"Balanced" doesn't mean "Conservative"

pl writes: "For years and years there was only one person in the world who didn't think that man contributes to global warming and he resided at the Cato Institute."

Or perhaps it was the media refusing to recognize more than one opinion on the topic? What I find interesting is the "data" used to suggest man-made global warming has been continually changed due to scientific research. Remember the hockey stick analogy that fell apart because of misuse of data? Or perhaps the idea that weather stations were considered accurate if placed according to specific requirements yet the scientist used the data from weather stations that were not even close to meeting those requirements?

I have found similar "opinions" being promoted as fact. An example would be arsenic concentrations in water supplies. Pres. Clinton pushed for the change of arsenic particles from 50 to 10. While I agree 100% that this would be safer, it is also factually inaccurate to state that it is needed. There is no known poisoning at the 50 level, actually there is hardly any reports at the 250 level. While man may contribute somewhat to the increase in warming, the effect is minimal compared to other agents that affect the warming cycle.

Conservatives started to become louder when the method of "fighting" global warming would bankrupt the country with minimal affect on the outcome.

I asked you in another blog for the information that you know about and would still appreciate to know the details that you might know about the initiation and progress of the belief that this is a liberal lie.

I assume you are familiar with the old adage that "science progresses by the correction of error." And what I understand is a fact, that Ph.D. advisors suggest to their candidates that they investigate something that is now accepted as a fact, since those are fertile areas for research, i.e., scientists are very comfortable with overturning older opinions and research and with always debating current theories.

I notice that Hannity made much of the fact that 20 years ago (or more?) scientists were predicting an ice age. He uses the fact that scientists now think differently to denigrate science in general (as some trendy something) and scientists in general as either not knowing what they were doing, or joining the band wagon or just plain incompetent or something else. You seem pretty well educated and can evaluate for yourself, but I am concerned that much of Hannity's audience does not have your ability and will accept his thesis that scientists are basically political and liberal and should not be respected for the work that they do. I think Hannity is showing his basic authoritarian mind set, which is that you make a statement of truth or fact, or write a constitution, and nothing every changes or should change from that day forward. This is not the case with science.

I admit to sketchy and discontinuous knowledge. I like to read science articles and sometimes books. I remember reading about "ice cores" on a couple of occassions. I remember reading about when they were planning to do it and I think a couple of reports about when they had removed and analyzed the ice cores. And, of course, they did find evidence that earth's weather and temperature had changed, long before man came on the scene. My vague perception is that there are lots of people working in tangential fields, that they have been working for decades and discovering or clarifying things with new research and discovery, i.e., that there has been ongoing change in the data and ideas and conclusions about global warming.

Perhaps I am wrong about the conservative mindset, but it seems to me that conservatives are reluctant to acknowledge that knowledge grows over time. Global warming is another area where it feels like conservatives don't have a good feel for change. I have this vague perception that the scientific community a number of decades ago were undecided about global warming and had a let's wait and see attitude and that as new information piled up the majority of scientists progressed from a cautious or skeptical position to becoming persuaded that man is responsible for some of global warming.

You and conservatives are right to point out that there is a cost involved to engaging man's contribution to global warming and it might not be cost effective to address it. That should be addressed. But that is a lot different than denigrating scientists as a group.

I don't know about the hocky stick analogy, can you tell me about that.

Picking up on Al Gore. Again, I don't follow this closely. My perception, again, is that the majority of scientists over time became persuaded about global warming. My perception is that the American public, including Bush, was not persuaded. My perception is that conservative skepticism contributed to the skepticism of the American public.

There was a job of advocacy to do, stating that global warming is real and human beings should address it not ignore it. Gore undertook to persuade Americans, and perhaps the world, that we should not ignore global warming and its coming effects. He seems to have made a contribution.

I haven't read about the mistakes he made according to some scientists. It's enough for me to know that most scientists agree that there is reason to confront the effects of global warming.

Popularizers have their place and their rewards.

You talk about the media refusing to recognize more than one opinion on the topic. Yet, I maintain that scientists are the key. They do research, publish papers, have meetings. The key question is what did scientists think among themselves at the time I say only one nay voice was being heard. And as far as I know he is not a scientist himself.

Basically, the ice cores provided data from centuries ago. The "scientists" and I use that term loosely, translated that data into graph form. They then combined it with more current data and voila, they showed a sharp increase like a hockey stick.
/
________________/

Th only problem is that they were comparing apples and oranges. They then tried to denigrate any scientist that pointed out the errancy of their data translation. Similar issues occur with the CO2 and temperature. Yes their is a connection between them however it is the temperature that increases first, followed by the CO2. Sometimes with 10s or 100s of years apart not just within the same year as "documented", another loosely used term, by AlGore.

Having looked at the IPCC this morning I know that the method of argument is to cite specific reports by specific scientists in specific years.

You cite that the combination of old ice core data with new data is bad methodology. What is your citation for this view? You also say that temperature went up first, then CO2, with lags of up to 100 years. What is your citation for this?

My request for citation is a continuation of my complaint that you use that fact that science relies on assumptions to discredit all of science - though you cite that Asimov said science relies on assumptions. But this is a citation of abstraction, of philosophy. The IPCC is an example of how science is actually done.

Actually if you look at the IPCC data instead of the political report you would see what I have described. You would have to correlate the previous data with the current data to see has "changed" specifically mentioning the problem with using the old core data with more modern data.

For an easy to understand explanation try where I got this quote:

"But we're responsible for all the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect?

Gracious no! Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural (you can see the IPCC representation of the natural carbon cycle and human perturbation here or a simple schematic from Woods Hole here)."

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html

They also have more articles with citations that explain many of the politically created problems in scientific endeavors.

While the IPCC might be an example of how science is done, they seem to forget about peer review instead using political influence to squash any dissenting opinions.

I notice that you go with the majority of Americans on gay marriage but are against the majority of scientists on global warming.

I'm not capable of looking at the majority data from scientists around the world and comparing their data with that of whoever it is that writes junk science. I put my faith in the institution of mainstream science, lacking the expertise myself. So, do you have the background to look at the data yourself or are you relying on the minority institution of junkscience.com and taking it as a matter of faith that they are right and the majority wrong?

I notice, in this, a pattern for conservatives of attacking and denigrating institutions. Conservatives attack the judicary in the United States, you attack the United Nations, you attack main stream science, you attack main stream journalism, you attack the institution of government. Isn't the real story here the psychological makeup of conservatives that compels them to attack the large institutions?

I did take a look at the web page in general and will look at your citation later.

A couple of things I did notice: The Course warns that anecdotes are not proof and then uses anecdotes to make its point. It also warns that words like "may" are a tip off to junk science, then uses a series of "mays" such as "Individual scientists "may" use junk science to attain fame and fortune.

Molloy does look like he's got some credentials, but he also looks political, shouldn't we factor his obvious political bias into what we see on his web page.

I'll look at your specific greenhouse page citation and let you know what I think.

pl writes: "I notice that you go with the majority of Americans on gay marriage but are against the majority of scientists on global warming."

I don't go with the majority on anything. As for gay marriage, being Christian I am constrained by the Scriptures. I do not think it is Loving God or Loving my neighbor to condone wrong actions, whatever the action not just gay marriage.

pl writes: "I'm not capable of looking at the majority data from scientists around the world and comparing their data with that of whoever it is that writes junk science. I put my faith in the institution of mainstream science, lacking the expertise myself. So, do you have the background to look at the data yourself or are you relying on the minority institution of junkscience.com and taking it as a matter of faith that they are right and the majority wrong?"

My education was primarily in Aeronautics and Space however I am not an expert. I have however dealt with climate issues for over 25 years in various positions so I am familiar with the material. If one looks at the data, even common sense shows that it is missing a lot especially in the claim that humans have caused the problem. Cows create more "greenhouse" gas than humans.

I accuse conservatives of being authoritarian and faith based, but it appears that I am as authoritarian and faith based as you are. I just have faith in other institutions or people.

Milloy has lots of credentials and I agree with his cautionary warnings about the use of statistics. Yet, it's hard for me to imagine that Milloy knows things that the global warming scientists don't know. You say that you can see that there are holes in the global warming data. Yet, its hard for me to imagine that you can spot holes that the global warming scientists can't see for themselves.

It appears to me that it comes down to a faith or lack of faith in character. Those who oppose global warming scientists ultmately make a charge about their character as a group, i.e., they have poor character and cannot be trusted. The bottom line is that I trust their character and you don't. (And the same holds true for conservative attacks on teachers, professors and colleges, the United Nations, unions, social workers, bureaucrats. I have faith in their character and trust them and conservatives don't).

It is normal for anyone to use faith in institutions. I prefer to temper that narrow focus with matching the claimed standards used with the actual implementation. That and I am trying to learn patience which goes against my "nature". :)

The reason for openly providing the data for external peer review is to ensure that the scientist is not so narrowly focused on a specific issue that they become blinded by their developments.

It is not so much a matter of faith or trust, it is a matter of do they live by the principles they claim. When a scientist does not open his/her work to peer review then I lose respect for their position. When a Christian does not live by their principles (i.e. Phelps and his "church") then again I lose respect for their position. Character and respect is built over time and depends on previous work accomplished. It is not a cloak to take shelter under but a continuous process. Reminds me of the old saying: One aww sh!t, cancels out 100 atta boys.