A juicy example of The Art of Controversy

God bless the true skeptics - they exist, and they hold themselves and their allies to high standards.

This post was interesting to me for this wonderful technique of The Art of Controversy:

Only In It For The Gold; Guest Posting from "Willard" (from Neverending Audit): Willard's Meta-Audit

So here's a pea-and-thimble [shell game] strategy one might try out in a discussion:

- When confronted with general, collegial, and interpersonal criticisms, look and ask for specifics;

- When being responded to on specifics, return to the general mode, but on another subject, in a more collegial and interpersonal voice.

The reader can easily see that it creates an unwinnable position for the opponent.

From Willard - Very good catch of the specific technique of "The Art of Controversy" -- ducking and weaving between the general and specific. Thank you Willard.

A reminder to myself that my general point and my specific point should skip down the lane holding hands, so I don't fool _myself_ with the same technique (skipping down the lane being a metaphor for presenting an argument).

Also, a good technique for speaking about morality.  Have the specific moral action followed immediately by the general moral concept.  Have the grand abstract moral scheme followed immediately by suggested congruent specific real-world moral actions.

The next tack in Climate Disruption denialism - Scientists must be Nihilists

Image via Wikipedia

Pair of posts on Keith Kloor Collide-a-Scape, about the Q&A with Judith Curry.

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/23/an-inconvenient-provocateur/

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/

Might as well prepare for the next tack in Climate Disruption denialism, pieced together from those salivating at the opportunity presented by Judith Curry's delight in the role of "anti-warmist" gadfly:

1) Rollicking dialogue favored over disciplined argumentation

1 Prime) Consider dialogs under discipline that allow them to terminate at conclusions where it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.  Call these dialogs "rationally terminating" dialogs.  Beware any forum where "rollicking dialogue" is always preferred to "rationally terminating" dialogs.  Those forums simply exist to aid the Art of Controversy.

[ quote web search: "perverse to withhold provisional assent" Gould ]

2) Scientists must be held to a higher standard than their critics... becomes... The critics of scientists can sink to impossible shameful depths of poor argumentation... becomes... It is off limits to point out in the critics their impossible shameful depths of poor argumentation.

2 Prime) If there exists a forum where there is no crime that brand someone a bad actor, that forum simply exists to aid the Art of Controversy. (No problem with scientists being held to a higher standard - the problem is when the critics are never under risk to their status as a member in good standing, no matter how impossibly shameful their tactics.  Also, the standard should be stated up front, or else the floor can sink down into a infinite number of basements of shameful argumentation.)

3) With the critics of scientists, you must never consider the motivation of those critics (strangely, scrutinizing the motivation of the scientists themselves is encouraged).

3 Prime) You don't need to be much of a Bayesian to see value in being informed by judgements of motivation.  Forums where there are peculiar restrictions on when motivation can be considered simply exists to aid the Art of Controversy.

4) Scientific facts can be contaminated by a scientist with an outcome preference or a policy preference, and the critics of scientists are under no burden to speculate on the mode of contamination.  And demonstrating contamination can be a substitute for demonstrating falsehood.

4 Prime) Forums where such a concept of contaminated facts is allowed simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

5) Only certainty can motivate action, and uncertainty can never motivate action.  That is why nobody ever buys homeowners insurance without getting a statement of intent from an arsonist that your home is scheduled for a fire.

5 Prime) A peculiar status for uncertainty gives the motivation for the Art of Controversy.

4 + 5) Scientists must behave as perfect nihilists.  A policy or outcome preference from a scientist, even if the logical consequence of a common humane morality of care-taking for the benefit of future generations, is disallowed.  (Strangely, this requirement to be perfect nihilists only applies to scientists.)  If imperfect nihilism is demonstrated, the publications affected can be discarded.

Commentary on 4 + 5) Forums with such a concept of mandatory scientific nihilism simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

6) Scientists writing in casual forums always risk their reputation, for a certain group of scientists.  Scientists writing in casual forums always have their casual statements enhanced by their reputation from scientific publication, for a certain *different* group of scientists.

6 Prime) Forums with such a concept of a blessed group of scientists simply exist to rid the record of facts that a group of augmenters find fatal to their viewpoint.

