My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Guest Post: Joy's Story | Main | Apocalypse Now »

Comments

Roger

Why is it these sceptics always seem to be retired? Do they even keep up with the science? And it's not surprising to see Climate denialism embraced by free market fundamentalists. History is leaving the denialists behind and it's sad to see them marginalise themselves.

peter

Everywhere I look I see this near-octagenerian as an expert at predicting hurricanes, not much else.

Roger, your questions are valid.

This is an inconvenient truth:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/602313,CST-EDT-edit14a.article

Fundamentalists must be fuming that even George W Bush is acknowledging reality. It is an INCONVENIENT truth when there is no political will to take Kyoto protocol anywhere.

I see huge parallels with the Intelligent Design believers - shunning by mainstream science etc. Intelligent Design and Global Warming denial belong together - and yes - so they do!

andrei

Why is it these sceptics always seem to be retired? Do they even keep up with the science?

Answer: they are not always retired.

And yes they do keep up with science.

True science is about skepticism and understanding uncertainty.

Alas there is also such a thing as "thought crimes" on the left and modern science has been polluted by left wing activism and anyone who expresses healthy skepticism is likely to pay the price in public opprobrium and curtailed career opportunities.

As a prototype of how left wing politics can destroy a science check out Lysenkoism
did to biology in the Soviet Union, not to forgetting it was responsible for mass famine as well.

We imagine we are too superior to allow science to be subverted the way it was in the Soviet union - to which I say phooey.

It is happening today, Global Warming being an example.

Jim

Roger

Read the post. Unless you are retired or have uncontestable tenure, you are vulnerable because you can't get research grants.

It is also very ageist to suggest that older people's opinion is suddenly less valuable because they have retired. Did their brains stop working? Most elderly academics of my acquaintance are often more informed that their younger counterparts who tend to superspecialize early (makes it easier to become an "expert")

I also find it wearying that people who disagree about climate change are always referred to in the negative - "Climate change deniers"... Can I call you a climate change fundamentalist? ;-)

AcidComments


There's been plenty of scientists and climatologists who agree, but when they openly put the names forward. They've been threaten with Nazi standover tactics and forced threats of resignations from their positions.

There's still a good percentage of top scientists and climatologists who're bucking the global warming CO2 scare mongering. It's just the MSM isn't reporting their findings or really interested in all the facts.

peter

Andrei says:

"As a prototype of how left wing politics can destroy a science check out Lysenkoism
did to biology in the Soviet Union, not to forgetting it was responsible for mass famine as well."

Are you trying to be funny? How on earth can you compare iron curtain Soviet Union with a US government led by George W Bush?

I think retired scientists often take these positions because they are out of touch (decades in this case) and because they can risk losing credibility for scientific reasons.

Jim - you may be right about one thing; that this is simply an opinion held by Gray. It may be an opinion on a matter which is outside his particular specialism. But this is not about opinions, it is about research and evidence, keeping up with literature and peers today.

Scientists would not be able to indefinitely fudge this issue which has been ticking over for some years now. Unlike Intelligent Design (groan) which will do the rounds until fundamentalist Christians think of another label for creationism!!

John Boy

There was an entertaining debate this morning on National program about Gore's Oscars etc.. The debate seemed to centre on facts being close enough to the truth to qualify as a doco or not.

peter

Note that author of the article in question was Dr William Gray - actually a graduate in Geography with some meteorlogical post-grad.

Do we think he has the breadth of knowledge in relevant areas to comment in this way?

george

Older people often do not speak up becase they just shake their heads and wonder where its all going. They know its wrong but are not going to be around to see what crop this latest idiocy brings. They want a simple retirement and to enjoy the grandkids.
Others who do speak are often churlishly labled 'out of touch' and yesterday's men.

Others speak up, call it for what it is because they have nothing to lose and they can't abide so-called scientists making fools of themselves. They have the guts to call a spade a spade and a fool a fool. It is called a rebuke.

God bless him as he intellectualy backhands clowns like Al Gore.

peter

Fundamentalist Christians:

You will see that Sweden is leading the world once again:

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5vLGKYAdKxjyI5GOBTBH4hX2s6A

I do a agree with the final part. A natural science student should not be given credit for answering questions by simply saying God created it.

AcidComments

October 22, 2007

Today’s forecast: yet another blast of hot air
Why I would rather be called a heretic on global warming

David Bellamy
Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”.

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”. Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece?ILC-EVYcomments&ATTR=GrapenutsWarming

robk

peter

"I do a agree with the final part. A natural science student should not be given credit for answering questions by simply saying God created it."

I agree, but seriously doubt such a simplistic answer would be given to gain credit. There would have to be some expanding of the basic idea...

The rest of it is persecution, and an attack by Darwinist fundamentalists on the Christian fundamentalists.

P.S. are you a Christianophobic?

AcidComments

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

peter

Fundamentalist Christians want to hasten the end of the world to bring forward the "Rapture". They want to see the Book of Revelation fulfilled.

They are known to be anti-Green - take the Exclusive Brethrens for example.

The case for Global Warming, being relatively new, is probably less conclusive than for Evolution.

But the Christian fundamentalists are half way there. It all used to be "young earth" stuff. Now career believers like Ian are agreeing to micro-evolution over the billions of years but not macro-evolution.

I use the Ockham principle and look for simple and consistent reasons for phenomena - not disjointed explanations like this.

I say that if it is good enough to finally concede that micro evolution exists, then the floodgates are open and you might as well subscribe to macro evolution as well.

I don't believe that some weird God is hanging around, letting all this micro evolution happen, and then crashing in occasionally to create a few bits or accelerate a few changes. It fails the first question I would ask:

"Does this make sense?"

AcidComments

"They are known to be anti-Green - take the Exclusive Brethrens for example."

I'm not anti-green. There's a difference between genuine green solutions and BS ones and unfortunately the later often prevails!

Some of the socalled green solutions the green movement often promote are infact more toxic and poisonous to the environment and people than what was originally in place.

John Boy

"The case for Global Warming, being relatively new, is probably less conclusive than for Evolution."

Well Peter, that's not saying much then is it? Having just read "Darwin Strikes back" I tend to think that we are in fact seeing the end pains of macroevolution as even a theory.

Let the purely scientific examination of the evidence begin - at last.

peter

John Boy

The case for evolution is not under threat, and really throughout 20th century it never was. The great author and poet Thomas Hardy was one who could see the sense it at earliest times - nothing new about evolution Im afraid.

And it is really dumb to throw away macro evolution when all are conceding that micro evolution is real. But fundamentalists agree with micro because they have no choice. they will change their tune eventually for macro evolution (accumulation of micros) - with the MOST INNOCENT faces that god ever saw.

Ha Ha Ha!

robk

peter

explain to me again how a dinosaur evolved into a bird via small evolutionary changes? Did they start flapping their tiny 'proto feathered' arms and leap into the air, or did they climb trees and develop wings as they jumped from branch to branch?

Please also explain how their unique through flow lungs developed - pneumothorax? Forgive me, but these sort of evolutionary problems always seem to be answered by 'just so' ideas which are less than convincing.

As for 'global warming' - I heard a point of view that said if the planet warms up it will evaporate more water into vapour -> more cloud -> more heat reflected back into space -> global cooling. Makes sense to me!

peter

Robk

Who said a bird evolved from a dinosaur.

What you are having trouble with is the same problem as all Christian fundamentalists. You can not get your head around 4.5 billion years and more.

That is a long long long long time.

I repeat. No point acknowledging micro-evolution if you don't acknowledge macro-evolution as a bundle of micros.

The concept of a tinkering God using planet Earth as a an occasional plaything fills me with great mirth!!

But as I said, the fundamentalist gives only as much ground as he/she has to - and on average 150 years too late!

Pass the asparagus rolls please.

Ha Ha Ha!

David W

robk,

You need to find some newer creationist books. Unevolvable bird lungs have gone the way of unevolvable whale. You see the problem with the creationist "i personally believe that this or that can't happen" approach is people go out and find new facts all the time. Turns out bird lungs aren't that unique after all.

The money quote:

flow-through ventilation of the lung is not restricted to birds but is probably a general theropod characteristic.

The comments to this entry are closed.