Canadian Blue Lemons on the Suzuki machine’s attack on science;
In a previous post I brought to CBL readers’ attention how the Suzuki Foundation’s PR firm is running a blog (www.desmogblog.com) that is dedicated to smearing the reputations of scientists who disagree with the fantasy-based strategies of Suzuki and his ilk.
This smear campaign is being run by Hoggan Public Relations, whose principal, interestingly enough, wrote this article slamming PR firms for doing work for organizations that he refers to as skeptic-scammers (SS). I guess in his world, only one side of a debate (his) can ever be represented by his profession. Hypocrite, because their side of the debate certainly is calling upon PR pros to manipulate public opinion (as revealed by Ranting Stan).
The duplicitous nature of this exercise is fascinating. They impugn the credentials of every person who draws a different conclusion from available data and go so far as to try and destroy lives for their nevarious cause.
I wonder – just what kind of ethical contortions were necessary within Suzuki Foundation walls to come up with an honorary board membership for the director of a company mining uranium in Argentina?
Yeah, quotations are fun.
“We’re very pleased with [the IPCC 4th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers]. We’re embracing it. We agree with it…Human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth’s climate and that issue is no longer up for debate.” ~ Dr. Samuel W. Bodman III, chemical engineer, US Secretary of Energy, Republican, grandfather
Perhaps Dr. Feynman would find “Sam” quite tedious as well.
A. I would have to call JM Hendrix 10% number is as much of a scientific fact as your 90% 10% number
Because with any given issue, if the scientific/general opinion is split, I dunno, 90-10, one would need a pretty compelling personal reason for siding with the 10% camp.
In other words, it’s easier to be a follower.
Re:9:29 p.m. Are Al Gore and David Suzuki embracing all of the IPPC 4th. Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers ?
Does Al Gore’s movie ” An Inconvenient Truth” dovetail with the above report?
Does the above report jive with David Sukuki’s contention that “things are worse than we thought”?
“human activity is contributing to changes in our Earth’s climate” Is there no wiggle room in that statement?
I heard a rumour that Suzuki’s son Troy lives in taxpayer subsidized housing in Dawson City, Yukon. Not easy to verify probably but if by chance anyone knows someone really in the know on social assistance in the Yukon and does not mind confirming or denying this it would be interesting to have the real scoop on this rumour.
A
I really don’t think I stated what you appear to assume I said; you diminish yourself. And your subsequent quote reinforces my point.
Cheers
A. I would have to call JM Hendrix 10% number is as much of a scientific fact as your 90% 10% number
I agree. That’s why I prefaced my “numbers” with “I dunno.” I’ve heard it’s as high as 95-5. Would you have preferred 80-20? 70-30? For sure it’s not 50-50. Can anybody here name a single independent scientific body, as a proxy for a peer-reviewed locus of knowledge, that argues that the AGW thesis is without merit?
I’m not saying that there’s no need for further research, nor am I saying that there’s no need for further debate. I’m saying that while the academic research and debate continue, governments and industries and society need to start acting. Why the precautionary principle? Because scientific debates never end, especially as what’s being debated are the conditions of the future. In other words, if you insist on incontrovertible positive proof before implementing policies, then you’re in effect insisting on a permanent state of inaction.
A,
Don’t worry … sometime, somewhere, someone will snap their fingers and bring you out. You won’t be clucking like a mindless chicken forever.
I really don’t think I stated what you appear to assume I said; you diminish yourself. And your subsequent quote reinforces my point.
Sorry, too many comments; I’ve lost track. What were you trying to state? I thought you were claiming that those who specialise in the study of climate changes are generally found among “the 10 %” who’re against the AGW thesis, but perhaps I’m wrong.
Don’t worry … sometime, somewhere, someone will snap their fingers and bring you out. You won’t be clucking like a mindless chicken forever.
You know, Ural, when you post stuff like this, it only gives credence to the claims that places like SDA are nothing more than far-right ideological echo chambers populated by folks whose knee-jerk response to contrary opinions is ad hominem attack.
In other words, if you insist on incontrovertible positive proof before implementing policies, then you’re in effect insisting on a permanent state of inaction.
