Why I Quit My Job

[Michael Hardner]

So your are arguing that the police should not be talking to victims and witnesses when investigating a crime? Your position is absurd. The fact is the climategate emails mentioned many skeptics by name. Any serious investigation would have sought these skeptics out and asked for their interpretation of the events covered.

That's a bad analogy. There's no witnesses involved - the statements of those accused are all that's to be investigated. No interpretation should be required if the statements are problematic.

Because you have no interest in learning why it matters and how the subsequent cover ups demonstrate that our scientific institutions are not doing the job that they are supposed to be doing.

That's not a complete sentence.

In any case, it is pointless discussing this topic. For some reason you are absolutely pig headed on this topic and refuse to even consider the possibility that skeptics have valid points which are being ignored. It is kind of strange given you willingness to be open minded on other topics.

Well, we haven't discussed it yet. I invited you to go and look at what we've already discussed, so if you don't want to that's your choice - but it doesn't make me pig-headed. I even invited you to start a new thread.

And whether or not the skeptics have valid points that are being ignored has no bearing on whether there were false statements, manipulations or cover ups.

Sometimes I think that the skeptics, deniers, and anti-climate grand wizards of the world really don't understand process and that THAT is the real problem.

[scribblet]

Funny how you fail to provide any citations for this, despite there being a 4,000+ word blogpost to draw from.

His own words, can't be much clearer.

Every question I asked, every Tweet I posted, and even what I said to other journalists and friends had to go through a filter, where my own opinions and values were carefully strained out.

[bloodyminded]

In any case, it is pointless discussing this topic. For some reason you are absolutely pig headed on this topic and refuse to even consider the possibility that skeptics have valid points which are being ignored. It is kind of strange given you willingness to be open minded on other topics.

Michael Hardner has--more than once--conceded that you have made several interesting points worth exploring; but that he disagrees with many of your assesments.

It's a heck of a lot more than you have offered him in return, debate-wise, for what it's worth.

[cybercoma]

His own words, can't be much clearer.

I'm not sure that you can make that claim that this made the news impartial. It has been said many times here that the news is never impartial. If that's the case, then you need to look at what he said and ask yourself, "if they're not his opinions and values, then whose are they?"

[TimG]

And whether or not the skeptics have valid points that are being ignored has no bearing on whether there were false statements, manipulations or cover ups.

The entire climategate issue is about false statements and cover ups by lead authors of the IPCC reports. The sceptic view of events has been recently validated by the information commissioners office in the UK who rejected all of the excuses made by these scientists for ignoring FOI requests. It would be news if a skeptic was caught doing the things that alarmists have been caught doing.

You seem to think that if there is not evidence of people faking data then there is nothing to see. This is wrong headed. The problem is the bias in the scientific institutions and the abuse of authority in order to suppress views that do not conform to the alarmist narrative.

Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Michael Hardner has--more than once--conceded that you have made several interesting points worth exploring; but that he disagrees with many of your assesments.

He has conceded nothing. All he does is accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner has--more than once--conceded that you have made several interesting points worth exploring; but that he disagrees with many of your assesments.

It's a heck of a lot more than you have offered him in return, debate-wise, for what it's worth.

Actually, I find TimG rather fascinating in that he espouses BOTH the belief that the earth is warming and the belief that the science is hopelessly flawed, if not conspiratorial. It makes it hard to discuss with him, because usually a poster is of one camp or the other - not both.

[scribblet]

I'm not sure that you can make that claim that this made the news impartial. It has been said many times here that the news is never impartial. If that's the case, then you need to look at what he said and ask yourself, "if they're not his opinions and values, then whose are they?"

Huh.... my point is, that in his words, he's complaining that his own opinions and values were carefully strained out - which is as it should be. Something he evidently doesn't want.

[Michael Hardner]

The entire climategate issue is about false statements and cover ups by lead authors of the IPCC reports. The sceptic view of events has been recently validated by the information commissioners office in the UK who rejected all of the excuses made by these scientists for ignoring FOI requests. It would be news if a skeptic was caught doing the things that alarmists have been caught doing.

The ignoring of FOI requests is indeed the worst thing that they did. But that's not a cover-up, nor does it mean that misleading or false statements were made. Skeptics are de-institutionalized (heh heh) in that they are accountable to no one, and they can make all the mistakes they want. Do you really think it would make news if an error was found on a skeptic blog ?

And again, there's no need to talk about skeptics when considering the validity of their statements.

You seem to think that if there is not evidence of people faking data then there is nothing to see. This is wrong headed. The problem is the bias in the scientific institutions and the abuse of authority in order to suppress views that do not conform to the alarmist narrative.

Bias in scientific institutions... I don't think that has been explicitly charged on its own and I don't know how you could deal with that. It's almost like investigating 'group think', or common fallacies. Yes, they do happen and science should guard against shuttered thinking, but it too makes mistakes.

Abuse of authority, I believe, is worth investigating but I'm not sure that that was charged, as much as influencing peers, or attempting to influence peers. And that happens all the time. I'm sure Richard Lindzen checked with those people that he nominated to review his latest papers too - is that wrong ?

[Michael Hardner]

He has conceded nothing. All he does is accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

You do lapse into that area, but I think I have conceded some things to you.

Here's another thing I concede: science is not blameless in these controversies. They are living in the past when it comes to the dissemination of their information to the general public. They seem to think that they can publish a paper, and that is enough to make the world change.

Well, not any longer. For various reasons (I have my opinions on why) ALL authority is challenged today. Global Warming, monetary policy, and helmet laws.. I suspect some even think gravity is a ruse that the New World Order has forced the sheeple to buy into. They have a social responsibility to ensure that their message lands squarely in the public consciousness and generates debate and discussion if it's important enough.

Their current institutions behave as if it's 1955, or maybe 1755. They need to build bridges into the blogosphere and work with it, as it is a new media reflection of the poplar zeitgeist ( for Morris} and is an important forum for discussion in today's democracies.

[TimG]

The ignoring of FOI requests is indeed the worst thing that they did. But that's not a cover-up, nor does it mean that misleading or false statements were made.

Ignoring FOIs is against the law. They also made many false and misleading statements regarding the FOIs and why they were refused. The issue is the science is establishment is corrupt. They have no concept of right and wrong. They do whatever they want and expect to get away with because no one in authority calls them to account. Science produced in such an environment is inherently untrustworthy.

Do you really think it would make news if an error was found on a skeptic blog ?

A sceptic paper was withdrawn by a journal because of petty complaints about improper cites. Many alarmist papers have much greater problems and journals do nothing. They often refuse to print comments by sceptics pointing out those flaws.

Bias in scientific institutions... I don't think that has been explicitly charged on its own and I don't know how you could deal with that. It's almost like investigating 'group think', or common fallacies. Yes, they do happen and science should guard against shuttered thinking, but it too makes mistakes.

This IS the problem. Group think is endemic AND the scientific institutions that are supposed to protect against that are full participants. That is why we get "inquiries" that go out of there way to avoid asking questions that might give the answers they do not want.

Abuse of authority, I believe, is worth investigating but I'm not sure that that was charged, as much as influencing peers, or attempting to influence peers. And that happens all the time. I'm sure Richard Lindzen checked with those people that he nominated to review his latest papers too - is that wrong ?

This is another example of where you have let the alarmist spin colour your thinking. The journal that Linzden is complaining about has a long standing policy where submitters pick their reviewers. The jounrnal is more a vanity rag because 90%+ papers get published (see http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/10/lindzens-pnas-reviews/ ). But instead of doing what they do for all alarmist papers they submitted Linzden's paper to hostile reviewers.

Here is a example of how PNAS is quiet selective when it applies its "standards":

http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/22/pnas-reviews-preferential-standards-for-kemp-mann-et-al/

Edited July 12, 2011 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

He has conceded nothing. All he does is accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist.

If you're going to insist that you haven't carefully read his posts, then what's the point?

Edited July 12, 2011 by bloodyminded

[TimG]

If you're going to insist that you haven't carefully read his posts, then what's the point?

Well he has become a lot more conciliatory on this thread. I certainly dont recall him saying similar things before.

