This blog is part of a continuing series on legitimate research in Parapsychology and the possible implications for society.  A General FAQ on Parapsychology can be found here.  

Past 5 blogs on this subject:
A Well Kept Secret #13:  Evidence for Psi
A Well Kept Secret #12:  Here Be Dragons
A Well Kept Secret #11; Are Psychic Readings Useful?
A Well Kept Secret #10:  Positive Thinking Meets Global Consciousness
A Well Kept Secret #9:   The Ganzfeld Showdown

                                         `
Today's Diary will be an examination of the skepticism surrounding psychic abilities.

I'm worrying it's all too easy. Whenever public questions are too simple, then private means of parsing them suffer. Look, we have a national political choice between a fossil fascist fool and a new energetic hopeful thinker. That's way too easy.

We need to be tested more than that.

Acceptance of and understanding of Global Warming is an overwhelming action. Truly understanding what we (all of the US and all of us) face commands decisions about how one will interact with the globe from that moment on. Now, for better or worse, there are many (often illegitimate) reasons for skepticism about Global Warming. One of these is, quite clearly, an emotional desire to avoid having to face those decisions in the face. But, there is a path toward that decision point. For quite good reasons, that path is very close to that outlined by Elizabeth Kubler-Rossin Death and Denying for dealing with life's tragedies.

1. Denial,


2. Skepticism (anger for dealing with grief)


3. Delay (bargaining)


4. Depression


5. Determination and Activism (acceptance)

Should anyone wonder why General Motors is in such trouble?

When a senior leader (Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman) states that Global Warming is a "total crock of S--t," might GM shareholders wonder what his core intellectual capacity is?

1. Really, should a Corporate leader be spouting off on the record like that?


2. If he is so fundamentally ignorant about a scientific issue (and willing to spout off on it!), what does that say about his basic competence to judge any issue before him?

Seriously.  Doesn't it make you wonder?

The National Science Foundation (NSF) gave a contract to the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) to do an analysis of Congressional websites; all 618 of them. Among the recipients of the Golden Mouse Award (warning: 115 page pdf) for excellence in public communication by a Congressional website, the highest available, the minority of the Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee.  This is, to remind you, the site of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) and his Global Warming denier / skeptic crowd who regularly peddle misleading and false material to the nation, using their taxpayer funded site.  Yes, using this site to trap unwary visitors in a web of deception, deceit, and denial.

The Guardian's 50 People who could save the planetis an interesting mix. There are some that I've heard of and admire. Many that I've never heard of and now admire. And some who I've heard of and 'admire' is far from a word that I would use for them.

What was their guiding principle?

50 people most able to prevent the continuing destruction of the planet

Actually, among the odd element in the list is that none of the true experts in climate science who are fighting hard to educate people (leaders and otherwise) about the risks make the list for their climate science work.

And, the list includes a prominent skeptic who is contributing to efforts to delay action to reduce the extent of catastrophic climate change.

(Promoted from the diaries, with minor edits. -- Plutonium Page).

The Minority on the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Commitee (read James Inhofe (R-Exxon)) has just released a "report": 0ver 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.

As a taxpayer, to start with, I am outraged that my taxes are used to support such truthiness and distortions.

As a human being, I am outraged that such deniers (Roadblock Republicans) are able to stand in the way toward moving the nation and the Globe toward a more sensible energy future.

And, as an analyst, I am outraged that such mediocrity is allowed to be pedaled as a "report" with the imprimateur of the US government and a US Senate Committee behind it.

A full throated examination of the mediocrity of this collection of misleading climate denier and climate skeptic and delayer material is beyond the ability of one single post.

But, after the fold,  this posting provides just a taste of the reviews and examinations of just the first three of the "peer-reviewed studies" cited by James Inhofe and his staff-support for Global Warming Denial.

Take a look and join with me in questioning what "peer review" means when coming from James Inhofe's mouth.

Inhofe calls on us to listen to the UN IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri:

Please listen to the voice of science

Inhofe's "science" does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.  See what science has to say about these "peer-reviewed studies".

A quick note to start this conversation. If you care about the planet, Real Climate is your friend. Very high quality science, seriously footnoted, but written in a way that is accessible to all (even if you might skip over some calculations and some references might make you wish you hadn't been hungover that day in physics ...).  Just remember, RealClimate is your friend...  And, to review the quality of the material here, one can simply rely on your friends.  So, going to frind RealClimate, let us take the first three on the list.

