Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Crushing of dissent watch
They told me that if I voted for John McCain the Environmental Protection Agency would politicize science and suppress information crucial to understanding the threat of global warming, and they were right!
15 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Jun 24, 09:26:00 PM:
Not in the least surprised. Junk politics leads to junk science. The next thing they will be telling us is that enforcing the law is un-American.
By , at
Wed Jun 24, 10:05:00 PM:
I just finished Michael Crighton's fantastic book "The State of Fear." There is not a better book that lays out the arguments against global warming better then this piece. It is both a gripping story as well as a clever way to challenge the hype of Global Warming with very convincing counter-arguments. Moreover, as a man of science, Crighton cites source after source of published data to support his points.
After reading this book, it still does not lessen our need for conservation (which I am a very big proponent) but it does put some serious hurdles in the way of the new conventional wisdom of our planet burning up because of Co2.
It is a great read, I highly recommend it!
By 
JPMcT, at
Thu Jun 25, 07:06:00 AM:
The simple and sad fact about "Global WArming" is that it is not about science or environmental custodianship....it is about political power and wealth centralization.
If the government effectively "bribes" enough university bound scientists with grant money, and selects who gets the money and who gets to publish the data and where....then it is fairly easy to get a "scientific consensus".
The whole house of cards would have collapsed already if the average citizen actually KNEW anthing about the scientific method and how to critically analyze data.
Alas, we get most of our science from the media. What little we get from our schools is dipped in a smelly vat of propaganda.
God may be dead...but so is Science!
By , at
Thu Jun 25, 09:05:00 AM:
I don't believe science is dead. That's hyperbole. There is hysteria, founded on an irrational reliance on climate models, superficial examination of temperature data, small sample size of ice data and Luddite fears of progress. Link yesterday mentioned the Waxman-Markey round #2 bill (new and improved version) in the economic thread, and the Aussie version of the same bill is now in trouble. For good reason:
"Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…
The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.
To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly."
Waxman-Markey is soon to become just another wealth transfer mechanism. The Democrat party exists to promote government jobs and public employee unions, destructive taxation and welfare payments. That's it. All of their bills fit into one of those boxes, and W-M is a trifecta, it hits all three bells.
By , at
Thu Jun 25, 09:10:00 AM:
Is this too simplistic? I thought that science depended on the scientific method, which required an experiment with a control. There's obvious difficulties with running experiments on Planet Earth, but scientists have overcome bigger challenges before. I tell my kids how for the last 500 years physicists have used the solar system and the stars as their own little lab to test their theories, to great result. Einstein's theories on relativity might have remained academic curiosities were it not for their validation by their explaining the bending of light by gravity as measured in a solar eclipse. Einstein had his Eddington -- who does Al Gore have?
Until someone's theories on AGW can also explain why there's no longer a mile of ice sitting on my yard, I don't buy AGW. Many of the theories on AGW advanced a decade ago have already been belied by unfolding evidence. We may or may not have global warming going on. If we do, CO2 may or may not be the cause. If CO2 is the cause of global warming, we need to go balls out on nuclear or resign ourselves to living in tree forts.
Meanwhile, by close of business tomorrow, the House looks to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This may be the single most idiotic piece of legislation since the dawn of man. I've ranted here before on this -- but not enough to even begin to get around its idiocy. The Senate may still weigh in, or even stop it. Many of its provisions will take a decade or more to take effect, but that's part of Obama's MO -- he's playing a long game. This is bad.
Link, over
By Brian, at
Thu Jun 25, 11:42:00 AM:
As someone who thinks AGW is blindingly obvious and true, I'd also say these allegations are serious. It's important to remember though that the only people less trustworthy than WattsUp folks are the "We call it life" folks at CEI. Let's see how this shakes out in terms of credibility.
By , at
Thu Jun 25, 12:48:00 PM:
It is not impossible to imagine how someone could find a beautifully or cleverly presented falsehood to be true. Trofim Lysenko managed to bamboozle the Russian public, its scientists and politicians so thoroughly that it took them 30 years to realize what a scientifically devastating dead end they had traveled into.
I think the lesson from that experience, and the experience of other forays of science into politics, like eugenics, is that science dies without critical challenges to orthodoxy. And, right now, global warming is orthodoxy.
For that reason alone the work of Anthony Watts and many others is to be valued--- and not derided because we can't accept the idea that because so many people have bought into an idea it can't be false.
This is not a question of whether the earth is round or flat. Then too that it was also scientists and politicians who also thought it was flat and considered notions to the contrary to be ridiculous. It is a question of whether there has been a rush to judgement on an inadequate or inadequately vetted data set. It's one thing for science to say it has found a plausible explanation and another to say it is wrong or foolish to challenge it. To the contrary.
M.E.
By , at
Thu Jun 25, 02:06:00 PM:
I should've known that if comes from CEI, it's wrong:
"“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” said EPA spokesperson Adora Andy.
“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”
But what was it that Carlin wanted to attach to the endangerment ruling? Sam Kazman, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s general counsel, told me Carlin’s work cites research showing global warming has been caused by ocean and solar cycles, not by human-caused emissions. Kazman refused to share the document."
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-24-scant-evidence-of-suppression/
My apologies for my earlier comment that implied it was even possible that CEI was telling the truth.
By JPMcT, at
Thu Jun 25, 06:10:00 PM:
@ Anon 09:05 and Brian
Anon, I dont think my statement is hyperbole if you consider that the scientific community is about to allow the government to engage a policy that will be harmful to the average citizen...very likely MUCH more harmful in a practical sense than global warming.
Brian, we've dueled over this issue before. Consider this angle. REGARDLESS of whether one is a "warmist" or a "denier", ask this question: Does the policy championed by this legislation actually cause a measurable impact on global warming under the existing models.
We can spar about whether the models are valid, whether the data is flawed, whether the investigators are biased, blah, blah, blah.
The cold, hard fact is this: This policy will do NOTHING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT to influence mean global temperatures over the span of the program.
All seed...no juice.
I say again. Science has failed us. Science is dead.
By , at
Thu Jun 25, 09:20:00 PM:
It's even worse than that. This bill locks in some courses of actions and forecloses others, without any reasoned debate about it. It creates some financial winners, but at a much greater cost to all of us.
There's even a section that -- for purposes of valuing offsets -- defines the "environmental cost" of a metric ton of various pollutants. It uses a metric ton of CO2 as the measuring stick! This is being written into stone today.
When this and other Obama initiatives put us into severe stagflation, we'll forget all about the environment. Legitimate green concerns will be ignored.
Link, over
By , at
Fri Jun 26, 09:45:00 AM:
This is nothing more than a tax and redistribution scheme. I've not seen anyone arguing that there will be any impact from this bill other than a smaller economy.
I grew up in an industrial town, surrounded by solid middle class people. What few jobs are left there will soon be gone, forever. But hey! McCain told us we have n"nothing to fear" from Obama. Nothing except poverty and unemployment, endless war and public unions. I'm becoming bitter, I admit- I think I'll go work-out and get some endorphins moving around the brain.
By , at
Fri Jun 26, 10:56:00 AM:
Sorry if this is one too many post, but wsj has an interesting article on how public opinion in other parts of the world is moving. It's moving in a good direction.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
M.E.
By , at
Fri Jun 26, 01:56:00 PM:
Looks like the House approved the Energy Bill by 217-205 just now, without a semblance of discussion. There was a bait and switch as they went back to the original HR number substituting the newer text with a mysterious set of amendments (Ex A) that I still can't find. I doubt that anyone other than Committee members had a chance to skim the final text, let alone read it and understand it.
Didn't Soviet Russia have a sham Parliament -- with everything actually decided by the Party beforehand?
I don't know what to expect from the Senate. Resistance? More pork added?
Link, over
By , at
Fri Jun 26, 02:22:00 PM:
Correction. mea culpa, I based what I said on a Yahoo news report.
Real vote has happened yet/=
Here's a real source:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html?day=20090626&today=20090626
My dad job is in legal inforamtion services, so I'm intrigued with what you can find on your own and directly.
Link, over
By , at
Fri Jun 26, 04:20:00 PM:
Link, reporting from the halls of Congress
4:20 pm
The Republicans have been killing in debate -- but Nancy probably has the votes, and 98% of Americans are oblivious, MSM included.
I hit on something -- Exhibit A turns out to be 300 pages of changes from last night that most in Congress haven't seen. Gohmert hit on this, Burton is piling on -- the Democrats won't answer the direct question: Is there even a single copy available? or even physically somewhere in the building? Markey is especially full of shit and dissembling.
You can't make this up.
Devin Nunes made a good impression. He's a young Republican Hispanic Congressman from California. He's got a bright future. Rush might even let him clean his pool.
Link, over