7) You are not to notice that delay serves privileged groups well.  So the Art of Controversy must be only seen as a Quest for Truth.

7 Prime) Forums where the profits from delay are off limit topics simply exist to be in harmony with those profits, if not to be compensated by a fraction of those profits.

Conclusion) I will assume the burden of discipline to avoid these failure modes, in anticipation that I will be called out when I violate them.  Then, properly shamed, I will document my failure and correct.

Finially, with a sour taste in my mouth, I end with a comment reply:

http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/04/27/curry-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-3478
"Roger Pielke Jr. Says: April 27th, 2010 at 1:12 pm" speaking of "stealth advocacy"

> No one can control how their statements are used by others.  One can however be clear on how their views map onto policy.

This implies that "stealth advocacy" can be a sin of omission.

And, let me guess, a fact put forward by a scientist guilty of "stealth advocacy" has permanent fractional worth, irregardless of the truth of the fact.

You don't need to be much of a Bayesian to see value in informing an initial judgement in a fact from a judgement of the motivation of actor positing the fact.  But it is only fair to apply this to scientists, critics, pundits, others alike.  And, eventually, the judgement of the fact in isolation of political outcomes has to swamp out the initial judgement informed by motivation.  And, the judgement process must provisionally terminate, because the value is in the result, not in the sustained controversy (provisional on information fatal to the judgement).  And, uncertainty can compel action, in the same way that uncertainty about the risks to my home can compel me to spend money on homeowners insurance, now.

It is my opinion that you would not agree with the above.  I would like to be assured otherwise (of course, you are under no obligation).

Another of my comments:

> Stealth advocacy occurs when someone claims to be only discussing the fact, but in reality, is working to constrain the scope of policy options.  Such work can be intentional or unintentional...

The thing to be maximized is not the "scope" of policy options.  I could enlarge the scope of school-day bed-time options by actively soliciting the opinion of my middle-school daughter, but I am maximizing for long term education outcomes.

Publishing valid results of the significant possibility of climate disruption inconsistent with post-industrial human population numbers would "constrain the scope of policy options", if the published work was taken seriously.  Surely this is not what you want to curtail?

If I was to be uncharitable, I would say discussing "stealth advocacy" is a technique to indefinitely prolong the process of committing to an action commensurate with the possibility of climate disruption, because uncomfortable scientific results could be judged guilty of "constraining the scope of policy options" by removing comfortable but [untenable] options from consideration.

[more 4/27/10]

quoting "Roger Pielke Jr. Says: April 27th, 2010 at 4:35 pm"

> Discussion of issues related to advocacy among scientists long pre-date arguments about climate policy.

How could I forget the controversy of tobacco carcinogenicity? ... Oops, there I go, "constraining the scope of policy options" again.

from "Judith Curry Says: April 27th, 2010 at 6:03 pm", quoting Mike Hulme: "Heated debate" http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/features/features/heated-debate

I agree with Hulme that "different legitimate positions people adopt about these ideological and ethical entanglements" can, with rhetorical tricks, be falsely turned into "arguments about belief (or otherwise) in scientific claims".

But, without a motivating morality about care-taking for future generations, the whole climate disruption argument is just so much dry stuff.  And, with that motivating morality, uncertainty is a call to action, not an excuse for inertia.

Again, using the example of [purchasing] homeowners insurance, certainty does not have a monopoly on rational reasons for action.

And it would be a peculiar motivating morality about care-taking for future generations, if it did not prompt skepticism against those who would prolong discussion before meaningful action.  If it did not, it could hardly be called morality at all.

Accepting this, you would expect some viewpoints to remain permanently separated.

What does an Unsustainable Society look like?

Image via Wikipedia

A long form comment inspired by:

Michael Tobis - "Only In It For The Gold": Still Bupkis

Quoting "watchingthedeniers":

> We should perhaps be looking at it in the context of other [successful] "PR" campaigns (in the sense the whole thing was manufactured).

Quoting "Steve Bloom"

> WtD, what gave the "scandal" media legs was the behavior of three journalists (Revkin, Pearce and Monbiot) at two outlets (the NYTimes and Guardian). In essence their coverage gave permission for the rest of the media to pile on. Revkin is most at fault IMHO.

> Actually it would be informative to re-examine Revkin's article in light of present information.

Hear, hear!

