Skip to main content

View Diary: The SwiftHack (ClimateGate) Scandal: What You Need to Know (279 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Paper stone and scissors (6+ / 0-)

    The facts on paper cover the stoned rants of the right wing media. The stoned rants of the right wing media dull the minds of those who are too anxious to have their pundits cut to the chase to read the scientific research for themselves. You can take your scissors and cut out any facts in the paper that you don't agree with but sooner or later reality turns out to have a distinct left wing bias.

    I spent this morning talking to a Beckian at the VA while waiting for my radiology apointment. I told him to take anything he thinks is substantive amongst the charges of the scientists manipulating the data and like the claims of the birthers check it out for himself by googling it.

    Basically take the charges one by one as a set of testable hypothesis and see if there is any charge admitted to have significance in the literature.

    If you take the results pro and con and track them down one by one you eventually find their source and then you can decide for yourself if that source would survive any kind of scientific peer review. The allegations that come from Fox, newsmax and Rush/Beck/Palin generally don't get very far in that sort of test.

    As a climate change denier my Beck listner began with his recollection that back as far as the seventies there were scientists discussing global cooling.

    We talked about the solar systems natural cycles, solar, orbital, synergystic, the fact that withough global warming we would be entering an ice age so the energy necessary to get a net warming is that much higher. We discussed the Woods Hole anticline hypothesis of the 90's and the admission of the group that first proposed it that in the light of more recent data it didn't hold water.

    We discussed Inhofes list of 400 some odd scientists who claim to disbelieve the claims of human caused global warming some of whom are on the IPCC, and then we discussed the financial ties of their research to Exxon.

    Eventually I think it comes down to whether you were carefully taught to believe everything on faith or encouraged to reject all the immediatly obvious solutions that everybody believes and go a step further to check things out for yourself.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 05:06:59 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  As an aside (8+ / 0-)

      not a single peer-reviewed paper in the 1970's, or 1980's about global cooling except for one that suggested if we increase particulates by a factor of 4, we might be at threat of cooling.

      But there were actually hundreds, as far back as the 1930s that discussed global warming.

      •  I've been reading a couple of old books (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, Creosote, dpryan, yaque

        from the 1960s - one an anthology of environmental essays, and another a book about Wisconsin forests by a Forest Service officer.

        The anthology contains essays by Barry Commoner and Kenneth Boulding (names no one is probably familiar with any more) that both mention atmospheric CO2 and the probability of global warming if concentrations increase.

        Amazingly (because it's neither scholarly and presents a view of forests as a resource with multiple uses, which is not in line with what passes for environmentalism nowadays) the Forest Ranger's book devotes a paragraph to anthropogenic global warming as well, citing a particular researcher, and taking it as a virtual certainty with significant downsides.

        Had I read both books more carefully when they were new, I would have been aware of this 35-40 years ago. It kind of jumps out at you now.

        Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

        by badger on Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 10:08:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um.... remember Nuclear Winter? (0+ / 0-)

        not a single peer-reviewed paper in the 1970's, or 1980's about global cooling except for one that suggested if we increase particulates by a factor of 4, we might be at threat of cooling.

        I seem to remember a whole bunch of papers and fuss about Nuclear Winter back then.  It was big in the Reagan years - 1980s.  I think you have mis-spoken.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site