Deltoid - Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute

Wasn't there an issue about some names on the DI's list not being removed after a request? I know a few people have said they were mislead and signed it without knowing the DI's intentions (the statement is ambiguously worded).

Compare it with the HIV Denial list too.
http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php

The common features are.

a) Padded with people with no knowledge or experience of the field that they criticize.
b) People are added to the list without their knowledge
c) You can't get your name removed from the list (even if you die from AIDS).
d) Names such as Phillip Johnson and Jonathan C. Wells appear on more than one list

People of all persuations need to learn how to use real logic, not use fallacies regardless of the subject matter, avoid confirmation bias, and stick to what can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt. If you WANT to beleive in something, you can always find something on the internet to support your belief, even if what you find is pure bogusity. Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm all known scientific laws, and then those laws can be applied to deep time, both in the past and the future, to create new hypotheses. Over time, science becomes more accurate based on the continued accumulation of data, but it NEVER goes in a completely wrong direction. Peer review is used to detect and expose any errors made by scientists. Nitpicking a hypothesis (like evolution or man-made global warming) in an attempt to discredit it is pointless, since there are complexities in all matters of science that make it necessary to do more research. The analysis of those complexities leads to an already established hypothesis being made more accurate. If you want to refute a hypothesis or theory completely, you must attack the scientific laws on which it is based. Nothing else will do.

The list of signatories at "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry" has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they've included dentists. Desperation?

Luke said: The list of signatories at "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry" has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they've included dentists. Desperation?

I was kidding... :)

Wheels said: Wasn't there an issue about some names on the DI's list not being removed after a request? I know a few people have said they were mislead and signed it without knowing the DI's intentions (the statement is ambiguously worded).

Hi all,

Am not at all impressed with the qualifications of virtually all of those on this "list". I almost expected to see the name of one of my college professors - Dr. Robley K. Matthews - a highly regarded paleoclimatologist who is a prominent skeptic of global warming - but thankfully it seems as though he had the good sense not to get involved.

Regards,

John

We are not sceptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanised Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. "What we're measuring is urbanisation," Plimer said.

He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey. Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".

Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

IIRC surgeons were, originally, barbers

Peter Henderson said:

IIRC surgeons were, originally, barbers

As far as I know Kevin, surgeons were butchers(bad surgeons are still given that nickname today). Hence, when a doctor qualifies as a surgeon he drops the "Dr." and reverts to plain old "Mr."

rossum said: "The Company has close links with the Royal College of Surgeons of England and until the two organisations split, in the Eighteenth Century, the two were united. Hence the Company's Hall is Barber-Surgeons' Hall." rossum

Steve Taylor said:

rossum said: "The Company has close links with the Royal College of Surgeons of England and until the two organisations split, in the Eighteenth Century, the two were united. Hence the Company's Hall is Barber-Surgeons' Hall." rossum

Indeed, and in England a Surgeon is formally "Mr..." NOT ever (heaven forbid) "Dr" - you graduate from medical school as a Doctor, then spend another 5 years or whatever training as a surgeon to become "Mr" again ! Its a nod to their "barber" heritage. Steve

Barbers is correct. Bad surgeons being referred to as "butchers" is also coincidentally a common term but has no historical basis. In Oz, surgeons take the title "Mr" or "Dr" depending upon which State they practice in.

Back on topic, I found this fascinating especially as a couple of well known conservative columnists here have been touting the "600 names" story on their blogs just recently. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some names turn up on both lists of "doubters" of the science!

On Plimer, I find it rather ironic that he talks of the dogmatism of others given his history on the matter. He seems to be frequently sought out for comment by people from a particular political demographic and often obliges, surely in the knowledge that the angle and "balance" for the story has already been predetermined.

Luke said: The list of signatories at "Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry" has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they've included dentists. Desperation?

