These are the sort of people we are up against

[John Reece]

From Watts Up With That?

These are the sort of people we are up against

Posted on July 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts

While Steve McIntyre writes in detail about the sorts of gyrations that went on behind the scenes with Ove Hugh-Goldberg and John Cook, trying to prevent having to reveal Cooks’ rating data on his “97% consensus” paper by requests from Dr. Richard Tol, I stumbled across something so hateful, so juvenile, so bereft of moral character, that I couldn’t just let it be, and believe me I thought long and hard about whether to bring this up. I decided that certain forms of abuse just can’t go unchallenged.

[firstfloor]

From Watts Up With That?

These are the sort of people we are up against
Posted on July 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts
While Steve McIntyre writes in detail about the sorts of gyrations that went on behind the scenes with Ove Hugh-Goldberg and John Cook, trying to prevent having to reveal Cooks’ rating data on his “97% consensus” paper by requests from Dr. Richard Tol, I stumbled across something so hateful, so juvenile, so bereft of moral character, that I couldn’t just let it be, and believe me I thought long and hard about whether to bring this up. I decided that certain forms of abuse just can’t go unchallenged.

If Watts insists on displaying no integrity whatsoever, why should anyone give him the slightest respect.

[Epoetker]

If Watts insists on displaying no integrity whatsoever, why should anyone give him the slightest respect.

Your definition of "integrity" is required before we allow you to continue this conversation.

[John Reece]

If Watts insists on displaying no integrity whatsoever, [snip]

You are practicing the kind of baseless defamation that is so typical of leftist ideologues.

[seer]

If Watts insists on displaying no integrity whatsoever, why should anyone give him the slightest respect.

Sorry FF, that is no excuse for what Dr. Seitz did - Seitz is a scum bag. So much for non-bias science.

[Jedidiah]

I too am a serial hearing aid abuser. I can sympathize with that.

And you can not blame ff for using the baseless defamation that is so typical of leftist ideologues. He fits that bill quite well. Truth is less important than agenda.

[Epoetker]

I too am a serial hearing aid abuser. I can sympathize with that.

And you can not blame ff for using the baseless defamation that is so typical of leftist ideologues. He fits that bill quite well. Truth is less important than agenda.

I think he may not be completely gone like lao tzu, but it depends on whether serving a leftist cause is his livelihood or his hobby.

[firstfloor]

I too am a serial hearing aid abuser. I can sympathize with that.
And you can not blame ff for using the baseless defamation that is so typical of leftist ideologues. He fits that bill quite well. Truth is less important than agenda.

Science is politically neutral; it is fact gathering and analysis. It has to be like that because nature has no political agenda and science is the study of nature. A lot of the media we are exposed to is however politically motivated propaganda which includes a deliberate distortion of scientific analysis for political purposes typically aimed at avoiding regulation and taxation. As soon as our thinking goes to left or right political agendas we are no longer asking about the scientific problem under investigation. My advice is bewaring of water muddying commentary.
The Heartland Institute’s (who help to fund Anthony Watts) political agenda is described here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKBIP_dogMg
Joseph Bast can’t make his mind up; Climate change is a hoax at one moment and then “he has testified before the Environment Committee of the Iowa House that "The benefits of a modest warming would outweigh the costs – by $8.4 billion a year in 1990 dollars by the year 2060, according to Robert O. Mendelsohn at Yale University..."”
Mendelsohn on the up-side of global warming:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarp...b-098548dd6fbd

My own observation from reading in this forum is that the religious mind cannot cope with scientific material generally and cannot distinguish between science and politics and so is easily mislead by malign propaganda. I am here to help as much as I can because there is nothing behind the facts and good policy requires facts not ideology.

[Epoetker]

Science is politically neutral; it is fact gathering and analysis.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that people who do 'fact gathering and analysis' are somehow immune from politics?

My own observation from reading in this forum is that the religious mind cannot cope with scientific material generally and cannot distinguish between science and politics and so is easily mislead by malign propaganda. I am here to help as much as I can because there is nothing behind the facts and good policy requires facts not ideology.

I have made not one religious objection to the global warming cabal. My objections are entirely practical. You aren't here to do anything but label tainted data from bought and paid for ideologues and institutions as 'fact'. Scientists and academicians in general put on the Ring a long, long time ago. Those who oppose them are not operating in any institutional framework, so I expect them to get your ever-changing Party Vocabulary wrong at times.

But I am lenient to them and not to you, because you are willfully blinded to the source of your corruption, and have not shown the slightest interest in tracking down and rooting out the source of that corruption, possibly because your allies and leaders in the movement are far less forgiving than I am:

There are never good cogs in a bad wheel, but there are always decent ones. You will find this exact same Oriental mentality in: Reinhard Spitzy's How We Squandered The Reich (National Socialism); Alexander Barmine's One Who Survived (early Communism); or Victor Klemperer's The Lesser Evil (late Communism).

The perspective is that - sure - the system is bad. It is bad. Criminal? Sure. Thus, anyone who has seen the machine from the inside cannot possibly be surprised by Climategate. That's just how professors behave! At least, now that professors run the world. Acton gets it right again.

[firstfloor]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that people who do 'fact gathering and analysis' are somehow immune from politics?

The thing you don’t seem to get is that the scientific method is purposefully designed to ensure that the results of research are not contaminated by the opinions or desires of the researchers. We have peer review, comparisons and other types of control so that scientific data is continually improved.

Our problem is that most people do not know how to read science (technical language) so they read propaganda instead. Your knowledge of the world depends on who your favourite propagandist is.

[Jedidiah]

My own observation from reading in this forum is that the religious mind cannot cope with scientific material generally and cannot distinguish between science and politics and so is easily mislead by malign propaganda. I am here to help as much as I can because there is nothing behind the facts and good policy requires facts not ideology.

Problem is this issue has been dealt with politically not scientifically. When a scientific disagreement is exposed it is stomped on politically.

Science is supposedly politically neutral. It sure ain't in this case. Your precious peer review has fallen on it's face. The scientific method is good, but it has to be followed by politically motivated people.

[Psychic Missile]

Problem is this issue has been dealt with politically not scientifically. When a scientific disagreement is exposed it is stomped on politically.

Science is supposedly politically neutral. It sure ain't in this case. Your precious peer review has fallen on it's face. The scientific method is good, but it has to be followed by politically motivated people.

What do you think the motive is for all the scientists who believe in climate change?

[Epoetker]

The thing you don’t seem to get is that the scientific method is purposefully designed to ensure that the results of research are not contaminated by the opinions or desires of the researchers. We have peer review, comparisons and other types of control so that scientific data is continually improved.

And you're getting funded by people in government extremely interested in ensuring that the results of that research generates jobs, importance, and attention for them, and have used the term %97 SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS whenever you don't want to talk about contradictory facts. That's like the exact opposite of decontamination.

Our problem is that most people do not know how to read science (technical language) so they read propaganda instead. Your knowledge of the world depends on who your favourite propagandist is.

Climate science has enough confounding and mitigating cofactors to be about as broadly predictive as economics, and about as useful in anyone's day-to-day lives. The problem isn't that people can't read technical language, it's that all the public language (and increasingly the technical) is being continually shifted based on the propagandistic priorities of your primary funders and popularizers.

So, if we actually care about trust in science and the scientific method, we shut down the 'climate science' field completely and execute Michael Mann and the worst public offenders, tear down the Climate Museums, ditch the Carbon curriculum, and in general scrub the reputational slate clean until there's no possibility of malign political control of the climate science research process. If predicting near and long term trends in the weather was predictive enough to be profitable you'd already have thousands of business and corporate backers by now, and wouldn't have to rely on the government make-work dog and pony show department to keep food on the table.

Enough sanctimonious twaddle about 'ignorance' and 'propaganda' from ignorant propagandists. Like most liberals, your greatest talent is projection.

[DesertBerean]

Can firstfloor be SERIOUS about the naturally neutral nature of science???? Wow!

[tabibito]

Can firstfloor be SERIOUS about the naturally neutral nature of science???? Wow!

Maybe it is a politically blinkered viewpoint.