Enviro-kook takes hostages at Discovery Channel HQ

[chrispillertkd]

Actually if you read my posts, which I doubt you do before jumping in with your big feet,

Of course I read your post before responding to it Tez. I just disagree with what you said since your view is obviously based on ignorance.

I was criticising the posts, yes the posts not the country not the politics of the country not the people, not the media... the posts, yes that's right the posts on here, on this thread, about this subject.

"Why? Why does everything have to be left v right? Do you have no middle ground then in America, only hatred of each other? Is everything to be seen only through your own political viewpoint? it's almost rabid this arguing, the only thing I've seen comparable to this is the Sectarian divide in Northern Ireland."

You can clearly see here, Tez, how you include not just the posts in this thread by the country as a whole in your rhetorical question.

Get off your high horse and start reading the plain English,

I did, as you can see. But I predict yet another example of you now just complaining that people don't understand you, ot are putting words in your mouth, or perhaps even that we don't get your English "eccentricity." You always have something to fall back on when someone points out your ridiculous posts.

I wanted to know why you lot on here write with such vitriol. Get your facts straight first.....unless that's the problem you don't understand what people are saying or meaning when they write so you jump to massive conclusions.

If that's what you really wanted you should've just asked that question instead of making a pretty vitriolic post yourself. One who knows history could just as easily ask you, "is there no middle ground in the UK and you all just hate each other?" But that's no more a real question than your insult was.

And if you think all the Orangemen do is give people the finger once a year you are very sadly mistaken, they kill and maim almost as many people as their opposite numbers in the Provos, shows how much you know.

I know all about the Orangemen, Tez. Unlike you I try not to talk about things of which I am ignorant, unles it's to ask for more information (not make a less than subtle insult).

Have a day.

Chris

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Please return to the original topic.

jks9199
Super Moderator

 

[Archangel M]

A Huff-Po lib's take on Lee:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/a-deeper-meaning-in-the-d_b_703289.html

Anyone who studies carefully the evidence upon which such views are based would be hard pressed to label these views crazy. So it will not do to dismiss the ideas Lee championed as delusional, even if we conclude that in important ways, he must or might have been. A wiser response would be to wonder if this troubled man might, despite his desperation and hostility, have had something worth considering. Perhaps he was trying to point our attention to a history that, if properly understood, might well help us envision a better future for life on earth. Perhaps if he felt more people were listening, and cared, he could have found a non-violent way to express his deepest passions.

Yeah. Kids are parasites. They are the problem. Nice point. Sheesh!

 

[Empty Hands]

I think that it's about time in this country for actual moderate voices to stop allowing radicals to control the dialogue.

The problem with the usual "moderate" solutions trotted out by talking heads like David Broder is that they simply halve the distance between whatever the two media-defined "sides" are. No matter what those sides say. If Obama proposed eating children and Boehner proposed not eating children, David Broder would inform us in all solemnity that we should be eating half of the child, and it's those nasty extremes poisoning the dialogue.

Many of the so-called "moderate" solutions really just are Solomon's solution to the dispute over the child. Except the moderates actually mean it, while Solomon was just being clever.

Sometimes one "side" is just right. On evolution and global warming, say. Or a multitude of others. True discernment and rationality sometimes involves picking a side.

It also doesn't help that the Overton window has shifted, and what is considered "moderate" or even "liberal" now used to be considered right wing. For instance, the current health care reform plan and the Cap-and-Trade scheme to control CO2 emissions were once both Republican proposals, offered to counter more "liberal" alternatives. Now they are called out as the height of Socialism by the right wing.

 

[Steve]

The problem with the usual "moderate" solutions trotted out by talking heads like David Broder is that they simply halve the distance between whatever the two media-defined "sides" are. No matter what those sides say. If Obama proposed eating children and Boehner proposed not eating children, David Broder would inform us in all solemnity that we should be eating half of the child, and it's those nasty extremes poisoning the dialogue.

Many of the so-called "moderate" solutions really just are Solomon's solution to the dispute over the child. Except the moderates actually mean it, while Solomon was just being clever.

Sometimes one "side" is just right. On evolution and global warming, say. Or a multitude of others. True discernment and rationality sometimes involves picking a side.

It also doesn't help that the Overton window has shifted, and what is considered "moderate" or even "liberal" now used to be considered right wing. For instance, the current health care reform plan and the Cap-and-Trade scheme to control CO2 emissions were once both Republican proposals, offered to counter more "liberal" alternatives. Now they are called out as the height of Socialism by the right wing.

Terrific post. I agree completely with the last part, and that's where I shake my head in disbelief that people here think I'm a flaming liberal. 15 years ago, I was a conservative. Or, at least, I wasn't a hippy.

Regarding the moderate position, I can't say I agree 100%. While what you're describing is certainly true at times, there are many situations where the ideology is so complex and the plans theoretical that no one REALLY knows what will happen. There are educated guesses on both sides, and compelling arguments as well. The moderate solution is one that mitigates both and protects us from really stepping off the cliff. I've said before that our government works best when it works slowly.

So, while you can suggest that sometimes one side is just right and the other is wrong, and I can agree with you in theory, I'm also pretty sure that we wouldn't agree on any of the specifics. Where you think that the GOP is just flat out right and it seems common sense to you, I might disagree and feel just as strongly the other way. Usually, I've found that it's not because your reasons or mine are 'wrong.' Rather, it's because your reasons aren't as important to me as mine. We're judging the same issue based upon different priorities and considerations.

 

[Empty Hands]

Usually, I've found that it's not because your reasons or mine are 'wrong.' Rather, it's because your reasons aren't as important to me as mine. We're judging the same issue based upon different priorities and considerations.

For many somewhat "philosophical" type disputes I would agree. For instance, the relative emphasis of freedom vs. the common good on an issue like gun control has no real "right" answer. Almost everyone falls somewhere in between "not even sharp sticks" and "nuclear arms for all!", and there is no real right answer. It's a tradeoff.

What troubles me however is how ideology has penetrated and corrupted the acceptance of commonly held basic facts. Science and scientists are now simply considered political actors by many, especially on the right, same as a politician or bureaucrat. Commonly accepted facts, history, science, almost everything is now being filtered by many not by academic rigor, but by ideological comity. Even the Theory of Relativity is dismissed by some on the right for ideological reasons.

The Soviet Union did the same thing. Evolution and genetics were dismissed for ideological reasons, and the incorrect theories of Lysenko were adopted instead. Nazi Germany did the same thing. Physics theories were dismissed because they were produced by the wrong race. They held that there was such a thing as "German Science" and "Jewish Science", which implies there is such a thing as "German Reality" and "Jewish Reality."

Now we are seeing the same impulse play out here. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. Our fate as a nation depends on recognizing facts for what they are. The false equivalency impulse, the "both sides are bad" mantra applied to every dispute with two sides, hinders this crucial recognition.

 

[Archangel M]

Problem is that some scientists have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations. Thats how we wind up with "my scientists say..." vs "YOUR scientists are wrong".

 

[Empty Hands]

Problem is that some scientists have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations.

Who? Name names. Then show how their work has been affected by their politics. It's easy to make this claim without specifics.

Thats how we wind up with "my scientists say..." vs "YOUR scientists are wrong".

Not all scientists agree, nor does their data all agree. Consensus is achieved over time with many results pointing to the same conclusion. Einstein, for instance, was convinced that Quantum Mechanics was wrong for some time. He also dismissed the expansionary universe described by Hubble and others for some time based on his emotional desires for what the universe should be. Later, he described the cosmological constant as the "greatest mistake of my life."

 

[chrispillertkd]

Not all scientists agree, nor does their data all agree. Consensus is achieved over time with many results pointing to the same conclusion. Einstein, for instance, was convinced that Quantum Mechanics was wrong for some time. He also dismissed the expansionary universe described by Hubble and others for some time based on his emotional desires for what the universe should be. Later, he described the cosmological constant as the "greatest mistake of my life."

You've just proven Archangel's point. Einstein dismissed a theory not on scientific grounds but on what he wanted to be true. The fact that he later came around doesn't change that. People change their positioons all the time based on a variety of reasons, some of them are based on emtion, some on ideology, and some on scientific evidence.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Empty Hands]

You've just proven Archangel's point.

Only if the entire scientific enterprise is based on the whims of one person. Or on people being completely rational. It is not and they are not.

Scientists are human beings. Thus fallible. However, science as a whole is far larger than one person, with rules not based on emotion or whim or politics, and it is self-correcting. Einstein was convinced eventually by the weight of the evidence. Even if he had not however, science is far larger than Einstein and the rest of the field had already accepted what he initially did not based on the evidence.

The reliance on evidence is key. You do not refute science with claims of bias, politics, emotion or ideology. You refute it with more and better science. That is where the modern deniers of inconvenient science fail.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Only if the entire scientific enterprise is based on the whims of one person. Or on people being completely rational. It is not and they are not.

As Archangel said: "Problem is that some scientists have allowed themselves to be politicized, either out of their own political leanings or out of funding considerations. Thats how we wind up with "my scientists say..." vs "YOUR scientists are wrong"."

You brought up Einstein, thus proving that point.

Scientists are human beings. Thus fallible. However, science as a whole is far larger than one person, with rules not based on emotion or whim or politics, and it is self-correcting.

Sure, but it depends on those fallible humans in the first place. No big deal but science's history is hardly free from scandal. That's just human nature.

Einstein was convinced eventually by the weight of the evidence.

Eventually, yep.

Even if he had not however, science is far larger than Einstein and the rest of the field had already accepted what he initially did not based on the evidence.

The rest of the field? Wow. Apparently he was the last hold out. Interesting.

The reliance on evidence is key. You do not refute science with claims of bias, politics, emotion or ideology. You refute it with more and better science. That is where the modern deniers of inconvenient science fail.

Well, actually if you believe that some scientists are holding a position because of bias or politics or emotion there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so.

Pax,

Chris

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Who? Name names. Then show how their work has been affected by their politics. It's easy to make this claim without specifics.

What about the e-mail system that was hacked showing how scientists intentionally attempted to hide and change data?

From: Phil Jones
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
Subject: Wahl/Ammann
Gene/Caspar,
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.
Cheers
Phil

At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,
I presume congratulations are in order - so congrats etc !
Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it - thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who'll say we must adhere to it!

Are you planning a complete reworking of your paleo series? Like to be involved if you are. Had a quick look at Ch 6 on paleo of AR4. The MWP side bar references Briffa, Bradley, Mann, Jones, Crowley, Hughes, Diaz - oh and Lamb ! Looks OK, but I can't see it getting past all the stages in its present form. MM and SB get dismissed. All the right emphasis is there, but the wording on occasions will be crucial. I expect this to be the main contentious issue in AR4. I expect (hope) that the MSU one will fade away. It seems the more the CCSP (the thing Tom Karl is organizing) looks into Christy and Spencer's series, the more problems/issues they are finding. I might be on the NRC review panel, so will keep you informed.

Rob van Dorland is an LA on the Radiative Forcing chapter, so he's a paleo expert by GRL statndards.
Cheers
Phil

From: Phil Jones
To: Gavin Schmidt
Subject: Re: Revised version the Wengen paper
Date: Wed Aug 20 09:32:52 2008
Cc: Michael Mann
Gavin,
Almost all have gone in. Have sent an email to Janice re the regional freshening. On the boreholes I've used mostly Mike's revised text, with bits of yours making it read a little better. Thinking about the final bit for the Appendix. Keith should be in later, so I'll check with him - and look at that vineyard book. I did rephrase the bit about the 'evidence' as Lamb refers to it. I wanted to use his phrasing—he used this word several times in these various papers. What he means is his mind and its inherent
bias(es).

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don't want to give them something clearly tangible. Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner. As an aside and just between us, it seems that Brian Hoskins has withdrawn himself from the WG1 Lead nominations. It seems he doesn't want to have to deal with this hassle.

The FOI line we're all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don't have an obligation to pass it on.
Cheers
Phil

From: "Michael E. Mann"
To: Tim Osborn
Subject: Re: reconstruction errors
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:18:24 -0400
Tim,
Attached are the calibration residual series for experiments based on available networks
back to:
AD 1000
AD 1400
AD 1600
I can't find the one for the network back to 1820! But basically, you'll see that the residuals are pretty red for the first 2 cases, and then not significantly red for the 3rd case--its even a bit better for the AD 1700 and 1820 cases, but I can't seem to dig them up.In any case, the incremental changes are modest after 1600--its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back...
You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can't even remember what the other columns are!
Let me know if that helps. Thanks,
mike

p.s. I know I probably don't need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I'm providing these for your own personal use, since you're a trusted colleague. So please don't pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of "dirty laundry" one doesn't want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things...

Now, one could argue that even with the "covering up", the scientific basis on a whole is still very sound. Fine.

But is it any wonder when things like this come out that people doubt the science behind the claims of anthropogenic global warming? Some of the scientists who believe in it themselves are creating skeptics.

Even some of these scientist say that some measurements are imprecise. (See Dr. James Hansen's "Climate Change and Trace Gases" article).

Despite multiple careful studies, uncertainties in the ice–gas age
differences for the Vostok ice core remain of the order of 1 kyr (Bender et al.2006). Therefore, we can only say with certainty that the temperature and gas changes are nearly synchronous. Data from a different Antarctic (Dome C) ice core with slightly higher snow accumulation rate (Monnin et al. 2001) and an independent analysis based on argon isotopes (Caillon et al. 2003) support temperature leading GHGs by ca 600–800 years. In addition, carbon cycle models yield increases of GHGs in response to warming oceans and receding ice sheets.

Temperatures come before an increase in GHG increases.

Now do you wonder why I'm a skeptic?​

​

​

​

​

 

[WC_lun]

Being a skeptic is fine. What in my mind is dangerous is basing a policy on an arguement that 97% of scientist believe is false. Especially when the consequences could be so great. Our science isn't infallable and accepted truths have been disproven. However, to believe something is not true because you wish it to be so and then enacting policy that has long term consequences is so much more dangerous than any individual scientist acting upon his own ego.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Being a skeptic is fine.

You're kinda missing the point. This isn't merely about being skeptical of the science. This is also about being skeptical about the scientists.

When, as the above e-mails show, scientists are deliberately hiding and manipulating the data so that the conclusions fit the anothropogenic global warming theory, how is a person supposed to trust them, or the data they provide?

When scientists show that there is evidence that increased carbon dioxide has occurs after an increase in temperature, but still insist that it's carbon dioxide causing the increase in temperature, it's a little hard to believe them. In other words, their own evidence doesn't meet their conclusions.

When the InterAcademy Council shows that some of the conclusions and statments made in the IPCC reports are flawed, some based on little to no evidence, how is a lay person supposed to believe what those "97%" of scientists say?

As I said before, some of these scientists are their own worst enemy when it comes to the debate over what to do about it.

What in my mind is dangerous is basing a policy on an arguement that 97% of scientist believe is false. Especially when the consequences could be so great. Our science isn't infallable and accepted truths have been disproven. However, to believe something is not true because you wish it to be so and then enacting policy that has long term consequences is so much more dangerous than any individual scientist acting upon his own ego.

The consequenses of doing what some of these scientist want are just as great. They interject themselves into the political debate, urging us to completely change our economy, while China, India, and Turkey do what. Continue on before, throwing out these same gases, and doing nothing to stop the problem. What happens then?

The study of the sciences is not perfect. Mistakes are made in testing and the development of conclusions. I don't think anyone expects perfection.

What we should be able to expect, however, is that when reporting these facts, that the scientist are telling us the truth, the whole truth. And finding that they manipulate the facts and conclusions shows that that is not what is happening.

 

[Marginal]

You're kinda missing the point. This isn't merely about being skeptical of the science. This is also about being skeptical about the scientists.

When, as the above e-mails show, scientists are deliberately hiding and manipulating the data so that the conclusions fit the anothropogenic global warming theory, how is a person supposed to trust them, or the data they provide?

It's a toughie. Especially when the whole "scandal" was proven to be overblown.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

It's a toughie. Especially when the whole "scandal" was proven to be overblown.

Proven? Or were the comments attempted to be justified by those that made them or agree with those that made them?

I mean, it is apparent that they intentionally manipulated and hid data. And that includes trying to hide behind the law. But somehow I'm supposed to believe them. They try to suppress climate studies that don't agree with them, including trying to "redefine what the peer-review literature is" (e-mail from Michael Mann of Penn State University).

We don't hear about the desent from other scientist because the ones who agree with climate change intentionally suppress them. Not only that, but our politicians suppress them as well.

Their comments may not have had anything to do with changing the results. But for me, especially in the case of the e-mails, it has everything to do with their integrity. And I have a hard time believing that we should change policies that will have an enormous affect on many sectors of our lives based on statements of those who would lie to me.

It's really not a "toughie". Scientists should stay out of the politics of this debate and stick to science. Except for those few hired as scientific political advisors, they should keep their policy desires to themselves in order to gain some credibility. Then I might be more inclined to trust them.

It's really interesting. Whenever there is a scientist who provides evidence that disagrees with the "prevailing widsom", we look at who pays him, what his agenda is, etc.

But now we have out and out data manipulation and intentional deception, and we say that in this case it's "overblown".

 

[Archangel M]

And one has to wonder..if some college kid who has been thorougly "indoctrinated" into the ecodoomsday meme decides to become an environmental scientist, what sort of mindset are they going to be carrying with them? These guys were caught trying to manipulate data they "didn't like". That sort of happens when you go into a scientific field with your preset worldview.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I kinda liken it to this original train of thought to this discussion.

If you commit violence in the name of a political right item, you are an extremist, terrorist, etc.

If you commit violence in the name of a political left item, then you're actions must be mitigated by the fact that you have a chemical imbalance and can't help yourself, and it's not really about the political agenda.

But that's humans for you I guess....

 

[Tez3]

I kinda liken it to this original train of thought to this discussion.

If you commit violence in the name of a political right item, you are an extremist, terrorist, etc.

If you commit violence in the name of a political left item, then you're actions must be mitigated by the fact that you have a chemical imbalance and can't help yourself, and it's not really about the political agenda.

But that's humans for you I guess....

If only it were that simple, in one case a clearly unbalanced person who has an extremely weird 'manifesto' which is perceived as being of the left by some commits a crime so you label every situation the same. The guy in the OP is unbalanced, possible insane, certainly mentally ill, his 'aims' or point of view is extremely skewed so yes it is down to whatever makes someone mentally ill, that doesn't mean all actions by left inclined people are. Nobody has excused terrorism by left wingers, we can see it for what it is - terrorism. Why can't you see this particular case for what it is?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If only it were that simple, in one case a clearly unbalanced person who has an extremely weird 'manifesto' which is perceived as being of the left by some commits a crime so you label every situation the same. The guy in the OP is unbalanced, possible insane, certainly mentally ill, his 'aims' or point of view is extremely skewed so yes it is down to whatever makes someone mentally ill, that doesn't mean all actions by left inclined people are. Nobody has excused terrorism by left wingers, we can see it for what it is - terrorism. Why can't you see this particular case for what it is?

Who said that I can't.

You seem to like to throw stones alot, Tez, without trying to understand what people are actually saying.

I never said that this guy didn't have a mental problem. I am pointing to the current trend on this site, and, quite frankly, in the most television and print news. We tend to label people who do crazy things on the right as "right-wing extremists", "right-wing wackos", or "right-wing (insert dispariging name here).

But there is always seems to be some "reason" when someone on the left does it.

Why can't you see what people write for what it is, rather then what you want it to be?