I wish I had a fraction of the gifts of John Mashey, to replicate the quality and thoroughness of his work on anti-science organizations and the few scientists they have been able to co-opt, but apply it to techniques and social structures.

What follows is a laughably bare outline, of dubious worth:

A society that is unsustainable in the long term, but stable in the short term, has this structure:

[The terms "vital few", "trivial many" are from Pareto]

"The vital few" - elites dedicated to maintaining their relative status in the short term, even to the detriment of their objective well-being in the long term.  Slavishly dedicated to seeking out short-term local maximums of their relative status.  They react badly and shut down discussion if anyone suggests their status be contingent on successful long term responsible leadership.  Stable because of all the energy these few disburse in maintaining the political structure and rules of decorum of the upper point of the pyramid.

"The trivial many" - common folk dedicated to shedding adult responsibility and shrinking the scope of their responsibility, even to the detriment of their objective well-being in the long term.  Slavishly dedicated to seeking out short-term local maximums of distractions and coping behaviors, with both distractions and coping behaviors preferred over enlarging the scope of their responsibility.  They react badly and shut down discussion if anyone suggests they enhance their responsibility and enlarge their scope of responsibility.  Stable because they have been promised plentiful distractions and pats on the head as a reward for laying prone in rough heaps - to be stepped upon by the vital few.

"The Insignificant" - everyone else who doesn't fall into the above two categories.  Too few to count.  The Internet allows these people an unprecedented ability to organize themselves.  But ultimately it is like two tiny bits of bacon in a massive bowl of split pea soup - the scarcity is so embarrassing it would almost be better to replace it with the complete absence.  And probably I am being too optimistic.  Stable because too few to count.

[Not all the members of "the insignificant" are responsible actors.  But all responsible actors, by exclusion, must be part of "the insignificant"]

The expected role of journalism: journalists are barely a part of the vital few, they have their noses pressed up the glass to better watch the waltzes and curtsies of the elites.  Journalist are under economic pressure, because neither the vital few or the trivial many are willing to pay for the type of corrective active journalism the US Founding Fathers imagined.  So really-existing contemporary journalists are attracted to an easy "he said/she said" narrative, and attracted to sources that can supply ample dumbed down copy.  Both play into the hands of well-funded PR sources, and since there is no financial mechanism to borrow dollars from a sustainable future, the money comes from the exploitation of historical unsustainable resources.

The techniques are all the old tools of the Art of Controversy.  Nothing is so easy to do as to shush down an idea nobody is comfortable with.  You would think with each error pointed out, the journalists would adopt disciplines to prevent that error from even happening again.  But everything is playing out as past anti-scientific obscurantism did, because no discipline is ever permanently retained.  [This explains why the punishment for plagiarism is so much greater and swifter than the punishment for lying and sloth and craven stenography for the purposes of the elites, in journalism.]

And, this form of journalism is socially stable because the vital few fear: (1) the responsibility of sustainability and (2) a society of plentiful human fulfilment, because they both pose a risk to their short-term relative status.  And, this form of journalism is socially stable because the trivial many fear the suggestion of enhancing their responsibility and enlarging their scope of responsibility, denying them their precious distractions and pats on the head.

The advantage of viewing all through the lens of this model is that time and energy can be saved by avoiding dialog with those who have no capability to remake themselves into responsible actors.  [Why argue with those who hold their opponents to a much higher standard of discourse than they do themselves and their friends?  Those who want a higher standard of discourse will lead by example.  This immediately paints all the alleged "reasonable skeptics/deniers" as bright red prats, you will notice.]

My preferred future: take actions to develop the pervasiveness of the morality of the sustainable long view, and the morality of plentiful human fulfilment.  Develop the pervasiveness of such morality *first*, and the programs of social and economic change *second*.  Any desire to short-cut the process will play into the hand of demagogues that simply want to change one set of worthless "vital few" with another set of worthless "vital few", to the cheers of the "trivial many".

Much like social activism of abolitionists in the late 1600's eventually led to the significant (but incomplete) eradication of slavery on December 10, 1948 (United Nations General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights).  Unfortunately, the social change of human society is literally glacial, when it comes to acquiring higher standards of morality.  Even *with* immense levels of personal dedication on the level of John Brown, Bleeding Kansas, 1855.

