A.C. Kleinheider has an interesting article on the phenomenon of the emergence of Republican women but I think the phenomenon is more about resurgence. I'm afraid the supposed novelty and contradiction of strong Republican women can only be sustained by incorrect historical assumptions. I agree with his overarching observation of the dramatic shifts within the Republican Party today. But this shift seems more appropriately understandable as a return to traditional Republicanism than a departure from it in light of actual history. How far back in history is the basis for his assertion that the Republican Party "historically stood for keeping females in traditional “women’s” roles" since the Republican Party is historically the party of women's suffrage? After all, the party's anti-slavery platform was the inspiration for Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton's women's suffrage movement and many of the same people involved in the abolition movement were also involved in women's suffrage.
The 19th Amendment, also known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, was introduced by California Republican Senator A.A. Sargent at the personal request of Anthony herself and defeated 4 times by a Democrat-controlled Senate and only finally passed the House and the Senate in 1919 when the Republicans regained control of Congress. Additionally, 26 of the 36 states that ratified the Amendment had Republican legislatures and only 10 Democrat while 8 of the 9 states that rejected the amendment were Democrat. More importantly, all the 12 states that had already recognized women's right to vote prior to the federal amendment were Republican States. Even the National Woman's Republican Association was established in 1888, 24 years ahead of the establishment of the Women's National Democratic League in 1912.
Whatever else the Republican Party did, it did not "historically stood for keeping females in traditional roles". And however great the Democratic Party may have been, it certainly historically denied women the right to vote.
Here's a compendium of some of the relevant news stories between 1919 and 1920 for some additional context.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Being a loser is victory for men?
Just about everything Matt Patterson says that men should be thankful for in his article is a loser's wet dream. Yes I know he's being facetious. But there's no mistaking his intent. Patterson wants to say that the feminist movement isn't perfect. But what he instead shows is what losers men are.
The movement for sexual equality indeed has been an equality by subtraction for men. While the inequalities that favor men have been steadily diminishing over time, the inequalities that favor women have remained virtually unchanged. Prostate cancer still gets the least amount of funding per new case and with a 10% higher incidence rate than breast cancer, still gets barely 50% of the funding for each new case of breast cancer. 90% of all inmates are men . Even with underreporting of domestic violence against men, DOJ statistics show that women commit more violence against the opposite sex than men though women are more likely to be injured. Gay men are 5 times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than lesbians. 78% of all murdered victims in the US are men. Men are twice more likely to be victims of carjacking than women. 35% of boys drop out of high school compared to 28% of girls. Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than women. And more.
Sexual equality has proceeded exclusively from the point of view of women. But Patterson not only fails to show that. He instead demonstrates why men should be less and less equal to women. Is he saying that it was a big mistake that women worked like men? Or did I misread him?
The movement for sexual equality indeed has been an equality by subtraction for men. While the inequalities that favor men have been steadily diminishing over time, the inequalities that favor women have remained virtually unchanged. Prostate cancer still gets the least amount of funding per new case and with a 10% higher incidence rate than breast cancer, still gets barely 50% of the funding for each new case of breast cancer. 90% of all inmates are men . Even with underreporting of domestic violence against men, DOJ statistics show that women commit more violence against the opposite sex than men though women are more likely to be injured. Gay men are 5 times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than lesbians. 78% of all murdered victims in the US are men. Men are twice more likely to be victims of carjacking than women. 35% of boys drop out of high school compared to 28% of girls. Men are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than women. And more.
Sexual equality has proceeded exclusively from the point of view of women. But Patterson not only fails to show that. He instead demonstrates why men should be less and less equal to women. Is he saying that it was a big mistake that women worked like men? Or did I misread him?
Charlie Bit Me
I don't think I've ever seen a video on YouTube that has more hits than this - over 137 million views! I can see why. Harry, the big brother, is not just big. He's a giant among big brothers.
