Berg’s Seventh Law – when liberals defame conservatives, they’re projecting – just keeps gaining evidence.
Remember three years ago, when the wahabbi global warmingists were demanding “scientific Nuremberg trials” for global warming skeptics – as if belief in sound science were akin to a war crime?
Yep. Unethical. And it should be investigated. Not as a war crime, naturally; more like fraud, with the complicity of vast swathes of government, academia, the media and the UN:
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).
Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.
“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.
To be serious for a moment, I’m not sure Algore’s little flight of fancy – as damaging as it was – deserves criminal investigation. Ignominy will do.
But for a bunch of “scientists” and politicians who tried to gin up a worldwide fraud to bring money and political power to themselves (allegedly)?
I think it’s worth a look.
Dog Gone said:
“I am a bit tired of hearing the reasoning that because CO2 occurs in nature, any quantity of CO2 is safe”
Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.
I am tired of pseudo scientific warmies effectively ignoring all other factors in the equation, let alone assuming CO2 is the primary contributing factor, and ignoring the huge assumption that warming/change is bad. *shrug*
Dog Gone said:
“That doesn’t encourage scientific debate, it argues that there is no reason to have the debate at all.”
Unlike “this is settled science”, right?
Terry,
I believe DG was very clear that she doesn’t believe it is settle science, and neither do I. Both of us have made this comment, time and again. Frankly, most liberals I know agree that it is not ‘settled’, if we want to define settled as proven beyond all doubt. Yet, there is a very significant disproportion of evidence on one side vs. the other. I suppose it can be reasonably argue that the scientific community has a vested interest in one side, but I would and do counter that there is sufficient rigor and competition in the scientific community that faulty findings are challenged, crushed and obviated.
Mitch – to be clear, my point, and one which DG made more artfully (in more comments), was simply this, I’m happy, as are many, to have a meaningful discussion on this subject, which is where this eventually got to, and my compliments to you both for doing so. To any extent my initial reaction offended you, I apologize.
Yet, worrying about whether one crank (on the left OR the right) makes suggestions about ‘trials’ is letting the extremism get in the way of reasoned discussion and progress. First and foremost, it assumes that the balance of the populace would EVER permit such a travesty of justice. I obviously (or I hope it would be obvious) oppose such kinds of kangaroo courts.
I agree entirely with DG’s comments about where this issue sits, meaning, I feel global warming is not proven beyond all doubt to be mostly attributable to man caused sources, with only this caveat, while I believe that, and would use the term “the jury is still out”, I feel that 11 of 12 jurors are on the side of man causation being very important, and the 12th is writing out his/her “guilty” vote. It’s not quite a done deal, but it’s really close. The countervailing arguments rely upon only saying (almost all at least) that a bit of the findings of pro-MMGW scientists aren’t fully fleshed out, or aren’t entirely conclusive. I see, on weight of evidence, almost no evidence suggeting that man’s impact is effectively irrelevant.
As such, the qeustion becomes, why do we see such opposition to action, if the consequences are as grave as most scientists suggest they will be? My answer, and you may disagree, is because the business impact is large – and there is a fear it will cost US jobs. I think the former is true, and the latter is not. It will certainly cost business money in the short term, but be VASTLY more costly in the long run if we fail to act and MMGW is even close to being as consequential as feared. US jobs, if expended in transforming the world/country to green/less polluting energy sources may in fact grow – we’ve jettisoned so many manufacturing jobs as it is – so the genesis of concern is, to me, short sighted and nearly entirely pro-profit (short term), but not pro-sustainable business (growth). I don’t want to cripple business, but we must take a long-term view of how to affect policy if we are to remain a powerful and vibrant economy, just as the real estate, IT, and manufacturing busts have proven.
“K-Rod Says:
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:39 pm
(DG) “No, I don’t believe it is an absolute scientific certainty.”
(KR)Only 99.99% certain you say? Hmmmmm”
No, KR, I didn’t say 99.99% certain, and I don’t think it is 99.99% certain. Neither has it been completely disproven EITHER.
Thank you Mitch for asking what I think – and why – instead of assuming you know my position. Which is somewhere in between yours and Pen’s, and in this instance probably closer to yours, at least for the moment.
I think there is enough information for concern, and for not dismissing this as a complete hoax out of hand, or discontinuing it as a subject for scientific inquiry. However, I see plenty of scope for dishonesty, self interest, greed, and ulterior motives on both sides – not just one side.
I’m still working my way through the information, trying to look at the science critically. I haven’t finished formulating my position on the competing claims and contradictions. It always makes sense to begin with as much objectively measured information as possible, and as Mitch may recall, whenever I can I prefer to go to original sources over second hand predigested information and opinions. Which often means it takes longer for me to come to conclusions than people who tend to be less primary source driven.
“Troy Says:
February 24th, 2010 at 9:05 am
Unlike “this is settled science”, right?”
Troy, et al, how many different ways do I need to emphatically agree with this: the “Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
What does not impress or persuade me is trash talking OR speculation, over solid substance.
Deegee opined: “The growls seem to be over content, not length D.”
No, dear; it’s the lack of content and verbosity.
Inserting extraneous verbiage into vapid ramblings doesn’t make it any less vapid, deegee. You cannot hide your lack of knowledge by surrounding it with shrubbery. If you didn’t share the same double digit IQ, you’d have noticed how poorly it has worked for the peevee.
I’ll not even get into the syntax, spelling and punctuation tortures you inflict on your written mummery.
“I’m still working my way through the information, trying to look at the science critically.”
Why don’t just check in with your resident expert RatioRinkyDink? I hear he is Peev’s neighbour.
just plain crabby says:
“Why don’t just check in with your resident expert RatioRinkyDink? I hear he is Peev’s neighbour.”
I like to develop my own sources. Besides what I can locate on my own, I have very much enjoyed the help of my local reference librarians (thank you Karla and Nancy) to back up my own sources. What I have found particularly useful through my local library connection is that those reference librarians have access to a further research service at the U of Minnesota library.
What are your sources Crabby?
DG- “There is a specific range and a limit to the amount of fluctuation in climate that is essential to our survival.” Of course there is. But what God or Gods gave liberals the secret to what that limit is? And how do you know that we can`t adapt to what ever changes happen? Early man made it through the ice age with no technology and no clothes but we`re all going to die from this “warming”? Sure. DG- “You ought to check out how many species that have gone extinct that appear to be the partial result of changes in climate.” Ok. And you check out how many species have thrived or evolved to what they are now because of said climate change. Earlier i asked “so apparently there is now a earth temp. that must be maintained? And you answered “well, there are limits.” But again, you don`t know what those limits are, and before spending trillions, you must. How do you know for sure that warmer wouldn`t be better? Longer growing season, ect., ect.?
I just read this again:
“I am a bit tired of hearing the reasoning that because CO2 occurs in nature, any quantity of CO2 is safe”
and I wonder: who the hell says this, Dog Gone? Somebody says any amount is safe? Because it sounds like a nice straw man.
What does not impress me are rhetorical techniques used in place of substance, i.e. the larger part of “Climate Change” nee “Anthropomorphic Global Warming” craze. You may have to beat your sense of skepticism into submission to buy it, but I guess if all the other kids are believing it, … :-/
Dog Gone said:
“how many different ways do I need to emphatically agree with this: the Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.”
You want open minds, hearts, and discussions on the subject now that we are on the brink of passing laws to conform to this obvious fraud? No, I think we should look up, see the sky is not falling, and let the Climate Change argument stand on it’s merits for a while.
“I see plenty of scope for dishonesty, self interest, greed, and ulterior motives on both sides – not just one side.”
You’ve discovered hindsight is 20/20? That’s really great!
Pingback: Obama Approves Nuclear Loan Guarantees, but They Don't Make … | Madison County NY Real Estate
What are your sources Crabby?
My education.
Peevee/Deegee/Ayebee/flush, how’s that hockey stick graph treating you?
.
Question: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?”
Jones: “Yes”
.
Peni/DG/A-Boy, do you still think that MMGW is better understood than gravity?