I appreciate your criticism of the above, so I can replace the garbage of my poorly constructed thoughts with something better.

It is time for some humility - Oh Lordy...

Image by Perfesser via Flickr

"it is time for some humility, concludes [a deservedly humble man]"

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/statistically-improbable-phrases.html

The sheer nerve of a request for "humility" against those who put their reputations on the line by publishing, under the burden of responsible science.  A request for humility by a humbug.

My comment:

That piece is clearly not a book review (too short and too shallow), and it is not a piece of higher criticism because advances no thesis (concern trolling is the opposite of advancing a thesis).

It is a piece of opinion placed in a corner of Nature where the editors don't have to take any responsibility for the opinion.  And quite a shabby bit of opinion making.

And why this fringe voice chosen?  (Bjorn was caught out misrepresenting sources, the Superfreakonomics chapter was a hash, so RPJr steps up to the plate...  And RPJr's tack will run out quickly as well - it seems to be entirely based on the idea that facts can be "contaminated" by scientists who have a preferred policy outcome.  Because politics is a human activity, and scientists must not be human.)

An disreputable opinion published predominately without risk to reputation. Shameful.  If the self-described "reasonable voices" see the issue not as a matter of scientific fact but as a political or economic one, then commission a paper from a publishing political scientist or an economist.  Instead of publishing potshots and bobbing and weaving and concern trolling.

Was this garbage technique used before against other science that pained industries?  Is there a history of this technique used for tobacco or pharmacological marketing?  Or is energy policy widely understood by "the people who matter" to be all encompassing?

Obviously, industry funds a lot of research.  Is this garbage based on many industry voices among the circle of acquaintance of Nature's editors saying that the economic replacements for carbon fuels are just not ready yet, so the scientific question of human culpability in global warming has to simmer on the back burner for a while?  (Sadly, the industry concerns are probably more cynical than this - an indirect demand from those who get paid today that they deserve to get paid tomorrow, oil rigs or not, refineries or not.)

John Mashey did a bang up job tracking the pitifully few scientists who promote obscurantism against climate science, but I don't recall the editorial boards of top journals being included in his analysis.  And he didn't write about the techniques used in those journals to promote the Art of Controversy against uncomfortable scientific findings.

Andrew Gelman and Climate Change Concern Trolling

Image by Dunechaser via Flickr

Andrew Gelman's blog [ http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/ ] has some of the best writing on climate change when Phillip Price submits a post [ see http://manuelmoeg.blogspot.com/2009/12/talking-about-climate-change-publishing.html ] and has some of the worst writing when Andrew Gelman himself posts.

Andrew Gelman seems to be sympathetic to conspiratorial thinking about the scientific culture around climate change.  My feeling is that in his own field of statistics, Bayesian techniques have been actively suppressed and misrepresented, so Gelman is open to the idea that investigators who don't see human global warming could be actively suppressed and misrepresented too.

Which is fine, if the arguments were not so lame.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2010/02/stabilizing_fee.html
(Anonymous concern troll says any paper contradicting Arrhenius' 1896 climate model is likely to be self suppressed. And if this is not the point of the anonymous question, what is?)
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2009/12/how_do_i_form_m.html
(Before Andrew Gelman steps onto a subway train, he ponders that the civil engineers that designed the train might be laboring under thoughts so stupid that they can only come from some aspect of the civil engineering consensus in a particularly ugly undigested form. And he is paralyzed by fits of panic. And if this is not the point of Gelman's "Beyond my limited sphere of scientific compresension, I dunno", what is?)

It could be more convincingly argued that:

(1) human activity is making an ice age less likely

(2) global warming skepticism and preference for inaction plays a semi-rational role in the debate, not because of the poor quality of their arguments, but as a brake against premature solutions:

Image by Auntie P via Flickr

Al Gore holding up a mercury light bulb in "An Inconvenient Truth",
Ed Begley, Jr. installing semiconductor solar panels to all exposed surfaces of his home,
the US government giving loans to Tesla electric cars

... all of which are very likely contributing to burning *more* fossil fuels, not less, because the total costs over those product's entire lifetime (including manufacturing plants that themselves burn fossil fuels, including safe disposal of wastes) are unrepresented by the relatively small price charged to consumers.  Better to tax fossil fuels in rich countries and spend that money on research placed in the public domain so even the poorest countries can benefit.  At a gradual rate of increase, so as to have minimum harm to productivity.

But, instead, we get lame concern trolling about scientific conspiracies.  I get the tiresome feeling that the global warming skeptics need to be saved from themselves, to have the people convinced by the scientific consensus to make their best arguments for them, because they cannon help but simply echo the last thing they heard from someone with a direct financial link to oil companies.  Tiresome.

My reply to the anonymous concern troll:

> If the prediction of a climate model is very much outside the consensus predictions, it is not likely to be published.

More arguing that climate science is a nonesuch science.  Taken to the logical extreme, we can argue that Einstein's papers on Special and General Relativity are not likely to be published (and that is why we still use epicycles today).  Taken to the logical extreme, we can posit that Alex Rodriguez is not likely to swing for the fences.  The blockbuster behavior of the players in the 99.999% percentile is poorly predicted by the tentative behavior of the average player.

Secondly, science publishing is not the only market for climate modeling.  Commodities traders and the reinsurance market for hedging risk on multi-year massive construction projects have a need for accurate climate modeling, because on those time scales a long range weather report would be worthless.  Those players are willing to leave millions on the table just so their hired gun scientists can parrot safe results that are unlikely to rattle tea cups at the next faculty function?  Unlikely.

I beg your forgiveness for the following snarkiness.  Can your anonymous concern troll name a single branch of science that has remained on a strictly linear trajectory since 1896?  Besides phrenology.

[ Edit 2/15/10 ]

The goalposts have been moved in the comments is Andrew Gelman's post on February 12.  It moved to always having the models subjected to a growing set of data, never casting out past data (good, good).  It moved to meta-analysis of all available models, over time (good, good).  It moved to the variance of published models compared to the subjective guessed distributions of the individual practicing scientists (fine, fine).  But where happened to the original claim "If the prediction of a climate model is very much outside the consensus predictions, it is not likely to be published."?

My comment submitted:

Marc Levy

> They find that if you ask climate experts to characterize their subjective best guess as to the distribution of key climate change parameters, you observe far more variance ... than you observe when you look at the distribution of all the climate model outputs.

This is to be expected, because no one would represent *any* model as perfectly describing reality - if it was perfect, it would no longer be a model, anymore.  Only pure mathematics has the benefit of being able to switch the analysis to a proved isomorphism that is easier to compute.  Every model is an adequate simplification, over a domain, and it is hoped the failure modes are understood so the model is not misused.  But the option of "proving" the model a perfect representation of reality is not available.

Useful scientific models typically give sharp results - sharper results than field readings, even counting for input precision or rounding in iteration, etc.  The models are useful *because* they give sharp results - or else you would have the perverse consequence of improving the usefulness of a model by adding slop into it to increase the variance.  A bound on the error is useful to track, but no one would actually mix in slop in a model to force the variance wider, even if the model's variance doesn't match field readings.

Any expert would know very well all the possible failure modes and other limitations of a particular model, that so their subjective guessed distribution would have greater variance than the considered model because of that knowledge.  The scientist possess what humans value as knowledge, the documented model cannot (and so scientists cannot be replaced with the models of their creation).  Why else might the variance be greater?  -- perhaps the scientist is in possession of they consider to be a better model, not yet published.  Or perhaps, the scientist is simply aware of the possibility of a better model.

The relatively uncontroversial model of satellite orbits is informative.  They are tighter because they, of course, consider fewer particles than Mother Nature is able to consider.  So they can consider events in the future, because they run faster than reality, and so they can run on economically available hardware.  No one would consider their tighter variance than the variance of observatory readings to be surprising, much less consider it a failure of the model.  Only if there was misrepresentation of best knowledge of the model's error bound, or failure modes, or applicable domain, and then, it would not be a failure of the model, it would be a misapplication by a human agent.

Can I note that the goalposts have been moved?  The original issue was "stabilizing feedback" and the original question contained the assertion "If the prediction of a climate model is very much outside the consensus predictions, it is not likely to be published."  There are other interesting issues to consider, but only after the parties admit that the goalposts have been moved and the focus of the argument shifted.