An environmentalist can be a scientist
It is possible to be an environmentalist and still be appalled by the desecration of the scientific process by no other than climate scientists themselves. It sets the conservation of the environment against the principles of honesty and fairness. Global warming has really denegerated into an intolerant religion that not only demands belief but submission to a new set of environmental morality. That's the problem.
Environmentalism does not have to distort science in exchange for advocacy in order to effect change. Advocacy will follow when science is true. And it will be if it is allowed self-examination so it can then make adjustments and corrections when reality takes a different turn from theory. But for environgelicals, agw is a matter of faith. It's circular and it's self-referential. It cannot be questioned because there is consensus. But there is consensus only because no questions are allowed.
Environmentalism does not have to distort science in exchange for advocacy in order to effect change. Advocacy will follow when science is true. And it will be if it is allowed self-examination so it can then make adjustments and corrections when reality takes a different turn from theory. But for environgelicals, agw is a matter of faith. It's circular and it's self-referential. It cannot be questioned because there is consensus. But there is consensus only because no questions are allowed.
Good news!!!.
Have you read about the disappearing Himalayan glaciers? They could be gone by 2035. The world is seriously melting so we must pass legislations that could cost the global economy trillions in lost economic growth and keep developing nations in poverty.
Well, there's good news!!! The bad news was a typo (wink. wink. nudge. nudge). The most pessimistic estimate is actually 2350. So, the ecopalyptic prediction is really 315 years off.
So, was all that fear really because of a hyperbole? Pretty much. But at least it was for a good cause (and billions of dollars in research grants that will be used for more research to keep scaring us so that more research dollars would come in). Besides it's finally (and conveniently) being corrected now. Better late than never, as they say.
This is how climate science should be in the first place. Climate science is the only science that isn't subject to review and it's the only science that doesn't make corrections.
Now that climate science is starting to be less about climate and more about science, are corrections forthcoming?
Well, there's good news!!! The bad news was a typo (wink. wink. nudge. nudge). The most pessimistic estimate is actually 2350. So, the ecopalyptic prediction is really 315 years off.
So, was all that fear really because of a hyperbole? Pretty much. But at least it was for a good cause (and billions of dollars in research grants that will be used for more research to keep scaring us so that more research dollars would come in). Besides it's finally (and conveniently) being corrected now. Better late than never, as they say.
This is how climate science should be in the first place. Climate science is the only science that isn't subject to review and it's the only science that doesn't make corrections.
Now that climate science is starting to be less about climate and more about science, are corrections forthcoming?
Jon Stewart covers ClimateGate
Jon Stewart is really sounding more like a journalist than journalists at the NY Times or CNN etc. do. He covered the ACORN scandal when the mainstream media was downplaying it. And now, Stewart is once again going a step further than the media ever did with the CRU scandal. If global warming is supposed to be the greatest existential threat we face at the moment, shouldn't the media be covering the controversy, which casts serious doubts on the validity of global warming assumptions, to be major, major news? If there's a good chance that we might not be doomed after all, shouldn't we know about it? We should. But the media have painted themselves into a corner. Their interests are so deeply aligned with agw researchers that the potential debunking of agw would also be a death blow against the media's own credibility. So, the media are now forced to make a choice between their credibility and the truth. What underlies credibility is usually the truth. That the media are not too interested on the truth now to preserve its credibility is indeed very surreal.
Stewart is correct to be concerned over the integrity of the scientific process, but he seems to be unmoved anyway by the implications of the corruption of this process on the very conclusions it produced. If the process has been seriously compromised, the conclusions are too. Stewart is concerned that by disregarding the scientific process, climate scientists are emboldening the skeptics. He should be concerned instead that by disregarding the scientific process, climate science isn't really science at all.
She Dreamed A Dream
"Britain's Got Talent" most unlikely sensation Susan Boyle has once again accomplished the most unlikely feat, outselling any artist, male or female, this year. At 701,000 copies sold in one single week, and in a bad economy on top of that, Boyle's album "I Dreamed A Dream" is riding high at the number 1 spot on the Billboard 200 high above Rihanna and the second top selling artist this year, Eminem. Nice to see an underdog win. Go Susan.
Friday, November 27, 2009
An Inconvenient Truth
How bad was the science underneath the consensus in anthropogenic global warming research? Very bad apparently that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit had to skirt around Freedom of Information requests for CRU data and attempted to destroy (and may already have) data that revealed the inconvenient truth on agw.
From geocentric universe to humancentric global warming, "scientific consensus" has given way to science under the bright light of skepticism. Now, the Wall Street Journal has a good summary of the global warming hoax that was exposed last week.
CRU is the Pentagon of agw research, housing the largest dataset of recorded global temperatures. Why their scientists had to hide their data and burn the Copernicuses in their midst cast a serious doubt whether what is really underneath the consensus isn't science but a new gaia-based religion.
From geocentric universe to humancentric global warming, "scientific consensus" has given way to science under the bright light of skepticism. Now, the Wall Street Journal has a good summary of the global warming hoax that was exposed last week.
CRU is the Pentagon of agw research, housing the largest dataset of recorded global temperatures. Why their scientists had to hide their data and burn the Copernicuses in their midst cast a serious doubt whether what is really underneath the consensus isn't science but a new gaia-based religion.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
More Climategate
The London Times: “Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.” (via Instapundit )
Racism in SNL and China
With Obama's favorable ratings now below 50%, one of the fastest declines within such a short amount of time, are the media being unfair to Obama? Was the media's stint as the PR arm of the Obama campaign nothing but an intricate cover for the racism they would begin to show less that a year into the One's presidency?
Whatever. This is still a funny video.
Whatever. This is still a funny video.
So, it's a hoax. What now?
What are the broader implications of last week's revelation that anthropogenic global warming researchers have allegedly engaged in potentially criminal and certainly not just massive academic fraud? With the reputations of several of the leading figures in agw research on the line, a ramped up attack against skeptics is likely to follow as part of a major pushback by the agw faithful. The latest accusations of intimidation and distortion, this time backed by emails written by the agw researchers themselves, are by far the most serious test of faith for environgelicals who view the coming of global warming as evangelicals view the second coming of Christ. While skeptics feel vindicated by what increasingly appears to be the mushroom cloud showing agw is the modernized tale of the Biblical Eden corrupted by the sin of carbon emissions, there is a real danger of reverting back to earlier worse habits that hurt the environmnent.
The issue up for debate isn't the impact of carbon emissions on global temperatures, but its extent. Well not really even. Many scientists doubt the connection between carbon and global warming and argue that past historical spikes in global temperature do not show any direct correlation at all. Moreover, skeptics have long argued that agw researchers have been cherry picking their data to exaggerate and then institutionalize the exaggeration of global warming. Aside from merely being incorrect, the exaggeration has been used by policy makers to legislate new tax schemes and wealth transfers that critics say will have devastating impact on the global economy.
Environgelicals have virtually monopolized the debate on global warming. Moreover, devotees in Big Hollywood have reliably propagated the faith with movie-Earth-friendly films and concerts that leave real-Earth carbon-footprints only slightly smaller than the egos of Hollywood divas. TV Networks also demonstrated their openness to diversity of thought by giving air-time to diverging ideas they approve and refusing to sell air-time to diverging views on global warming that they don't approve. At worst, skeptics were even hauled off into kangaroo courts, the most notorious of which was the trial of environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg under the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for writing "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
The global warming debate until now has mostly been defined by some agw believers calling skeptics "greedy, capitalist, hating deniers" and others disagreeing, "They're also sexist, racist, homophobic, conservative Republicans" and the media moderating by essentially agreeing with both. Many libertarians and liberals of course have been just as much on the forefront of the opposing side, despite the institutional "ban" on opposing views. But indeed, the defense of agw, like many politically-correct causes, has been lazy and one-sided. Like most politically-correct causes, there is a suspension of skepticism and intellectual rigor that places reason and proof on the backseat behind a Liberal understanding of tolerance - a tolerance that understands oppositions as either racist, sexist, or homophobic. There can no substantive disgreement. All dissent can be explained as a function of some latent self-hatred and bigotry of the agw atheist.