1. Scafetta and West: RealClimate's deconstruction:

The study by S&W has some suspicious results ... their analysis is sloppy in the estimate of change, underestimating the observed temperature change ... the paper oozes of vague but subjective and cherry-picked statements ... paper also offers some incorrect references ... Thus, S&W make a number of unjustified assumptions and sweeping statements which turns it into a mere speculation

2. McKitrick and Michaels; RealClimate analysis

One of my main concerns then was that their analysis had not taken into consideration the dependency between the data points, ... they have not done it properly this time, and they still do not eliminate the effect of dependency. ... The fact that they used sea-level pressure (SLP) data from (1974) because they could not find more recent data, suggest that they still are not up-to-date. Updated data, such as the National Center for Environmental Prediction SLP, have long been available ... Their regression analysis appears to suffer from over-fitting, since they have thrown in a lot of variables (both 'meteorological' and 'economical') for various vague reasons.

Not surprisingly, their analysis produces some strange results as a result of this shortcoming. ... M&M2007 is biased and gives an incorrect picture, as they do not discuss the fact that also the world oceans are warming up, and whether any economic activity can take the blame for that.

So in summary, I think the results of M&M2007 analysis and conclusions are invalid because - They do not properly account for dependencies. - They over-fit the regression. - Their results look unreasonable. - They "cherry pick" the MSU data that gives the lowest trend

3. Loehle ... again RealClimate

Many people hold the mistaken belief that reconstructions of past climate are the sole evidence for current and future climate change. They are not. ... the climate of the medieval period has received a very high (and sometimes disproportionate) profile in the public discourse ... The Loehle paper was published in Energy and Environment - a journal notable only for its rather dubious track record of publishing contrarian musings. ... What does this imply for Loehle's reconstruction? Unfortunately, the number of unsuitable series, errors in dating and transcription, combined with a mis-interpretation of what was being averaged, and a lack of validation, do not leave very much to discuss.

And, if you aren't tired of this yet, the fourth study is analyzed and shredded here.  And, so on ...

It is a tiresome task, but simply using search at Real Climate provides the ability to show just how peerless the peer review process must have been for Inhofe's cited "studies".

More below the fold.

What's the wisest thing to do given the uncertainties and risk?

That is the core question that science teacher wonderingmind42 asks in his latest video discussing the challenges of considering Global Warming and how best to deal with the challenges before us.

For some, those who are able to step back and approach problems with logic and thought, WonderingMind42 might provide one of the most powerful ways to discuss Global Warming and our need to take a different path forward.

This 9 minute, 42 second video is worth the 10 minutes ...

But, if you prefer my words rather than the video ...

Oh, the violins are playing, the tears are flowing.  Rush Limbaugh chose to headline with a false paper proving that Global Warming is a Hoax. (For a moment, one must imagine that James Inhofe's heart was beating ...)

UPDATED: Spoofer revealed:  Low Carbon Kid. Extracts in diary.

The Global Warming Denial Industry places your, my, America's, and humanity's future at risk.  

Deniers have many motivations -- religious, ideological, economic -- that drive them toward a fundamental denial of reality.

And, well, many of those deniers lay outside the ability to reach through reasoned, thoughtful, evidence-based discussions.

But, we must be ready confront them, to not let them go unchallenged ... not because of the Global Deniers but because of who might be listening.  

It is incumbent on all of us to be armed to play WHACK THE SKEPTIC ... from casual conversations in our communities to web discussions to the opinion sections of newspapers to politics ...

Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) played a "gotcha" moment with Al Gore as part of his rambling opening statement.  Pontechango's excellent Inhofe's Devious Pledge opened with this screen shot of the Pledge:
The pledge plays to the smear campaign about Gore's home energy use. This pledge -- which is shooting around the denialist community -- is faulty on so many levels. And, not surprisingly, Inhofe staff are crowing about Gore's absolutely reasonable to refuse to pledge himself to an unreasonable pledge ...

I read your recent tirade regarding your disbelief in the global warming consensus.  There’s seems to be a disconnection between the two of us.  I’ll be blunt; I don’t believe you’re being sincere.  You failed to compel me into agreeing with your POV.  You must have been sick the day of your persuasive speech cause you seem to miscomprehend constructive criticism.

Driving home yesterday I listened to a long radio interview with Dr. Michael Shermer, Director of the Skeptics Society.  I myself am a "loud and proud" skeptic and the interview got me thinking about skepticism, the Right, and the Left.

My provisional conclusion is that the most important divide in our society is not between the Right and the Left but rather between the skeptical and the credulous.  Skeptics, no matter what side of the political divide they nominally fall on, should be allied against credulity.