To paraphrase scripture, follow a blind man and both will fall in the ditch.
A,
Sorry. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Run do something, run, run, run. The sky is falling.
See, I’m with you now.
Gordon, re 11:28: That’s prurient and stupid and threatening.
Gordo, I can verify for you that Troy, Kooky Sazuki’s son, was in the Yukon two summers ago working on the SS Klondike – an old sternwheeler. I think he worked on the Keno in Dawson City also. I will check his housing stats and get back to you. The re -outfitting of the sternwheelers cost all you taxpayers a small fortune – it was a Liberano project(federal) and it took forever.
A, for the most part, SDAers are asking that the valid concerns with the “very solid science” of climate change be addressed in a thorough and thoughtful manner. What we are getting is that anyone who challenges the current FACT (it is only a theory) of AGW are “deniers” and in the pockets of oil companies. This is smear and intimidation, not debate.
If there was an open and honest debate, if there was a clear explanation / refutation of the competing theories and questions related to the current FACT of AGW, I doubt we’d be as upset with the science. I’m SURE we’d still be upset with the transfer of wealth associated with the carbon trading, but more of us would be satisfied that the science is solid.
But what we see is extrapolations based on qualitative assessments of imprecise computer models that are built on incomplete data using assumptions of poorly understood climate mechanisms and discounting other potentially competing theories (methane production by plants, carbon sinks provided by “picoplancton” or whatever, solar activity, etc.).
You have to forgive us for being skeptical. Thousands of years ago, over 90% of scientists believed that the sun revolved around the earth. A hundred years ago, 90% of scientists believed that electrons, protons and neutrons were the smallest particles. Scant decades ago, “many” scientists believed we were headed for another ice age.
Address our valid scientific concerns, stop trying to silence us with intimidation and smear and we will “drink the kool-aid”.
By the way, A, regarding your question as to what the difference is between SDA and DeSmogBlog is:
DeSmogBlog is a blog run or funded by an established Foundation (I’m not sure of the funding or charity status) and is using smear tactics to besmirch the reputations of “climate change deniers” and, essentially, close down debate.
SDA is a blog run by an individual (funded by herself and contributions of readers through PayPal) and is pointing out holes in the science of AGW, questioning the solidity of the AGW science and, essentially, trying to open up debate.
DeSmogBlog wants to shut people up and SDA wants to get people talking. The former is negative and goes against scientific debate and the latter is positive and is in the spirit of scientific debate. Smear and intimidation is bad, debate is good.
A said: “Can anybody here name a single independent scientific body, as a proxy for a peer-reviewed locus of knowledge, that argues that the AGW thesis is without merit?”
Therein lies my chief objection to AGW. The supporting studies published in journals ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. That is my understanding; please correct me, and cite references, if I am in error.
The IPCC is a political body created to confirm AGW. The latest report was written by bureaucrats and politicians. I understand they took the worst-case scenarios of their comprehensive report, to be released in May. So, if we accept AGW as proven theory, or at least having substantial scientific support (which I would accept), we know it has become politicized and some of the conclusions, especially concerning temperature and sea level rises, represent worst outcomes, and my understanding is they have been “sexed up.”
Stern’s report, again from what I’ve read, has made some serious methodological errors which taint his conclusions.
Al Gore has taken this exaggeration further, amplified it, to produce ridiculous conclusions.
Again, I’m not saying AGW is complete bunk, I’m saying it has not passed the science test yet; I am willing to stand corrected on this. I just get suspicious when anytime an objection is raised, someone is smeared as an oil lapdog or we get a pat on the head from Suzuki and are told everything is OK. Please enlighten me.
Eeyore, thanks for not calling me a moonbat leftard. I genuinely mean that as a compliment.
I hear what you’re saying about the lack of debate on the AGW theory. There are certainly environmental advocates out there who’re rather disturbing in their desire to silence the skeptics. I won’t try to defend them too much here, but I do understand why they’re doing what they’re doing.
What we are getting is that anyone who challenges the current FACT (it is only a theory) of AGW are “deniers” and in the pockets of oil companies. This is smear and intimidation, not debate.