The next coming days will be very significant for they will reveal the direction of the public's attitudes not just toward the environment but honesty and accuracy in debates as well. If the media-created environmental heroes do turn out to be a ring of international racketeers in lab gowns, will there be a restoration of public skepticism not just over global warming but over other unassailable liberal policies as well such as health care, immigration, stimulus, affirmative action, race and gender issues among others?
The issue up for debate isn't the impact of carbon emissions on global temperatures, but its extent. Well not really even. Many scientists doubt the connection between carbon and global warming and argue that past historical spikes in global temperature do not show any direct correlation at all. Moreover, skeptics have long argued that agw researchers have been cherry picking their data to exaggerate and then institutionalize the exaggeration of global warming. Aside from merely being incorrect, the exaggeration has been used by policy makers to legislate new tax schemes and wealth transfers that critics say will have devastating impact on the global economy.
Environgelicals have virtually monopolized the debate on global warming. Moreover, devotees in Big Hollywood have reliably propagated the faith with movie-Earth-friendly films and concerts that leave real-Earth carbon-footprints only slightly smaller than the egos of Hollywood divas. TV Networks also demonstrated their openness to diversity of thought by giving air-time to diverging ideas they approve and refusing to sell air-time to diverging views on global warming that they don't approve. At worst, skeptics were even hauled off into kangaroo courts, the most notorious of which was the trial of environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg under the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for writing "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
The global warming debate until now has mostly been defined by some agw believers calling skeptics "greedy, capitalist, hating deniers" and others disagreeing, "They're also sexist, racist, homophobic, conservative Republicans" and the media moderating by essentially agreeing with both. Many libertarians and liberals of course have been just as much on the forefront of the opposing side, despite the institutional "ban" on opposing views. But indeed, the defense of agw, like many politically-correct causes, has been lazy and one-sided. Like most politically-correct causes, there is a suspension of skepticism and intellectual rigor that places reason and proof on the backseat behind a Liberal understanding of tolerance - a tolerance that understands oppositions as either racist, sexist, or homophobic. There can no substantive disgreement. All dissent can be explained as a function of some latent self-hatred and bigotry of the agw atheist.
The next coming days will be very significant for they will reveal the direction of the public's attitudes not just toward the environment but honesty and accuracy in debates as well. If the media-created environmental heroes do turn out to be a ring of international racketeers in lab gowns, will there be a restoration of public skepticism not just over global warming but over other unassailable liberal policies as well such as health care, immigration, stimulus, affirmative action, race and gender issues among others?
Saturday, November 21, 2009
A Summary Of The CRU leaked documents
A sampling of some of the most egregious ethical and scholarly violations by the CRU scientists (via Bishop Hill )
- Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
- Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
- Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709).
- Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as "cheering news".
Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122) - Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
- Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
- Mann thinks he will contact BBC's Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
- Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't.(1255352257)
- Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi's paper is crap.(1257532857)
- Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn't matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
- Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he's "tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap" out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
- Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to '"contain" the putative Medieval Warm Period'. (1054736277)
- Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
- Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it's insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre's sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many "good" scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
- Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
- Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
- Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be "hiding behind them".(1106338806) - Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to "get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002) - Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
- Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
- Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the "increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage" he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
- Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman's admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
- Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
- Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
- Reaction to McIntyre's 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper's editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
Jones says he's found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056) - Wigley says Keenan's fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576) - Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn't be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don't want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
- Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of "apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data". [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
- Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684) - Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
- Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616) - Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr "I'm not entirely there in the head" will not be at the AGU.(1233249393) - Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
Environgelicals And The Environment
Last night, I posted a link to a NY Times report on a brewing controversy surrounding leaked memos implicating many of today's leading anthropogenic global warming scientists in wholesale scientific fraud to manufacture an environmental crisis.
