Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[jbg]

no - clearly your past posting record confirms your denier position... one lacking in even the most rudimentary understandings. Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

Do you have any modes other than "personal attack"?

[waldo]

Do you have any modes other than "personal attack"?

Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

[jbg]

Waldo -

Very profound and intelligent posts. I respect them even if I don't agree with them.

[WestViking]

no - clearly your past posting record confirms your denier position... one lacking in even the most rudimentary understandings. Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

What the heck is your problem? Assuming that global warming is real does not indicate that we face any disaster. The degree of global warming has clearly been exaggerated and distorted. There is no clear indication that any form of action is required.

Clearly you want everyone to jump on your "global warming crisis" bandwagon. In that case, why do you not so state instead of disparaging those who have a different opinion?

Edited October 5, 2010 by WestViking

[waldo]

Waldo -

Very profound and intelligent posts. I respect them even if I don't agree with them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH46oIA6I2c

ya, ya - right

[wyly]

Sorry, I can't help you with your theophobia. You've got to try and contain it....it distorts your reasoning.

Your resentment towards people simply based on their religious belief that obviously does not coincide with yours is a form of bigotry.

And your last statement, "it's time to be afraid..." smacks of promoting or inciting hate/fear towards people who believe in religion.

As long as the Prime Minister does not break any laws and as long as he follows the Charter of Rights....it shouldn't matter if he believes that homosexual act is a sin against God or that the world is 6,000 years old. He has a right, like you or anybody else, to his belief!

you brought Harper's religion into the thread not me...

the PM belongs to a church that sees women as 2nd class...objecting to that is not bigotry on my part but his...as is his hatred for homosexuals, he belongs to a church of bigots so by association he is a bigot...please explain to everyone how pointing out bigotry makes me a bigot?

when the PM of my country makes decisions on science based on his religious beliefs that interfer with scientific research yes that is a serious issue in a secular country...

I don't have names off-hand.....but there are groiups of scientists who've complained about this quite sometime ago.

rrrright...that's because once again you've invented facts...when you know nothing, bullshit your way through....

That's your opinion. But I tell ya....better get that phobia fixed.

Obviously I touched a very sensitive nerve with you by bringing up Gore. Gee, by the way you're going, if GW was a religion and Gore is it's god....I swear you make a fantastic devoted fanatic!

ya dishonesty touches a nerve with me, you bring up an individual to discredit the Climate Change debate, invent even more lies and when you get called out on your dishonesty then you try back pedal and say it's my issue...your dishonesty is the issue Bitsy...

And lo, you seem to be mimicking your hero....you lecture to me about having "no grasp" or understanding, and yet you demonstrate the very same qualities. You still going on harping about why I brought Gore into this topic....and I've already explained to you why!

no Bitsy you have no clue that's why you brought him into the issue, Gore had no relevance to this thread but you brought him into it...

Aww...give it a rest, Wily. It's you who keeps prolonging what's turning out to be really irrelevant now to this topic. Let's not further derail this topic. If you want to go on and on about Gore, better create a separate thread for it. Don't take the Gore-thingy too personal...I bet he's used to criticisms. He's been a politician after all!

fail again Bitsy, your lack of knowledge is part of the problem is endemic to deniers, ignorance and dishonesty hinders finding a solution to AGW which is relevant to the topic of this thread....

And your last statement, "it's time to be afraid..." smacks of promoting or inciting hate/fear towards people who believe in religion.

when people like you who claim the moral high ground because of your religion lie, deceive and slander, ya Bitty it's time to be afraid...where is your christian morality? how are you going to square your dishonesty with your god? how very unchristian behaviour...

[jbg]

ya, ya - right

I compliment you and you attack my profession?

[WestViking]

you brought Harper's religion into the thread not me...

the PM belongs to a church that sees women as 2nd class...objecting to that is not bigotry on my part but his...as is his hatred for homosexuals, he belongs to a church of bigots so by association he is a bigot...please explain to everyone how pointing out bigotry makes me a bigot?

when the PM of my country makes decisions on science based on his religious beliefs that interfer with scientific research yes that is a serious issue in a secular country...

rrrright...that's because once again you've invented facts...when you know nothing, bullshit your way through....

ya dishonesty touches a nerve with me, you bring up an individual to discredit the Climate Change debate, invent even more lies and when you get called out on your dishonesty then you try back pedal and say it's my issue...your dishonesty is the issue Bitsy...

no Bitsy you have no clue that's why you brought him into the issue, Gore had no relevance to this thread but you brought him into it...

fail again Bitsy, your lack of knowledge is part of the problem is endemic to deniers, ignorance and dishonesty hinders finding a solution to AGW which is relevant to the topic of this thread....

when people like you who claim the moral high ground because of your religion lie, deceive and slander, ya Bitty it's time to be afraid...where is your christian morality? how are you going to square your dishonesty with your god? how very unchristian behaviour...