[quote]
It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.
[/quote]
[quote]
Indeed, and in England a Surgeon is formally “Mr…” NOT ever (heaven forbid) “Dr” - you graduate from medical school as a Doctor, then spend another 5 years or whatever training as a surgeon to become “Mr” again !
[/quote]
[quote]
I was under the impression that “Doctor” was a courtesy title, as a “medical” doctor’s qualification is, technically, not a doctorate.
[/quote]

Cultural differences note:
It's funny to see differences in names and titles across various countries and languages.
Doctor ,as many surely already know, means teacher in latin.
Hence Ph.D.= Philosophiae Doctor = Doctor (teacher) of philosophy.
In greek although the latin term doctor is used we also use the word for healer (iatros).
And doctors here don't usually-generally prefix or postfix their name with any word to give away them being doctors.Only around their workplace or speaking about their job and medical issues one would usually call them doctor something.
Being a doctor here,as in most places is certainly a prestigious occupation but that's not enough to always being called Dr instead of Mr.
Come to think of it only priests here are always called by the title for priest but following that is their Christian name and not their surname (ie papa Ioannes -> priest Ioannes (John)).
Ph.D. in greek is Didaktor Philosophias.Didaktor,doctor are linguistically very related wors with the same meaning (teacher) but the greek term surprisingly
is not used here for the medical profession ,instead it's only used in its literal meaning (teacher-professor).
Meteorologist is also the valid term in greek for the weather-climate scientist(that's what it means and it's a greek word anyway).Do you only use it for the people on tv presenting the weather forecasts?
Lastly surgeons are surely counted as doctors here,indeed doctors of very high class.

Sorry,long time since my last comment here and I have forgotten the quote grammar-syntax used here.

Call me thick-headed, but what is the point of all this denial? What end does it serve? I could understand your reluctance if you were the CEO of exxon, but a lot of these people seem to just distrust science whenever it disagrees with them...

Jim said: what is the point of all this denial?

oh. damn i forgot, there is also this strong dislike for a new movement counter to young earth (YEC's) that suggests the YEC have an innacurate view of their (gods) earth

the new faith is called "science" and it has theories postulated by hubris phd zealots, and for some reason they (science) are getting allot of power slowly and have started censoring contrary "evidance" like the bible. not good, not good for bible at all,, its a "war" with launguge and political bending ,, so nothing new there, same old war of ideas.
(apology for sloppiness)

Did someone say "history"?

Originally, a person who had attended a University and had taken a degree in medicine was referred to as a "physician", "physic" meaning originally something like "material", as in "not spiritual". (Newton used it in the same sense.) Physicians diagnosed illness and prescribed for it, where "prescribed" means "laid down any course of treatment whatsoever". They supervised the treatment and continued to consult without doing anything directly themselves, because they were scholars and (here's the pitch) gentlemen - or at least, they wanted to be considered as such. Gentlemen did not actually work with their hands. Even mental work was a bit below them, and physicians were always a little sensitive on the subject. They didn't want to be thought of as mere artisans. Hence the insistence on their academic title, which they even used socially, the only group of academics that did. (This is still the rule, incidentally.)

The courses of treatment they prescribed usually included specific diet, exercise and various other therapies. As a last resort - because it was intensely dangerous, not to mention painful - they also prescribed surgery, but of course they didn't do that themselves. A chirugeon - a cutter - was called in to perform that function. Chirugeons were, as Stephen Maturin remarked, a respectable body, but they were tradesmen, not gentlemen. They didn't have academic qualifications, and they learned their trade by apprenticeship. They barbered - which meant not only hairdressing, but also cutting warts, pulling teeth, chiropody, lancing boils, phlebotomy and the like, functions that were beneath the notice of physicians. "Chirugeon", the Latin word, eventually was angicised as "surgeon".

However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, this distinction was breaking down. As surgery became more effective and elaborate, surgeons began to train by formal study of anatomy, and eventually were qualified by degree in the Universities. Many of the latter retained the distinction between medicine and surgery by granting separate degrees, but reflected the new equality between the two by making them baccalaureates, while retaining the senior degree as a research or theory qualification. After 1830 the various governments established medical boards to examine and licence both physicians and surgeons, rather than leaving it to professional bodies or the Universities, and these boards accepted the new degrees. The result was that medical practitioners no longer qualified by doctoral degree, but the social convention of calling them "Doctor" remained.

Surgery became the cutting edge of medicine during the nineteenth century. Progress was palpably being made - anaethesia, then asepsis and antisepsis. The surgeons, revelling in their ability to actually do something, insisted on the distinction from physicians - previously injurious, now honourable. It was simply that status had changed foot. They still do that to this day, thus producing the ridiculous convention that a person qualifies in medicine, and is addressed as "Doctor" (a title to which he or she is not strictly qualified), and then specialises in surgery so as to revert to being merely "Mr", "Ms" (etc).

It's like the whale's hipbones. Funny how history and biology sometimes intersect.