There's no light the foolish can see better by

Another reminder that you cannot show to those who are determined not to see.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

There's no light the foolish can see better by

Scienceblogs - Stoat

This is one of my favourite proverbs. I quite often find myself turning it over in my own mind as some particularly dense person fails yet again to see the bleedin' obvious.
And yet I discover that it doesn't appear to be a 'standard' proverb, at least as revealed by 5 mins of not-very-exhaustive google searching. If you know better, tell me.
The meaning, of course, is that once a certain minimal level of literal or metaphorical illumination has been shed on a subject, increasing the level of illumination or quantity of explanation will not allow the foolish to understand any more. Very useful for the GW debate.

I know it from John Crowley's masterpiece, The Deep. Perhaps Crowley invented it.

How do I form my attitudes about scientific questions? - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science

Image by De Shark via Flickr

Andrew Gelman at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

How do I form my attitudes about scientific questions? - Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science: "
It's not that the scientific consensus is stupid, it's that some statements are so stupid that they only come because the speaker has processed some aspect of the consensus in a particularly ugly undigested form.
...
...To me, it's another case where the existence of the consensus has switched off people's brains.
"

This point is valid, and well put, but if you read the whole post, I think Andrew Gelman is being far too pessimistic.

> "What do I recommend you all do? On subjects where Phil and I are the experts, I suggest you listen to what we have to say. Beyond that, I dunno."

This is very pessimistic and skeptical of considered consensus, and contradicted by Andrew Gelman's daily life. Before I step into a subway train, I don't form opinions about the quality of considered consensus of civil engineers, and Mr. Gelman does not either.

Commenter "jonathan" makes the point:

> I think you've raised two separate issues. One is the process by which consensus builds, entrenches, shifts, etc. The other is how rational people make rational decisions about information.

> It's interesting to me how in a few notable areas the two are lumped together: the idea that biologists are maintaining some (evil) consensus in favor of evolution and that climate scientists, etc. are doing the same with regard to climate change.

> ...

Image via Wikipedia

If you step back and compare "Skepticism of Human Activity Causing Global-Warming/Climate-Change" to established cases of motivated obscurantism, like denying evolution and natural selection, and tobacco carcinogenicity, and the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, and the efficacy of the polio vaccine, and perhaps less established cases of motivated obscurantism like controlled demolition taking down the Twin Towers and HIV/AIDS, you see familiar patterns and similar techniques and motivations both sinister and innocent-by-way-of-ignorance/gullibility. It will seem like bad form to the self-described "Skeptics", but they could bring doubters into their fold by work - the work of authoritatively publishing their opposing immutable thesis, and welcoming that to be subjected to the highest standard of scrutiny. And what are we to make of the "Skeptics" doing everything _except_ that work?

The considered consensus of the scientific experts, here, is slowly growing and publishing an opposing authoritative immutable thesis - far too slowly and too messily and with too much initial unwarranted speculation for an impatient world - but at least they are building something up for possible future champion to knock down. And if it resists being knocked down - we have a consensus where it would be "perverse to withhold provisional consent", using Sagan's phrase.

Image by sbisson via Flickr

As for motivation within this possible case of motivated obscurantism, how can I discount the astroturf and sympathetic goodwill David Koch has purchased and does purchase?

If you draw the boundary of consideration small enough "I dunno" seems like honest skepticism of considered consensus. But what is the compelling reason to draw the boundary of consideration so small as to ignore case for motivated obscurantism?

Nonesuch Science vs. Run-of-the-mill Obscurantism

Image via Wikipedia

Breathless comments from the Anti-AGW crowd. The are perfect constructions of pure craziness. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/11/physicists_firm_on_climate_cha.html

It is really time to stop this silliness. 160 Physicists are not wrong. The problem is corporate America, lead by false prophets such as Mr. Gore, stand to make billions off of carbon credits, and garner other favors in the name of “saving the planet…” Needless to say, the Socialists and Marxists in our society will love the tax revenues and control of every aspect of our lives too. The American people are wising up. We are beginning to realize this whole thing is an unholy alliance between Revolutionary Marxists and Big Environment. We know that the end goal is to wreck our lives. The planet is not in danger. There is “Global Climate Change” and there has been for billions of years. Get over it. We see you… The Blinders Are Coming Off the people and the public backlash against the Carbon Hedge Fund Scamp will be phenomenal…

Posted by: D*n C**ll* | November 13, 2009 05:46 PM

It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background. Another strong indicator that climate alarmism is much more about politics and religion than it is about science. In any case, if these 160 scientists, as well as many more around the world, can consider the issue of AGW as an open issue, then it is not settled science. What is even more alarming is the brownshirt tactics of the establishment alarmists. Obviously intimidation of the opposition is on the menu. Having Gore fire Happer is an indication that if you differ from AGW, you better keep your mouth shut. Dr. Roy Spencer experienced similar problems in expressing his opinions about AGW when he worked for the government. Notice that what is not covered here is the scientific merit of the petition that these scientists brought to the APS. In these political times, scientific merit is obviously something that the APS no longer cares about.

Posted by: T*l* R*b*r | November 14, 2009 05:28 PM

I disemvoweled the names. The comments are wonderful examples of the Art, above being the vile rantings of these two unbalanced folk. My comment: > It's interesting that as a scientist, if you wish to express an opinion that is contrary to the alarmist orthodoxy, that the alarmists consider it justification for researching your background. Strange. A claim that, simultaneously, the petitioners deserve weight attached to their statement because of their background, and, the petitioners cannot be expected to bare any inquiry into their background. Which is primary: the judged validity of the statement or the moment-by-moment convenience of the petitioners?

Image via Wikipedia

Considering the science of the possible human causes of harmful climate change, either it is a nonesuch science, where the publishing practitioners cannot be trusted to draw conclusions from their own research, or we have an example of run-of-the-mill obscurantism, like the fellow "controversies" of evolution, HIV/AIDS, the Jewish Holocaust of WWII, tobacco carcinogenicity, vaccination for public health, and the Twin Towers falling because of airplanes piloted into them and not because of controlled explosive demolition. And we see the predicted distress accompanying inquiry of the political/economic/social dynamics of motivated obscurantism, here. The anti-AGW crowd can distinguish themselves from run-of-the-mill obscurantism with energies directed toward *their* *own* published research under the norms of scientific scrutiny. Or not - petitions can be filed and semi-plausible skeptical harrumphing can be echoed and amplified. Their own choice. The comments to this story http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40916 are even more worrying.

John Mashey Nov 12, 2009 9:11 PM What this petition campaign was really about I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort). Of the 206 signers, 1 is a real climate scientist, and handful more have published a few papers in credible journals, often refuted rather quickly. Some hae published outright psuedoscience. There's a detailed person-by-person analysis, with quotes, to help the reader assess the level of credibility. See: http://www.desmogblog.com/another-silly-climate-petition-exposed It's 128 pages, but most of that is detailed backup; the first 25 pages is enough to get the idea. No more than a small handful of signers do or have done anything close to climate science research, and about 40% of the signers are retired, hence "risk" is minimal, except for being recognized as silly. Some of what they signed would be recognized as wrong by any competent gardener or many 10-year-old farm kids. *l*v*r K. M*n**l Nov 13, 2009 5:49 PM United States What the APS response was really about Quote: Originally posted by John Mashey I've studied this campaign in detail, including connections with a few thinktanks, comparisons with related past petitions, its use as a PR tool (not really to change APS), the unusual demographics of the signers compare to the APS (older, almost all male, likely very politically conservative, etc), the social network by which it spread (even though it is supposed to look like a widespread grassroots effort). APS has been in bed with NAS for the past fifty years, at least since the return of the Apollo Mission to the Moon in 1969. That is why: a.) Only older APS members remember when physics was a rational search for truth instead of a search for more funds from NAS and the federal agencies it controls (NASA, DOE, etc), and b.) NASA and DOE scientists and most APS members are completely oblivious to experimental data that showed Earth's climate is controlled by the unstable remains of a supernova that exploded 5 Gy (5 billion years) ago, ejected all of the material that now orbits the Sun, and is heated today by repulsive interactions between neutrons in the solar core. With kind regards, *l*v*r K. M*n**l Former NASA PI for Apollo Emeritus Professor of Nuclear & Space Studies

Image via Wikipedia

I cannot imagine a more unfalsifiable theory than "climate controlled by unstable supernova remains". [ Karl Popper's philosophy of science http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html ] The product of a troubled mind.