EPA Blatantly Lying To Children

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/scientists/clues.html

Ocean temperatures are below normal. Mountains have record snow. The 1880s-1910s had much worse forest fires. The US was hotter in the 1930s. There is no evidence that rain and snow patterns are outside of normal variability. There is no evidence that plant life cycles are outside the normal range of variability. Sea level has been rising for 18,000 years, and is currently rising very slowly around the US, if at all. Glaciers have been melting for 18,000 years. The worst hurricanes and tornadoes occurred more than 70 years ago. Severe tornadoes are on the decline. It has been almost 1,000 days since any hurricane hit the US.  ………………………….

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to EPA Blatantly Lying To Children

  1. Tony Duncan says:

    Steve,
    and almost 24 hours since any serious tornado.
    Amazing how you have all these facts that disprove every element of global warming, yet you are unwilling to publish it and dust off a place for that nobel.

    • Paul H says:

      Tony

      So you condone the EPA lying to our kids then?

      Paul

      • Sean McHugh says:

        Yes, he does.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        Not at all. If it is not true they should not say it.
        But there are plenty of things the government lies about. Unemployment is lied about by every administration.
        as for schools and out children there is almost nothing about science education that does not entail lying to some degree, because often the truth as too complex for children to understand.
        there is so much lying in history in schools. I got in hot water in my honors history class because I gave s short synopsis of american military interventions in Latin America in the 20th century. and the teacher was horrified. Not about the amazing scope of US military actions, but because I was telling the other kids things that were forbidden to be known
        Certainly the politicization of ACC has led to “lies” I am just fascinated to people on this site are blind to the barrage of what you would consider lies on this site if the roles were reversed.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        that is part of my point. But you continue to lie about Hansen. Now that you know he didn’t say it, and you have not retracted all your dozens of attacks on what he didn’t say, you are lying

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        So glad you asked. I want you to say that you Took the Samon article at face value, and feel justified in your ridicule of such a preposterous position. You did not bother checking the book, because you had no reason to believe the article was inaccurate. But now that you know the article was wrong, you retract any comment you have made on your blog in reference to hansen saying Manhattan would be underwater by 2008. You still consider all his other analysis to be wrong and fraudulent and think he should be behind bars, but on this particular you were tarring him for something that he did not say and are sorry about that.
        that should cover it.

    • suyts says:

      Tony, he is publishing it. Right here. All of his postings get reviewed by his peers and antagonists alike. Given that, you’d have to come to the conclusion this method is more valid than any other sort of publishing mechanism there is currently being used.

      Why don’t you do us the favor and just forward the notion to the Nobel committee that he be nominated?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS

        if it comes to that we are in serious trouble It worked for the soviets in the short term with the military, but control of science by politically motivated always ends up being a destructive process. All the people you mention are politically motivated and they are in NO WAY reviewed by people who best understand the science.
        Might as well have new agers teach us quantum physics because they “intuitively” understand it. haven’t you read Sokol’s scam?
        This blog is the right wing equivalent of post modern feminists critiquing physics. Some of them are very smart and there is much that can be learned from the discussions, but I won’t buy an iPhone built by one of them.

      • suyts says:

        lol, Tony, you said, “but control of science by politically motivated always ends up being a destructive process.”

        I agree. That is the very reason we’re having this conversation now.

    • West Houston says:

      Tony,
      There were worse outbreaks of tornadoes in the 70′s. I was an adult at the time, read about it in Popular Science magazine and saw it on TV. So, don’t tell me I’m wrong.
      Temperatures were cooler in the 70′s and we had several accumulating snowfalls in Houston in 1973. Now that is beginning to happen again, as are the tornados. Cooling, not warming, is associated with this instability.
      If you want “proof” of the idiocy of AGW, then read Steve McIntyre, Christopher Monckton and the supporting (NONfictional) bibliography of “State of Fear” by Michael Crichton -for starters.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        West,

        State of Fear is a joke. I actually liked Nivens global warming book, Fallen Angels better, but that was even more ludicrous a portrayal of global warming fanatics.
        I have read mcintyre, Moncton and quite a few others. they are ideologues, and therefore useful for ideas, but not conclusions.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I have never said anything about what I think of hansen’s positions. I just point out that you are inaccurate in your attacks on him. You could be attacking Hitler for screwing up the train service in Germany, and I would point out the fallacy, but that does not mean I love hitler.

      • suyts says:

        Hmm, Tony I’d almost agree there too, except Mac appears apolitical to me. (and disagree on the characterization of State of Fear) The only axe Steve Mac grinds is the miss-application of maths in the cli-sci world and the subsequent malfeasance on the part of climate scientists when they are shown to be wrong. Actually Tony, you’d probably enjoy his blog immensely. There are ideological commentators there, but Steve Mac usually keeps a pretty tight reign on them.

        ClimateAudit was the reason for my faith in humanity being restored. I don’t comment much there, but I make it a point to pop by and read. And learn. Reading his archives is reading skeptical climate science history.

        On an aside, the reason there is a ClimateAudit blog is because the gang at RC viciously, maliciously , and repeatedly attacked Steve Mac, but would not allow him to comment on their blog to defend himself……….. the rest is history. I don’t know if Steve McIntyre had the first skeptic blog out there, but it was the first one I ever came across. And the impact it had……..skeptics haven’t looked back since!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS

        of course you consider McIntyres blog great because it fits your ideological perspective. How many papers has he published and what has been the scientific reaction to them? The same with O’Donnelly. the same with Spencer. the same with Lindzen, etc. If you only look at one side it is all so clear

      • suyts says:

        Tony, you know what assumptions do to the both of us! My presence in the cli-sci blogosphere was born from my desire to understand what the warmists were so excited about. Back then, I couldn’t find any skeptic sites and there were very few alarmists sites. I should note, this is a very common history for many skeptics. I spent over a year trying to get comments and pointed questions in those places. To no avail. RC is where I found out about CA. Mac has published and co-authored several. As to the reaction of the science community in general, it has been very favorable. Not so much for the dendro-chronologists, obviously. But I would state that Mac’s splash did prompt Gavin to state that dendro isn’t that interesting.

        Your question to the reception of his papers adds an interesting dynamic to the whole debate. There have been a few papers that simply wasn’t going to be permitted in cli-sci journals, so, they simply submitted into other scholarly journals and get published. (Statistical and economics)

        Can a paper be correct in a statistical journal and be incorrect in a cli-sci journal? I do appreciate you proving my last posit @ CA. http://climateaudit.org/2011/04/23/comments-on-mother-jones/#comment-263306

        I would invite you to read Steve Mac’s offering there. Tony, I acknowledge that many posts here are ideological in nature. And that they generally agree with my ideology. They are not at CA. (At least Steve Mac’s writings)

        Tying all of this together…… It is telling that you made no distinction between Drs. Spencer and Lindzen and that you lump Mac in with them. I would submit that while you extoll the virtues of a diverse prospective, you’re not quite there yourself. Spencer, Lindzen and Mac have markedly different perspectives, styles, tone and tenor. The have different advocacy. Spencer’s posit are often discussed on the alarmists side but that’s about as far as it goes. As far as I know, no one has rationally and reasonably refuted Lindzen, though I’ve seen some very poor attempts, usually marked by mischaraterizations of his posits. Mac, OTOH, has elicited responses that would boggle your mind! Indeed, it was their reaction to his honest inquiry that cemented my view of climate science. If anyone, including you Tony, had witnessed all of the smears, attacks, obfuscations, lies, distortions, malfeasance, a malicious intent thrust toward Mac, it would be all you need to know about climate science and the veracity thereof. And all of it caused by a retired statistician asking questions because the maths weren’t proper and then proceeded to show them the maths weren’t proper. That’s the great thing about math. It isn’t subjective. Nor is it ideological.

      • suyts says:

        Here is an early example of the general scientific community’s reception of the work. Of course, this simply showed the cli-sci community that some weeding out was necessary.

        Here is an early example of the scientific reception of M&M’s work. http://climateaudit.org/2005/01/27/new-research-published-on-mbh98/#comments

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,
        thank you for those two posts. I cannot comment now, and I know there have been some other instances where you have posted intelligent and provocative responses and I have not responded. Your posts generally take much more thought ;-)
        I will try to get to this tomorrow night.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        have a little time to respond

        I do not question that politics and ideology distorts all sides of the ACC debate. I personally have had no problem getting any comment on any blog posted, and on non denier sites have almost always gotten reasonable explanations. Most recently I posted Steve’s critique of Skeptical Science post comparing Lindzen and Hansen. There is certainly notes of derision but every comment has very specific clear explanations of Steve’s mistakes.
        Compare that to the responses that I or anyone that dares to question Steve receives on this blog.
        I have seen Speptical science, RC and other sites misrepresented often here, and other anti global warming sites often wildly with quotes and info taken out of context. many times the same with links to published papers. the fact that some of this occurs on sites the support ACC does not make that OK. I have also seen critiques of MacIntyre and others when they have published papers critiqued in ways that both contend major mistakes and also agree with parts. Again I do not see that on this or other anti Global warming sites.

        As for where a paper is published. Yes a paper can be accepted to a statistical journal if it has elements that are incorrect regarding climate. Just as a climate paper can be accepted to a climate journal and have mistakes that might not be considered improtnat enough to reject. The important factor is what is the methodology, how accurate is the information contained in it and, are the conclusions valid.

        As for Macintyre’s, tone I absolutely agree. I have no problem with how he states his views on any subject.Indignation is certainly appropriate if one is being improperly maligned.
        I have never liumped Lindenc, Spencer, macIntyre in the same category as all having the same views. I have been very clear and occasionally make the specific point that they DON’T have the same views. The fact that they don’t have the same views and yet no one ever attacks any of their positions as being inconsistent with each other is a major reason for people dismissing ALL content from denier sites.
        I have read reasonable criticisms of Lindzen’s most recent papers. Not sure why you haver not found them. there is one on realclimate whose tone is quite civil, and only discusses content.
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/.
        Not only is the discussion just about the science when someone DOES make something that is ad hominen the moderator interrupts to correct them. Comment #14 calling Lindzen and Choi “whack jog idiocy”
        [Response: Note this was said about LC09, not by them. I doubt that Lindzen would have gone that far. - gavin].

