Denialism in Review: the Associated Press

what i find interesting is the continued push to convince the naysayers when the believers say it's too late to fix it anyway.

 

depends on how old you are.

 

Yeah, that pretty much hit the high points for me. Thanks for the reference.

 

Depressing...

 

I was teaching Social Sciences when this report came out. This included Geography to 7th and 8th Graders. I had actually forgotten why I became so ecology conscious, thought it was the Folk Singers of the time. I did actually teach a week on this report and the potential impact, way back then. Now it's my grandson that I'm concerned for.
Time flies but fools persist.

 

I always enjoy reading about Wally Broecker. Quite a character, plus he understands marine biogeochemistry better than (probably) anybody else. Just ask any marine biogeochemist

adding an off-topic bonus:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110925211543.htm

This is darn good news. I sure hope they are right.

 

People dont like liars.
If you lie or if you defend liars ,then you are at their level of deception.Like some people on this site.
Brace yourselves because Michael Mann's University of Virginia emails are soon to be released by FOIA court order.
I predict Manns Penn State emails will follow as Mann is suing Dr Tim Ball in Canadian court for slander.Tim Ball said Mann belongs in "State Pen" rather than Penn State.
Canadian courts will require Mann to release his Penn State records if he pursues the case.
Al Gore is full of lies as is Mann.
You wonder why people dont believe in AGW?
Also why is it that the right wing is so against AGW theory?
They are against the UN controlling the world.
Which I agree is the IPCC plan.(Now, the IPCC wants to form an army to protect the world from AGW induced panic.)
A UN worldwide carbon tax and an IPCC Army, is potentially a world government.
Also the right wing doesnt want taxes on fossil fuel.
They dont care if AGW theory is wrong or right.
They just dont want taxes.
Im a far left winger but I must say ,Im glad there is an opposition.
Even if its for the wrong reasons.

 

hmmm...liars u say...

 

or fools.

 

People (including you) on avg lie 10 times a day. Do you then hate all people?

there is a difference btw unscrupulous individuals who try to ride a wave, and actual scientific facts.

GM lied about about some problems they had on their cars back in 2006, therefore all cars are discredited as means of transportation. This is pretty much what you are doing.

 

69% Say It

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs"

"Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree."

 

This is the oldest fallacy in the book. The argumentum ad populum is silly.

4/5 doctors smoke camels right?

The correct position may be held by the majority of people, however the position held by the majority of people is not necessarily the correct position.

And since when did the entire american population become accredited climate scientists able to research and rationalize their own findings?

 

Then 31% are clueless believers that have not listened. We have smoking guns that bad numbers plucked from the air were portreyed as peer reviewed scientific evidence. We have emails saying that data would be destroyed if the said scientist were forced to give it over to peer review. We have emails saying let's manipulate the data to look as if the findings are more concrete, other wise "deniers" will have something to criticise, and the proof that this manipulation happened.

This does not mean that climate change is not happening. It also does not mean that action to reduce carbon emissions should not be taken. Climate change and the prudence for action have broad scientific support. But individual items in the beleif system need to be questioned, and we need to get back to science. We have one politician acting as if signing onto a tax scheme will save the polar bear, but voting against will kill them and cause huge tidal waves. THen we have anouther that says the temperature record is something different than it is. Let's get back to science, and keep the politicians out of it.

 

Rasmussen is funded by Faux News quite frequently.

 

Thanks mojo for the update on FOIA. It certainly has the potential to set precedents concerning taxpayer funded science. And taxpayer funded anti-science activism.

So we can grab our popcorn and watch unfolding developments here:

American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia (Dr. Michael Mann)

and for a touch of "balance"

In defense of academic freedom against denialist FOIA inquisition tactics | Climate Science Watch

and perhaps surprisingly here:

Cuccinelli v Mann « Climate Audit

The FOIA appears to supercede Cuccinelli's CID, but I continue to recommend that folks read that document. Can be found back in the links of climatesciencewatch. I shan't burden with you with opinions about it, except to say that it's a pip!

 

AG#16. Let's get back to science is a red herring. It's what scientists DO; they never left it. Some also do other things, led (it seems to me) by a sense of urgency. I'll not glady accede you the privilege of deciding what they MAY do.

Let's get the politicians out of it. But how, exactly? If they don't act on knowledge to serve the people (to the extent authorized by law), who will?

But if you want to take the lead, discuss only science and NOT talk about meanings that may be inferred from purloined emails, I'll cheer that decision. In fact I would be opposed to deciding the careers of James Inhofe, Joe Barton and Ken Cuccinelli (to name three taxpayer-supported individuals of high stature) based on the contents of their emails, whether purloined or FOIA-ed.

 

Most scientist never left. Some have been caught manipulating data, putting out bad science as if it was peer reviewed, or has an objective basis. Justifying hiding data, and pretending that this is to keep it safe from the other side. Politicians and those political scientists seem to justify the bad science if it supports there point of view. Those that belive in the science should ask that it is done properely. Is that more clear?

That is not what I was saying either. Lets get these politicians Inhofe, Cuccinelli to stop making up false science, and killing the trend. Barton did get Mann to release data to be peer reviewed, and since it was publicly financed that was the correct path. Protecting the data from enemies is not proper, and Mann did eventually release it to be reviewed by peers that were not hand picked by him. Barton has been a piece of work on other matters.

My govenor is one of the worst offenders. I assume that when he was gore's campaign manager he supported global warming. When he wanted to combat, texas environmentalists, he put an anti-science, pro polution, person that rejected most of the warming science in charge of the environmental panel. I assume he switched his scientific beliefs to reflect his politics.