politicians can be brought on board every left leaning academic (is that rhetorical?) will start to envision themselves joining the the + side of the ensuing oligarchy. The One World Order where unlimited funding will see them to their glorious end. Putin, the EU and a second Obama term… and most will never see it coming.

    Rational and One World Order don’t deserve to be in the same paragraph.

    Queue further conspiracy theories and nonsense to support the original research conclusions…

    Thumb up 0

  22. Mississippi Yankee

    Queue further conspiracy theories and nonsense to support the original research conclusions…

    Yes Mr.Alinsky. I am totally cowed by your bullshit. Although I think your particular brand of agitprop will help you rise quickly.
    Watermelon men – green on the outside red on the inside.

    Thumb up 3

  23. CM

    That’s it. Science is bullshit because it leads to socialism Easier to run away screaming from the big bogey-man.
    The research is accurate – because you’ve created your own reality and live firmly within it (thus, it follows that naturally the research must be flawed).

    Thumb up 1

  24. CM

    I say

    Why don’t you do the research yourself? It’s all out there and easily accessible, and you certainly won’t believe me (or any link I provide).

    You respond:

    Yes Mr.Alinsky. I am totally cowed by your bullshit. Although I think your particular brand of agitprop will help you rise quickly.

    Genius.

    Thumb up 1

  25. Section8

    So why do most conservatives not trust the science coming out these branches?

    Ask the author, and don’t waste my time anymore.

    Gordon Gauchat, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the author of the paper, said that the findings are significant for scientists and universities, which seek public support for research and for the research universities where so much science takes place. This year’s presidential election — and in particular the skepticism of Republican candidates about climate change, despite a wide scientific consensus that climate change is real – point to the impact of this shift, he said.

    And notably, he suggests that it may be issues like climate change — science that has the potential to lead to government regulation — that may have more of an impact on conservative attitudes about science than subjects like evolution or the use of stem cells in research.

    Yes, as climate science now dominates, and is swayed by politics, distrust has grown. Now I rarely argue the AGW threads here because I think there needs to be study on it, and I have no interest in looking at 50000 posts you put on every single one, but if there wasn’t political motive behind it the left wouldn’t give a shit. They’d still be out there bitching about every scientific breakthrough and how it’s going to kill us all, such as modified foods, fertilizers, medicines, etc.

    Thumb up 6

  26. CM

    Ask the author, and don’t waste my time anymore.

    That’s not even remotely what I asked. Just as the research question didn’t even remotely ask about a specific branch of science. I’m agreeing with you that climate science is a very tiny part of science. So presumably people who call themselves ‘Conservative’ distrust more than just climate science. The question is ‘why’, but the answer certainly can’t be ‘climate science’.
    Mooney’s theory (the Salon piece) makes sense though. If people who are rigid (black and white) in their thinking are more likely to consider themselves ‘Conservative’, these results would be the obvious result.

    Yes, as climate science now dominates, and is swayed by politics, distrust has grown.

    I’m assuming that Conservatives answering that question realised the question was about science in general though, not just climate science. If they answered based on just climate science, then they didn’t answer properly.
    It’s important to distinguish science from politics. Some people are seemingly completely incapable of doing so. Obviously they’d answer they don’t trust scientists/science as a direct result of their own inability to see beyond their rigid ideology.

    Now I rarely argue the AGW threads here because I think there needs to be study on it, and I have no interest in looking at 50000 posts you put on every single one, but if there wasn’t political motive behind it the left wouldn’t give a shit.

    Lazy lazy lazy. The science and the arguments stand and fall on their merits. Whether the left gives a shit or not isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference to the physics and chemistry involved. Conservative denial about climate science (based on ludicious claims of mass fraud and conspiraccy on a scale larger than the world has ever seen, but carried out in a manner so perfect that no smoking gun evidence can be found even though it must be logically everywhere) doesn’t mean that the laws of science can be repealed to suit.

    There needs to be a study on AGW?
    You mean aside from the tens of thousands of them, and the meta-analyses?

    They’d still be out there bitching about every scientific breakthrough and how it’s going to kill us all, such as modified foods, fertilizers, medicines, etc.

    It either stands or falls on the science and the supporting argument. Some crackpot theory about genetically modified food killing us all is completely irrelevant to whether AGW holds up under scrutiny, and whether the results of this study should be a wake up call.

    Thumb up 0

  27. Section8

    Mooney’s theory (the Salon piece) makes sense though. If people who are rigid (black and white) in their thinking are more likely to consider themselves ‘Conservative’, these results would be the obvious result.

    Right, and since they were at one time the ones to trust science the most this makes little sense. Ask yourself, which branch of science has come to dominate just about everything in discussion these days?

    We’re back to this binary bullshit again I see, but you’re not binary. You lying bullshitter you.

    If they answered based on just climate science, then they didn’t answer properly.

    The author suggested what may hold influence of this as a whole. It was right there, I even made it bold for you.

    Now go fuck yourself.

    Thumb up 4

  28. CM

    Right, and since they were at one time the ones to trust science the most this makes little sense.

    How does that make ‘little sense’?
    Just 43% of those who identify themselves as Republicans agree that “most scientists believe global warming is occuring”. WTF?! They’re so far gone on the subject that they don’t even recognise that most scientists accept that warming is happening? Where do we even begin to unravel that one…?
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/153608/Global-Warming-Views-Steady-Despite-Warm-Winter.aspx

    Ask yourself, which branch of science has come to dominate just about everything in discussion these days?

    If you’re singularly obsessed with how climate change science is just a vehicle for a One World Governmen, then there will only be one answer. But I’m not sure I agree that it dominates to the degree that you think.

    We’re back to this binary bullshit again I see, but you’re not binary. You lying bullshitter you.

    That the theory put forward makes rational sense doesn’t even remotely make my thinking binary. It does confirm your thinking as binary to suggest it though.

    The author suggested what may hold influence of this as a whole. It was right there, I even made it bold for you.

    Yeah, he basically suggested that conservatives may be letting their inability to consider climate change logically and rationally spill over into their opinion about science as a whole. Which is just silly (but is, of course, entirely consistent with being unable to think logically and rationally).

    Now go fuck yourself.

    Poor little diddums being subjected to logic and rationality.
    Do I need to explain, using science, how I can’t ? Or will you simply disbelieve it because it involves science?

    Thumb up 0

  29. hist_ed

    CM the thing that makes so many distrust the climate chicken littles is that they make such a show of surety. The Japanese tsunami has made geologist reconsider all sorts of things. Apparently there is a raft of papers on the way syaing essentially “Ooops we were wrong” Why? Because that science is not politicized. If the climatologists took a look at the last decade and acknowledged that their models were wrong and then said “Hey, we need to tinker a bit with this” then I think those of us who are skeptical would be less so. If others were honest about doing a cost benefit analysis about increased temps and increased CO2 instead of just harping on the apocolyptic, again, we might take them seriously.

    Hilarious as always.

    Am I? Thank you, I try.

    You will notice the phrase “As I understand it” in my statement. That is shorthand for “I think I remember this, but I admit I am really not sure, so I am not betting my life on this” I don’t really want to spend the next hour researching, so I will say I apparently was thinking of another study. Help me out, guys, what was the study that was funded by the EEEVIIIILLLL Koch brothers that showed that there was indeed warming?

    Oh and despite the fact that minor comment about the lead author was incorrect, you yourself ahve shown that my larger point was. The BEST study did not prove anything about human caused global warming, it just showed that between 1950 and now it got warmer.

    What starting year would you prefer? The aim of the exercise was to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses. Are you suggesting that analyses in the 1930′s was inaccurate and it wasn’t that warm? Or did you misunderstand the aim of the exercise entirely?

    I am not familiar enough with the study (as I ahve admitted) to speculate on the authors’ purpose. I do know that if you measure from the 1930s, the temperature increases less or not at all, depending on which set of data you use. Do you really think that isn’t significant? The 1950s were the coldest decade in the 20th century. Picking any other decade to comapare with today results in less warming.

    Thumb up 3

  30. CM

    CM the thing that makes so many distrust the climate chicken littles is that they make such a show of surety.

    Who exactly are these ‘chicken littles’ you’re referring to? This is one of the main problems (of many) which make it so difficult to discuss this issue with you guys. You’re rarely specific, there’s always so much vagueness. Discussions about uncertainty are everywhere in climate science. Seems to me that people ignore them and claim they aren’t there. Mann’s infamous hockey stick paper actually pioneered a new way to illustrate uncertainty and make it clearer/more obvious. Oh the irony.

    The Japanese tsunami has made geologist reconsider all sorts of things. Apparently there is a raft of papers on the way syaing essentially “Ooops we were wrong” Why? Because that science is not politicized.

    How do you know it isn’t? What specifically makes you claim that it isn’t? And what evidence do you have that the vast majority of scientists working in the climate field are engaging in fraud, or carrying out work that doesn’t assist in a greater understanding of how our climate works?
    Are you suggesting that if something was discovered that changed the way we think about our climate, it wouldn’t make it out of some secret meeting? It wouldn’t make it into journals? Is that seriously what you believe?

    If the climatologists took a look at the last decade and acknowledged that their models were wrong and then said “Hey, we need to tinker a bit with this” then I think those of us who are skeptical would be less so.

    This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding. Models aren’t designed to be accurate over a decade. A decade tells us virtually nothing by itself. And anyway, the models are looked at the end of every year to see what the addition of a single data point makes to the overall trend. If anything, they’re wrong because they’ve underestimated, not overestimated. Here was the comparison with the data after 2011:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/2011-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

    You seem to be claiming (as fact) that they are ‘wrong’ – what do you base this on?
    Also, models are ‘tinkered with’ all the time to improve their reliability. What makes you assume they’re not?

    If others were honest about doing a cost benefit analysis about increased temps and increased CO2 instead of just harping on the apocolyptic, again, we might take them seriously.

    Again, who are ‘these others’ that you refer to?
    What sort of cost-benefit analysis? That implies economics. However apparently climate scientists should be only talking about their specific area of expertise (which is based on gross fraud and grand conspiracy anyway). So conservatives who ‘don’t trust science’ would presumably even less likely to ‘trust science’.

    You will notice the phrase “As I understand it” in my statement. That is shorthand for “I think I remember this, but I admit I am really not sure, so I am not betting my life on this” I don’t really want to spend the next hour researching, so I will say I apparently was thinking of another study. Help me out, guys, what was the study that was funded by the EEEVIIIILLLL Koch brothers that showed that there was indeed warming?

    Sounds like you have the correct study, but you’ve possibly relied on some dishonest analysis. Which is probably just the kind of thing which leads to conservatives saying they don’t trust science.

    Oh and despite the fact that minor comment about the lead author was incorrect, you yourself ahve shown that my larger point was. The BEST study did not prove anything about human caused global warming, it just showed that between 1950 and now it got warmer.

    And? I’m not getting the point. Who has disputed that here? What point have you countered?

    I read what you and others write about climate science and I can’t for the life of me understand why you/others haven’t bothered to do the most basic online research of your own before forming such strong opinions, and repeating nonsense as ‘fact’. I’m sorry for any offence, but it’s astonishing. It’s like you don’t want to. Why wouldn’t you want to be informed on something before holding a strong opinion? If you’re not informed, how can your opinion be based on anything other than poltical ideology?

    Thumb up 0

  31. Seattle Outcast

    A quick look at climate stories in the last month shows the following:

    Sea levels are either holding steady or declining

    Arctic ice is setting records

    The Greenland melt-off isn’t happening

    Antarctic ice is setting records

    Coral bleaching turns out NOT to be calamity it was claimed

    Global temperatures have been holding steady or cooling for about 15 years

    Hanson has been caught manipulating (altering) temperature data, again

    The “consensus” has an equally strong “counter-census”

    CO2 levels have been increasing

    But don’t worry – since there is no way to falsify AGW, this all means that we are doomed.

    Thumb up 2

  32. Section8

    How does that make ‘little sense’?

    This isn’t a No Child Left Behind blog as far as I know, so pay attention. This will be the last time I’ll post this. You, the you be you CM made a statement that the distrust of science by “conservatives” is because those who brand themselves as conservatives may tend to be more likely binary thinking. My response is if that’s the case, how did these binary thinkers end up trusting science more than non binary thinkers just a few years back? I know, confusing question and thought process. It is for you anyhow. I’m willing to bet most everyone else here could figure out my point.

