Danielle Smith is right, there isn’t a scientific consensus on AGW!

Bravo to Alberta Wildrose Leader, Danielle Smith, for stating the obvious — that there is no scientific consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Yet, the CBC refers to what she said as “casting doubt on a widely accepted scientific theory.”

Casting doubt? Widely accepted scientific theory? Are the journalists at the CBC, and other mainstream media outlets (apart from SNN), only reading what the IPCC is putting out? Or do they check other sources?

I mean, that is the essence of, not only journalism, but scientific inquiry. Checking and rechecking. In other words, there should be no such thing as “accepted scientific theory” that does not allow further questioning.

So, am I to assume that those in the media where this group-think culture seems to abound, never question that “accepted” scientific theory by checking out sources and websites that provide alternative opinions?

Like Watts Up With That? Oh, I know, some will marginalize and minimize such websites, but WUWT does publish alternative scientific opinions nonetheless.

Then, there is the uncomfortable reality that the earth has not warmed significantly in fifteen years (as all these Google sources indicate).

Of course, what won’t be discussed at CBC or other mainstream sources is that AGW is not really about CO2 emissions at all. Rather, it is about a global attempt to implement a giant wealth redistribution program — something those of us living in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario understand completely.

I mean, in Liberal Ontario, taxpayer money flows one-way, to the McGuinty government, which then is supposed to distribute it, not only to health care and education, but for programs and services for the most vulnerable in our society. However, instead of helping the most vulnerable, they allocate billions of dollars towards subsidies for private wind farm developers, as well as put aside money to pay for legal fees for pending or possible law suits.

For example, at the same time it is being alleged that the McGuinty government is about to close the Thistletown Regional Centre, we are hearing from non-Ontario media (the Red Deer Advocate to be precise) that, not only is a wind farm developer suing the Ontario government for $1 billion dollars, but the investors representing the natural gas plant in Mississauga shut down during last October’s provincial election, are suing for another $300 million.

Which just makes me appreciate the fact that Danielle Smith can speak truth to power.  I mean, let’s face it. She is right. There has never been scientific consensus on AGW because those with opposing opinions were just labelled deniers!   Which means, that if there is a change in government in Alberta next Monday night, an awful lot of Ontarians who are fed up with the “green dictator” and AGW advocate, are going to be moving west.

Update Friday, April 20th, 2012:  SunMedia’s Charles Adler has an excellent column on this topic and why the AGW theory is not settled.

50 thoughts on “Danielle Smith is right, there isn’t a scientific consensus on AGW!

  1. Danielle is only saying what most Albertans believe. It is a scam and it has made millionairs out of many people, including David S. And has Redford or the cbc/ctv read the bill sponsored by Ted Morton, and when the Supreme Court read gay rights into our HRC, Ted wanted the notwithstanding clause used. That is why he had so much support at one time to be leader. Guess he wont be in cabinet if he is re-elected (doubtful). And then dissing Ralph in his own riding was a very stupid thing to do for Redford. Wonder how many of his voters will vote WRA on Monday.
    If the right to choose is a charter right, why is it wrong if we choose the wrong side of the media.
    As for avoiding the media, another attempt to destroy her. Why should she go on those early morning shows so they have all day to twist her words.
    Oh, and that blog post everyone is upset about, it was written over a year ago. Shows how low the PCs will go to dig that up. And he was speaking as a pastor of his church when he wrote it, was not a candidate for anything at the time.
    Why has Redford never been questioned on why she wanted to be a citizen of S. Africa. She worked at the UN for many years and has that mentality, sort of like Mo Strong.


  2. Mary T — I hope that an Alberta based blogger writes about you just said — the the Edmonton Wildrose candidate wrote about homosexuality before he was even nominated to run and that Redford wanted to be a citizen of S.Africa.

    The media is involved in the same kind of coverup in Ontario and its sickening.


  3. I think Ardvark and Searching for liberty have written on these topics weeks ago.
    I think the post in question has been deleted.