Dave Luckett said: Surgery became the cutting edge of medicine during the nineteenth century.

Peter Henderson said: Apparently Professor Ian Plimer (an arch anti-YEC) has claimed global warming is not man made:

Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

The more I think about it, the more I'm willing to overlook your colorful and carnal use of colloquial curse words, so long as I still get to refer to the FUCKERS as enthusiast supporters of the torture of children's testicles. Maybe Pastor Warren will explain it as necessary to torture the testicles of children because doing otherwise 'might jeopordize the integrity of the unborn'. Did God not mention his stand on the torture of children's testicles? Was he so preoccupied with condemning the homosexuals and seafood eaters that he overlooked the obvious? God gave us all noses, ears and and asses, never actually directing us on what their functions were to be used for. He must have known we were smart enough to figure out our heads from our asses. Too bad he didn't have the forethought to forcefully and vehemently comment against the torture of toddler testicles. I thought that issue, (along with the Magna Carta), had been settled long, long ago.

.....she could open a think tank. It could be named the "Center Heading Research in Support of Torturing Toddler's Testicles" aka CHRISTTT, which will of course be more informally referred to as the CHRIST CENTER for purposes of public consumption. That's just how those FUCKERS roll.

KP said:

Peter Henderson said: Apparently Professor Ian Plimer (an arch anti-YEC) has claimed global warming is not man made:

Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

This sounds suspiciously like an Ayn Rand Society aka "Objectivist" type. They reject creationism, but they also reject any scientific finding that they can associate, in any way, with "liberals" or "environmentalists" like Al Gore in this case. If it doesn't support the so-called "objective" conclusion that anthropocentric capitalist consumption is the most rational approach at all times, then it is equally lacking in intellectual capacity as creationism or any other superstition. With nearly 30 years of Reaganomics currently (finally?) collapsing, hopefully some of this "objectivist" propaganda will go away.

Dale Husband said:

BTW, I know Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you just made her sound like a cult leader. Sheesh!

So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating?

Or just lecturing each other about it?

John Holdren will be President Obama's Science Advisor. :-)
Here is a clip of him with David Letterman discussing Global Warming.
http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/video_player/index/php/953125.phtml

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

I have mostly 2nd hand furniture, don't re-decorate every couple of years, have minimal waste of food, avoid conspicious consumption, have insulated my house well, use cfl lighbulbs, have the thermostat turned down, and recycle.

Thats about all I can do right now. Further changes will require the rest of society to catch up. My biggest footprint is from my car for commuting, but I'm aiming to move house and job in the next few years to bring them both much closer together.

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

Global warming isn't faith based. It's happening whether you believe in it or not and whether you chose to do anything about it or not. Attitudes don't alter facts. Svante Arrhenius, the chemist who discovered the Greenhouse Effect, was happy about it, figuring that things would be nicer in a warmer Sweden.

Science Avenger said:

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

Ah, the if-I-can-claim-you're-a-hypocrite-global-warming-isn't-real canard. [yawn] Needless to say, it should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature that one person can't do anything about global warming, so your comment is duly flushed into file 13 with all the other denialist crapola.

What am I doing for global warming? I quit eating beans last year, which could account for the recent localized cooling trend.

novparl said: So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating? Or just lecturing each other about it?

Dale Husband said: BTW, I know Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you just made her sound like a cult leader. Sheesh!

The Discovery Institute said: [Jesse] mentioned the book he had been reading -- The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins -- and how along with the science classes he had taken had eroded his faith.

...these scientific findings to not "prove" that God exists, but they do provide powerful evidence that faith in God is consistent with the facts -- contrary to the claims of Darwinists like Dawkins.

Judge Jones said: ...it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

KP said: I'm not sure where they stand on evolution. In 1992, I attended a talk sponsored by the Ayn Rand Society/Objectivists. The speaker they brought in blamed environmentalists and their efforts to ban DDT for recent resurgences of malaria in 3rd world countries. The talk was full of misleading information (and outright lies). At Q&A time, I asked the speaker about the well-established fact that mosquitos could evolve resistance to insecticides. He completely evaded the question. Later, another woman stood up and asked him to answer my question, which he still somehow avoided. I remember it like it was yesterday because I was so astonished that the so-called "Objectivists" just ignored basic scientific facts.

An "UGH" moment worth mentioning: While I was typing this, the mail arrived. I am on the DI's mailing list because I signed up to attend Wells' last book signing (I didn't end up going). A request for donations. The letter tells the story of the suicide of Jesse Kilgore. They try to blame it on Dawkins:

Stanton said: Who is was Jesse Kilgore?

I should add that it is beyond despicable that the DI would use such an unfortunate and heart-wrenching occurrence as a boy's suicide to further their anti-science religious propaganda, but I guess once you blame Darwin for the Holocaust it really isn't possible to sink much lower.

H.H. said: I should add that it is beyond despicable that the DI would use such an unfortunate and heart-wrenching occurrence as a boy's suicide to further their anti-science religious propaganda, but I guess once you blame Darwin for the Holocaust it really isn't possible to sink much lower.

Dave Luckett said: ... A chirugeon - a cutter - was called in to perform that function. Chirugeons were, as Stephen Maturin remarked, a respectable body, but they were tradesmen, not gentlemen. They didn't have academic qualifications, and they learned their trade by apprenticeship. They barbered - which meant not only hairdressing, but also cutting warts, pulling teeth, chiropody, lancing boils, phlebotomy and the like, functions that were beneath the notice of physicians. "Chirugeon", the Latin word, eventually was angicised as "surgeon". ...

Global warming isn’t faith based. It’s happening whether you believe in it or not and whether you chose to do anything about it or not.

— Jim Harrison

I stand corrected. Chirurgeon. Submit to spell checker.

Perpetuators of the "man made" global warming hoax have made a good run but good science always prevails over charlatanism and, in this case, the cult of Gore worshipers.
The truth can't be concealed no matter how inconvienient it may be to the scoundrels who profit from the hoax.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

shux said: Perpetuators of the "man made" global warming hoax have made a good run but good science always prevails over charlatanism and, in this case, the cult of Gore worshipers.

Shux uses the phrase " the cult of Gore worshipers", the only time I hear Gore's name is from Global Warming Deniers. When you don't have facts, you use propaganda, and personifying a movement with someone's name is standard propaganda technic.

Shux,

Did you not realize that the link you provided leads to the list that was trashed in the OP?

Given that CO2 absorbs infra-red radiation and is increasing in the atmosphere (with good evidence that the increase is coming from human activities) how could it be possible that global temperatures would not increase?

shux said: Perpetuators of the "man made" global warming hoax have made a good run but good science always prevails over charlatanism and, in this case, the cult of Gore worshipers. The truth can't be concealed no matter how inconvienient it may be to the scoundrels who profit from the hoax.

Both realclimate.org as well as Tim Lambert at Deltoid have provided excellent overviews of the science behind man made global warming and also have shown the shoddy tactics and the poor science behind global warming deniers. It should not come as much of a surprise that those who deny evolution also deny global warming as ignorance tends to be a powerful motivator in both cases.
Not to mention that it is a 'cause celebre' amongst many conservatives, the same who led ignorance guide them in their many claims.

Shux, if you're not Bobby, please tell us if you think that Sarah Palin is a Gore worshipper.

Stanton said:

H.H. said: I should add that it is beyond despicable that the DI would use such an unfortunate and heart-wrenching occurrence as a boy's suicide to further their anti-science religious propaganda, but I guess once you blame Darwin for the Holocaust it really isn't possible to sink much lower.

It's always an appalling tragedy that anyone would be selfish enough to use a suicide as grist for propaganda mills.

I may be confused here, but are some people here actually claiming that all/most global warming "deniers" are right wing nutjobs or creationists, etc.?

I'm a geologist. To boot, I am also a strong atheist. I may be climatically ignorant, but I am not a kook or a bozo creationist - I know how to evaluate data. And yet, I am not convinced of anthropogenic "global warming." Except now aren't we supposed to call it "climate change" because, as it turns out, some places are appearing to get colder while others get hotter? It appears to me we don't know enough about the effects of increased CO2 concentrations or increasing temperatures to make the predictions that have already been made.

We have theories. That's it. Those theories need to be tested over and over and over again. Have they? The "Global Warming" phenomenon is just a few years old, relatively speaking, and we require more than a few decades to corroborate the models. We haven't had time to properly put it to the test, in my opinion. As scientists, we must remain skeptical, because at any point in time, the data can turn against us. We need to remain objective so that if the need arises, we can reject our pet theories in favor of one demanded by the data. I honestly do not see that from many "global warming" proponents. Their angry, almost desperate defense of the theory against naysayers is almost dogmatic. I'm not questioning GW because I have anything against it per se, I'm questioning it because that's what I'm supposed to do as a scientist.

I am not here to argue the merits or faults of each side, but to point out that making the sorts of sweeping generalizations about people in the manner I've seen here is shameful, and frankly, as a fellow skeptic, embarrassing. Aren't we supposed to be above this sort of scientific bullying?

Some of us are deniers because our creeds or political persuasions blind us to the facts, but many of us, particularly the scientists, are deniers because we simply have not been convinced yet.

Is that our fault or theirs? Probably both, to be perfectly honest.

I am not here to argue the merits or faults of each side, but to point out that making the sorts of sweeping generalizations about people in the manner I’ve seen here is shameful, and frankly, as a fellow skeptic, embarrassing. Aren’t we supposed to be above this sort of scientific bullying?

Except now aren’t we supposed to call it “climate change” because, as it turns out, some places are appearing to get colder while others get hotter?

It appears to me we don’t know enough about the effects of increased CO2 concentrations or increasing temperatures to make the predictions that have already been made.

I have added some relevant figures which outline some of the evidence.

Finally it is worth providing a bit of context for this latest speech. Inhofe has a history of making inflammatory and incorrect claims about the science of climate change. He previously gave a speech on the senate floor in July 2003 on "The Science of Climate Change" (partial transcript here) in which he stated that "catastrophic global warming is a hoax" and made a rather substantial number of false claims about the science. In fact, Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona subsequently provided two climate scientists mentioned specifically by Inhofe, Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University (whom Inhofe referred to as "the father and promoter of the catastrophic global warming fearmongers") and Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the opportunity to respond to several of these false assertions in the Senate record–see the account provided in the article "Earth Last" by science journalist Chris Mooney. In this speech, Inhofe repeated many of the standard contrarian arguments challenging the mainstream, consensus view of the climate research community that the activity of human beings now has had a discernable impact on global climate and that this warming is likely to continue as anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase. Most of these arguments are debunked on the pages of RealClimate. Inhofe, for example, once again promoted each of the "myths" we have documented about the "Hockey Stick" reconstruction of past temperature changes, citing contrarian criticisms that have since been thoroughly discredited.

I may be confused here, but are some people here actually claiming that all/most global warming “deniers” are right wing nutjobs or creationists, etc.?

Most of those who believe that the earth is getting hotter also believe that human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is responsible: based on the total sample, 50% say this, and 23% say it is mostly a result of natural patterns in the earth's environment. But there are somewhat larger differences across religious groups on this question: 52% of Catholics and 48% of white mainline Protestants believe the earth is getting hotter and think this is because of human activity, while fewer evangelicals think this (37%). Fully 62% of seculars feel that global warming is occurring because of human activity. Some of the difference between evangelicals and other religious groups regarding the existence of global warming are a result of the more Republican and conservative political views of evangelicals. But after these factors are taken into account, white evangelicals remain slightly less likely than others to believe that global warming is occurring or that it is the result of human activity.

Temperatures have not risen over the last ten years. The data set GISS uses is based on ground stations; see Anthony Watts's blog for the pictures of stevenson screens totally misplaced and producing garbage.

The graph you have showing the corresponding rises of CO2 and temperature isn't long enough -- it starts out at the end of the Little Ice Age (are you saying the reason you can't walk from the tip of Manhattan to Statten Island or go ice skating on the Thames in mid-winter nowadays is because of human induced warming? Great, let's have more of it!)

In both the Roman and Norman periods wine grapes were grown in Britain. Was that because of human induced global warming? Mann et al. want to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, but the evidence is not confined to Northern Europe -- it is world wide.

CO2 is also a trivial greenhouse gas -- the most important are water vapor and methane. CO2's contribution to greenhouse warming is also logarithmic -- Hansen has claimed there is a feedback; let him prove it!

As to there being a religious or political component to the debate, as far as religion goes my experience is that it does not matter (I am an agnostic) but politically there is. Those of us who doubt the new global warming religion see Al Gore and his ilk as the rent seekers they are.

John H. Costello said: Temperatures have not risen over the last ten years.

John H. Costello said: As to there being a religious or political component to the debate, as far as religion goes my experience is that it does not matter (I am an agnostic) but politically there is. Those of us who doubt the new global warming religion see Al Gore and his ilk as the rent seekers they are.