        I think you are exaggerating the attack on macintyre, though in general I agree with you. But just like Curry, Pilke and others yu ignore the entire environment of politicization and the genesis of the history. While I do not condone attack son anyone the way you describe and that I have also seen, it is by no means one sided and as is amply reinforced by this blog in particular, MUCH worse on anti ACC sites. the fact that neither Steve nor you are able to acknowledge that Hansen never said the quote form Salon, is as close as one can come to proof that ther is no interest in having an honest discussion about this issue. hanse has been attacked more than any one else, except for maybe Mann. Again much much worse form this end of the spectrum than the other. that you cannot see that is something that I find hard to reconcile with a person interested in the truth. As I have said repeatedly, the fact of the viscous attacks on this site and the misrepresentations and untruths, that does not mean this site is not valuable or that it does not provide information and perspectives that help illuminate reality.
        While math is non ideological it is easily used for ideological purposes. Just as one cannot dismiss Steve’s posts because of his tone, one cannot just accept macIntyres or Realclimates or Skleptical Scinece because of their tone. What matters is how accurate the information is and what other perspectives on the conclusions are.
        I do not accept any conclusions from this site because I have no reason to trust Steve’s use of science. i don’t just dismiss them, but the idea that Steve’s conclusions are true because he or you says so is ludicrous. I do however consider information and conclusions that are presented here, and have certainly altered my understanding of a number of issues because of reading this site.
        There have been critiques of macIntyre that are based on the science. When you and Steve are willing to present those arguments I will be much more open to accepting your conclusions with less skepticism.

      • Paul in Sweden says:

        Let’s just be succinct:

        “The important factor is what is the methodology, how accurate is the information contained in it and, are the conclusions valid support CAGW.”

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Paul,

        of course, you have to believe that, and will not let methodology, accuracy, or content get in the way of your belief.

      • suyts says:

        Tony,
        like you, my time is limited for my reply.
        One of the things that often keep me perplexed is the endurance of the ACC concept. It seems to me, you (and many others) believe the arguments should be equal and opposite in content and nature. This simply isn’t true. I don’t believe it is rational to expect it to be. Another misconception is to believe this started as a scientific question. In my view, it never was. It has always been an ideological question.

        CO2…… a by-product of industrialization, capitalism, technological advancement and a proxy for economic activity wasn’t targeted because of the correlation in temps and atmospheric levels, they only correlated for a very brief time in recent history. Here’s the latest decadal “correlation”. I have in the past showed prior correlations, …… it doesn’t.

        The scientific approach, is probably best stated by Einstein, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Tony, I don’t, nor does anyone else have to be more correct than the alarmist camp, it simply is that one has to show where one tenet of ACC is wrong. This is the folly of believing there can be different shades of “correct” or “right”. Regardless of where a paper is submitted for publishing, the thought will have only 1 of 2 possible traits. It is either correct or it is incorrect.

        Tony, I have no qualms with someone characterizing my comments as partisan ideological. I am. I believe my ideology is correct. When you state, “When you and Steve are willing to present those arguments I will be much more open to accepting your conclusions with less skepticism.” I would consider such an action as wholly and totally irresponsible if it is presented without proper rebuttal readily available. It could very easily be construed as lending validity to an invalid premise and cause some people confusion as to what are the issues. ……. So much more to state, but I’ll close with your characterization of RC and the lot. When O’Donnell10 came out, the gang over there misunderstood a point in the paper (a graph) I tried to point out(in a reasonable tone) that they were viewing it wrong. A snide response would be charitable. Fine, I went on my way. Turns out, O’Donnell et al had an opportunity in the journal to respond to its critics……… the only thing I can say is Gavin should have listened to me, he wouldn’t have embarrassed himself as badly as he did….. I’d offer links, but there’s several…..

        But, I’ll give you a link to their desire for a scientific discourse. The thing is Tony, we tried civil and reasoned discussion. They would have none of it. Any amount of incivility here or anywhere else is simply reaping what was sown. They thought they had the market on blogs. They thought they could speak to anyone in any manner they wished. They thought they could silence critics. Well, it didn’t work. There would be no ClimateAudit if they’d simply allowed a reasonable discussion on the blogs that attacked Steve Mac. They didn’t. I dare say, that if they had, there would be no where near the amount of skeptic sites now.

        ……. Link to show the way real scientists have a rational and reasoned scientific discussion…….

      • suyts says:

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/boreholed/#comments

        Great group of guys. A co-author of a paper trying to explain the paper is threatened with censor while detractors are given free reign…… I’d take the free-wheeling of this site over “toe-the-line-or-else” of that site any day.

      • Paul in Sweden says:

        “of course, you have to believe that, and will not let methodology, accuracy, or content get in the way of your belief.”

        Tony, When warmist data is found not to be accurate that supports preconceived CAGW “beliefs”, the methodology is to truncate and splice in data from other sources or extrapolate from models and call it data/evidence..

        When no data is available, append the obligatory “…and we believe this is due to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” to whatever scare story is being pandered to the dwindling number of believers that lap up anything “Climate Science” comes up with.

        CHECK – Got It!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        SUYTS,

        I don;t understand what you mean by “endurance of the ACC concept. It seems to me, you (and many others) believe the arguments should be equal and opposite in content and nature. This simply isn’t true. I don’t believe it is rational to expect it to be” I certainly don’t believe that a counter theory to ACC needs to be complete and have absolutely no inconsistencies, but I don’t know if that is what you are talking about.

        I disagree that this started as an ideological question. I do not doubt that ideology played a part. Ideology always directs the questions science attempts to answer. that is my problem with areas of science that I currently feel are quite deficient, specifically regarding human evolution and human nature. And while I do think that people Like Dawkins, Dennet, Pinker and others are almost completely wrong in some their most important conclusions. I consider them all to be brilliant scientists, and the vast majority of their work to be exemplary. it would be easy for me to ascribe sinister motivations to them. I could get self righteous and easily find evidence of their duplicity and underhandedness. the fact that their conclusions and those of much of the evolutionary and neurobiology community help support policies that in my view lead to misery and poverty and death for millions upon millions does not make them evil or engaged in fraud. In fact, I am pretty sure I would like them very much.
        In my mind the attempt to equate climate scientists (as I have said many times, some of whom I know personally) with a political mafia bent on deeply nefarious purposes is nothing more than paranoid propaganda.
        Your contention that there is no recent correlation between CO2 and temps assumes some sort of linear relationship. no one has ever contended that. there are explanations for why current global temps are consistent with ACC that are rational and testable. One can make alternate theories that fir the facts, but then there needs to be an actual theory that is subject to examination.

        Your quote of Einstein is totally irrelevant in this case. he was likely discussing relativity, which is a very straightforward non complex theory. I have repeatedly on this site directed people to Duhem Quine, and in complex theories like ACC disproving one element does not bring the whole house of cards down. There can be many individual mistakes, without falsifying the general thesis. It is much more similar to evolution than to physics because one has to consider emergent properties and system dynamics.
        In fact MOST of the current specifics of ACC could be wrong, and the theory still be borne out in ways that are not expected. By the same token almost ALL of ACC could be correct and the theory could turn out to be insignificant. Every climate scientist I have talked to acknowledges this. But form many incidents that i have seen ANY statement by a climate scientist that can be taken as not supporting ACC get seized upon bty the denier blogosphere and twisted to mean something that it is not. The most obvious example is Jones, No statistically significant warming in last 15 years, and I have seen many other incidents. This has resulted in a reluctance of scientists to talk in real scientific terms,and for some to make pronouncements in nonscientific terms so that they cannot be twisted, and THOSE are used against them.

        I understand your ideological predisposition. the problem is when you let the ideology determine which facts for you rather than just filtering them , and using ideology to project something more than is actually called for by the evidence.
        My skepticism is based on getting as many sources of information as possible and relying on sources that prove themselves to be reliable from experience. I have seen many instances of denier sites being extremely unreliable through distortion and inappropriate connections. I have seen numerous alarmism through the media and partisan sources. When I read articles posted by Steve from Hansen, they make much more sense and are much more reasonable and scientific than Steve’s depictions of them. to date in all the discussion of Hansen’s 1988 paper, Steve has yet to acknowledge that Hansen says he was wrong about 4.2°C increase from doubling of CO2. there are numerous times when I have looked at links Steve has put up where he totally ignores a crucial element of the article in order to present a conclusion. If ideology is causing you to ignore information that is inconvenient that is just propaganda whichever side does it.
        I in no way believe that incivility here is reaping what was sown. I certainly do no think that it is a one sided street, but I have followed this issue since the 70′s as I have followed numerous other scientific issues. they often get heated, but this is certainly not a case where a few reasonable people just tried to point out some mistakes in a friendly manner and they were viscously attacked repeatedly until they realized that they had to use the same tactics to get protect themselves.

        All that said. As we clearly have strong disagreements. I do think it might very well be possible to decrease the yawning gulf between us, since I do respect your intelligence and breadth of knowledge.
        (this is totally unedited stream of consciousness. so I apologize for my computers laughable attempts at correcting my spelling)

      • suyts says:

        Sigh…… I’ll reply at the bottom of this thread…

    • West Houston says:

      Oh, and,of course, Watts Up With That by Anthony Watts.

    • Sean McHugh says:

      Tony,

      Please tell us which “elements of global warming” you would defend. Which do you consider to be established?

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Sean

        that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does cause a decrease in certain spectra of radiation leaving the planet, both directly, and from a forcing of increased H20 and other GHG’s. That there is reliable evidence that the mean temp increase of the last 30 years is consistent with that, and that there are numerous natural factors both in the carbon cycle and in other phenomenon that have numerous sometimes interconnected effects on the distribution of heat energy.

  2. Al Gored says:

    The EPA is been lying since Day One. Seems fitting that it was established by Nixon.

    One of their first Big Lies got the grizzly bear listed as ‘threatened’ in the Lower 48. It was based on a lot of bears dying in Yellowstone… because they just closed the dumps they had been using for 50 years and created an instant famine, with entirely predictable results.

    Oops, they forgot to explain that last part. Oh well. Clerical error probably.

  3. Al Gored says:

    They actually got something sort of right on that chart. By putting ‘Higher temp’ label on that urban area they almost admitted to the UHI effect.

    They really ought to fix that lest they confuse the children.

  4. Andy Weiss says:

    Indoctrinating and frightening children has been an important part of their MO.

    This kind of crap does get children depressed. They should be arrested and tried for child abuse.

  5. gofer says:

    I can’t imagine what this does to the minds of children. What happens when a lot of these starry-eyed teens and young people grow up and realize they have been used…that is if they recognize such. Young kids going home from school, in tears, because the teacher said their house would be under water. Plain EVIL!

  6. omnologos says:

    Are you sure that’s not EPA’s Mission Statement diagram??

  7. Deadman says:

    See my 14 y.o. son’s review of his high school’s “Learning the Impact of Climate Change” class, and our site for related documents.

  8. gbrecke says:

    Just the other day; I was talking to a grade school class mate about our wonderful childhood days of the 50s in a small town with little to fear. At a very young age, we kids roamed far and wide in complete safety. We enjoyed liberties few children have today.

    She replied.. “I remember it differently, as a Kid, I lived in fear of the Russians, and the Bomb.

    And now it’s the EPA who rob our children. When you see them at the Ocean’s side playing with a stick… know that it’s likely a measure.

  9. omnologos says:

    Tony – you’re making a false equivalence. There is no “anti-AGW consensus” and there are no plans by anti-AGWers to saddle the world with heavy taxes and/or a wanton destruction of personal liberties. If McI says something silly, it’s of vastly lower interest than if Jones or Mann (or Romm) do just the same.

    The burden of being squeaky clean, open-minded, inclusive, transparent has to lie squarely on those that want to convince us we need to suffer decisions now, or consequences later. I can’t speak for Steven or Suyts, but I am not in this because I want to clean up science from stupidity and bone-headedness. Researchers in fields that have no practical consequence at social or political level can sleep soundly, I have no interest to question their pet theories.

    • suyts says:

      Exactly. If someone wants to posit the moon really is made of cheese, so what? As long as we’re not changing policy because of it, its fine. So, in this particular case, you can speak for me.

      As to civility, as I pointed out earlier, we tried. It didn’t work because no one in the alarmist camp was interested in a dialogue. Any complaints as to the incivility as some of the skeptic blogs are to be disregarded. The alarmists provoked a style of debate they were ill-equipped to engage in.

      I almost feel sorry for the ones that seem like they’re attempting at a serious dialogue, but then I remember how much they spoke out when all skeptics were marginalized to the point of ridicule. Karma is a cruel bitch some times.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Omnologos

      I disagree. There is a general consensus among all climate scientists that the greenhouse effect is real. There has been over 30 years of research and peer reviewed studies in a diverse range of disciplines that support the conclusion that there is a strong possibility of a significant to large increase in global temperatures. within that consensus there are a range of opinions about the range and consequences of this effect. Some scientists, such as Hansen maintain that the range is at an extremely high, though historically possible level, and the consequences could be unprecedented in historical times. Others, and there are many, who publish regularly, take more moderate positions and a significant few, such as Michaels, maintain the range is low and consequences few..
      In order to contradict this widespread understanding, there needs to be a theory that is more comprehensive and more accurate than ACC. Science does not ever function without theories being replaced by other theories, at least as far as am aware of. the fact that I seen no criticism of any comment as long as it is anti-ACC is evidence to me that there is no real interest in the truth, just in bringing down the enemy. If there was a real interest in the truth there would be discussion of the various possible alternative explanations and where different hypothesis are consistent. where they aren’t and what information would support or counter each of them.
      I have used the analogy of hitler before. That if someone said Hitler was trying to take over the world after the Austrian Anschluss and pointed out Hitlers statements and the military buildup and numerous other factors that supported that. the fact that in 1938 borders were the same, historically many wars have been fought and there had been many border disputes, and hitler was just a politician pandering to his base. It would be the height of arrogance and folly to take strong steps to stop him. Resources need to be used on real problems and the Hitler mongers are hysterical and just trying to fill the coffers of the military.
      This blog is an ideal opportunity to actually develop a counter theory that is consistent and fits the facts and can compete with the reigning paradigm. One can disagree with the reigning paradigm, and it can in fact be wrong, but if that is the case, there is plenty of info in every discipline to develop such a theory and it should be very easy to do so, and present it in scientifically approved formats. If it is correct and the current paradigm has so many obvious flaws, it will take very little time for all intelligent honest scientists to force acceptance of it regardless of corruption or inertia.
      All who contend in a policy dependent area of science have to be squeaky clean and open. In this case it has become so politicized, that each side considers the other as an enemy and therefore defeat is more important than clarity. I find the accusations from denier sites to be much more preposterous than the accusations of of the alarmists, at least in terms of fantasy content and volume.

      SUYTS,

      I have never seen any general interest in civility from the denier side, though from some individuals. I looked at the WUWT thread about RC, and it does not jibe with my reading of the site. I do not believe them incapable of such duplicity, but I do not accept as proof information from looking only at one side of an argument. Again, if there are real scientific arguments then they should be presented in peer reviewed papers, and if they are valid and not accepted then there needs to be the development of rigorous sources that can reform the peer review system. I do not doubt that there are isolated instances where papers are unfairly rejected, but I do not believe there is a wholesale fraudulent culture that rejects valid papers purely for ideological reasons.

      • Al Gored says:

        Tony, Bringing up Hitler doesn’t exactly help your cause. Unless you are openly championing the Big Lie techniques used by him and the AGW crisis research-industrial-financial complex.

      • Did you understand anything I wrote in the RRTM articles?

      • suyts says:

        If you’ve never seen, it is because you’ve never looked.

        Tony, that in itself was the impetus of my blog presence. I went to RC and other blogs to ask questions, point out inconsistencies and try to understand their POV. Tony, you and I can disagree, but can remain moderately civil. As you, I often use sarcasm to make a point. I can attest to the disgusting treatment of someone that was purely skeptical but open to ideas. They are vile people of very poor character. There is no reason to lend validity to such people. Tony, they can know facts, but they do not know Truth. Again, I can only point you to Steve McIntyre, whom I consider the patriarch of skeptical bloggers, read the archives. Understand the relentless attacks on him for publishing the paper that broke the stick. Understand he wasn’t allowed to defend his work on their blogs. That is the entire reason as to why ClimateAudit came into existence. Open minded scientists, like 12 year olds refusing to allow a person to defend, not only his work but his character, on the blog they’re running on our dime. Compare Jeff Id’s treatment to when Dr. Stroeve popped by this very blog. Did Steve threaten to “borehole” her? What of our latest visitor Dr. Hayhoe? Wasn’t she allowed full comment?

        I ask you, what is more civil? Skillfully worded derisive comments without people being able to defend themselves or mean insults that could hurt someone’s ultra sensitive feelings? Do sometimes people go overboard? Perhaps, but, not as overboard as attempting to raise energy prices on people reeling from the current economy. (Talk about kicking people when their down!) OUR OWN PEOPLE!!!

        As to some of your other posits. I disagree, with both, 1) your perception of the consensus and 2) your posit that someone needs to make an equal or more compelling argument. We don’t know what we don’t know. I have to throw a strike before I can call a ball? Tony, I’ll see your 30 years and raise it to 10 years of peer-reviewed papers refuting much of 30 years of ideologues agreeing with themselves. I believe we’re close to 1000 papers now.(Albeit some may be of the same quality of the alarmist papers.) Of course, many had to go outside the alarmist journals to be published. You should read the e-mails to see the conspiracy to keep skeptical papers out of the journals. A man lost his job because he allowed one through. One had to kick a reviewer out just to allow the process continue. (Eric Steig)
        Why he was selected to review a paper refuting his own work is another discussion…….

        Tony, I’d provide links to every posit I’ve made here, but, this information has been set before the public and is available. You’re sharp enough to find it. All you have to do is want to.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Al
        your comment is precisely one of the reason why i do not trust comments on this site. The use of Hitler has nothing to do with the point of the analogy. If I had used napoleon, would you have accused me of the same thing? or Ghengis Khan, or American Settlers in Massachusetts? What could a few hundred English with guns do against the tens of thousands of courageous warriors in The northeast.
        Taking my comment and completely twisting it, when I will read it and explain to you how you totally misconstrued it does not inspire confidence in your analysis of ACC. Unless of course you are saying that Hitler was NOT a danger and those who warned of him were alarmists. THEN you have a point and I stand corrected.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Show me the criticisms of those articles from other experts and I will be happy to take them seriously.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        In this context. THAT was very funny!

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        you misunderstood me because of the lag time in posts. the Hansen reference was very funny. I laughed.

        as for all your proofs that I just refuse to accept.
        I could send you MASSIVE amounts of evidence showing how stupid and uncivilized black people are. Hi have personal experience with uncounted stupid vulgar and dirty black people. I have read all of the Bell course and have numerous detailed references that totally support all my contentions. I have TONS of evidence of the cultural taboo against accepting this truth. It is a blatant obvious truth that the media and the entire sociological and anthropological sciences have been covering up for decades. My sources are irrefutable. and I am sure if you were honest with yourself you would admit to having met stupid , dirty and vulgar black people. The media and the sheeple ONLY talk about the smart clean ones, and I don’t deny they exist, but if you look beneath the surface.. Well, you probably aren’t ready for that level of analysis yet.
        I will trade you. You accept my proofs of the stupidity and vulgarness of blacks and I will accept your proofs of the fraud of ACC. that way you can change you blog to undermine all the destruction and misery that has been caused by refusing to acknowledge the stupidity of blacks.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        another brilliant rebuttal.

        Ok. Forget the black thing although you are passing up a productive niche market.
        Just have Lindzen look over your work, and have him send me a note telling me that that those RRTM articles are all that one needs to know to see the fraud.
        Hey. doesn’t Lindzen teach at MIT? there must be hundreds of students of his over the last 30 years that have not been fed the cool aid.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Steve,

        Do you mind if I re-edit my comment to Omnologos about ad hominem attacks and add your last comment?

  10. omnologos says:

    Talking of civility, I hereby challenge Tony Duncan, Ed Darrell and anybody else to find in the skeptical blogs anything equivalent to the nice words that graced me during the course of a few days at Greenfyre’s.

    Good luck with that.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Omnologos,
      This seems like a bizarre comment as I have pointed out the attacks on me and others who did not follow Steve’s line a couple of previous times.

      this is from the second post I looked at (the first only had 5 comments) and it was not a very long one
      I personally don’t care because I am neither trying to convince anyone or care what anyone thinks about me. So there is no reason for me to use ad hominem attacks. I certainly have used sarcasm and tend to respond in kind to how I am responded to, but while I may not pull my punches on my opinion of some issue or the reasoning in a comment I don’t attack the person.

      idiotic
      real sicko
      stupidity
      disgrace and should be in prison
      enviro-terrorist
      shameless crook
      dupes
      treason against humanity
      no scam without a fraud
      Hansen. Climate Science’s Dr. Goebbels.
      shysters
      your blathering offensive
      Manhattan is underwater, just as Hansen predicted. (I didn’t even LOOK for this. it just fell in my lap*)
      Dumb Scientist Mag

      directed at Me.

      You would be thrown off a jury because you are incapable of making your own decisions.
      Your side are the scaremongers of evil.
      we can either believe you think what you write is correct, or call you a liar.
      Sheeple bleat your tune with you.

  11. omnologos says:

    is that it Tony?

  12. Paul in Sweden says:

    “There is a general consensus among all climate scientists…”

    “Climate Scientist” is a self-appointed title which has as much meaning as consultant.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Paul,

      A consultant doesn’t need to answer any hard questions. he just tells people what to do. I have been a consultant, yet I doubt I could pass myself off as a climate scientist. Actually I bet I could at a dinner party, as long as I told people I wanted to have some respite form all the global warming talk, and got into a heavy discussion of landscaping.

  13. suyts says:

    TONY,

    “I certainly don’t believe that a counter theory to ACC needs to be complete and have absolutely no inconsistencies, but I don’t know if that is what you are talking about.” That is what I’m talking about, but why on earth would you want a deeply flawed concept replaced by another flawed concept? It makes no sense to me. Why would it be so difficult to simply agree acknowledge that we don’t know enough about our climate to make rational decisions in regard to our policies? I’m all for studying the climate. I’m all for learning as much as we can. But, from what I’ve learned, we don’t know enough to make determinations about peoples lives, livelihoods and freedoms. The knowledge base simply isn’t there.

    Coal plants, my favorite.

    We want to shut them down because of CO2 emissions? Why? Can we show CO2 is detrimental? No. Can we show it will adversely effect our climate? No. Can we show CO2 will cause our planet to be warmer? No. Can we show warmer is bad? No.

    But there are things we can show about shutting down coal plants. Will the price of electricity necessarily rise if we do? Yes. Will the availability of electricity decrease if we do. Yes. Will this cause more harm to our society’s less fortunate? Yes. Will this create more less fortunate? Yes. (Simply look to Spain for the jobs gained/lose by “going green”.) Can we prove because of the above mentioned there will be greater morbidity and mortality? Yes.

    Tony, to me, this isn’t a hard question. I recognize my ideological disposition may skew towards people having jobs and cheap energy, but I really don’t think this thought is very controversial. (In spite of some people’s support for policies dictating otherwise.)

    Dennet? lol, How did you know I’d have a physical repulsive reaction to that name? A better wording….. “Man is free to do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills.” <—-total garbage.

    “..the fact that their conclusions and those of much of the evolutionary and neurobiology community help support policies that in my view lead to misery and poverty and death for millions upon millions does not make them evil..”

    Evil? No. Not necessarily. Responsible? Yes.

    “Your contention that there is no recent correlation between CO2 and temps assumes some sort of linear relationship. no one has ever contended that. there are explanations for why current global temps are consistent with ACC that are rational and testable. One can make alternate theories that fir the facts, but then there needs to be an actual theory that is subject to examination. “

    No, that’s not true. The current ACC theory as I understand it, more CO2= higher temps. I haven’t seen one reasonable and rational explanation as to why we are cooling while atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. A year or two, sure. Longer than a decade? Not when you consider the current theory was only deemed valid because of the prior 2 decades of rising temps. We can’t say CO2 caused the raise in temps during the 80s and 90s but is consistent with the lowering in the 2000s that isn’t rational nor reasonable.

    I don’t have to create another theory, one is already in place! This is the action one would expect coming out of an ice age. To my knowledge, this theory hasn’t been replaced, save for the 76 loons that call themselves climatologists.

    Relativity is less complex than a Malthusian fantasy? Perhaps. But it may be beneficial to come to terms about what is the current ACC theory. Correct me when or if I’m wrong. 1)Atmospheric CO2, through absorption and emitting, causes the earth to significantly warm. 2)The subsequent warming will cause a host of very bad things. (Droughts, floods, death, pestilence, etc…) 3)Mankind is the cause of the increase of atmospheric CO2. Tony, if one of these tenets is wrong, then all of the actions advocated is wrong. Not just wrong, if one of these tenets are wrong, the actions advocated are probably very harmful. As to the specifics, that’s just fodder for humor. Something to make fun of while people grope to advance a dying concept in great Orwellian fashion. Like CO2 being that magical molecule that simultaneously alternately causes the end of snow and more snow. Or was that droughts and floods? Or bats dying or swarming?

    Jones’ statement wasn’t “used” against him. It was used to counter current thoughts against humanity’s advancement. The fact is, I give him credit for having a brief moment of clarity and felt it ok to speak truthfully. Candor is the only requirement for many skeptics. Ironically, the more it is demanded, the more it is withheld. We’ve climate scientists that truly believe the world’s public should take action on their word without being required to release their data and methods. Steve McIntyre is still having his FOI requests denied. Which brings us to people like you, Tony. You’re an amazing contradiction. You’re obviously bright enough to discern things for yourself. You acknowledge that much of current climate thought could very well be wrong. Yet, you not only seem to acquiesce discernment to climate scientists who refuse to share information about how they came to their conclusions, you seemingly advocate that the rest of us do the same. I don’t understand this. I trust God, my mother, my brothers, and sister. I’m not that charitable to anyone else. (Well, a couple of cousins who I count as brothers.) All else, I’ll be like a person from Missouri and state “show me”. Once I’m shown, I’ll reconsider how much I’ll trust. This brings us back to the climate scientists. I’d recommend this type of trust to all. They’ve shown me some things, but what they’ve shown me only causes me to be more skeptical and suspicious of their motives. You’re right. We’ve had over 30 years for them to show us a compelling reason why they should be trusted to give advice to our decision makers. They are found woefully wanting.

    Tony, I’m tired of the circular discussions, the state and federal policy debates, the EPA, the higher costs, the lower employment, the off-shoring of our energy needs, the closing of production plants, the lack of proper focus for NASA, and the indoctrination of our children and all of the rest of the garbage to comes with it. Its past time to put this totalitarian Malthusian fantasy to rest and move on with the business of this nation and the rest of the world.

    Tony, we’re not getting hotter. There are no more climatic “events” than there ever was. We can’t say humanity is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, we can’t even determine the life span of it in our atmosphere. It ranges from a few years to 1000s as far as guestimations go. As I see it, 2 of the tenets of ACC are in serious doubt after 30 years of experience, and we’re no closer to determining the 3rd leg than we were 30 years ago. It flabbergasts me that we’re still discussing this.

  14. omnologos says:

    Some points of clarification for Tony:

    1. You “disagree” with me, yet my point was not about how strong AGW theory is, but how important it is for AGWers to be “squeaky clean”. I cannot see any argument from you on that respect.

    2. I do not care if string theory is any good, or if the latest thoughts on the reproduction of thrushes are. Both are “just” parts of my curiosity of the way the world works, and of course I do read what scientists say on the topic (whom else?). But I do especially care if AGW is any good, because I am asked to become poorer and more vulnerable because of it, and less free. The existence of an alternative theory is immaterial to that point.

    3. To state that relativity is “a very straightforward non complex theory” is quite an overstatement and an historical falsehood. To the people of 1915 onwards, relativity was a mightly complex subject (there’s a famous quip about how many people understood it at the time).

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Omnologos,,

      1, I did comment on the “squeaky clean”.

      2. You are making assertions that are alarmist based on ideology. The theory is right or wrong based on reality not on your political/economic beliefs.

      3. I did not say relativity is EASY to understand. I said it is non complex. Historically that quip is an extreme exaggeration. Very few super computers were used to model special relativity.

      • 1. You did not comment on my point. You just said “All who contend in a policy dependent area of science have to be squeaky clean and open”. You have said nothing about how could your equivalence be correct, given all that Hansen & Co. are asking us to do.

        2. You’re mixing up right/wrong with good/bad. A good theory can still be a bad theory. As repeatedly stated, my interest is in how good AGW is, not (just) how right. Even if there’s no better alternative, AGW might still be bad enough not to warrant any action, or at least any extreme action.

        To summarize these two point: if a doctor says they need to remove an arm because of a potential cancer, and a charlatan tells me there is no need because my astrology chart says so, the words of the charlatan won’t make any difference in my decision to trust the doctor. And no, I won’t choose to have an arm cut just because there is no alternative explanation: I will choose it only if the arm cutting exercise has got a good explanation on its own.

        3. You did say relativity is “very straightforward”. Please show how can that be, and how it could be to the people, say, before WWII. As for complexity, it doesn’t make much sense to relate it to how much supercomputing power is dedicated to it. There are very simple problems that no supercomputer will ever “solve” (apart from, by brute force).

      • oops…”a good theory could still be a wrong theory”…

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Maurizio,
        No need to correct your “bad” it was quite obvious what you meant.
        I have never said that what Hansen wants is what we should do. Yes you are correct if ACC theory is significantly wrong in terms of consequences then the costs of the actions taken to mitigate it will not be worth some of the investment. I do not share your belief that the consequences of mitigating action will be catastrophic economically.

        2. I agree with you

        3. I agree with you

        4. physicists before WW to were very smart people. Relativity was embraced very quickly by the majority of the scientific community because it explained inconsistencies that had up to that point no good explanation, and it explained them amazingly well. No other theory explained them at all. It was totally consistent, and I state again, not complex. I would say that Quantum theory is a complex theory, and it took many many brilliant scientists many years to tease out the intricacies.
        And to be clear I am ONLY referring to Special relativity, general relativity is a whole other ball of wax, so maybe that is not a good example.

  15. Al Gored says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    May 4, 2011 at 4:10 am

    “Al
    your comment is precisely one of the reason why i do not trust comments on this site. The use of Hitler has nothing to do with the point of the analogy.”

    You miss the point. Hitler is the “H word.” It is loaded.

    More to the point, your whole analogy is only valid if you actually believe that the AGW enemy is real. Your historical examples were based on reality.

    “Taking my comment and completely twisting it, when I will read it and explain to you how you totally misconstrued it does not inspire confidence in your analysis of ACC.”

    I thought I was making an observation that had no bearing on the actual point of your comment. But then a complete twist leaves it right back at the same place, so you could be right.

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Al,

      I am sorry if you can not see past the loadedness of a word. Im my response to your comment I gave you alternates.

      My comment was based on a point in time BEFORE Hitler’s (or Napolean’s or Ghengis Khan’s actions were historical. It was a scenario making an analogy.

      I agree that the issue has become extraordinarily political. I have seen many Big Lies come from those opposed to ACC. But even If half the assertions Steve has made in this blog are true and he is being completely honest about evaluating all the evidence, then you are correct, and the whole facade that has fooled so many people will crumble very very soon. Too many scientists that are not part of the gravy train will see the truth, since there are people like you and Steve to expose all the lies. Climate scientists have no automatic weapons, so there is no chance they can just kill off the people that know the truth.
      Your assertions about the big lie

    • Tony Duncan says:

      Al,

      I would think my “blacks are stupid analogy” would be much worse than the Hitler one. Considering I did not COMPARE anyone to Hitler, yet I flat out stated that blacks are inferior. Good thing there are no PC liberals on this site, eh?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s