  4. Can’t remember, did I mention that Colleen Klein has taken out a membership in the Wild Rose party, last Nov when Redford was elected leader. That riding should be one to watch next monday.


  5. Mary T — Already bought the popcorn. Remember, I have a brother and two sisters in Calgary.

    Did I tell you that my husband and youngest granddaughter and I will be in Calgary for five days over the May long weekend. My youngest sister (age 53) starts chemo in a couple of weeks so I want to give her some moral support. E-mail me your tel number and I’ll give you a call. I’ll also tell you what hotel we will be staying at in case you are in Calgary during that time period.


  6. You say: “there should be no such thing as ‘accepted scientific theory’ that does not allow further questioning.”

    I agree completely. And, to be honest, I find the phrase “the science is settled” a bit misleading. But it’s misleading because it doesn’t refer to what’s settled. The idea that there are greenhouse gases, that carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, and that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution has been changing our climate and will continue to change our climate is very well established. All sorts of questions about that are being asked and answered; there is much to be learned; and some of what is learned might lead to a completely new theory.

    But, as I said, the basic claim is very well established. There is no scientific controversy about that. There is a political controversy. I like political controversies. But I wish political debates could happen with both sides acknowledging the best science available. The controversy should be over how to deal with the problem, not over whether or not a problem exists.

    Which is why I disagree with this claim: “AGW is not really about CO2 emissions at all. Rather, it is about a global attempt to implement a giant wealth redistribution program.”

    This confuses the science and the politics. There may be a global attempt to implement a giant wealth redistribution plan. And those planners may be using AGW as an excuse to redistribute. But that has nothing to do with the science that you’ll find in academic peer reviewed scholarly journals that overwhelmingly points to CO2 as a major factor in climate change.

    Out of curiosity, have you seen (or do you believe) this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-douglas/republican-climate-change_b_1374900.html

    It claims to be “A Message From a Republican Meteorologist on Climate Change.”


    P.S. For what it’s worth (I know, not much) I hope your sister’s treatment works out. She’s lucky that she has you for moral support.


  7. I hope that some day we can agree on the science. Maybe we could even agree on what to do about it. Conservative principles and people are too important to be left out of the debate over what to do about the problem. (But I realize we disagree over whether or not there is a problem… which is a problem, whichever one of us is wrong).


  8. ferrethouse — The anti-Wildrose pressure from the media today (apart from SNN) has been incredible. They seem desperate.


  9. It’s so nice to have the potential opportunity to have a truthful leader. Whether we agree with them or not on every issue this issue is indeed unproven. To say “there isn’t scientific consensus” IS TRUE.
    That doesn’t make her a denier, it makes her a believer in waiting for facts, truth, proof….a 100% scientific consensus from the community. Until then, she has it right. Speak YOUR TRUTH so that we, the voters can assess you accurately.

    This has turned into a nasty, fear mongering campaign. I actually unfriended a family member on FB today who doesn’t even reside in the province or country anymore but has started posting all of the nasty rhetoric from the Journal, the nastier, the better.

    I guess that what we are seeing is that the people we thought would care about balancing budgets, freedom of religious thought and speech, fiscal independence, illegal party donations, cronyism etc are more about bigger govt, perks, controlled speech and thought and religious bigotry. it’s sad and when the dust settles, this will be a very different place.

    ps….I wish you all the best for your visit to support your Sister. i hope we serve you up some nice weather but it won’t quite be Southern Ont in May, that’s for sure! 🙂


  10. Thanks Bec. Is the third week in May cold in Calgary? Unless of course we get lucky and get a chinook? The Alberta election reminds me of the last referendum in Quebec. Family member against family member. Most unfortunate. What I fear is the PC and WR vote splitting and the Liberals coming up the middle. Or, strategic voting where Liberals and NDP vote PC. Time will tell. If it is a PC government, I fully expect the weather to be very cold in May. LOL


  11. I feel like saying “if the Liberals come up the middle, I’ll eat my hat”. But I’d need to get a hat first. It would be ridiculous if that happened. And, our electoral system lets it happen. I’m in favour of proportional representation (of some sort) to prevent that sort of thing.


  12. “I feel like saying “if the Liberals come up the middle, I’ll eat my hat”. ”

    The Liberal vote is rumoured to be collapsing and moving to the PC’s. A Minority WRA govt would be so interesting because we’d maybe see a few PC-er’s have to come out of the closet and show their conservative roots versus what they have been whipped to do.
    Danielle has worked very well with the Libs and Dippers despite their philosophical differences. If that occurred I’d say the PC’s would be leaderless. I don’t think Redford would stay.


  13. Pingback: “Danielle Smith is right, there isn’t a scientific consensus on AGW!” « Newsbeat1

  14. I would urge all of you to visit, Searchingfor liberty latest post, April 17 to see a list of the many times pc mlas in Alberta have come out against gay marriage, and the petition presented a few years ago by a pc mla to defund abortion. Every one of the items was covered in the media at the time. Guess redford doesn’t know the beliefs of her own caucus. And with the media pile on the last day or so, it also proves they do not do any research.


  15. Anon1152: “But, as I said, the basic claim is very well established. There is no scientific controversy about that.”

    Actually, there is controversy about that. Mainly it is about the sensitivity of the climate system to CO2 levels and, similarly, whether there are positivie or negative feedbacks. If, as the skeptics posit, the sensitivity is weak and has been exaggerated in the models (and that negative feedbacks exist, as is suggested by new work with clouds, etc) then there is not much to worry about from the small contribution that mankind makes to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

    Of course, the politicians want to rush in to tax the very air we breathe before the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.


  16. Attila at 11:25pm. You have stated my position exactly.

    There is so much out there about the weakness of climate models and outright lies, so much so that we can now say that the science is far from settled.

    The current trend may indeed be upward, indicating that the earth is warming. However, whatever way the trends are pointing, that is simply climate as it has always been. Up and down.

    The issue is whether man is causing the warming, assuming we are still warming. I don’t believe man behaviour is causing it because politicians, as you say, are just too quick to figure out ways to tax and make money. In fact, the cap and trade in Europe has been a disaster and only indicates man’s greed.

    It is not that conservatives don’t care about our environment. We do. And, I do my share to help. But, the AGW smacks of pure corruption and influence by those who are more concerned about the environment than people and want a one-world government.

    I mean how offensive is it that rich movie stars are going to Africa and telling the desperately poor Afrians that because they should not be allowed to develop as the west has done, e.g., get running water and electrical power?

    Anyway, history is paved with such social manias. Recently I was reading about the Dutch Tulip Bubble in the mid 1600’s. Frenzy hardly begins to describe what happened then and when the tulip bubble burst, entire family dynasties were ruined financially. The AGW bubble has stretched as far as it can go and it is only a matter of time before it bursts as well.


  17. “Then, there is the uncomfortable reality that the earth has not warmed significantly in fifteen years (as all these Google sources indicate).”

    I’ve seen this claim a few times from deniers, and I’ve never seen a reliable source for it. Most of the references I’ve seen seem to trace back to the the Daily Mail, which has little to journalistic credibility and certainly no scientific credibility. In any case, fifteen years is not a statistically significant period of time to measure long-term trends in the climate. It’s like citing the fact that today is the same temperature as yesterday to deny that it’s spring and the temperature is getting warmer. Long-term analyses show that the climate is undoubtedly warming. (source: http://www.cotf.edu/ete/images/modules/msese/dinosaurflr/DFVolcanoesP3.gif)

    Of course, none of that matters because the earth exploded yesterday (as all these google sources indicate: https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=earth+exploded+yesterday)


  18. Falsum — I am a retired academic. It is not necessary to ridicule my position. Which is precisely why the AGW issue is so contentious and that is your know-it-all-position and your calling me a denier as though this was about the holocaust. I am not a denier of anything. I simply have not seen any actual evidence that the earth is warming due to human caused behaviours, i.e., uncontrollable CO2 emissions.

    There are dozens of reputable scientists who now disagree with that current position. I am not a hard or earth sciences specialist so I am not going to get into with you. But, I am a researcher and I know that as soon as someone claims to have all the answers, they don’t.

    In fact, at the moment, there is as much validity that, not only is the earth not warming any longer, but that it is the AGW theorists who are the deniers, you included.


  19. In fact, here is an entire Google search of many pages of reputable scientists debunking the AGW threat. I am simply not sure why Falsum and other warmists don’t take those positions as seriously as their own.

    The reality is that these disagreements are normal in science. The reason the AGW obsession is a problem is because it is not normal — science is never settled. Even the orgins of our universe is constantly being reviewed and updated.

    Recently, someone sarcastically suggested that I believed in the flat earth. It is that over reaction that is suspect. Even science about the circumference of the earth and its flat top and bottom, are constantly reviewed and revised.

    I suspect that no matter how much the AGW threat is debunked, there will still be some who ignore the changing consensus.


  20. The “debunkings” that you refer to have been, repeatedly… debunked.

    One website that I find helpful is here: http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    They have a long list of “denier” arguments. You can click on each and find an explanation of why it’s wrong. Often there are different levels of explanation (“basic”, “intermediate”, etc) depending on how detailed an explanation you want, and how much background knowledge you have).

    Of course, if you don’t trust the source to begin with, I’m not sure what to do. (That’s one reason why the link I provided earlier was from a “Republican meteorologist”).


  21. AGW is one of those subjects which CBC considers completely closed for discussion; there can be only one legitimate viewpoint. Examples of this abound:
    They have championed David Suzuki for over 25 years, larely making his reputation.
    They ignored the e-mail leaks of the climate change controversy for over 2 weeks, not reporting the story and even having their own blogging reporter called out on P&P over it.
    When Tom Flanagan casually mentioned on P&P he was a “denier”, Evan Solomon became so flustered he called a commercial break. Flanagan is an adviser to WRA.
    Of course Danielle Smith is correct to be skeptical of AGW claims. A good presentation of problems of this theory was presented to the Senate Committee studying climate change by Ross McKitrick, Un of Guelph. Basically he is saying the evidence has not been proven, certainly not by climate change models used thus far.
    As far as I know, McKitrick has been mostly ignored by CBC. See video here:


  22. Thanks Martin and Anon. If someone is persuaded by AGW, there is obviously little to change his or her mind. Similarly, it seems if we don’t believe it. None of us are deniers. We are simply sceptical of the other’s arguments.

    Going out for a few hours but feel free to put up reliable sources that debunk AGW. I think perhaps this Wall Street Journal is one of the best debunking articles out there — signed by sixteen scientists.


  23. “Thanks Martin and Anon. If someone is persuaded by AGW, there is obviously little to change his or her mind. Similarly, it seems if we don’t believe it.”

    OK. This may be true. But it is a bit depressing, isn’t it? I’d like to think that I can change my mind. I do periodically. I hate being wrong. So I try to be sensitive to moments where I may be wrong, and can be pointed in the right direction.

    I have consistently found the debunking of your AGW debunkers more convincing.

    There have been various responses to that Wall Street Journal article. For example:



  24. Anon1152, I’m not sure where you stand but there are enough reputable scientists now debunking AGM to convince me. My own brother, who is a geologist can’t even convince me. Why? Because he is right in the thick of it and it is pretty hard to be different from your colleagues these days — particularly when promotion and research funding is only provided to those who buy AGW. Can you say one sided? So beware those who debunk the debunkers. Their agendas are just as questionable.


  25. Falsum, rather than continue in a Twitter debate, I would like to comment further here where I have more characters than 140.

    I am quite puzzled why your obsession with peer-review. I have had many articles published that were peer reviewed. So what? I have myself been a reviewer. Again, so what?

    You have to know that being peer reviewed means only that the method was acceptable. No reviewer verifies the research results. They assume that if it was done by a scholar, it meets scholarly expectations. Primarily what reviewers look for is clarity, style, research design, method and conclusions and likely the type of references used. If anything is missing, they may reject it outright or send it back to the writer for revisions.

    In other words, having work peer-reviewed does not give any written work or research report special significance, or at least it shouldn’t. It simply means a group of peers deemed it good enough to publish. Nothing more.

    My work was always about learning disabilities and learning strategies and the role of auditory processing and cognition. Other researchers were free to refute my work and vice versa. Often, an article or two would appear a few months later agreeing or disagreeing with part of my findings. That is how research continues. Few things today are seminal and you know that.

    So, having an article peer reviewed does not give it some onhigh status — which is what you seem to be looking for.

    Anyway, it is my understanding that anyone who does not adhere to AGW simply does not get his or her articles reviewed, let alone published. Which means, demanding peer-reviewed proof against AGW is disengenous to say the least.

    But, you already knew that did’t you?

    Now, speaking of peer-review and credible debunkers — here are the 16 scientists who were brave enough to tell it like it is in the Wall Street Journal article I posted earlier.

    Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
    J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
    Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
    Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
    Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
    William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
    Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge,
    U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
    Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
    James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
    Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
    Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
    Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
    Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
    Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
    Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.


  26. Anon152:: I found one other radio program featuring McKitrick on the CBC; I have personally never heard his name mentioned. Given the role he and Stephen McIntyre, both Canadians , played in debunking the hockey stick graphic claims, I would say CBC has ignored him as much as possible. Certainly they have given much greater exposure to Al Gore, whose credibility to speak on climate change is very dubious.


  27. When agw scientists and proponents actually start living like they believe what they say then maybee I will take them seriously. That would mean they can not use any product constructed or transported using fossil fuels. Think thats ever going to happen?


  28. “My own brother, who is a geologist can’t even convince me. Why? Because he is right in the thick of it and it is pretty hard to be different from your colleagues these days — particularly when promotion and research funding is only provided to those who buy AGW. Can you say one sided? So beware those who debunk the debunkers. Their agendas are just as questionable.”

    There is a lot of money on the other side of the issue too. Our entire civilization is “fossil fueled.”

    But whatever the source of the funding, what should matter more is the quality of the research. Poor quality research that says exactly what the funders want to here is particularly suspect. But you have to look at the research first to know that. I wouldn’t dismiss the geologist so quickly.


  29. I suspect that the former vice-president of the USA will get more attention because he’s the former vice-president of the USA. No matter what he says. (And yes, I think that, all other things being equal, that’s not a good thing).

    The criticism of the hockey stick graph has been criticized.


  30. I was under the impression that we needed to start living with more advanced technology…


  31. Anon1152 — Ever since I read the WSJ article and sixteen signatores, that was proof enough for me. The earth may indeed be warming and CO2 may indeed be having some effect. But, the cap and trade and the carbon taxes and all that is just pure balderdash! As is the Feed-In-Tariff nonsense in Ontario and wind energy subsidies that are many times more than can ever be recovered. Absolutely crazy!

    The thing is peer-reviewed does not guarantee good research. Reviewers just don’t have time to redo the research to prove it is good. You end up taking the word of the authors. No research is perfect because all research starts off with assumptions and limitations — assumptions and limitations that influence everything that is done from start to finish. And, when the models you are using are developed by humans, any results can never ever be settled.


  32. Oh I see that there were two comments posted almost simultaneously. I was unclear about the statement: “that we needed to start living with more technology.” I have never questioned that assumption.


  33. As long as we’re articulating our personal credentials. I should say that I am a graduate student in Science and Technology Studies. I wouldn’t blame you for not having heard of STS-we’re a very small field-but we study science and technology from a social, political, and economic perspective. Suffice to say, I am entirely familiar with how the peer review process works, and I agree with you that it is not a magical stamp that confirms the findings of the paper. This is precisely why the fact that no global warming deniers (I use that term without apology because it is a factual description of someone who claims something does not exist or is not the case. You deny global warming. Most of us are unicorn deniers. It is not intended to associate you with anti-semites) have published in any peer-reviewed journals is so damning: It implies that no climate deniers have managed to publish a paper good enough that their peers will deem it fit for publication. The bar is set low, and they have failed to clear it.

    As for the inherent uncertainty of all science, I agree with you there as well. Nothing is ever entirely settled. We can, however, settle issues to a standard sufficiently rigorous for us to act on. Scientists may disagree on the finer points of astronomy or population genetics, but they have come to a sufficient agreement on the facts that life on earth evolved and that the earth orbits the sun that we use their findings to help us launch satellites and design vaccines. The science of anthropogenic global warming has also been settled to this standard. Even if it hadn’t, the precautionary principle would demand that we act on the mere probability that their findings are correct, because the consequences of inaction are so severe.

    Global warming deniers are not, of course, the first to discard peer review or scientific consensus. Creationists and anti-vaccine activists also come to mind. This is the problem with abandoning standards for scientific research: you admit anyone and everyone with any or no level of qualification to contribute to highly complex discussions that they cannot understand without years of schooling. The 16 scientists you mentioned above are a classic example. Here’s your list, with a bit more detail about each signatory:

    Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth,

    University of Paris. He is a geochemist, and therefore has no authority on the climate.

    J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International

    Journal of Forecasting. His undergraduate and masters were in engineering, and his PhD is in management. He is not a scientist.

    Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University. She is a physician specializing in cardiovascular diseases, and therefore has about as much authority on the climate as the average plumber.

    Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society. He holds a PhD in physics, which might give him authority on climate, but this authority is compromised by the fact that he is in the employ of ExxonMobil. Conflict of interest, so he’s out.

    Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences. He’s an electrical engineer, not a scientist.

    William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton. A physicist, yes, but he specializes in atomic physics and optics-neither of which has anything to do with climate science.

    Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge. His PhD is in solid state physics. Forgive my cheekiness, but the atmosphere is not in a solid state. Everything he has published in peer-reviewed journals is about electronics.

    U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. He’s a retired meteorologists, and meteorologists don’t study climate; they study weather. Calling him an authority on climate change is like calling a medical doctor an authority on evolution.

    Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT. This is the best qualified member on the list, but his credentials in applied mathematics are still not that impressive. I’m willing to allow that he’s an authority on climate chance since he has published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject, but he’s one against thousands, and given that he’s on the payroll of the heartland institute, he’s far from independent.

    James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University. He’s a professor of chemistry. That’s all you need to know. Not an authority on climate science.

    Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences. He doesn’t even have a master’s degree. Nothing he has published is related to climate science.

    Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne. While Rutan’s spacecraft is impressive and makes me very excited as a space geek, it is more a testament to his mastery of aerospace engineering than any kind of expertise on climate science.

    Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator. Astronauts are certainly impressive people, but without former climate science education, they have no authority on the matter. Schmitt’s education was in geology. Not an authority on climate science.

    Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Astrophysics happens outside of the atmosphere. Not an authority on climate science.

    Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service. Another meteorologist. Furthermore, he hasn’t published anything since before 1990. He can’t refute the science of climate change if he isn’t keeping up with it.

    Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. A nuclear physicist. Nothing to do with climate.

    * * *
    So, of the list of 16 scientists, five of them aren’t scientists of any kind, nine are scientists specializing in unrelated fields, and only two have any expertise relevant to the question of whether we are warming the planet or not. The two real climate scientists on the list are both funded by oil lobby interest groups, which severely compromises their authority. The fact that anybody at the WSJ had the nerve to refer to this list as “16 scientists” should discredit not just the signatories, but the magazine that published them under that name, and is evidence that the opponents of the scientific consensus are grasping at straws.

    I’ll repeat an analogy I mentioned on Twitter: Imagine you go to the doctor, and she says you have a life-threatening illness and you should seek treatment immediately. The treament will be expensive and painful and so your are hesitant to undergo it, so you seek a second opinion from a doctor who specializes in the disease you supposedly have. She agrees with the initial diagnosis, but you’re not quite sure so you go to ten other doctors and they all agree that you should seek treatment because, despite the difficulties entailed in it, the consequences of not getting treated will be dire. Then, at a party, you meet a good friend who is a dentist. She has a quick look at your X-rays and concludes that there is nothing wrong with you, and you shouldn’t seek treatment. Better to use your money to pay that overdue bill you owe her. My question to you (and the other commenters here) is the following: Do you listen to the doctors and get treatment, or do you listen to your friend the dentist with a conflict of interest, and forego it?


  34. Re: technology. I just wanted to affirm that I’m all for development, and against giving up all of the comforts of modern civilization.


  35. Falsum — You are a grad student and that says it all. You are simply following the accepted line of scholarship in your department and I don’t blame you for that. We have all gone through that.

    But, you have completely lost credibility with me because you have systematically minimized the reputations of the sixteen scientists, as though doing that somehow makes AGW real. Which, I am afraid is typical of any debate on this subject. I would remind you I gave you those names and that WSJ article link because it was YOU who asked for peer-review proof over an dover again, here and on Twitter.

    You also lost credibility by referring to me as a denier and bringing up the nonsense subject of unicorns. I am not a denier. I simply don’t accept the current IPCC view of global warming. Why I don’t accept it has to do with the money. Follow the money my friend and the corruption will be obvious. Where there is corruption, there NEEDs to be scepticism.

    Now, that is all I am going to say on this topic as the discussion has gone far enough. This post is about there not being a consensus on AGW and, with only 40 some comments on this thread, we have already established beyond any shadow of a doubt.


  36. “Ever since I read the WSJ article and sixteen signatores, that was proof enough for me.”

    This is an argument from authority. You trust the sixteen signers of the WSJ letter. I trust the climate scientists (the people who write for realclimate.org or skepticalscience.com, for example). I trust my authorities. You trust yours. I do try to learn what I can about the actual science. And we need to keep in mind that there is (or at least should be) a big difference between the science and the policy.

    I think you are being misled on the science by people who have particular policy positions. They think, as you do, that “the cap and trade and the carbon taxes and all that is just pure balderdash! As is the Feed-In-Tariff nonsense in Ontario and wind energy subsidies that are many times more than can ever be recovered. Absolutely crazy!”

    And you may be right. In fact, out of the three things you mention (cap and trade, carbon taxes, and the Feed-In-Tarriff in Ontario), I could probably agree with you that at least two of those are, if not crazy, then at least bad ideas.


  37. Anon1152 — Got it. I feel the same way. I find it disgusting when rich and privileged Westerners go to Africa and tell local citizens they don’t need technology and energy — that it would be a bad thing for them to develop like Western countries.


  38. Anon1152 — People who accept AGW climate science should not be blaming those of us who don’t accept everything they say as deniers. The lies, exaggerations and outright corruption is what changed my mind. I am not, as you hint, easily led by authorities. Again, like Falsum, I would appreciate you stay away from condemnation. You may not mean it, but it smacks of elitism.


  39. There sometimes comes a time when a thread needs to be shut down. We have all said all we are going to say and, as such, to proceed further would not be productive. Thank you everyone for participating.


  40. Thank you for letting me post this.

    I wanted to say one more thing (or ask a question, or both).

    I wasn’t aware of how offensive the term “denier” is. Lawrence Solomon wrote a book called “The Deniers”, and he’s one of them. But… that doesn’t say anything about the offensiveness of the term.

    How about “contrarian”? As in “climate contrarian”? Would that work?


  41. Anon1152 — My point with this post was not to take a denier position, just to agree with Danielle Smith, that the science is NOT settled. I am not a contrarian either. I guess what I am is a sceptic. Which means that if new information comes out, I could go either way.

    And,that is the point I was trying to make to Falsum. Some scientists immediately throw out the denier label and try to reduce the debate to who isn’t credible. Which is certainly not scholarly.

    So, I will repeat, IMO, as with Smith, there is no scientific consensus about the AGW threat. That does not mean we are saying it isn’t a threat or a concern. It is that as yet it has not been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, and likely never will given the warming trend seems to have come to an end.


  42. Pingback: AGW tyranny & media censorship re global warming & evolution « CRUX-OF-THE-MATTER ►

Comments are closed.