    Below is your quote just in case you forgot or didn’t read it after you typed it, or forgot you typed it.

    Mooney’s theory (the Salon piece) makes sense though. If people who are rigid (black and white) in their thinking are more likely to consider themselves ‘Conservative’, these results would be the obvious result.

    If you’re singularly obsessed with how climate change science is just a vehicle for a One World Governmen, then there will only be one answer. But I’m not sure I agree that it dominates to the degree that you think.

    I’ll ask the question again. How about a straight up answer?

    Ask yourself, which branch of science has come to dominate just about everything in discussion these days when it comes to science?

    I’ll give you a hint, you immediately referenced it in your answer because you have no other scientific topics to talk about. They are all back burner to you. If it’s not the dominating subject, then go ahead and state it. Is it biology related? How about planetary science? How about geology?

    That the theory put forward makes rational sense doesn’t even remotely make my thinking binary. It does confirm your thinking as binary to suggest it though.

    You’ve been called out on your binary thinking here many times only to bullshit and try to skirt around it. That’s what I was referring to in this statement I’ve posted again for you below. I would have though you would’ve known what I was getting at since you have thrown the word “binary” out constantly in the past only to repeatedly defend and promote a specific viewpoint, hence the word “we’re back” as in we are back, which I would assume anyone with basic skills would understand that would reference past events.

    We’re back to this binary bullshit again I see, but you’re not binary. You lying bullshitter you.

    Yeah, he basically suggested that conservatives may be letting their inability to consider climate change logically and rationally spill over into their opinion about science as a whole. Which is just silly (but is, of course, entirely consistent with being unable to think logically and rationally).

    Actually it has to do more with the distrust of the methods proposed to handle such as left wing agendas which bleeds over to what are the political motives behind pushing it. And since climate science is the dominant science these days it would make sense distrust has gone up.

    Poor little diddums being subjected to logic and rationality.

    Not at all. I told you a while back you’re nothing but a lying bullshitter who doesn’t even have the integrity to state that he supports an ideology despite damn near every post making it clear you do support a specific ideology, and I’ve stated in previous posts you are not worthy of any type of discussion being the lying bullshitter that you are. So again, go fuck yourself.

    Thumb up 3

  33. CM

    A quick look at climate stories in the last month shows the following:

    Some of those like they come from right-wing political blogs. A less biased summary of climate science news over the last month is likely to be quite different.

    Thumb up 0

  34. CM

    This isn’t a No Child Left Behind blog as far as I know, so pay attention. This will be the last time I’ll post this. You, the you be you CM made a statement that the distrust of science by “conservatives” is because those who brand themselves as conservatives may tend to be more likely binary thinking. My response is if that’s the case, how did these binary thinkers end up trusting science more than non binary thinkers just a few years back? I know, confusing question and thought process. It is for you anyhow. I’m willing to bet most everyone else here could figure out my point.

    For some reason I assumed you read the Salon piece but didn’t understand it. Now it seems more likely that you haven’t read it at all. In which case why would you bother making all these comments?

    I’ll give you a hint, you immediately referenced it in your answer because you have no other scientific topics to talk about.

    Um no, it’s because it’s what we were already talking about here.

    They are all back burner to you. If it’s not the dominating subject, then go ahead and state it. Is it biology related? How about planetary science? How about geology?

    You said climate science “dominate[s] just about everything in discussion these days”. I don’t really think that’s true. But that doesn’t mean I think that another specific field ‘dominates just about everything’. But, if you think that it does, why should that result in conservatives not trusting science in general? Presumably conservatives still recognise that other areas of science exist? If so, why answer a general question based on an opinion on a very minor component?

    You’ve been called out on your binary thinking here many times only to bullshit and try to skirt around it.

    Here we go, more vague crap.
    Where? On what?

    That’s what I was referring to in this statement I’ve posted again for you below. I would have though you would’ve known what I was getting at since you have thrown the word “binary” out constantly in the past only to repeatedly defend and promote a specific viewpoint, hence the word “we’re back” as in we are back, which I would assume anyone with basic skills would understand that would reference past events.

    Again, that the theory put forward makes rational sense doesn’t even remotely make my thinking binary. I’m not sure if you know what ‘binary’ means. Accusations that I’m thinking in a binary way (put forward when I make the accusation, like in the playground when a 5 year old responds with “No, you are”) invariably don’t make sense. You may think I’ve been “called out on it” but I’ll bet you can’t provide any examples.

    Actually it has to do more with the distrust of the methods proposed to handle such as left wing agendas which bleeds over to what are the political motives behind pushing it. And since climate science is the dominant science these days it would make sense distrust has gone up.

    Right, there’s an inability to consider the fact that issues might be real, and not just a result of some ridiculous conspiracy and mass fraud all put together unbelievably well in order to bring about a One World Government. Somehow, because one could conceivably be connected to the other, it therefore is FACT!
    Where is the evidence that the politics drives the science (i.e. the science doesn’t drive the politics)?

    Not at all. I told you a while back you’re nothing but a lying bullshitter who doesn’t even have the integrity to state that he supports an ideology despite damn near every post making it clear you do support a specific ideology, and I’ve stated in previous posts you are not worthy of any type of discussion being the lying bullshitter that you are.

    Your desire to explain what you don’t like by making shit up is your issue, nothing to do with me. I’m not the one arguing in ideological terms, and I never have. Ideology is stupid, which is what I’ve said many times. The climate science issue is a perfect example where seemingly rational people find themselves boxed in by an avalanche of facts, expert opinion, logic, and and rationality, but instead of modifying their thoughts they somehow decide that desparately grasping at conspiracy theories and mass fraud based on constant unfounded insinuations and allegations is a better way to go. That you think I’m lying about that says everything about your desperation and your inability to consider anything other than a narrow line of thought, and nothing about me.

    So again, go fuck yourself

    There is another option. You don’t have to keep posting from such a weak and impossible-to-defend position……

    Thumb up 1

  35. JimK

    Oh look, a fucking comment flood. About fucking global warming.

    REALLY, GUYS? REALLY? Like this is going ANY-FUCKING-WHERE productive? Ever?

    Thumb up 5

  36. Kimpost

    It’s about science, Jim, and Climate Change is both packed with science, and it is used as an example of why people (here, at least) think that conservatives have lost confidence in science over all. I’m sure we’ll be able to add evolution, stem cell research and abortion (life starts when?) somehow too.

    It’s been awfully quiet around here lately, don’t know if it’s just spring or if people are getting bored. I say, let it fly.

    Thumb up 0

  37. AlexInCT

    I’m assuming that Conservatives answering that question realised the question was about science in general though, not just climate science. If they answered based on just climate science, then they didn’t answer properly.

    Are you really going to make that case CM? Your attempts to try and infer that since we allow AGW to color our view of science as compromised, we aren’t being honest, is disingenuous at best. Seriously, as others already have pointed out, conservatives, in general, have very little issue with science except for the kind that is blatantly politicized and intended to push the left’s agenda. Because of the impact of what the AGW cultists are trying, this issue is the most important and paramount example of abused and politicized science, and definitely going to color how conservatives respond to any question.

    As a conservative, even if I agree with 99% of all other scientific endeavors and efforts, that 1% attributed to AGW, accounts for 99% of negative feelings. When the damage that the AGW cultists are causing and the damage they would cause if they got their way is so large, all based on unproved bullshit and the totally unscientific concept of consensus science, you can pardon me for feeling science is under attack, politicized, and failing us all.

    The point is that this study was from the get go intended to paint conservatives as morons. Had they asked conservatives “Outside of the whole AGW issue, what is your opinion of and confidence in science?” do you think they might have gotten a different result from conservatives? I am certain of that. But they would never have asked that question or why conservatives have a problem with AGW, because that wouldn’t produce this result and might actually be damaging to the narrative.

    Thumb up 3

  38. AlexInCT

    Who exactly are these ‘chicken littles’ you’re referring to?

    Look in a mirror.

    And I agree with Kimpost: this isn’t about AGW, but about the bullshit that unless you buy AGW as science, when it clearly is political, you are a luddite for saying so. I would not be surprised that the people that did the study did it so they could accuse people that don’t buy the consensus science around AGW of being stupid. That whole circle jerk thing.

    Thumb up 3

  39. JimK

    Kim: Oh I was (am? are. is. I is.) gonna let it fly. But not before I pointed out the completely ridiculous nature of arguing the same points with the same people over and over and over and over and over and over, and somehow expecting the outcome to be different this time. Teams have been chosen, and no amount of links, comments or news stories will change the minds of any of the participants.

    And so the point would be…..? I mean other than to work out whatever “I need to be an asshole on the internet right now” issues a person might have.

    Hal: ::shakes fist like cartoon protagonist cursing a villain:: DAAAAAMN YOOOOUUUUUU! ;)

    Thumb up 2

  40. Seattle Outcast

    For me to take any part of AGW seriously the following must happen first:

    1) Climategate 1 & 2, and Fakegate need to be acknowledged by the AGW crowd for the damning behavior they exposed

    2) Honest peer-review has to occur in publications, meaning that a variety of people will no longer be cherry picking studies to be published that only support the AGW viewpoint

    3) The current warmist celebs need to vanish from the scene so that 100% of their data, computer models, projections, etc can be analyzed by neutral parties without their constant efforts to hide it all and say “trust us”

    4) Warmists need to be removed from their places of editing power at Wikipedia

    5) AGW needs to be falsifiable. It currently isn’t, so it doesn’t actually qualify as science

    6) Honest discussion of other variables into climate need to be enacted (solar cycles, ocean currents, etc)

    7) The blatant data corruption/adjusting/revising/etc needs to stop and original data sets used (Hanson in particular is guilty of this)

    8) End of “all weather = global warming” BS from the media and other sources

    9) The UN needs to be removed from the issue entirely, along with absolutely any calls for global action/taxes/governance/etc

    10) Al Gore is tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail

    Thumb up 3

  41. CM

    The point is that this study was from the get go intended to paint conservatives as morons.

    Yes, Alex, it’s yet another part of the Grand Conspiracy. Is there anything that isn’t?

    Look in a mirror.

    Makes no sense. Henny Penny thought that an acorn falling on his head meant that the sky was falling. AGW is fairly simple physics, supported by multiple overlapping lines of evidence.

    That whole circle jerk thing.

    So. Much. Irony.

    For me to take any part of AGW seriously the following must happen first:

    1) Climategate 1 & 2, and Fakegate need to be acknowledged by the AGW crowd for the damning behavior they exposed

    Failing to respond to a calculated campaign to overwhelm with information requests was damning behaviour? Yeah ok, it was, even if it was totally understandable by any reasonable person. What else was there? Specific comments made in emails that people thought were private? Not relevant to the published science, so why is that relevant? The same sorts of comments would be found in anyone’s email if you sifted through enough of them.

    2) Honest peer-review has to occur in publications, meaning that a variety of people will no longer be cherry picking studies to be published that only support the AGW viewpoint

    So you’d be replacing what you see as cherry-picking with an even greater degree of cherry-picking? :-)
    Overall peer review seems to work well. Some poor papers slip through but not often. Once they are published the rest of the community is able to pick it to bits. So the process is transparent. If certain peer reviewers were found to have allowed a number of poor papers to be published, the pattern would soon become obvious and they’d be ‘outted’ as being biased in some way. That hasn’t happened. Have you ever considered the possibility that most of the submitted papers that aren’t consistent with AGW theory are rejected because they’re poor papers? That’s far far far more likely.

    3) The current warmist celebs need to vanish from the scene so that 100% of their data, computer models, projections, etc can be analyzed by neutral parties without their constant efforts to hide it all and say “trust us”

    Can you provide examples of “data, computer models, projections” that aren’t available to the rest of the scientific community, or the public at large? Who is hiding what?

    4) Warmists need to be removed from their places of editing power at Wikipedia

    What? Why would the contents of Wikipedia have anything to do what with whether you accept the science or not? This suggests that, to you, the strength of the science is about things other than the science. Which shouldn’t be the case.

    5) AGW needs to be falsifiable. It currently isn’t, so it doesn’t actually qualify as science

    Of course it’s falsifiable – it’s all based on lines of evidence. Take down those lines of evidence and it will fall apart, just like anything else. However what you probably realise (and this is how you admit it) is that the lines of evidence are many, and strong. And in the background are fundamental laws of physics.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    6) Honest discussion of other variables into climate need to be enacted (solar cycles, ocean currents, etc)

    There has been extensive research on these issues. None of them come remotely close to explaining what is happening, or what happened in the past.

    7) The blatant data corruption/adjusting/revising/etc needs to stop and original data sets used (Hanson in particular is guilty of this)

    Not sure what you’re referring to here. Scientists engaging in corruption or any other unprofessional and unscientific processes/practices would fall from grace quickly within their field.

    8) End of “all weather = global warming” BS from the media and other sources

    Again, why should what the media does affect your own opinion on the validity of the science?
    On the other hand, a failure to recognise that climate change loads the dice to make extreme weather more likely is just silly.

    9) The UN needs to be removed from the issue entirely, along with absolutely any calls for global action/taxes/governance/etc

    Again, why would this affect the science in any way? The laws of physics and the data sets won’t change.

    10) Al Gore is tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail

    Al Gore is the right-wing’s equivalent of the eeeeeeeeeeevil Koch Brothers.
    Despite what Hal says, Al Gore is not a scientist, has never claimed to be, and doesn’t need to be relevant at all to your independent research into the actual science so that you’re able to reach an informed opinion.

    Thumb up 0

  43. AlexInCT

    Yes, Alex, it’s yet another part of the Grand Conspiracy. Is there anything that isn’t?

    If I have to believe AGW is “good science” to qualify as believing in science, then label me a Luddite. That I see plenty of real and good science in areas where the left can’t come in, politicize the whole thing, and then use it to grab power, makes me the conspiracist though. Your are something else man. Your faith is insanely strong.

    Makes no sense. Henny Penny thought that an acorn falling on his head meant that the sky was falling. AGW is fairly simple physics, supported by multiple overlapping lines of evidence.

    Really? Simple? I know gravity is a bitch, but I can show you with a simple equation how it works and why. Can you reciprocate in kind please? Give me the equation or equations so I can proof the AGW claims out? It’s simple physics that ignores the sun, the oceans, water vapor being the primary agent of heat retention in the atmosphere, thermodynamics, and any and all historical evidence that proves the claim that temperatures have always been steady until evil man and his SUVs is just ludicrous, in order to convince people that man is behind this and that the only way to save the planet isn’t through the power of science and engineering, but the power of social engineering.

    And what overlapping evidence is that you mention? The IPCC fluff they keep having to apologize for lying about? Or do you mean the peer review process that excluded & demonized anyone that wasn’t a believer? Maybe you mean those computer models we all know are pure bullshit? Because it certainly can’t be you admitting to the pack of lies, the horrible subterfuge, and the total destruction of the credibility of the scientific process the revelation from East Anglia revealed.

    BTW, is it Al Gore that plays the role of Henny Penny in your AGW scaremongering “the sky is falling” bullshit stories? Cause he sure as hell deserves an Oscar for that work of his. I love how he ad libbed the whole “The Sky is Falling” line into “The rise in the Oceans is going to turn this planet into Waterworld”. Pfeh.

    Failing to respond to a calculated campaign to overwhelm with information requests was damning behaviour?

    LOL! So the new narrative to cover up the discovery that they destroyed the evidence and stone walled the people wanting information is to blame the people asking for the information for the lies, destruction of evidence that didn’t help the “cause”, and even more lies? Man, you cultists sure as hell are strong in your faith.

    I am done. The point stands: this study was about trying to make people that know AGW is the most horrible and evil hoax perpetuated on mankind by the usual power hungry marxist-statists using the environment to cover their collectivist goals look dumb, so they could then again avoid any serious conversation about these lies the cult is spreading in order to scare people into giving up their freedoms and rights.

    Al Gore is the right-wing’s equivalent of the eeeeeeeeeeevil Koch Brothers.

    Actually that honor goes to George Sorros, whom makes the Koch brothers look like misers, considering the hundreds of millions he pours into democrat campaign coffers and organizations like Media Matters, and actually does the very things that the left constantly and falsely accuses the Koch brothers of doing. Al Gore’s counterpart on the right would have to be an insane clown. A rich one though, but still insane.

    Thumb up 3

  44. Seattle Outcast

    CM, your responses to my post are just so clueless/wrong.laughable on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll put it this way - you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. At all.

    Thumb up 2

  45. CM

    If I have to believe AGW is “good science” to qualify as believing in science, then label me a Luddite.

    You’re a Luddite ;-)

    Really? Simple? I know gravity is a bitch, but I can show you with a simple equation how it works and why. Can you reciprocate in kind please? Give me the equation or equations so I can proof the AGW claims out?

    Well it effectively is a series of mathematical equations. The main one being: energy in less energy out equals energy retained in the Earth’s atmosphere. The Greenhouse Effect isn’t that complicated and has been recognised for well over a century.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
    Proofs are in mathematics, not science. I’ve mentioned that to you before. Not sure why you’re still parroting the same nonsense now.

    It’s simple physics that ignores the sun, the oceans, water vapor being the primary agent of heat retention in the atmosphere, thermodynamics, and any and all historical evidence that proves the claim that temperatures have always been steady until evil man and his SUVs is just ludicrous,

    Ah no, the science fully incorporates the sun, oceans, and the existence and role of water vapour. That you think it doesn’t just demonstrates the fact that you’ve never actually looked.
    The fact that you then claim that AGW theory says that temps have always been steady before man started seriously ucking around is another demonstration of how ignorant you are. The fact that temps have fluctuated and we have a good understanding of why assists the theory.
    It would have been far easier if you’d just written “I know nothing and I’m proud of it”.

    in order to convince people that man is behind this and that the only way to save the planet isn’t through the power of science and engineering, but the power of social engineering.

    Sorry but there are thousands (tens of thousands maybe) of research papers that are only about the scientific specifics of what is being studied, and have nothing to do with adaptation or mitigation. They form the basis of Working Group 1, which is the physical basis of AGW theory.
    Again, you’re putting your ignorance on show. Not sure why.

    And what overlapping evidence is that you mention?

    Again, why can’t you guys do your own research?
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    How hard is it to look it up?

    The IPCC fluff they keep having to apologize for lying about?

    Nothing within Working Group 1, which is the physical basis for AGW theory. You should really look into it before demonstrating your ignorance.

    Or do you mean the peer review process that excluded & demonized anyone that wasn’t a believer?

    Where has this found to be the case?

    Maybe you mean those computer models we all know are pure bullshit?

    Why have they turned out to be accurate then? Where has it been demonstrated that they are “pure bullshit”?
    Or are you still unable to provide any evidence to back up any of your allegations?

    Because it certainly can’t be you admitting to the pack of lies, the horrible subterfuge, and the total destruction of the credibility of the scientific process the revelation from East Anglia revealed.

    Where has this been demonstrated?
    Oh that’s right, all the investigations were bogus. Everything is bogus. Part of the Grand Conspiracy.
    I bet you check under your bed for socialists when you get up every morning.

    BTW, is it Al Gore that plays the role of Henny Penny in your AGW scaremongering “the sky is falling” bullshit stories? Cause he sure as hell deserves an Oscar for that work of his. I love how he ad libbed the whole “The Sky is Falling” line into “The rise in the Oceans is going to turn this planet into Waterworld”. Pfeh.

    Gorehitler!
    You’re no different from those you claim to hate the most.

    LOL! So the new narrative to cover up the discovery that they destroyed the evidence and stone walled the people wanting information is to blame the people asking for the information for the lies, destruction of evidence that didn’t help the “cause”, and even more lies? Man, you cultists sure as hell are strong in your faith.

    No new narrative. The orchestrated campaign was led by McIntyre, all the posts were on his website.
    No data was destroyed. We’ve been through this Alex. That you refuse to accept it is irrelevant to the fact that it’s true.

    I am done.

    Of course you are, because you’ve lazily thrown out your usual unproven allegations and insinuations and this is the point where you’re asked for evidence. You never have any, because you’ve clearly just swallowed what you’ve been spoon-fed on various right-wing political blogs which all claim to be doing the Real Science. Conspiracy-theory nutjobs are always ‘done’ when faced with obvious questions about the fantasies they wish were true.

    The point stands: this study was about trying to make people that know AGW is the most horrible and evil hoax perpetuated on mankind by the usual power hungry marxist-statists using the environment to cover their collectivist goals look dumb, so they could then again avoid any serious conversation about these lies the cult is spreading in order to scare people into giving up their freedoms and rights.

    And now your opinion apparently becomes fact. Yet another brain-fart churned into an ‘Alex Fact’.
    Those dastardly power hungry marxist-statists working their way through science degrees and getting jobs in climate science in order to falisfy results and cover up for each other so they can bring the system down!
    How long have you been writing Scooby Doo episodes?

    Thumb up 0

  46. CM

    WB, CM!

    Thanks. I wasn’t intending to return. Haven’t found anywhere else really.

    I’m skeptical of some science/scientists, such as the IPCC.

    You don’t believe the summary reports are an accurate reflection of the science?
    What do you base this on?

    It’s all about Motive. Ayn Rand demonstrated it perfectly with the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged

    I guess I find it extremely hard to believe there are all these poltical ideologues who decide to become scientists, with the aim of falsifying everything for the ‘greater good’. The whole thing is just so implausible, from every single angle.

    It’s great to be cynical and skeptical, but that has to be informed, plausible, and logical. Signing up to any and all conspiracy theories just makes people look like lunatics. Just because a potential motive might exist, that doesn’t by itself mean anything. People don’t generally get convicted of murder based solely on motive.

    The results of this study should be an embarrassment to conservatives. Especially for someone like Hal. It’s got nothing to do with Al Gore.

    Thumb up 0

  47. CM

    CM, your responses to my post are just so clueless/wrong.laughable on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin. So I’ll put it this way – you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. At all.

    You could always start at No. 1. That’s what I did.
    You could have saved time and effort by just saying “I’ll never believe in any science which could potentially result in laws that restrict freedom”. Actually, most of you here could just admit to that if you really wanted to. It’s so blatantly transparent that you’re effectively saying it anyway (e.g. the ones in your list that are irrelevant to science, even though they are required for you to take ANY part of AGW theory seriously).

    Thumb up 0

  48. Section8

    Thanks. I wasn’t intending to return. Haven’t found anywhere else really.

    Hey, well if you need some of us to help you look…

    Anyhow, in the meantime if you could change your picture to some hot chick that would be great since I have the feeling the main page with the recent comments section is going to continuously show CM, CM, CM, CM, CM, CM, someonelse, CM, CM, CM for the foreseeable future, so a hot chick would really dress up the page ya know.

    Thumb up 1

  49. CM

    Hey, well if you need some of us to help you look…

    Sure, why not.
    Gosh, you REALLY do want this to be an echo-chamber don’t you?

    Anyhow, in the meantime if you could change your picture to some hot chick that would be great since I have the feeling the main page with the recent comments section is going to continuously show CM, CM, CM, CM, CM, CM, someonelse, CM, CM, CM for the foreseeable future, so a hot chick would really dress up the page ya know.

    Will see what I can do.
    Meanwhile, if you could please ensure you always keep keeping things as vague as possible so you’re unable to be challenged on anything other than by a series of questions that you can then ignore, that would be awesome. Thanks.

    Thumb up 0

  50. Miguelito

    “I’ll never believe in any science which could potentially result in laws that restrict freedom”.

    Uh, science itself does no such thing.. it’s what politicians do with the science that is the problem.

    Thumb up 0

  51. JimK

    Are you fucking people really gonna do this?

    REALLY? Let it die. STOP FUCKING ARGUING WITH HIM. It goes nowhere. All you’re doing is filling up the database with shit. And it’s precisely and exactly the same shit it always is.

    Let. It. Die. Stop rising to his bait.

    And CM? You’ve already worn my last nerve right the fuck out. There’s never any reason to comment this many times in this short a period.

    Jesus Christ, man. Don’t you ever take a break? Like to eat, or shit, or maybe jerk off or something?

    Thumb up 1

  52. CM

    Uh, science itself does no such thing.. it’s what politicians do with the science that is the problem.

    Uh, yeah, but that’s not what this is about. Because some people don’t like what the science says, they’re seemingly willing to believe anything and everything they read that attempts to portray the science and scientists as corrupt. No matter how implausible or nonsensical it is in reality. No matter how much they demonstrate blatant hypocrisy when at the same time they moan about the standards of science. They hold one side to an impossible standard, and yet very clearly have absolutely no standards themselves.
    But that’s ideology for you. It trumps everything, even (and especially) logic and rationality.

    Thumb up 0

  53. Mississippi Yankee

    hist_ed,

    Regarding your link; it’s one of the few campaign promises Lord Smug has kept.
    That is if saner mind don’t intervene.

    Thumb up 0

  54. CM

    So at the risk of the wrath of Jimk (but really Jim, you can’t get too mad at someone with an ass like mine), I’m interested in your reaction to this: http://tinyurl.com/6ltnz3m

    Why isn’t warmer better than colder?

    I’ve read some woeful stuff in my time written by people that clearly have never read anything not posted on a political blog before, but this article has got to go down as possibly THE worst. It really is shameful. I felt embarrassed for Robert Zubrin while I was reading it. At one point I even went back to the start to see if it had been written on 1 April.

    It is erroneous to think that humans cannot change the environment for good.

    Who is claiming they can’t?
    Irrelevant.

    As coal is by far America’s cheapest and most plentiful fossil fuel, and coal-fired power stations account for 45 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S., the destructive economic effects of this edict can hardly be overstated.

    Not quite.

    While the regulations will make major changes, there’s reason to believe not many new coal plants would be built right now, primarily because the abundance of cleaner natural gas has driven the price down dramatically.

    “About three years ago, we were looking at a wave of applications to build coal plants, there were applications going in all across the United State to build very big coal plants. Most of those have fallen by the wayside,” Schaeffer said. “Most of the collapse in that market for new coal plants came about because gas got cheaper and cheaper. It no longer made sense to build a big coal plant with gas prices so low. And renewables are more and more competitive.”

    Also, there is a provision that allows existing coal plants to be expanded and not be subjected to new regulations.

    According to the EPA, despite their disastrous economic effects….

    Where is the analysis to support this?

    Others, wishing to avoid an environmentalist-created economic catastrophe, have challenged this argument’s first premise, to wit, that global warming is really occurring.

    Who are these ‘others’? How do they explain everything?

    Since there is no actual global temperature, but only an average of many different constantly changing local temperatures, this approach has led to convoluted debates revolving around data sets that can easily be based upon an unrepresentative mix of measurements.

    WTF?!
    Where are the debates about the temperature datasets being unrepresentative? There’s certainly no debate within the scientific community. Or within the general population. The only place you’ll find anything remotely like that will be on right-wing American political websites. So about 0.000000001% of the world. If they are unrepresentative, why do all the independently arrived at data sets (from ground based stations and satellites) all match? What, does he think scientists just randomly select temperatures from random locations?
    What a completely ridiculous thing to suggest. Is this indicative of his reading audience?!

    This has left the EPA’s second premise — that global warming would be a harmful development — largely unchallenged.

    Wow. Yeah, let’s forget all the actual science that’s taken place for the last 120 years. The tens of thousands of papers. The empirical evidence that’s all around us.

    This is unfortunate, because while it is entirely possible that the earth may be warming — as it has done so many times in the past….

    Yawn. I never tire of that old chestnut. I think that’s the weakest argument of all. It’s actually No. 1 on the ‘Most Used Climate Myth’ list. No actual knowledge of climate change is even needed for this one. All you need is a brain and the ability to use it for 5 seconds:
    Just because climate change always occurs, doesn’t mean it does it for the same reason, or at the same rate. There are a million analogies to demonstrate why that argument is so terrible. For example if you went to the doctor with a sore throat, and then went again a couple weeks later with a broken arm, would the doctor immediately treat you again for a sore throat? After all, that’s why you go to the doctor isn’t it?

    …there is no rational basis whatsoever to support the contention that carbon-dioxide-driven global warming would be on the whole harmful to life and civilization.

    Obviously to this guy it would be irrational to look at what the science says.

    Quite the contrary: All available evidence supports the contention that human CO2 emissions offer great benefits to the earth’s community of life.

    All available evidence on Watts Up With That maybe. However in the real world, the evidence (via the science) shows the opposite.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

    As a result, they are having a strong and markedly positive effect on plant growth worldwide. There is no doubt about this. NASA satellite observations taken from orbit since 1958 show that, concurrent with the 19 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past half century, the rate of plant growth in the continental United States has increased by 14 percent.

    I can’t find that anywhere.
    But even if it’s true, it ignores all the negative consequences and other issues that would accompany an increase in C02 (see last link). And plant growth in the US doesn’t mean plant growth worldwide. The US covers a tiny portion of the Earth’s surface, obviously.

    Even under the most optimistic CO2 emission scenarios, important changes in sea level, regional and super-regional temperatures, and precipitation patterns will have profound effects. Management of water resources will become more challenging. Increased incidence of
    disturbances such as forest fires, insect outbreaks, severe storms, and drought will command
    public attention and place increasing demands on management resources. Ecosystems are likely
    to be pushed increasingly into alternate states with the possible breakdown of traditional species
    relationships, such as pollinator/plant and predator/prey interactions, adding additional stresses
    and potential for system failures. Some agricultural and forest systems may experience near-term
    productivity increases, but over the long term, many such systems are likely to experience
    overall decreases in productivity that could result in economic losses, diminished ecosystem
    services, and the need for new, and in many cases significant, changes to management regimes.

    http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/sap4-3-draft3.pdf

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Studies done at Oak Ridge National Lab on forest trees have shown that increasing the carbon dioxide level 50 percent, to the 550 parts per million level projected to prevail at the end of the 21 century, will likely increase photosynthetic productivity by a further 24 percent. This is readily reproducible laboratory science. If CO2 levels are increased, the rate of plant growth will accelerate.

    This study?

    The high growth rate of an Oak Ridge tree plantation exposed to carbon dioxide–enriched air declined significantly in the FACE experiment’s second year.

    http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/tree_growth.htm

    More specifically:

    In every year since the FACE project began, net primary productivity, which is the total amount of carbon dioxide fixed into organic matter such as leaves, stems and roots, has been higher in plots given extra carbon dioxide. The average increase has been 24 percent, and there is no indication that the increase will not continue. But, Norby notes, while his colleagues have observed a sustained increase in leaf photosynthesis, the response to carbon dioxide fertilization would not be apparent if only above-ground growth were measured. Wood production increased significantly during only the first year of treatment.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/jaaj-cdf020504.php

    If so, that alone rules Mr. Zubrin out as an honest broker. Notwithstanding his obvious cluelessness.

    That’s all I’ve got time for now. I’ll gladly look at the rest if you like when I can (and if I’m allowed).

    Thumb up 0

  56. Mook

    Ah no, the science fully incorporates the sun, oceans, and the existence and role of water vapour.

    “Fully” incorporates? That statement is proof positive that you don’t what the hell you’re talking about. Your belief is ideological, not scientific.

    Thumb up 2

  57. Kimpost

    If you are referring to computer models, then no, they are not perfect (fully incorporated). But it was pretty clear to me that CM meant that science hasn’t left out sun spots, water vapour, oceans abilities to trap CO2 or pretty much whatever climate change sceptic blogs are suggesting that the science just don’t get.

    Quality arguments are very lacking from one particular side.

    The original story about the conservative drop of confidence in science should worry all of us. It’s not just about climate change either. You’ve got presidential candidates who are either sceptical of evolution(!), or are afraid of vocally backing it. Intelligent conservatives need to put their foot down, and say wtf already. Throw the imbeciles out.

    Thumb up 0

  58. Xetrov

    You don’t believe the summary reports are an accurate reflection of the science?
    What do you base this on?

    The fact that hundreds of scientists, including some of the scientists that took part in the IPCC disagree with the summary reports.

    I guess I find it extremely hard to believe there are all these poltical ideologues who decide to become scientists, with the aim of falsifying everything for the ‘greater good’. The whole thing is just so implausible, from every single angle.

    If that’s all you got out of the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged, you missed the point entirely.

    Thumb up 4

  59. CM

    “Fully” incorporates? That statement is proof positive that you don’t what the hell you’re talking about. Your belief is ideological, not scientific.

    Then please provide some examples of studies where researchers failed to look at sun, oceans, and/or the existence and role of water vapour, which would have produced different results.

    Your ridiculous premise relies on scientists being complete idiots. It relies on other scientists not picking these issues up following publication.

    Can you actually support what you are claiming? Or are you just like the rest?

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    The fact that hundreds of scientists, including some of the scientists that took part in the IPCC disagree with the summary reports.

    So it’s purely a numbers game for you? Have you looked into the details? Why did they not agree? The most example I know of was a gross misrepresentation (he actually did agree, but some right-wing political blogger got hold of his comments on a draft).

    If that’s all you got out of the State Science Institute in Atlas Shrugged, you missed the point entirely.

    Can you elaborate then? Apparently your point is about motive. I’m saying motive is all well and good, but it doesn’t get you very far. At all.

    Thumb up 0

  61. hist_ed

    Dammit Jim, you were right again. Someone will no doubt no post some things about the Petition Project, someone else might mention the series The Deniers. Cm will counter with something like “Their not REAL scientists, it’s been proven they were fake by Keith Olberman and even those that are real scientists are getting paid by evil oil” Someone in the middle (Hal, maybe) will bring up Lomborg, who believes in AGW, just doesn’t think that we should go all bat shit crazy about it. “Lomborg is hypocritical non-scientist meanie who was censured by Al Gore’s solar panel installer, it says it right here on The IPCC’s chief’s web site. He’s a for reals scientist (umm economist) so he knows them things” will come the retort.

    You know, it’s kinda like when those hippies do a cleanse. Blast a whole bunch of shit through the system to make it all fresh and new again.

    I’ll try Jim, mightily, to resist the next time. It’s difficult, though, since my wife banned me from yelling at my father in law. It’s like Pacino in the Godfather 3 “They keep pulling me in.”

    Thumb up 1

  62. Mook

    I realize that true believers will never change their mind, but this story deserves attention. From the article:

    During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications – papers in top journals, from reputable labs - for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

    Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated.

    A few more interesting quotes from the article:

    Begley’s experience echoes a report from scientists at Bayer AG last year. Neither group of researchers alleges fraud, nor would they identify the research they had tried to replicate.

    Of 47 cancer projects at Bayer during 2011, less than one-quarter could reproduce previously reported findings, despite the efforts of three or four scientists working full time for up to a year.

    But they and others fear the phenomenon is the product of a skewed system of incentives that has academics cutting corners to further their careers.

    Some authors required the Amgen scientists sign a confidentiality agreement barring them from disclosing data at odds with the original findings. “The world will never know” which 47 studies – many of them highly cited – are apparently wrong, Begley said.

    Begley met … with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

    “We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure,” said Begley. “I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they’d done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It’s very disillusioning.”

    It’s not that conservatives don’t trust science. It’s the scientific “community” we don’t blindly trust, particularly those with financial incentives and pressures (govt grants or private industry) to produce certain results.

    Thumb up 0

  63. CM

    Seattle Outcast claimed:

    Hanson has been caught manipulating (altering) temperature data, again

    7) The blatant data corruption/adjusting/revising/etc needs to stop and original data sets used (Hanson in particular is guilty of this)

    Just coming back to this because I put the question to a climate scientist, quoting this claim (which I assume is an example of what you’re talking about):
    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm
    It concludes:
    “For the Hansen 2007 data, the 1980s – 1990s temperatures were reduced from the Hansen 2001″

    The response I got:
    The GISTEMP analysis uses only publically available data and the code is open to all. The results over time may vary as a function of a) the input data (which change due to corrections, increasing archived data, changes in homogeneity adjustments, bias corrections etc. made by others – including the National Met Services), b) the method (all of which are documented in the various papers. Over the longer term, there are also different indices calculated – specifically a met-station only dataset and the land-ocean index (which addtionally uses SST). Insinuations that just because something has changed over time that there is something underhand going on (as on that website) are unfounded and extremely lame

    Further:

    These analyses are products created from the raw data – they don’t rewrite anything, but you do use as much information as is possible to get the best estimate for what the global mean change was. That means using meta-data, using corrections of known biases, comparing near-by stations, correcting for UHI etc. All that is constantly updated, and the analyses change as a function of that

    SO, can you suggest why that isn’t a perfectly reasonable explanation? Science works so well in large part because it corrects errors, makes improvements, updates itself, and moves forward–and does it very quickly on a historical scale. One should be more ill at ease with the institutions in society that don’t work that way.

    Thumb up 0