Can you manage anything beyond unfounded and unsubstantiated "trash talk" -

[waldo]

What the heck is your problem? Assuming that global warming is real does not indicate that we face any disaster. The degree of global warming has clearly been exaggerated and distorted. There is no clear indication that any form of action is required.

Clearly you want everyone to jump on your "global warming crisis" bandwagon. In that case, why do you not so state instead of disparaging those who have a different opinion?

from the OP:

Again, this thread is not to debate IF it's happening. If you're on this thread, then we're debating what to do about it.

Michael has also asked, repeatedly, that his request be honoured... there certainly are no shortage of climate change related threads available to debate the 'if' and degrees therein.

in your case, you claim to accept the reality of AGW; you also suggest no form of action is required since, as you claim, the degree of warming has clearly been exaggerated and distorted. Perhaps you'll actually step forward in some of the other MLW climate change related threads to support your claims of exaggeration and distortion... and why there is no need for action.

[waldo]

I compliment you and you attack my profession?

hmmm... somehow I didn't see a 180° turnaround, from your one post to the next, as being a genuine compliment. If it was, truly, well... I wasn't attacking the legal profession - I was providing a catchy recognizable advertising angle. It's public domain - feel free to use it... or not.

[wyly]

Can you manage anything beyond unfounded and unsubstantiated "trash talk" -

awww how sweet do you feel sorry for poor Bitsy?..

I've no patience for dishonesty and self-ignorance she wants to give out the trash talk she should be prepared for a backlash.....

[dre]

Actually, all of the different spins (green jobs, energy independent, economics, et. al.) have been tried. The problem is the "science" (or economics if you prefer) shows that limiting CO2 will reduce employment, do nothing for energy independence and undermine the economy. The net result is the spin does not sell.

Actually, all of the different spins (green jobs, energy independent, economics, et. al.) have been tried. The problem is the "science" (or economics if you prefer) shows that limiting CO2 will reduce employment, do nothing for energy independence and undermine the economy. The net result is the spin does not sell.

I disagree. Our transition into the next energy age will be the largest project in all of human history, and from a capitalism standpoint one of the largest opportunities ever. And CO2 alarmism is one of the major driving features.

The real economic risk and risk to our employment is FAILURE to act. Companies laid off workers by the thousands after the last big spike in energy prices. The last thing any employer wants is volatility.

Eventually energy will be much cheaper and more plentifull than it ever has been or is now. The sooner we take energy development seriously the sooner that will be.

Actually, all of the different spins (green jobs, energy independent, economics, et. al.) have been tried

Not spins...facts. And not only have they been tried but they are working. Theres been a huge spike in investment in virtually every kind of energy technology. Money spent on making coal burn cleaner, money spent on making gas burning cars more efficient, a massive increase in the sales of vehicles such as hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles, huge investment in wind, and solar, and lots of pure research as well.

All driven by those three areas of concern I keep mentioning. Environment, Economy, and Security.

All this new investment and research will produce the underlying technologies that will power the human race in 20 years, or 40 years, or 100 years.

While youve been preaching defeatism and whining about your ideological opposition to progress, millions of other people have actually been working to solve these problems or investment in people that are.

Edited October 5, 2010 by dre

[dre]

hmmm... somehow I didn't see a 180° turnaround, from your one post to the next, as being a genuine compliment. If it was, truly, well... I wasn't attacking the legal profession - I was providing a catchy recognizable advertising angle. It's public domain - feel free to use it... or not.

Shrugs. I thought he being sincere. JBQ is usually pretty civil.

[TimG]

I disagree. Our transition into the next energy age will be the largest project in all of human history, and from a capitalism standpoint one of the largest opportunities ever. And CO2 alarmism is one of the major driving features.

Society advances when it learns to do more with less. Forcing people to use more expensive energy is a giant step backwards.

The real economic risk and risk to our employment is FAILURE to act. Companies laid off workers by the thousands after the last big spike in energy prices. The last thing any employer wants is volatility.

And others started hiring because it became cheaper to produce goods locally. The changes you want will *only* be driven by real increases in the market price of fossil fuels. Governments will simply screw up the economy if they insist on forcing change to happen before the market is ready.

Not spins...facts. And not only have they been tried but they are working. Theres been a huge spike in investment in virtually every kind of energy technology.

All of it driven by a government stealing money from activities that generate wealth and forcing it to be spent on things that consume wealth. It is not sustainable spending.

While youve been preaching defeatism and whining about your ideological opposition to progress, millions of other people have actually been working to solve these problems or investment in people that are.

I am not against R&D. I am against the obsession with CO2 which takes money away from useful investments and directs it torwards carbon scammers. Take CO2 targets, carbon trading, renewable mandates and renewable subsidies off the table and I would not complain. Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[betsy]

Can you manage anything beyond unfounded and unsubstantiated "trash talk" -

It's apparently a pattern with Wily. He tries to engage in a mature debate....but he gets rabidly insulting and embarks on personal attacks whenever he couldn't persuade his opponent to his view, or when he couldn't do any sensible rebutt. I just ignore those type and let them do their childish tantrums.

At least now I know how he engages.

[betsy]

really betty are you that dishonest? that you deliberately slander someone for debating points?

from your link which you dishonestly left out...

Kreider, June 16: The Gores' home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the "Green PowerSwitch" program offered by their utility [company].

no it's a reflection of your bias making personal attacks without researching properly as well as being dishonest...

Just for the record, here is a good example of distortion. What Wily...being Wily indeed, by the looks of it....conveniently left out was this:

Kreider also told us in an e-mail that the Gores have made several eco-friendly changes to their home, which is now LEED certified. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, this means that Gores' home has earned credits in five categories: "sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources and indoor environmental quality." Kreider told us:

Kreider, June 16: The Gores' home is certified by the US Green Building Council as a Gold LEED certified home for retrofitted homes. As part of the LEED certification process, they upgraded their windows, lighting, appliances and insulation, among other items in and around the home [...] The residence is powered with a geothermal system as well as 33-solar panels. The Gores also participate in the "Green PowerSwitch" program offered by their utility [company].

Kreider also noted that, contrary to what was claimed in the original e-mail, the Gores' residence "does not have a guest house."

We didn't ask for the Gores' electric bills, so we can't say how much efficiency improvement the family has accomplished. But the e-mail was on target in 2007; it's out of date now.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/al-gore-house-47062202#ixzz11TkXFVVK

And the date this was written: 2009

My point is, being a leading mover for the GW movement...and him saying we've got only about 10 years to do something about it, my question is.... what took Gore so long in leading as an example?

If he really believed that we're faced with a ticking time bomb he'd be scurrying to do everything in his power to show how serious this is!

He acted only after he got criticised!

So I replied to one of the suggestions by another poster....we cannot rely on everyone to do their share. How can we when one of the leaders for GW (a poster boy at that, at the time) does not provide an example as to how. How do you win and convince those who do not buy into this GW in the first place?

Wily does not understand what he's arguing about. And sadly, that is the inconvenient truth!

Edited October 5, 2010 by betsy

[waldo]

How do you win and convince those who do not buy into this GW in the first place?

as you posed the earlier like question to me, I'll simply repeat the same answer I offered you... this time I'll be a bit more direct in targeting you as one of the purposeful denying individual miscreants.

Let me ask you, how can you expect everyone, especially those who never bought into this GW prediction in the first place, to do their serious conscientious share in reversing the damage or stopping any further damage?

obviously, to a point, the weight of public opinion holds influence over politicians with policy implications. No amount of appropriate education and communication will win-over purposeful denying individual miscreants...

an easy thread search shows exactly what you did... purposely did. You were the first to drop a rather benign reference to Gore in this thread, attributing what you characterized as a disparity between personal commitment and profile. Of course, someone took your bait and you immediately jumped into the fray. Gore is an easy target, particularly for those on the periphery, those you can't actually argue the real issues... or the science. Along the way you also managed to be the first to politicize the thread with your raised concerns about the Opposition parties/leaders attacking Conservatives/Harper - nice touch.

as a more pointed follow-up to your questioning, I'll simply re-quote the most astute reply MLW member 'dre' offered you... one you weren't inclined to respond to:

I DONT expect them to do their share.

I expect them to dig in their heals, and do everything they possibly can to stop any measures that might help, and any measures that threaten the status quo.

I expect them to tout economic "sky is falling" doomsday scenarios, and claim that developing new energy alternatives will destroy the economy and result in us all living like people in the Congo, or Zahir. I expect them to herald studies funded by the FF industry that conveniently conclude theres no reason to do anything but increase the use of oil and coal.

Far from expecting these people to "do their share" I fully expect that we will have to drag them KICKING AND SCREAMING into the future.

on a more personal note, you've clearly shown your hand... should you be inclined to engage in the real discussions surrounding climate change, you should expect to, in keeping with your religulous bent, 'reap what you sow'.

[ToadBrother]

You have changed the onus with your example. The geologist is not recommending that you _do_ something. The recommendation is not to do something. A better example would be you have already bought a house and discovered it is sitting on a sinkhole. The geologist says you could reduce the risk by spending $100,000+ on engineering remendies that might not work or simply live with the risk. The geologist's opinion does not dictate what you do. It is your choice based on your priorities.

No, my analogy fits. If a climatologist saying "Keep barfing CO2 into the atmosphere and we'll see dramatic climate shifts" is some sort of shilling, then so is a geologist saying "That house is sitting on top of a potential sink hole".

You want this artificial barrier between science that doesn't offend you and science that does, but that barrier is entirely in your mind.

The problem is when you look at the basis for their claims you find it is nothing but a pile of assumptions, guesses and opinions that have yet to be validated with any real world data. To make matters worse there is strong evidence that a suffocating case of group think has infested the field which makes me question whether the consensus is even real.

Nope. My problem is that I don't reject what a scientist says just because it interferes with my world view.

As for your analogies to creationists: you have again screwed up the onus. Sceptics are not running around telling people they have to radically change their lives because of a hypothetical problem 100 years from now. It is AGW lobby that is doing that. Therefore, the onus is on the AGW lobby to demonstrate that the science they use to justify their position is sound. The onus is not on the sceptics to prove that it is not. If there doubt about the reliability of the scientific claims then that is an argument against large interventions.

I haven't screwed anything up. YOur tactics are identical to that of the Creationist, right down to the calling into question of peer reviewed journals, questioning the motives of scientists, making grand declarations that are not reflected in the literature, the insistence that casual blog debate is somehow the equivalent of the peer-review process, etc. and so forth. Believe me, I battled Creationists for 15 years, and you're aping the same tactics. That's what makes me really suspicious.

[TimG]

so is a geologist saying "That house is sitting on top of a potential sink hole"

A useless analogy because implies there is no cost to follow the geologists advice. The fact is no one - I am mean no one - will pay any price to deal with a hypothetical risk no matter how many scientists claim it is real.

Everyone does a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the perceived risk is greater than the perceived cost. But the worst hypocrites are the AGW advocates who are all for sacrifice - as long as they can get the government to force someone else to make the sacrifice.

So spare me your hypocrisy and tell us what you pain point is. Where would you draw the line and "reject" scientific advice? Don't bother lying and saying you don't have one.

Nope. My problem is that I don't reject what a scientist says just because it interferes with my world view.

Sure you would if scientists happened to take positions that opposed you world view. You are only OK with the current crop of scientists because they tend to be left leaning socialists that believe government is a solution rather than the problem (an attitude that is created by a professional culture that is totally dependent on government funding).

I also linked earlier to a CBC radio speech by Suzuki where he rants about the irresponsible scientists using the science of DNA to justify discrimination. The fact that those policies were perfectly sound given the limited knowledge of DNA of the time was irrelevant. Suzuki opposed them for purely ideological reasons and I bet you would too.

right down to the calling into question of peer reviewed journals, questioning the motives of scientists, making grand declarations that are not reflected in the literature

In the case of climate science there are numerous examples of jaw dropping incompetence and a vile attempts to cover up the incompetence. There is also a lot of evidence showing that stifling group think is at work and it affects the editors of major journals and the IPCC. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong but that does not change the facts. Scientists are human and deserved to be called on the carpet for their failings. Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

A useless analogy because implies there is no cost to follow the geologists advice. The fact is no one - I am mean no one - will pay any price to deal with a hypothetical risk no matter how many scientists claim it is real.