[TimG]

Actually, I find TimG rather fascinating in that he espouses BOTH the belief that the earth is warming and the belief that the science is hopelessly flawed, if not conspiratorial.

Most scientific sceptics are like me. The term generally used is 'lukewarmer' - i.e. I accept the premise that CO2 has caused some warming but reject the premise that climate models are able to tell us anything useful about how much warming will occur in the future. The difference is the radiative properties of CO2 can be verified in a lab and are not subject to debate but the feedbacks in the real climate system are beyond our ability to model at this point and it is wrong to draw any conclusions from the climate models.

[Remiel]

Most scientific sceptics are like me.

Thread drift ahead! This is not a drill!

Is this not a misuse of language in some way? If you are able to divide your beliefs into premises you accept as true and premises you reject as false, how are you truly a skeptic of any kind? Given that skepticism is a suspension of belief, I mean.

[TimG]

Is this not a misuse of language in some way?

The entire AGW debate is a misuse of language. It is a political debate - not a scientific one yet people insist on conflating the two. The most appropriate terms are "advocate" for those who advocate CO2 reduction policies and "sceptic" for those who are skeptical of CO2 reduction policies.

That said, there is a distinction between people who are sceptical because they have actually looked into the science and found it lacking and people who simply choose one side or the other based purely on political outlook. Many people on the "sceptic" side regularly peddle scientific nonsense to support their claims. This drives me nuts because it obsurs the real issues that exist with the science and the scientific process.

Most people on the advocacy side are advocates for political reasons and have never actually looked at the science. This is true for many practicing scientists that simply assume that what the IPCC says can be taken at face value. They tend to dismiss "scientific sceptics" as conspiracy theorists because it is easier since they have no desire to actually look at the details which are pretty messy.

Edited July 13, 2011 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I'm not so sure there's anything to be skeptical about when it comes to anthropomorphic global warming. Our activities undoubtedly produce chemicals that are known to trap heat in the atmosphere. Now, how large our impact is relative to the natural cycle of climate is up for debate and whether or not we could actually have a significant effect reducing global warming through policies is also up for debate. There is no question that we need to move in the direction of preserving our environment with sustainable practices, but not at the expense of destroying the world economy in one swoop. However, if our actions are producing any effect at all, on top of the natural cycles of the globe, we should do all we can to reduce it.

Edited July 13, 2011 by cybercoma

[Oleg Bach]

There is only one good reason for quiting a job. That would be if you have evaluated your finacial and spiritual situation and decieded that the money was not worth selling your soul and time (life) for - better to be poor than a slave who has a bit of cash...It should be a choice...between....the value placed on money or the value placed on life and time.

[Michael Hardner]

Most scientific sceptics are like me. The term generally used is 'lukewarmer' - i.e. I accept the premise that CO2 has caused some warming but reject the premise that climate models are able to tell us anything useful about how much warming will occur in the future. The difference is the radiative properties of CO2 can be verified in a lab and are not subject to debate but the feedbacks in the real climate system are beyond our ability to model at this point and it is wrong to draw any conclusions from the climate models.

So, you're somewhat aligned with Lindzen but with much more inflammatory language about the conspiratorial ways of scientists. Your position is somewhat unique.

[pinko]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/

[TimG]

So, you're somewhat aligned with Lindzen but with much more inflammatory language about the conspiratorial ways of scientists. Your position is somewhat unique.

It is hardly unique. Most of the sceptics who run science focused blogs (e.g. Climate Audit) have the same position. It is only unique to you because you have never actually looked at what sceptics are saying and instead rely on what alarmists tell you skeptics are saying. I suspect even Anthony Watts agrees with me but he runs a blog that puts anything sceptical up on it so it difficult to know what he takes seriously and what he is publishing in the spirit of open debate/boosting page views. Edited July 13, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

It is hardly unique. Most of the sceptics who run science focused blogs (e.g. Climate Audit) have the same position. It is only unique to you because you have never actually looked at what sceptics are saying and instead rely on what alarmists tell you skeptics are saying.

Well, I'm guilty of not paying them much attention. I don't think everyone who criticizes a skeptic is an alarmist though.