What must they be thinking down at the CBC?
Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.
Via Instapundit, (where there's lots more winning developments.)
The first time I ever heard the term "peer reviewed" I was skeptical about the authenticity of its implication. I suppose I just know too many university professors with their cluttered offices and often cluttered minds to ever think that a Peer reviewing another's work made it true.
But admit it, up until now it has been an effective tool of the AGW propagandists to shut down most any debate. :-(
I'm going over to the Globe and Mail and have a discussion about this with Alan Burke, he loves his peer review, I loves comedy.
“climate-assessment oligarchy.” ??
I'd just call it "you sniff my arse- I'll sniff yours, cash the research cheque", and be done with it.
Now THAT'S settled science, in 2011.
This case before the USSC is very Important..The Obama Communist Group (Soros) have asked the Court to throw the case out without a ruling...The sick bastards took this case all the way and now they want it stopped.. Gangster Justice indeed...Ruling any day now!
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cato-at-liberty.org%2Fmore-on-aep-v-connecticut-sue-the-butterflies-or-regulate-them%2F&ei=Nsb-Ta_lJYPAtgfZ_LHqAg&usg=AFQjCNFyTnVdKnQAaplvQRwQyU-xvWAgyg
Phil Jones remark was uncharitable, was not acted on, and was not really suprising to anyone who knows the personal styles of scientists. In this case he was expressing exasperation [in an email remember] with some incompetant.
The Himalayan "prediction" was a typo, that got left in due to the hurried bureaucratic procedure of producing the 2007 report.
It was not the physical science volume, where peer-review is expected. The source of the error was discovered by a Canadian glacier-scientist, AFTER which the sceptics went on a PR campaign to make the most of it.
Adding to these well-disussed minor incidents, Rex extends his research as back to Friday to cannibalize some typical McIntyre aspersions & imputations which have no scientific content at all. His "method" here appears to that of the shout radio types who read the morning paper & then rant on some selected headlines for the rest of the morning.
But Rex's rant might be said to have been peer-reviewed in advance, as it were, by Jonathon Kay --
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/15/bad-science-global-warming-deniers-are-a-liability-to-the-conservative-cause/
But Rex doesn't actually deny AGW, he wouldn't be that specific.
I stopped reading after the Phil Jones quote. Anyone who's still parroting that line isn't worth taking seriously.
Anyone trying to rig a multi $Billion world controlling peer review system should be taken seriously AND! they should be taken to jail.
One of the comments on Rex's article tried to refute him based upon the 'flooding' in Saskatchewan.
While water levels here are high, for sure, we found and looked at the original survey map from 1892. Guess what. The water levels today, with the Global Warming induced flooding appear to be identical to the water levels in 1892.
I was unaware that Global Warming was already prevalent so long ago...
I find these discussions ironic -- all elites operate like that, not just climate science.
The difference is, climate science is demonstrably wrong. So are some other elites. The percentage of general public who agree or disagree with said elites in each case varies considerably. Climate science is the worst offender. Evolution is perhaps second, or maybe it is modern sociology (examples, terrorists are enraged by poverty, homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, etc).
There is nothing different or unusual about climate science. Astronomy works the same way. The difference is, most of conventional, orthodox astronomy is either accepted by 99% of those capable of following the theories, or in a few cases, by well over 80% so that dissent is not really that big an issue. But it does exist.
Only a few branches of science are so thoroughly researched and vetted that they have no remaining dissenters.
And I might point out that political elites operate in this way, try getting yourself heard by the CPC if you're a social conservative.
"Evolution is perhaps second ..."
:D
I was wondering how long it would take! Exactly 50 minutes from the article being posted, to full-on crazy. Good job!
dizzy,
You seem to be in a serious state of denial.
Alex,
He said, "The percentage of general public who agree or disagree with said elites in each case varies considerably. [...] Evolution is perhaps second"
What exactly is "full-on crazy" about that? There is indeed a large percentage of the general public who don't agree with the conventional wisdom regarding evolution. Is it crazy to mention that?
You need to develop an analytical thought process.
A scare report, seven years old, from the an environmental advocacy group, became the key document for a major report released under the authority of the IPCC, the world’s best and brightest global warming minds.
[SNIP}
Kind people may put this down to pure sloppiness on the part of the IPCC. Coming after its disastrous handling of the Himalayan glacier melt, however, it looks to me more like deliberate mischief. The IPCC cannot be that stupid by chance.
~Rex Murphy
The IPCC IS an environmental advocacy group.(period,end,stop)
The obvious tell is in the name, International Panel on Climate Change.
The name itself presupposes that climate change is an issue of such concern that an International Panel must be set up to issue concerned evaluations and edicts about the state of what can only be described as an anthropogenic result(from the IPCC's mandated viewpoint) but is in reality as natural a process as night and day or the change of seasons.
What are these miscreants at the IPCC supposed to do?
Are they supposed to simply proclaim that AGW is a meme promulgated by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher during the Cold War to break the Coal Miner's Union and after pointing out that the climate has always changed, fold up their briefs and go to their several homes and begin looking for a new job the next day?
AGW is nothing more than a leftist policy plank designed to bludgeon opponents with, and like virtually every other liberal/left policy its goal is to provide liberals with political and economic control over voters.
And like virtually every other Lib/left policy, the leftist elites in the party and media do not follow their own agenda's at all.
(hello Catsmeat)
As for Rex Murphy, its more than a bit late to now ratchet up the high dudgeon. This fraud was obvious from the get go simply based on the players involved in starting it.
Criticizing it 2 decades later - or even a decade later doesn't cut the mustard.
Start criticizing your employers Rex, for they are still pimpming AGW on the front pages and on nightly telecasts.
Re: Dirtman at June 20, 2011 2:13 AM
No, he said "The difference is, climate science is demonstrably wrong. So are some other elites. ... Climate science is the worst offender. Evolution is perhaps second". But that's some very nice selective-quoting you've got there. You'd fit right in with the "EAVEN DAR WINF SAYD EVULUTUN WUZ WRONG!!!" morons, and the associated quote-mines from The Origin of Species.
Tell me, honestly, are you so blind that you entirely missed what he was saying, or are you intentionally trolling?
Greenpeace in the IPCC is no surprise - there is incestuousness among green policy makers, the IPCC, and NGOs. As Richard North has said, what the IPCC learned from Climategate is that they can get away with anything.
http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/greenpeace-in-the-ipcc-why-the-surprise/
At some point, politicians are going to have to choose between prosecuting these fraudsters or sharing a cell with them. People have had enough.
Dizzy;
You obviously didn't spend much time reading about the climategate emails. Not only were Phil Jones comments not a one off "not acted on", they were part of repeated communications from him to those who ran prestigious scientific publications urging them not to publish the work of anyone who was anti-AGW. Additionally, there were return emails from the folks who ran these publications assuring Jones that the work of "deniers" would never see the light of day. They've kept their promise.
"The Himalayan "prediction" was a typo"? Please tell me you're kidding. It was a full scale article written by a non-scientist in a publication that was hugely pro-AGW and passed on to the rest of us as peer reviewed science.
As to your statement, "But Rex doesn't actually deny AGW, he wouldn't be that specific", he's said precisely that many times. Evidently, you paid no more attention to the things he's had to say on the subject than you did the climategate emails.
At best Dizzy you are ill-informed. At worst you're a twit. I suspect I'd get little or no argument from Rex on that point.
Derek- I spent many years looking at township survey plats from 1883 through 1909. There have been significant changes in the prairie landscape over the past century. Many lakes have dried up, while some active sand dunes have become grassland. If the current weather patterns persist, I can foresee a few of those lakes holding water again, but many would take decades to hold water year round. When it comes to weather and the climate, there are no guarantees, and no accurate predictions.
Climate fraud is one of the greatest non violent crimes against humanity in the last century. Perpetrated by none other than the greatest evil doers in war time, the leftist demagogues.
dizzy
"Phil Jones remark was uncharitable, was not acted on, and was not really suprising to anyone who knows the personal styles of scientists. In this case he was expressing exasperation [in an email remember] with some incompetant."
Steve McIntyre is "some incompetant"?
There is more than enough evidence that Phil Jones is "incompetant" or worse....
This is just further evidence that COAGW is a religion....with a baseless assumption at it's core....faith....
You need to develop an analytical thought process.
Posted by: Dirtman at June 20, 2011 2:13 AM
Don't hold your breath. Alex is a troll, and it's best to ignore it.
Feel free to ignore Colin, Dirtman; he's a troll whose only purpose is to derail every discussion.
Colin, "Alex is a troll, and it's best to ignore it."
Yes I'm very aware what he is from his many trolling posts in the past, but once in a while it's so rediculous I just have to call him out.
Dirtman
That's what ya get when the prophets who spout this crap...with media, academic and bureaucratic blessings/approval...have less credibility than Erich Von Daniken.....
Alex, "But that's some very nice selective-quoting you've got there."
Pot - kettle. You ignored the most relevant part.
______________________________________________
You don't mention it but I must surmise that you call him "full-on crazy" because he apparently doesn't believe in evolution. I've known quite a few people over the decades who don't believe in evolution and not one of them could in any way be described as crazy. The absolute most one could say would be that they were ignorant in that respect, although a valid case could be made for their point of view.
Moreover, the currently accepted verison of evolution defies the evidence so it's not at all unreasonable to disbelieve it, and many of its stronges proponents act exactly as he suggests. I would put much more faith in the theory of symbiotic evolution, as it better correlates with evidence, but that isn't currently conventional wisdom.
This is awesome :) How do you attract this caliber of idiots, Kate? Aren't you starting to wonder why there's such a strong correlation between the twits who think the world is 6,000 years old, and climate "skeptics"?
bob on Phil Jones --
//You obviously didn't spend much time reading about the climategate emails Not only were Phil Jones comments not a one off "not acted on", they were part of repeated communications from him to those who ran prestigious scientific publications urging them not to publish the work of anyone who was anti-AGW //
Not publish; cite something already published. Some quotes for you --
Much has been made of the so-called efforts of the authors of some of the emails to keep papers out of the peer-reviewed literature. But the conversations in question were about whether to cite certain papers in a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC performs no research; the decisions in question concerned whether the IPCC should include citations to certain already-published material in their report. There is neither a desire nor an obligation of the IPCC to cite all peer-reviewed publications bearing on the subject, and the writers’ decisions about what and what not to include in the report are based on a judgment of their scientific quality. Far from being blackballed, research that in my view would not normally pass peer review ends up being published out of reviewers’ fears of being accused of blackballing. (The paper that the authors of the emails were discussing did end up being cited in the IPCC report.)
Jones' quote --
"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
&
“Redefine the peer-reviewed literature!” . Nobody actually gets to do that, and both papers discussed in that comment – McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 2 of the IPCC AR4 report. As an aside, neither has stood the test of time.
&
“MM is likely to be McIntyre and McKitrick (2005) in E&E (a very poor choice of journal if they wanted to be taken seriously). This last one was cited in IPCC AR4 (though against my suggestion in my review – based on it’s unclear status as a possibly un-peer-reviewed paper).”
So actully Bob, this would be a good example of the IPCC citing crap from a crappy source.
+
"The Himalayan "prediction" was a typo"?
There was more to it after the fact. But at its origin, yes. Here's the source, as uncovered by the Canadian glaciologist.
// The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean
level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused
by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300
years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates—
its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive
only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice
sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the
highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.
Thus the glaciation shrinkage as a result of the “green house” effect will entail highly negative
implications in geoecological terms. //
Variations of Snow and Ice in the past and at present on a Global and Regional Scale
Edited by V.M. Kotlyakov UNESCO, Paris, 1996
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001065/106523e.pdf
In the Indian article that was the immediate source 2035 replaces 2350. And "the Himalayas" replace "the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth".
The major conceptual problem that this section of the IPCC report has is owing to a confusion of glacial runoff with snowpack runoff. Thus the "dire scenario"
Another IPCC flaw for you, [but this wasn't the physical science volume]
And, bob, your final flourish --
// As to your statement, "But Rex doesn't actually deny AGW, he wouldn't be that specific", he's said precisely that many times. //
"saying exactly that", denying AGW tout court, would be no more specific. At least Lorne Gunther, bless his empty head, ocassionally get specific. Remember his discussion of satellite results that showed less warming than the other temperture records? He called his satellite man a Modern Copernicus. It turned out that Copernicus had miscalculated his orbits.
An earlier commenter had it about right: we rubes are learning that most social science and a great deal of physical science is not far from the conduct of climate science.
It is why reputation and 'leading journals' have so much weight.
Social science, like climate science, is by definition the study of a complex system, where causality is almost impossible to determine, and in which the system itself affects the landscape or environment and vice versa.
Dogma and ideology thrives in such complexity. Read your basic sociology text. There ain't no science there, and many of surviving theories do not conform to facts (e.g., criminality is a natural structural result of poverty).
If free marketers wish to redraw policy, the first thing they should do is privatize education.
Rex Murphy is one of the last remaining voices of reason at CBC. The day Rex retires is the day we should put CBC on the chopping block.
I've been trying to find out who makes the programming decisions for CBC, but it's apparently a well-kept secret protected by a special Parliamentary exemption (maybe that explains why so many of the Chairmen, CEO's and Presidents of the CBC over the years have all had Russian or East-German surnames!) ;-)
Anyway, I think the current CBC program director is Chris Boyce, who previously worked in CBC Radio. It probably explains why CBC Sunday Radio no longer broadcasts religious broadcasting reflecting Canada's religious diversity -- the only religious broadcasting on Sundays now is the secular atheist "United Church" type preaching, Marxist Liberation Theology, and their biggest favourite: gender/sex issues. I've renamed CBC Sunday Radio "Penis Sunday". The motto used to be "Keep Holy the Sabbath" but I think the CBC changed it to "Keep Holy the Penis".
My point is, when Rex retires he will probably be replaced with a transvestite, lesbian, visible minority, disabled, female, pre-op transexual, Muslim, secularist, eco-warrior. To make sure they cover all of the bases, but without an ounce of reason in his / her / its head.
Alex, "This is awesome :) How do you attract this caliber of idiots, Kate? Aren't you starting to wonder why there's such a strong correlation between the twits who think the world is 6,000 years old, and climate "skeptics"?"
____________________________________________
And with that statement you confirm Peter O'Donnell's point. I made no argument either for or against evolution. I merely pointed out the blatant fact that there are serious problems with neo-darwinian evolution. I even provided an alternative (symbiotic evolution) but your knee jerk reaction is to immediately accuse me of being a fundementalist-christian-6000-year-creationist, which I am not. No doubt you are well aware that many who point out the problems of neo-darwinian evolution are evolutionists themselves (there is debate withing the scientific community on the subject, or didn't you know that?)
The use of this tactic allows you to avoid the necessity of having to refute contrary data and gives the impression you cannot. This is the same tactic used by climate alarmists, as Peter had pointed out.
So in attempting to discredit us you have instead unwittingly confirmed what Peter O'Donnell posted.
Thanks for your support.
I am not an NHL fan (arena tax issues) but they are now in the AGW mix. A full article on the topic of businesses like the NHL grabbing the AGW message and hoping to capitalize might be in order.
http://www.b-e-f.org/blog/2011/03/15/national-hockey-league-scores-with-bef-recs/
Just an aside to dirtman's point to Alex, but has anyone actually met anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old? Has Alex ever met anyone or is it another figment of his imagination? I haven't met anyone who believes that in the last 40 years -- when I was last traveled through the southern "Bible belt" of the U.S. And I don't recall meeting anyone in Canada who believes that.
If I were to return to that area of the U.S. today I probably wouldn't bump into anyone who believes it anymore -- I think geology (and NOT evolutionary hypotheses) pretty much settled the question once for all that the earth is much older than 6,000 years. And I think Biblical scholarship also settled it -- nowhere in the Bible does it state that the earth is 6,000 years old or mention a date for the beginning of the earth. The preachers that propagate that dogmatic belief arrive at the erroneous conclusion misapplying a mathematical formula, ironically, much the same way the "apocalpyse" folk misapplied math to try to predict the end of the earth -- this past May 21 2011 (and ironically how phoney AGW scientists misapply their formulas to predict their environmental "apocalypse").
The Bible isn't a science book -- it's a moral and spiritual proposition (containing the history of Jews and Christians in Palestine). Nor is science designed to explain spiritual or metaphysical phenomenon -- scientific hypotheses are limited to observable material phenomenon.
Sorry Alex, but you are neither a scientist nor a credible theologian.
"Sorry Alex, but you are neither a scientist nor a credible theologian."
Regardless of the validity of that statement, it's quite clear that I'm one of the few people commenting on these forums who didn't take the short-bus to school.
ricardo - "Just an aside to dirtman's point to Alex, but has anyone actually met anyone who believes the earth is 6,000 years old?"
Yes indeed, I have, there are still quite a few of them around. They are people who seem to have a fear of losing their identity and faith if they give up their belief in a 6000 yr old universe. I've tried reasoning with some of them and explaining that there is no biblical basis for such a belief but it's like they have their hands over their ears yelling "I can't hear you".
Similar to the way Alex acts in order to remain true to his ideology. Both deny science, evidence, data and observation.