Yes, of course. It's much cheaper short term just to buy the house. Of course the costs when it gets swallowed up are enormous, but hey, that's some indefinite point in the future.

Everyone does a cost benefit analysis to determine whether the perceived risk is greater than the perceived cost. But the worst hypocrites are the AGW advocates who are all for sacrifice - as long as they can get the government to force someone else to make the sacrifice.

At some point public policy has to have its place. Industry didn't clean up its polluting ways on its own, it was forced by the courts and legislatures to do so.

So spare me your hypocrisy and tell us what you pain point is. Where would you draw the line and "reject" scientific advice? Don't bother lying and saying you don't have one.

I don't have such a point. If a large body of scientists, the very large majority in a field, say something, I'm not going to reject it out of hand just because it doesn't square with my own ideas. That would be like Einstein rejecting Quantum Mechanics because it didn't jive with his idea of how the universe would work; his sense of aesthetics. You're biggest flaw is in assuming that all your interlocutors must be just like you, save on the other side of the fence.

Sure you would if scientists happened to take positions that opposed you world view. You are only OK with the current crop of scientists because they tend to be left leaning socialists that believe government is a solution rather than the problem (an attitude that is created by a professional culture that is totally dependent on government funding).

Okay, let's stop right there, pal. Where in the world did you ever get the idea I was a socialist? You see, you're doing it even now. You can't cope with someone who simply accepts science, irrespective of political leanings. I'll tell you right now, I'm no socialist. I tend quite strongly to fiscal conservativism. One thing I don't do is try to politicize scientific theories. Again, you're just like Creationists, who also insist that evolutionary theory is somehow inherently left wing.

I also linked earlier to a CBC radio speech by Suzuki where he rants about the irresponsible scientists using the science of DNA to justify discrimination. The fact that those policies were perfectly sound given the limited knowledge of DNA of the time was irrelevant. Suzuki opposed them for purely ideological reasons and I bet you would too.

I've seen precious few geneticists ever advocate discrimination based on DNA. I suppose there are a few, but most seem rather well informed of the ethical issues of their research. At the end of the day, the science goes where the evidence is.

In the case of climate science there are numerous examples of jaw dropping incompetence and a vile attempts to cover up the incompetence. There is also a lot of evidence showing that stifling group think is at work and it affects the editors of major journals and the IPCC. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend that nothing is wrong but that does not change the facts. Scientists are human and deserved to be called on the carpet for their failings.

You keep saying things like this, but you have precious little evidence, other than hyperbole, such as taking notions like assumptions and declaring them fraud and forgery. You simply don't like what the science says, and try every post hoc rationalization for rejection out there.

Believe me, fifteen years ago I rejected it too. There was probably more ground to do so. But I changed my mind, not because I'm became a socialist (I'm not one), not because I've decided to become a Green party member (I'm not and spend no small amount of time here mocking and condemning them). I'm well aware that the economic costs will be extraordinarily high. But none of it matters if the science is right, and when the majority of researchers in any field reach a reasonable degree of consensus, I, being a non-expert, will accept what they say.

So quit trying to frame me as something I'm not. You don't know me, though if you read more of my posts in other areas, you'd probably realize that the accusation that I'm a left-leaning socialist was baseless. But I suppose you have in your head some sort of an idea of an AGW-supporter, and that allows you to reject what they say easily. But I ain't that guy, pal. I'm no Gore supporter or Suziki supporter. I could give a rat's ass what they say. I haven't even seen more than five minutes of Gore's documentary.

[Michael Hardner]

the current crop of scientists [because they] tend to be left leaning socialists that believe government is a solution rather than the problem (an attitude that is created by a professional culture that is totally dependent on government funding).

Source ? If you can tell me who the UEA research unit voted for the last few elections, I would accept that as evidence.

I also linked earlier to a CBC radio speech by Suzuki where he rants about the irresponsible scientists using the science of DNA to justify discrimination. The fact that those policies were perfectly sound given the limited knowledge of DNA of the time was irrelevant. Suzuki opposed them for purely ideological reasons and I bet you would too.

I think that Suzuki didn't falsify his statement to say that it wouldn't work, for example.

In the case of climate science there are numerous examples of jaw dropping incompetence ...

I haven't seen that. There have been errors on both sides, but jaw-dropping incompetence ? Where ?