Two things. First, true enough about desmogblog, but what is referring to, say, David Suzuki as “Dr. Fruit Fly”? Light-hearted humour? In earlier threads, certain folks had taken to calling Dr. Andrew Weaver over at UVic and other IPCC scientists the usual ad hominem anti-‘left’ slag. Again, how is that not also smear? It’s certainly not scoring any points with moderates. So long as SDA condones and engages in this childish name-calling, it won’t be taken seriously as a legitimate and sober voice of dissent in the climate change debate.
Second, desmogblog may not be a legitimate source of scientific information, but they’re good at what they do, which is use PR strategies against their perceived opponents. They’re merely applying the same sort of tactics and logic that industries have long used to spin issues and shape public opinion in their favour. Think of it as fighting fire with fire; desmogblog is necessary so long as industry players continue to engage in greenwashing, astroturfing, front-grouping, etc.
Surely you have to admit that when a group like the Friends of Science, who may or may not comprise disinterested scientists, admits they receive funding from oil companies, it’s bad optics. And that when its latest incarnation, the National Resource Stewardship Program, imposes a restriction on its members that legally bars them from saying whether they do or do not receive any funding from oil companies, it’s bad optics. And when it’s revealed that the World Climate Report is funded by the Greening Earth Society, which itself was created by the Western Fuels Association, it’s bad optics. The scientists involved may or may not have pure motives, but surely they must recognize that their perceived empirical impartiality is completely undermined by allying themselves with such groups.
Anyway, I think debate is good–RealClimate has received due praise for their non-partisan analyses. They have a pretty good FAQ that begins to answers burning questions, like why predicting climate and predicting weather are not the same thing; or why it’s erroneous to claim that the “global warming” observed on Mars provides de facto proof that earthly AGW is a crock; or why climate models have merit; or why water vapour is not as important as you might think; or what the lag in CO2 behind ice core temp increases means; or what the MWP is all about; or what the role of solar activity is…Their comments section usually attracts thoughtful responses too.
By the way, SDA is positive and in the spirit of scientific debate? Not with its blatantly partisan, anti-‘left’, anti-environmentalist, anti-NDP/Liberal rhetoric. Would you like to have a climate debate aboard Greenpeace’s Rainbow Warrior? How about the petty ad hominem comments, like Ural @ 12:12AM? Even SDA’s anti-Islam stance, admittedly not related to the environment, makes this site far too toxic for genuine debate of any kind.
Also, I thought desmogblog was funded by John Lefebvre, who has his own problems these days. Perhaps this is untrue.
Shamrock: Therein lies my chief objection to AGW. The supporting studies published in journals ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. That is my understanding; please correct me, and cite references, if I am in error.
I thank you as well for not calling me Chicken Little, or some such. Actually, the supporting studies are almost all in refereed journals or other peer-reviewed arenas. Oreskes’ (2004) study of 928 journal abstracts with “climate change” as a keyword, none of which diverged from the “consensus” view, is often cited (you can find it by googling “Oreskes 2004”). The formal statements put out by the national academies, the US National Research Council, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meterological Society, etc. are vetted by members, which may or may not be stringently peer-review. Despite being an intergovernmental group, the IPCC’s reports are written and reviewed by scientists, and summarize data primarily published in peer-reviewed sources. I encourage you to download the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report and peruse the references yourself.
The IPCC is a political body created to confirm AGW. The latest report was written by bureaucrats and politicians. I understand they took the worst-case scenarios of their comprehensive report, to be released in May. So, if we accept AGW as proven theory, or at least having substantial scientific support (which I would accept), we know it has become politicized and some of the conclusions, especially concerning temperature and sea level rises, represent worst outcomes, and my understanding is they have been “sexed up.”
That’s not quite the case. The science behind the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) report is fundamentally sound. From RealClimate (link provided by JM Heindrichs, above): “The process of finalising the SPM…is something that can seem a little odd. Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report. The key here is to note that what the lead authors originally came up with is not necessarily the clearest or least ambiguous language, and so the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists. It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence…
“The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they ‘own’ part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else. This gives the governments a vested interest in making this report as good as it can be (given the uncertainties). There are in fact plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists present) to ensure that the report is not slanted in any one preferred direction. However, the downside is that it can mistakenly appear as if the whole summary is simply up for negotiation. That would be a false conclusion – the negotiations, such as they are, are in fact heavily constrained by the underlying science.…
“Finally, a few people have asked why the SPM is being released now while the main report is not due to be published for a couple of months. There are a number of reasons – firstly, the Paris meeting has been such a public affair that holding back the SPM until the main report is ready is probably pointless. For the main report itself, it had not yet been proof-read, and there has not yet been enough time to include observational data up until the end of 2006. One final point is that improvements in the clarity of the language from the SPM should be propagated back to the individual chapters in order to remove any superficial ambiguity. The science content will not change.” [emphasis mine]
Gordon: I heard a rumour that Suzuki’s son Troy lives in taxpayer subsidized housing in Dawson City, Yukon. Not easy to verify probably but if by chance anyone knows someone really in the know on social assistance in the Yukon and does not mind confirming or denying this it would be interesting to have the real scoop on this rumour.
This is possibly a new low. Gordon, what exactly are you hoping to accomplish with the info you seek? And you think there’s somehow honour to be found in smearing David Suzuki by delving into the private lives of his family?
To Jema43: Shame on you for indulging and abetting Gordon.
To EBD: Kudos for being the only one to call Gordon’s scheme for what it is.
To Shamrock and everyone else on SDA: Shamrock writes that “[SDA] is positive and is in the spirit of scientific debate. Smear and intimidation is bad, debate is good.” Is it? Then why is nobody else condemning Gordon’s comment, and Jema54’s follow-up? Digging up “dirt” on David Suzuki’s family members, especially those not even involved in the substantive issue being debated? Do you abide this? Do you condone this? Surely non-interested family members are out-of-bounds. Or are standards of decency around here even lower than I thought?
I am not qualified to give a scientific opinion on the the truth of man-caused global warming. But then neither is the Lord of the Flies, David Suzuki.
I am qualified, however, to make a political assessment of it from my perspective as a voter and a tax-payer. This assessment is based on gut feel (when your gut is as big as mine you have to trust it). Gut-feel tells me something is wrong when there is so much certainty about an uncertain outcome and so much hysteria when somebody suggests that they don’t know enough to act on this certainty. Also when nobody can tell me who the winners and losers are in the climate change game if we do nothing and why I should trust models about climate years hence when I can’t trust weather predictions for next week or next winter.
I read a lot of books of all types. Last winter I read “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson
(http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything/dp/076790818X/sr=8-2/qid=1171926977/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-1975078-4118539?ie=UTF8&s=books)
One thing that struck me in reading this history of science was the pure nastiness and pettiness and academic shunning of dissenting opinions in historic debates about various scientific theories.
We have this mental image of “scientific” debate being a rational and emotionless and fair search for truth when in reality in historical terms it was petty pedagogical politics at its most vile and vituperative towards the politically incorrect. It was also interesting to read of the many times that the “truth” as defended came to be debunked and the dissenters vindicated. Usually posthumously.
Without having a scientific basis to assess the facts I have assessed the tone of the “debate” and am reluctant to commit my tax dollar or vote for any politician to save me from global warming, unless the planned action has some other direct benefit worthy of the cost e.g. more efficient industry or development of clean energy (e.g. nuclear).
As noted in a comment last week, I am reluctant to place too great a value on consensus when it comes to truth. When walking through a project a few years back I noticed that somebody had painted an arrow on a gear pump so that the electrician would know how to wire the motor so rotation would be correct. I noted to somebody that the arrow was wrong. He said: “six of us decided that it went that way.” My comment still stands “It could have been a hundred. That wouldn’t change the physics of the pump.” If that unit operation is still running the pump is still going against the original arrow.
Thank You “A” . A breath of fresh air. I wish all posters on this blog tried to discuss things rationally and without the name-calling like you.
Les
David Suzuki is a big time eco-freak he is just like such others like JAMES LOVELOCK who came up with this GAIA poppycock AL GORE a big egotisyical blabber mouth lets put them all on a slow leaky boat and send them to china