Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I will have to wait & watch this tonight or sometime soon, but I figured I would see what others were saying about it. Hell, others are more qualified than I to discuss it anyway. Here is the answer from the climate science blog. It looks like that addresses several of the claims made on the program.

This is a non-scientific opinion piece, which is interesting to me mainly for its quote from one of the scientists interviewed in Durkin’s documentary:

Says Wunsch, “I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled.”

It’s a common tactic among anti-science types to interview a scientist talking about something complex and trying to explain the complexities, then select a few choice words that can be recast out of context to create doubt about the subject that scientist is discussing. It appears that may have been the case with at least one of the guys you saw wearing mussed up hair and thick eye-glasses. Others? I don’t know… Maybe they were oil-funded types. I don’t doubt that someone making such a documentary could recruit a couple of those guys - there aren’t many of them, but the ones out there don’t seem to be media-shy in the least.

If you have any specific questions on evidence presented in the video but not already addressed at Real-Climate, maybe post them here & I’ll see what I can find out.

Watched about 20 minutes of it today. Very interesting, indeed.
I particularly liked the part about how one is labeled a heretic if they don’t march in line with the political movement. Even among the “anti-science types” of scientists.

I’ll object (again) to saying global warming is a political movement. It is first and foremost a scientific conclusion, and was before Al Gore ever thought about making a movie. It being a scientific conclusion with political implications, the environmental lobby did extend the problem into the political arena. I honestly wouldn’t mind a political debate at all. The scientific debate was fine (and no-one got labeled a ‘heretic’ merely for carrying through with the scientific debate, while it lasted). The problem I, and many others, have is something the aforementioned movie represents. Once the political issue was raised, those on the other side of it began and continued - not by making a political debate - but by trying to obscure and undermine the results of the scientific research and debate. In short, the politicos like Durkin, Boortz & Limbaugh are lying about the science, and the few scientist hold-outs - bitter about having lost the scientific debate - are assisting them (while *usually* sticking to factually correct but sometimes misleading statements in doing so).

Debate the politics if that’s what you want to do. It’s a sensible thing in a political debate. Or, find new evidence that undermines the scientific conclusion and debate the science in the scientific journals. But don’t just mislead people en masse about the results of the research on the evidence that exists.

I’ll object (again) to saying global warming is a political movement.

It’s just a coincidence that the leading advocates of it are overwhelmingly political activists, I presume. But, I could be wrong…..from the outside looking in, it resembles more of a religion than a political movement.

In short, the politicos like Durkin, Boortz & Limbaugh are lying about the science, and the few scientist hold-outs - bitter about having lost the scientific debate,

Well, anyone who disagrees is either a liar or bitter about being a loser. Uh-huh. I forgot, the debate is over. Not that there are folks attempting to stifle voices of dissent or anything…no, that’s just BushCo.

Let me just say that I’m less dogmatic about my Christianity than a lot of folks are about global warming. And then I’ll quietly tip-toe away, covering my head & seeking shelter….

Well, anyone who disagrees is either a liar or bitter about being a loser.

It doesn’t seem a very polite sentiment, but if you watch what’s going on, you will see. These same talking points that have been refuted both in the science journals and in the popular lit - the ones mentioned in this documentary for instance - are well known to be incorrect. Their repetition can only come from dishonesty or stubbornness… And yes, it does appear Lindzen & a few like him are trying to win a war in the popular media that they could not win in the scientific community.

They are hard words, and I don’t like saying them - but if no one does, then these folks can deceive you without challenge. And, they know that. The price of a free society with free speech is that you can buy your way into the living rooms of Americans with any message you care to spread, honest or not. Due diligence should be observed.

It’s just a coincidence that the leading advocates of it are overwhelmingly political activists, I presume.

That’s just selection bias. If you looked into the libraries instead of the TeeVees, you would see that the leading advocates are overwhelmingly scientists. They just don’t speak in the media you are accustomed to paying attention to.

I have to agree with smijer here … the right’s response to the issue of global warming is manufacturing consent in action.

They are hard words, and I don’t like saying them - but if no one does, then these folks can deceive you without challenge.

A wise man once said “I don’t like some of your ways of thinking - and I don’t like your meanness or bigotry toward certain stripes of “sinners”, but I wouldn’t dream of silencing you.” In this religion, the “sinners” are anyone who disagrees with THIS particular biblical screed.

Who is acting like a “fundie” (and blaming the opposition for having to present things in that manner)?

I’m not sure exactly what you are saying here. At all… but let me just do some bullet points real quick:

(1) I’m not trying to silence anyone. Asking someone to quit lying to the people isn’t silencing them, unless you back it up with some sort of legal action. I am pointing out errors and deceptions where I find them. I am not trying to censor anyone. Your guys are calling the scientific community liars (the Global Warming Swindle, anyone?)… But I have not once accused them of trying to silence the scientists. Their sins are many, but this is not one of them. And, it’s certainly not one of my sins, as a first amendment near-absolutist.

(2) Scientists use an entirely different set of media to carry out their debates than politicians and/or environmentalists. When you don’t hear them, it is because you don’t listen to their media, i.e. scientific journals, conferences, colloquia, etc… That doesn’t make the people you *do* hear from the “leading advocates” of the scientists theories.

(3) Based on the scientists findings, there is a public interest in global warming, and therefore there needs to be political awareness and political debate on the issue.

(4) I fault no-one, on either side of the political debate, for making their best honest case about the issue.

(5a) I do fault those, whether out of economic self-interest, political ideology, stubborn arrogance, or simple dishonesty of character, who dishonestly portray the state of the science. There are degrees of dishonesty at work here, and my disapproval of them varies according to degree.

(5b) I also fault those who, being untrained in science, take the bait of those who dishonestly portray the state of the science - for whatever reason… naive overconfidence in their own ability to analyze the full body of evidence (despite not having likely even been exposed to it)… failure of skepticism on points that align with their political ideology or economic self-interest… or simple overconfidence in the sources they are apt to listen to in the media who are many times themselves either victims or perpetrators of dishonesty. However, I merely fault their carelessness - not their bad intentions, and I hold no grudge against carelessness. I hope to offer such persons constructive criticism - especially on how to recognize the active deceivers in list 5a).

(5c) It is sometimes difficult to tell whether an individual properly falls on list 5a) or list 5b), and if I have incorrectly categorized a 5b) person as 5a), it is likely because I think too highly of that person’s awareness of the 5a) programme. It is possible that major media figures and possibly even some scientists not working in fields directly relating to the issue might actually be persuaded of their inaccuarate estimations of the science, and therefore may be guilty only of carelessness. To those people whom I have miscategorized, I apologize. However, to those same people I do have an extra criticism - you, of all people, should be more careful.

(6) Again, I’m not sure I understand what you are getting at, but, wrt to this statement:

Who is acting like a “fundie” (and blaming the opposition for having to present things in that manner)?

The opposition (if by that you mean those who misportray the science of global warming) have unlimited options as to how to present their case. If it be a scientific case, they have peer-reviewed journals for presenting it in. If it be a political case, they have televisions, newspapers, and the internet. In fact, the internet is not the worst medium in the world even for a scientific debate - up to a certain point. No one is forcing anyone to choose any particular manner of presenting their case. No one has, as you say, to present their case in any particular manner.

The fact is that scientists who deny global warming can and publishe their research in peer-reviewed papers. They aren’t forced, by the fact that their findings did not sway others in the scientific community, to go pimping their views directly to the unprepared public and calling the scientists “Swindlers” (see title of this post). Each person is responsible for the manner and medium of the cases they make themselves. The only thing I ask of “the opposition” is that they make their case honestly. Presenting the uncorrected versions of flawed evidence without discussion of the flaws that were found, the corrections that have been made, and the implications as they see them themselves, and as they are seen by the rest of the scientific community - well, that’s dishonest. Presenting logical- or scientific-sounding arguments that all the scientists already know about and have accounted for as though they represent a challenge to AGW is dishonest. Presenting the views of contrarian scientists in volumes far out of proportion to their representation in the scientific community, without pointing out that the scientific community has examined their claims and found them wanting, and in what specific regards they have done so… may not be dishonest, but it is irresponsible.

I so wish I could make a case to the compelling evidence that has convinced climate scientists that AGW is real and dangerous. I regret that I cannot, because like Durkin, Boortz & Limbaugh, I do not understand the evidence well enough. I understand it some, and I understand, more or less, why the contrarian arguments are wrong and why the evidence presented by contrarians isn’t persuasive - but I do not understand it with complete confidence, or at a level where I could responsibly make that case.

But as Mark Twain once said, a lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. I’m not content with that. So I’m here to shout out to the liars about what I can talk about while the truth works on those shoestrings.

What I can talk about is that the contrarian scientists made their best case and lost. Probably, most of them are now on the other side. Nevertheless, there remain a few (as I’ve mentioned countless times before, those few being in the employ of CO2 polluting corporations directly or nearly so) who hold out. But no one is left in the scientific community - except that very extreme few themselves - who is convinced of their case. Instead, everyone in the scientific community is now convinced of the opposite case. And there are good reasons for that. Scientists are humans and imperfect, but they are among the most skeptical people out there. You don’t reach the kind of consensus that now exists because of “goupthink”, because of political ideology, or because of anything except the strength of the evidence. So really, the only thing left to debate is the political side… which brings me to the final, redundant point:

(7) Let the political debate begin, but let’s be honest and acknowledge that the scientific debate is settled. Those who pretend otherwise deserve to be exposed for their irresponsibility and/or dishonesty.

You don’t reach the kind of consensus that now exists because of “goupthink”, because of political ideology…

Oh, yes you do.
My evidence is the last 25 years of almost universal unanimity amongst the professorial & profession “economist” class & their claims that large deficits would lead to high interest rates.

Never happened.

Every @#$%@ing one of them was wrong. All. OF. Them. Interestingly enough, their ratio of lefty-to-righty is in line with that of the global-warming-scare crowd because contrary to your attempts to claim that it’s mainly the scientific community that’s driving the cause, which it is not. This is one of the bigger political issues on the planet.

We recently had $500 billion deficits. The interest rates were near record lows. Now, the deficit is closing and those economists that were predicting doom and gloom are back to saying “wait til next year”, like a Cubs fan.

Look, you know I don’t discount global warming…I’m just not a true believer. And I typed those word purposefully, because I do believe that is is now akin to a religion, because any deviation from the group-think is met with disdain, condemnation, smearing and scorn.

Which is why I’ve now said my piece & will leave in peace (as close to the Rev. Jackson as this cracker can get).

RW - I was talking about scientists, not economists. And they say the same thing about evolutionary science (that it is akin to religion) - not because it’s true - just because they are put off by the certainty that sometimes is found in natural order.

Peace out Rev.

Related: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

RW - interesting article. Who would have thought of using that approach? Yes, it does show more about something we already knew about - that solar variations do force climate. It’s good to get a new angle on it so that we can understand solar forcing better. But, you know, climate scientists already knew that solar variation forced climate variation. So, this nile/aurora connection isn’t going to change much.