And... again this seems off topic for the thread.

[TimG]

Yes, of course. It's much cheaper short term just to buy the house. Of course the costs when it gets swallowed up are enormous, but hey, that's some indefinite point in the future.

Life is full of risk - get over it.

At some point public policy has to have its place. Industry didn't clean up its polluting ways on its own, it was forced by the courts and legislatures to do so.

CO2 emission are not something that can be neatly blamed on 'industry'. Our entire society is based on it. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions you must deliberately push billions of people into poverty and cause all of the harm that goes with it. Frankly, it rediculous to ignore the real harms of carbon control.

I don't have such a point. If a large body of scientists, the very large majority in a field, say something, I'm not going to reject it out of hand just because it doesn't square with my own ideas.

BS. What you say is probably true if the science was largely irrelevant. But if the science was being used to impose policies which you were opposed to ideologically you would most definately question the accuracy of the science. There is no human on the planet that would not.

I'll tell you right now, I'm no socialist. I tend quite strongly to fiscal conservativism. One thing I don't do is try to politicize scientific theories.

I did not politicize climate science. It was the AGW activists that have spent years using AGW science as a justification for their social engineering and wealth redistribution schemes. If you have a problem with what I say then you should equally critical of the AGW activists who are using AGW science as a political tool.

I have also made it clear that arguing the science is a sideshow. I happen to think that climate science as a field has no intellectual intrigrity. You can disagree with my opinion and I can, for the sake of argument, accept that their is a real risk and we should think about doing something. The trouble is when I look at the options there is nothing that has a chance of working because the alternate technologies are not ready for prime time. That means adaptation is the only rational response.

Incidently, I used to accept the science without question for years and simply argued that Kyoto style agreements would inevitable fail after wasting billions playing lip service. I only started to question the science after I learned about the hockey stick and the absurd attempts to cover up scientific incompentence.

I've seen precious few geneticists ever advocate discrimination based on DNA. I suppose there are a few, but most seem rather well informed of the ethical issues of their research.

That is today. I was talking about the 60s. Eugenics was real and it was supported by the science of the day.

You don't know me, though if you read more of my posts in other areas, you'd probably realize that the accusation that I'm a left-leaning socialist was baseless.

I judge people by the policies they support. If someone said they wanted to see welfare rates and taxes on the rich increased I would rightly call them a left leaning socialist. Likewise, if someone supports Kyoto style agreements which do nothing other transfer huge sums of money from the rich to poor then I call them a socialist. The only anti-CO2 policy which is consistent with a right wing economic view is a straight carbon tax. Cap and trade and CO2 targets are shell games where the government tries to be the puppeteer and force the markets to do what it wants. Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

If you can tell me who the UEA research unit voted for the last few elections, I would accept that as evidence.

There are surveys that show that scientists in academia are largely left leaning. The only exceptions are field like geology where scientists frequently work with private companies as part of their research.

I haven't seen that. There have been errors on both sides, but jaw-dropping incompetence ? Where ?

We have been over this many times and your response is basically: the scientists can't be wrong because they tell me they are not wrong and scientists would never lie to protect themselves or collegues from public criticism. If you want to inform yourself of the issues the pick up a copy of the "hockey stick illusion" and read it.

[Michael Hardner]

There are surveys that show that scientists in academia are largely left leaning. The only exceptions are field like geology where scientists frequently work with private companies as part of their research.

Ok, that's your assertion. Let's see these surveys then.

We have been over this many times and your response is basically: the scientists can't be wrong because they tell me they are not wrong and scientists would never lie to protect themselves or collegues from public criticism. If you want to inform yourself of the issues the pick up a copy of the "hockey stick illusion" and read it.

That's not backing up your claim. That's making fun of me rather than provide evidence.

If you have nothing to back up the claim (here it is again: "In the case of climate science there are numerous examples of jaw dropping incompetence.") then just say so.

But you used two adjectives - numerous, and jaw-dropping - that should make it easy for you to find examples ok ? Go to it.

[TimG]

If you have nothing to back up the claim (here it is again: "In the case of climate science there are numerous examples of jaw dropping incompetence.") then just say so.

I have given you the examples many many times. It is not clear why I should repeat them on this thread. I suggested the hockey stick illusion because it is good summary of these "jaw dropping examples of incompetence".

Here is a link to survey data: http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=1208

Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG