69 Replies to “Y2Kyoto: Revenge Of The Climate Skeptics”

  1. whew – both the outline of Curry by the Scientific American and the poll were biased – in favour of the IPCC and AGW. However, reality and logic won…

  2. Just checked the poll results and, Oh My!, all the unwashed peasantry are committing ThoughtCrimes! The worst is 63% responding we should do nothing about “climate change”, it being beyond human influence, and 63% also responding that science should be kept out of the political process.
    I’d say that last question is ass-backwards. Politics should be kept out of science.

  4. Wow! Some of those questions had 4 answers, of which 3 were supportive of climate change. Not rigger at all.

  5. What a great week.
    Yesterday it was the popping sounds from all the pinheads attached to the latte liberals in Toronto realizing they had a new boss and today, Scientific American, one of the great purveyors of the AGW scam for so many years, the magazine that peddled enviroscam dogma as science, is told by its readers in no uncertain terms they have been wrong for years.
    What a great lead up to Nov 2 when American voters get to have their first revenge for the disaster known as Obozo.
    Sweet week.

  6. We’re winning. That poll had great results, especially considering their audience. Heck…Kate didn’t even link us until after the results were in.
    CPC, paying attention yet?

  7. The comments were excellent. It’s interesting to contrast the sensible responses (of what I assume is a scientifically literate community) over the hype and propaganda fomented by the IPCC and others. The fact that Scientific American, a publication I used to respect, has jumped on the bandwagon, is a revelation of just how deep the warmists have injected themselves into the fabric of the scientific community.
    It’s very interesting that the battle cry of the climate scientists (follow the money) applies even more to their entrenched institutions and trough-sucking tactics. It’s nice when events come back and bite you in the a$$.
    Ms Curry is very courageous.

  10. The percentages to Question #7 add up to more than 100% … has to be an error/typo of some kind.

  11. And in the “tell us something we all knew about Global Climate Models” category . . .
    “It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.”
    http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/02626667.2010.513518

  12. It’s possibel to check mor ethan one box, e.g. climate chnage is due toi natural variations + solar changes.
    Not that those two are exclusive, this was a pretty poor survey, question-wise. Or maybe a good one depending on what you wanted.

  13. There’s all this whining about how the poll is biased in their comments but seriously it’s an internet poll ffs it’s not going to be scientific anyways. I can see how some questions are leading or make certain assumptions but it’s just a thing for reader responses I think it’s being taken waaaay to seriously. That said, Sciam is heavily on the side of AGW/IPCC and it irritates me. I stopped reading it years ago.
    I like how, as of my reading, 15.2% of people haven’t heard of Judith Curry even though she was the one in the introduction to the poll. :\
    Oh btw, notice that not all questions are radio buttons. Some are check boxes so you can pick more than one. That’s how they’re getting > 100% responses.

  14. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a poorly worded survey instrument. However, even with the leading and mis-leading phrasing, it was good enough to make clear that a majority of those who took the survey are not buying the guff.

  15. Interesting polling results. The only things that really stands out to me is that so many people feel that science should not influence politics…this is ridiculous. It’s the other way around, the problem is when politics influence science. Science is one of the best tools we have for informing decisions.
    Not that it really means anything, unless of course you’re the type to dismiss ‘group think’ from groups like the IPCC, and then turn around and declare ‘group think’ as the all mighty truth.
    I don’t put much clout in the collective majority, especially with respects to an objective topic requiring a relatively high level of knowledge. Why would you want to depend on the opinion of the average person? Unless mediocrity is what you strive for.
    The other thing was that despite people’s lack of support for such things as the IPCC and science informing politics, there was a significant amount of people (40%) who wanted increased government funding for energy related technology. Seems slightly contradicting, and foolish…downright retarded. How do you suppose government choose what energy related technologies to support while keeping science (facts and information) out of the process?? Hmmmm…I guess do as politicians do…support your supporters.

  16. It would be fun to run the same crappy poll in other magazines. Compare not only the results but the differences in comment style. I find the comments are always the most interesting part of most articles – journalists become too predictable.
    Business – I don’t really understand/care about the science but a direct carbon tax is more efficient than cap and trade.
    Celebrity – Judith Curry? What reality show is she from? Big Brother?
    Political – Weasel words blah, blah, blah, waffle, blah, blah, blah vague answer, blah blah blah. Long winded but shy substance answer continues for 12 more paragraphs.
    MSM News – poll closed and comments purged from the site after disappointing results. The next issue has 10 pro-AGW articles attacking “deniers”, flat-earthers and conservatives. Quotes experts that suggest all AGW deniers suffer from some newly discovered disorder.

  17. “How do you suppose government choose what energy related technologies to support while keeping science (facts and information) out of the process??”
    Um…why does government need to choose…that’s what the market is for. Government just needs to stay out of the way.

  18. BJT
    “””Why would you want to depend on the opinion of the average person? Unless mediocrity is what you strive for.”””
    because that is a metric by which we can judge how effective the sc. community has “communicated” their findings, and further, because they are the ones who VOTE in a democracy
    “””there was a significant amount of people (40%) who wanted increased government funding for energy related technology”””
    you realy are a blind liberal, I even support such funding, but not for the “AGW”/IPCC reasons. I support such funding in an effort to DEFUND terrorists and being held hostage by “energy pirates”
    “”

  19. BTJ said, “The only things that really stands out to me is that so many people feel that science should not influence politics.”
    Some of the poll questions didn’t allow any reasonable responses and all the questions had to be answered for submittal.

  20. Question 7 has check boxes so you could select more than one answer. This is why the results add up to more than 100%

  21. “Um…why does government need to choose…that’s what the market is for.”
    I didn’t say otherwise…I was referring to the poll…40% of people want government to spend more on energy technology, while 60% (on same question) want science to stay out of politics.
    “because that is a metric by which we can judge how effective the sc. community has “communicated” their findings, and further, because they are the ones who VOTE in a democracy”
    Ok, but none of the questions ask about the effectiveness of the sc. communities communication. Except maybe the question referring to the opinion of the IPCC.
    “you realy are a blind liberal, I even support such funding, but not for the “AGW”/IPCC reasons. I support such funding in an effort to DEFUND terrorists and being held hostage by “energy pirates””
    Huh? And I’m the liberal????!!!! Why don’t they just stop funding terrorists then? That doesn’t require funding anything, it only requires a cessation of funding.
    Are you for a free market economy? Or a mixed economy? Or a government funded economy?

  23. “Some of the poll questions didn’t allow any reasonable responses and all the questions had to be answered for submittal. ”
    I would say the cap and dividend option was better than any, but good point, that question had brutal options. I think the key word ‘cap’ scared people away, but it referred to ‘pollution’ in general and was basically a fee for producing a certain amount of pollution that was rebated to the tax payer (essentially industry paying the citizenry for the ‘use’ (pollution) of public resources…ie. air, water)

  24. …and the industry raising their prices on citizens to recoup the “pollution” costs (plus governments generous cut for administration) and/or relocating their business overseas to a more business friendly environment.

  25. “and the industry raising their prices on citizens to recoup the “pollution” costs ”
    Well that’s a whole topic to itself…it’s called an externality…it’s when a business has a legitimate cost of doing said business, but which decide to put on someone else.
    Business does this all the time, usually putting the cost on government (ie. subsidies).
    “the collective wisdom average people”
    The definition of an oxymoron.
    If seems you’d like cheap prices at the expense of just about anything. Should industry be allowed to dump toxic waste where ever is cheapest so you can get the best deal? Or should they have pressure/incentive to find the best solution, and thus encouraging progress and innovation?

  26. We may see this as a turning point in Scientific American’s stance but if you check out their main site (www.Scientificamerican.com), they don’t seem to be learning much. A sampling of their featured articles:
    Report Predicts Hot Future For California National Parks (NCDC)
    And of course it will be devastating.
    The Carbon Trap: Can China Survive without Coal?
    And it will be bad news for all of us if they keep using it.
    … species winking out of existence before we even know them.
    OK. So how do you know that they ever existed at all?
    But no mention of the poll on their main page.

  27. Should industry be allowed to dump toxic waste where ever is cheapest so you can get the best deal?
    -strawman
    Toxic waste was an issue that was dealt with last century.
    Everybody wanted toxic waste delt with properly except some people who were actually dumping it.
    Nobody is going to take people who make these kinds of arguments seriously.

  28. The key word – legitimate cost. Since the CO2/AGW hypothesis has not and cannot been proven , how is it legitimate? In fact, citizens are rejecting both the science and the political solutions. They are realizing that it is bad for the economy and useless for environmental protection. Business is negatively affected, the consumers are negatively affected and only government and their cronies make money.
    Oxymoron? I think not. People making millions of individual decision based on their own knowledge and needs is far superior than a small group of government advisers and think tanks making decisions for the rest of us. It is why nations with free market capitalism out perform government controlled economies.
    False argument. I think that CO2/AGW, specifically, is an unproven hypothesis that is causing politicians and rent seekers to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers and productive industry. Pressure/incentive to find the best solution to an increasingly discredited, speculative, unproven hypothesis is irrational.

  29. Removing politics from science would be very helpful at this point. These “green” policies have only served to add green to someone’s wallet, not further research or simply cling on to common sense.

  31. Actually, Oz, it’s a bit worse than that.
    A substance is defined as a toxic waste, but then industry was cut off from any methods of destruction or disposal. That was the history of dealing with PCBs for much of the last two decades of the 20th C. Donald Chant, former head of Pollution Probe, made an entire career on this political gamesmanship.
    And BTJ, try not to simplify things overly much. Toxicity is defined by concentration.
    What would be interesting to see is the raw data for this junk poll. There’s a batch of 15% who would be willing to do “whatever it takes”. It would be interesting to see their divisions on the policy choices, suggesting the greens are not a united front after all. Second, does “whatever it takes” mean for some of them that others have to do “whatever it takes”?

  32. cgh, my point is that toxin waste is an issue of importance to all, regardless of political stripe.
    I reject that conservatives are/were for irresponsible toxic waste disposal.
    It just isn’t so.
    The EPA was created by President Richard M. Nixon.
    AGW isn’t a real issue.
    It’s a ginned up crisis that doesn’t exist.
    I won’t get into all the ways, including waste disposal, that the Crisismongering Left will raise an issue and prevent it from being properly resolved by throwing up roadblocks.

  33. The IPCC is an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts
    True, it’s just that they’re effective at foisting the largest scam in history on the rest of us.

  34. OZ: “As long as science is funded by grants, there will be politics in science.” @ 2:19 PM
    You got that right. And an astonishing number of those grants come from big-green industry.

  35. That was a fine example of a rigged poll.
    Question 7 was particularly fun, we had the following policy options.
    A) a tax
    B) a tax
    C) Keep science out of politics
    D) a tax
    E) a tax
    Even given the violently rigged nature of the poll, they still can’t win.
    Just one more example of why I don’t even look at Scientific American on the news stand any more. I used to subscribe back in the Dark Ages when they still had mathematics in the articles. Stopped when they began having “serious” papers by people like Franklin E. Zimring with holes in them so big you could drive a bus through.
    Another fine US institution destroyed by the f-ing Lefties. I hope there’s a special circle in Hell for people who do things like that. If there isn’t there ought to be.

  36. I have read on several blogs that as the AGW Scam is revealed that the NGOs will cast about for some other boogie man to raise alarm about, “Bio-Diversity” was predicted as the next, and right on schedule the Vancouver Sun runs headlines screaming ONE IN FIVE VERTEBRATES THREATENED!!!!
    This from the International union for conservation of nature No qualifications are given, for all we know this “Union” could be five guys sucking beer at the turf hotel bar.It claims Over 3000 scientists have created this report,could they be underemployed climate data wonks?3000 Scientists agree? thats news. Then later in the same issue we get a beautiful segue with CLIMATE CHANGE THREATENS BIODIVERSITY!! handily connecting yesterdays scam with the new shiny one.Here we go again.

  37. In the Scientific (what a misnomer) American poll, question number seven – “which policy options do you support?” – allows you to pick from one of five answers:
    1. Increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development
    2. Cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers
    3. Cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits)
    4. Keeping science out of the political process
    5. A carbon tax
    Four of allowed the answers presuppose that AGW is real and that massive taxation or subsidy is necessary to solve the problem. The only other option – “keeping science out of the political process” — presupposes that you’re an idiot opposed to science who wants governments to ignore “science”.
    Instead of “keeping science out of the political process” the option should have been “keeping the political process out of science” – but that would have made it an *honest*, as opposed to an (attemptedly) rigged poll.
    Who’s buying this rag anyway?

  38. “Toxic waste was an issue that was dealt with last century.
    Everybody wanted toxic waste delt with properly except some people who were actually dumping it.”
    What the hell are you talking about? Toxic waste is dumped all over the place. What do you mean ‘dealt with last century’?
    “Since the CO2/AGW hypothesis has not and cannot been proven , how is it legitimate? ”
    That’s why I made the point to mention that it referred to ‘pollution’…as in not just CO2 (that does not mean that I think CO2 is a pollutant). This ‘pollution’ I assume refers to toxic solid/liquid waste, sulphur/nitrogen oxides, etc.
    “Oxymoron? I think not.”
    Uh, yes…there is no such thing as a ‘collective mind’…only individual minds. What are you referring to by ‘collective wisdom’? Average is another word for mediocre…I don’t want a bunch of mediocre minds deciding ANYTHING…can you imagine getting on a plane that was built ‘the collective wisdom of average people’?
    “And BTJ, try not to simplify things overly much. Toxicity is defined by concentration.”
    What’s your point? You just further defined toxicity, obviously that would be part of the procedure of estimating pollution levels.

  39. It is illegal to dump toxic waste “all over the place”.
    The Swan Hills Treatment Centre
    http://www.shtc.ca/
    Want to know why facilities like this aren’t built “all over the place”?
    Because Leftist environmentalists won’t allow them to be built, that’s why.
    Leftists don’t want a solution if it allows us to live in an industrialized world.
    p.s. there isn’t any toxic waste being dumped near where I live so the contention that it’s dumped “all over the place” is exaggerated fearmongering.

  40. “What’s your point? You just further defined toxicity, obviously that would be part of the procedure of estimating pollution levels.”
    Quite right. If it’s below the required concentration levels, then it’s not toxic. And any responsible industry operates below the regulatory limits. Hence, they’re not dumping toxic waste, are they?

  41. “How do you suppose government choose what energy related technologies to support while keeping science (facts and information) out of the process”
    BTJ keeps forgetting…this is a collection of conservative minds on this blog. We’d like the government to back off.

  42. LCBennett – yes, the collective wisdom of average people is an excellent description of a working democracy. It is this wisdom of the people, working together, that has developed the rule of law, constitutions and elected governments. And these rules and government must always rest in that people.

  43. I was referring to the video about the limitations of rule by elites. All will be revealed but it will require you to exert enough of an effort to actually click on the link at 1:12pm.
    Pollution levels from solid/liquid waste, sulphur/nitrogen oxides, etc. are very different than CO2/AGW “pollution”. Tests are reliable, data is available to all and their is no speculation involved. Toxicity info can be measured and are part of MSDS or TDG documentation. These tests are repeatable and their effects are well understood.
    CO2/AGW has no such claim. It is the product of computer modeling of a complex system that is not fully understood. There is no way to verify the claims. AGW should actually have its letters scrambled and be renamed WAG (wild azzed guess)science.

  44. My comment at 5:14 was for BTJ, of course.
    Thanks, ET. Your definition is what Whittle is getting at in his three videos – the superiority of individuals free to make choices over the rule by an elite group, the power of free markets and the value of small, constitutionally restrained government.

  45. What’s this “cap and train” option that was given substantial support? Does it have something to do with engineers?

  46. Hmm, so “keeping science out of the political process” won as most popular policy option.
    What’s that political group that hates science, again? Oh yeah, the same losers who are obsessed with climate blogs and have time to stuff worthless internet polls.

  47. “keeping science out of the political process” was the least worst option available at a rigged push poll.

  48. I wonder if the folks at Scientific American will accept this poll as a substantial consensus!

  49. ET @ 5:12pm
    Well said. I’d add that most average Janes and Joes never fell for the AGW crap we were being asked to buy into. Given how discredited it is now, time has shown their wisdom.

  50. “It is illegal to dump toxic waste “all over the place”.”
    Yet magically it is still dumped…all over the place.
    Take Somalia for example…toxic waste dumped offshore.
    Take the oilsands…toxic crap dumped all over the place.
    Take any industry that emmits air pollutants.
    “there isn’t any toxic waste being dumped near where I live so the contention that it’s dumped “all over the place” is exaggerated fearmongering.”
    Well if you’re too simple minded to use common sense and assume that ‘all over the place’ doesn’t mean on every square inch of the earth…then you have a point. By ‘all over the place’ I meant in the public domain.
    “yes, the collective wisdom of average people is an excellent description of a working democracy”
    Ah, and Ellsworth Tooey drops in just in time to promote group think, the collective majority, and collectivism in general.
    “It is this wisdom of the people, working together, that has developed the rule of law, constitutions and elected governments.”
    It was a small group of individuals (elite at that) who set the precedents for the Industrial Revolution..the founding fathers.
    All you can come up with is ‘the collective gave us government’?
    Would you trust your life in the hands of ‘collective wisdom of average people’? As in my plane example?
    “If it’s below the required concentration levels, then it’s not toxic. And any responsible industry operates below the regulatory limits. Hence, they’re not dumping toxic waste, are they?”
    Yes, very good…I understand this. That’s the point of cap and dividend…lots of industries AREN’T ‘responsible’…they just dump, knowing that the fine they’ll pay is less than what it would have cost to either stay within regulations or dispose properly. So instead of pretending that our laws and regulations actually do anything, we face the fact that industries will pollute, and put in place a means of recooperating the resources they use by polluting..in the form of money to the tax payer.
    “CO2/AGW has no such claim”
    Yes, once again…I was not referring to CO2, but to the pollutants I listed.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation