[Al_U_Card]

That might depend on if he wants to pursue the pea under the thimble... either way, it is only a matter of time and more information before the sad truth about this scam is finally exposed.

Corporations are people until they don't want to be for litigation purposes

[PassedOut]

Review: The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines

Quote

I have been directly involved in the hockey stick war. I have been been an active research ecologist for over 20 years, and during the last 10 years I have focused on climate change and its effects on living systems. During part of my recent career, I was employed as science advisor to the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, a legislatively mandated commission. In March of 2007, while giving an invited report on climate change to a select committee of the Florida legislature, a conservative legislator rose from his seat and declared me to be a liar and demanded that I be dismissed. Indeed, I was asked to step from the podium. Only one newspaper in the state carried the story, and my employers, who were GOP appointees, did not so much as apologize for my treatment. Democracy in action, right?

My sin? I had shown the hockey stick. When I approached the legislator who had objected, I discovered that he did not know that the National Academy and reviewed Michael Mann's work and found it to be fundamentally sound. Indeed, it was not apparent that he even knew of the existence of the US National Academy. After the climate gate emails were released, the prestigious journal Nature referred to the push back from the oil soaked Irrational Right as a "street fight." I could not agree more.

I have carefully read and evaluated Mann's work and I find it to be of the highest standards of scientific integrity. He has been vindicated by numerous reviews. Despite continued harassment, he continues to find time to do excellent research. I have the greatest respect for him as a colleague and role model.

The story that Mann recounts in this book is horrific and indicative of the demise of our most cherished institutions. The primary strategy of the industry funded hacks who claim to be scientists is to attack the messenger. I recently spoke at a conference where one of these credentialed, unscrupulous scientists-for-hire began his talk by attacking the personal integrity of John Holdren, Ralph Cicerone, and Jane Lubchenco, all scientists who adhere to the highest standards of integrity. Later in his talk, this scoundrel showed slides of a crayfish and crab which had grown larger in acidified water. He used this as proof that ocean acidification was actually good for shelled organisms. The bald face lie in this is that these two organisms have chitinous exoskeletons, rather than calcarious shells. This is typical of the tactics that I have observed. It is a scorched-earth strategy to destroy the credibility of our most esteemed scientists and scientific establishments.

To date 32 national academies have endorsed the fundamental reality of human caused climate change. Numerous professional organizations have also made clear statements to support the mainstream science. 97% of all climate scientists agree. NSF, NASA, NOAA, USDA, the NPS, and the CDC have active research programs predicated on the reality of human-caused climate change. The clarity of the climate change threat could not be greater. It is most sobering to realize that our present emissions trajectory will result in a global average warming of over 5 degrees C by 2100. Such a planet will not sustain civilization in any recognizable form. The excess CO2 that is pumped into the air today will affect our planet for thousands of years into the future. I am not an alarmist, but I am alarmed. You should be too.

I urge everyone to read Mann's book. It is well written and compelling. Any publishing scientist who reads it will likely be chilled to the bone. I have contributed to the climate scientist legal defense fund, and urge all of you to do the same.

Stephen Mulkey, PhD
President, Unity College
Unity, ME 04988

Pretty much sums it up.

[Al_U_Card]

Some targets are soft, others are easy. This one is just sleazy.

I wasn't going to bother with Mann's book, as it is more than just a tissue of mis-representations, innuendo and outright falsehoods. It is the expression of delusion, fortified by the years of echo-chamber rhetoric and dirty-tricks. And they dare to call that climate "science". Maybe they should have called it...

Unconscionable.

[blackshoe]

There seems to be an awful lot of the pot calling the kettle black in this debate, on both sides.

[Winstonm]

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:50, said:

There seems to be an awful lot of the pot calling the kettle black in this debate, on both sides.

I'd say it's more like 3%, and it is one-sided.

Quote

97% of all climate scientists agree

Meanwhile, the wealthy, twisted, and powerful climate scientists are all conspiring - along with Dr. Evil - to rob the national wealth of all nations by way of research grants in a coordinated attack on helpless billion-dollar oil comapanies in order to make oil look dangerous and make Al Gore's green industry stock holdings go up in value.

I mean, really, how can you not believe that story? The facts are staring you right in the face.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2012-March-12, 17:56, said:

I'd say it's more like 3%, and it is one-sided.

I mean, really, how can you not believe that story? The facts are staring you right in the face.

How many times does that "76 of 79 scientists that define themselves as dealing with climate" poll, that once you see the question relative to the poll, it is not relevent, at all, have to get dredged up?

How many bridges in Brooklyn would you buy? There really is one and it is for sale...

[Al_U_Card]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-12, 17:50, said:

There seems to be an awful lot of the pot calling the kettle black in this debate, on both sides.

Rather, a small number of concerned individuals, on very limited budgets (as per the fraudster Dr. Peter Gleick of Heartland-gate fame) are slam-dunking the alarmists,(and their billions in funding) based on real data and factual studies. That is why governments (save Australia, which may well soon come to its senses) are bailing on the "catastrophic global warming" meme.

All the warmists can do is attack the messengers, use fraud and subterfuge to refute the reality and trump up evermore computer models to doom and gloom the world.

[kenberg]

I confess to not having the patience to try to follow all of this but Al, could you quickly summarize:

Do you think that the various scientific organizations that have accepted the work as scientifically valid have all been taken over by crooks or loonies?

Consider, but hopefully only briefly, the fight over evolution. Of course I am not prepared to debate a person who has spent his life gathering evidence and formulating arguments to prove evolution is a hoax. But the fact that I have neither the time nor the inclination to take on this load does not mean that I have to treat a 5000 year old universe as a plausible alternative.

Same here with global warming. Of course they will get some things wrong. That's science. Of course egos are involved and sometimes prevent a completely fair and open discussion.That's humanity. But I know people at Penn State. They would not hire Mann without some reason to believe his work, broadly speaking, holds up. I have known people in the National Academy. They are not inclined to jump on bandwagon fads. I have known scientists all of my adult life. They respect honest inquiry.

So yes, on evolution, on global warming, on many things that I lack time/skills/energy to investigate, I trust the scientific process. I guess that you don't? Is that fundamentally where we approach this differently?

[Al_U_Card]

Hey Ken.

I have been a scientist all my working life. Data accumulation and analysis got me started and led to the administration and management of other technical personnel. I have seen it all in a career of 35 years in industry.

Science is about scepticism. It is about data and the validation of hypotheses leading to theories that can be tested and refuted. It is not about two things. Belief and consensus.

Global warming belief is predicated on consensus. That consensus is not about determining what drives climate and how we might affect it. It is about the obtaining of funds and the advancement of an agenda that involves "saving" the world. Two very powerful motivators.

I was concerned by the rhetoric and felt dismayed that we were headed towards an avoidable future calamity, based on what I "heard" in the news and views of most people. Being sceptical in nature, I took a deeper look. For the last 5 years, everything I have seen and understood leads me to the conclusion that a lot of well-meaning people (scientists and others) have been taken in by their tendency to want to save the world. Others are just on the gravy train or even into self-aggrandizement through the propagation of their pronouncements.

I have seen enough to realize that [CO2] is not an issue nor a pollutant. (Pollution etc. is most definitely and worthy of attention.) Climate change is a natural phenomenon that we have affected in a small way by our presence but not in any way that is essentially detrimental to our lives or our way of life.

Agendas are taken up for many and various reasons. I cannot vouch for the positions of any of the supporters of catastrophism. I can only refer to the information at hand and that leads me to the conclusion that I espouse on this particular subject. Time will tell and based on the last couple of decades, it is telling us that [CO2] is not a culprit in anything. Why should we then spend our tax dollars on it when they can be used much more effectively in other areas?

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-March-13, 10:39, said:

For the last 5 years, everything I have seen and understood leads me to the conclusion that a lot of well-meaning people (scientists and others) have been taken in by their tendency to want to save the world. Others are just on the gravy train or even into self-aggrandizement through the propagation of their pronouncements.

As I recall, this was about the same time that you moved on from explaining the "truth" behind 9-11...

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on 2012-March-13, 11:09, said:

As I recall, this was about the same time that you moved on from explaining the "truth" behind 9-11...

I searched this site and found Al still arguing in 2009 for his conviction that the US government was behind the 9-11 collapse of the world trade center buildings...

So that's part of what's included in:

Quote

I have seen it all in a career of 35 years in [an unspecified] industry.

[Al_U_Card]

Sadly, all that the warmists are left with are ad-hominems and consensus mantras...what a shame and what a poor replacement for critical thinking.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-March-13, 15:09, said:

Sadly, all that the warmists are left with are ad-hominems and consensus mantras...what a shame and what a poor replacement for critical thinking.

Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks?

For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

In this case, we're simply pointing out that you have a well established history of advocating crank conspiracy theories...

The fact that you spent several years arguing that the US government blew up the world trade center seems salient on a number of fronts.

I can't firmly establish whether this means that:

1. Al-U-Card is a troll, desperately hoping that being mocked on the internet somehow validates his existence
2. Al-U-Card is a crank, who get's drawn in to inane conspiracy theories

Either way, the fact that you advocate one stupid theory would seem to be a valid critique of your capacity for critical thinking.

As to why I bring this up...

It's the same reason that we gives D's and F's on report cards.

It's useful short hand for "This individual really shouldn't be trusted with anything important"

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2012-March-13, 11:28, said:

I searched this site and found Al still arguing in 2009 for his conviction that the US government was behind the 9-11 collapse of the world trade center buildings...

i coulda sworn that was winston...

Quote

Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks?

usually it's the stupid people using the argument

Quote

For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

within certain narrow guidelines, it is sometimes permissible, but usually when showing some sort of hypocrisy, some sort of inconsistency... even then it doesn't necessarily show a *logical* inconsistency

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-March-14, 03:58, said:

i coulda sworn that was winston...

No doubt about it. Winston stated that this seemed plausible on multiple occasions, over a long course of time.

Here's the difference...

Winston eventually changed his mind (which is a very hard thing to do)

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-March-14, 03:58, said:

usually it's the stupid people using the argument

Not so sure about that...

I see lots and lots of people complained about ad-hominem attacks these days, when what is really happening is that folks are pointing out that someone's track record for prognostication is pretty damn weak.

As a practical example, the fact that the Heartland Institute was a paid shill for the tobacco lobby compromises any claim to objectivity regarding global warming...

FWIW, these days, I spend a lot of my time working with ensemble learning algorithms. (Boosted and bagged decision trees, that sort of thing)

Many of these algorithms are based on "ad-hominem" attacks...

You identity learners that don't generate accurate predictions.
You remove them from the mix...
And the system as a whole runs better

You know, like the good old days when Buckley helped drive the Birchers out of the Republican party and out of political discourse.

[kenberg]

Perhaps I can only speak for myself but I judge the plausibility of many claims based on the source. If we really had to withhold judgment until we had read all the papers and done all the experiments ourselves we would be unable to come to many conclusions.

I think that the Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct not because I have read it (I expect I could if I set aside a year or two for intense study to learn the background material) but because I trust the vetting process that it has gone through. In the other direction some years back I was told of some personal growth and investing program. I shun these on general principles but when I learned that it was run by Eberhard of Eberhard Sensitivity Training I certainly needed to hear no more. I doubt astrology has merit although I have been told that if I would just read all the research I would see that it does. I would not invest money with Bernie Madoff no matter what he, or anyone, said.

We make such judgments all the time, or at least I do. I suspect others do too, and for that matter I imagine Al does.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on 2012-March-14, 06:24, said:

We make such judgments all the time, or at least I do. I suspect others do too, and for that matter I imagine Al does.

You might also take a look at all of the posts in this thread. If you look at the contents, the data, the factual information and the nature and tenor of the presentations, the judgement becomes an easy decision, based on the science, as it should be.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-March-14, 08:27, said:

You might also take a look at all of the posts in this thread. If you look at the contents, the data, the factual information and the nature and tenor of the presentations, the judgement becomes an easy decision, based on the science, as it should be.

What you are conveniently neglecting is that people spent years refuting the crap you spew.

You post one badly flawed argument...
A couple days later, someone would post a list of the mistakes.

This went on for a really long time.

Your arguments never got any better.
Folks just got sick and tired of responding to you.

Hell, a significant portion of the crap that you post clashes with earlier *****.

You've even admitted that you aren't focusing on a scientific hypothesis.
Rather, your raison d'etre is trying to prove the existence of conspiracy
(Probably the same one the blew up the twin towers)