Conspiracy theorists and skeptics have long been hurling accusations of a science cartel fudging research data to create a specific conclusion designed to sustain further agw research (and the lucrative million dolllar research grants that come with them).
62 megabytes worth of data had been stolen from the Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading centers in agw research. The leaked memos and emails allegedly show a pattern of disinformation and intimidation by leading agw figures such as Michael Mann (of the "hockey stick" fame), James Hansen, Phil Jones, who defended Mann on scientific journals, and several others, revealing a deep and pervasive corruption within the agw research community - a corruption that seems to have been lifted completely out of numerous conspiracy theories and for that reason, might itself be a hoax pretending to expose a hoax. So far though, interviews of people named in the emails have confirmed the authenticity of the letters.
Governments and scientists have overweighted and long-term emotional and financial investments in agw. It is unclear, even if proven true, what impact the leak will have on current and future environmental policies. Whether some scientists will add further to deteriorating worldwide unemployment rates or even potentially go to jail given these compromising investments will be determined by worldwide reaction in the following days.
Until now, agw has been the secular alternative for religious fundamentalism that provides the same sense of moral superiority to believers. But unlike religion, the secular nature of agw also provides an additional sense of intellectual superiority. Consequently, the secular nature of this additional level of superiority has provided the justification for government overreach and the professional crucifixion of agw heretics. Environgelicals, thus, are able to write their own version of the 10 commandments, not in the name of eternal salvation, but in the name of a loftier, more practical, more fashionable, more acceptable, and more sophisticated environmental salvation, absolutely guilt-free.
Whether or not global warming is (wo)man-made or not, it is smart policy to legislate protections for the earth. Whether the oceans will rise and even boil
within 10 years or not, it is irresponsible to leave the earth worse off than when we came into it. However, the reported leak undercuts a major premise in agw. Agw called for major changes in human behavior based on an imminent environmental apocalypse. If the environmental rapture is as fraudulent as the ever-rescheduled religious raptures prophesied every 10 years, as skeptics have long argued, the damage isn't going to be just on the environment.
The agw scientists, it would seem, have been conducting politics more than science. This deriliction of duty, which is shaping up to be more than a smoking gun but a mushroom cloud, will seriously damage an already unpopular politics as well as science. Whether agw skeptics could restore confidence in the supremacy of science over politics, of reason over activism, of proof over "consensus" or further erode an already thin confidence and continue the annexation of science as the research-arm of politics will determine the future of politics, of science, and (un)hopefully, of the environment.
The protection of the environment is critical enough to stand on its own. Wedding enviromental protection to an ideology masquerading as science that, in turn, is in bed with politics that legislate these protections is a dangerously abusive relationship that will hold the environment hostage to the latest pet causes of the fashionable class and will only hurt the very environment it hopes to protect through massive distortions and attacks against real scientific research.
Conspiracy theorists and skeptics have long been hurling accusations of a science cartel fudging research data to create a specific conclusion designed to sustain further agw research (and the lucrative million dolllar research grants that come with them).
62 megabytes worth of data had been stolen from the Climatic Research Unit, one of the leading centers in agw research. The leaked memos and emails allegedly show a pattern of disinformation and intimidation by leading agw figures such as Michael Mann (of the "hockey stick" fame), James Hansen, Phil Jones, who defended Mann on scientific journals, and several others, revealing a deep and pervasive corruption within the agw research community - a corruption that seems to have been lifted completely out of numerous conspiracy theories and for that reason, might itself be a hoax pretending to expose a hoax. So far though, interviews of people named in the emails have confirmed the authenticity of the letters.
Governments and scientists have overweighted and long-term emotional and financial investments in agw. It is unclear, even if proven true, what impact the leak will have on current and future environmental policies. Whether some scientists will add further to deteriorating worldwide unemployment rates or even potentially go to jail given these compromising investments will be determined by worldwide reaction in the following days.
Until now, agw has been the secular alternative for religious fundamentalism that provides the same sense of moral superiority to believers. But unlike religion, the secular nature of agw also provides an additional sense of intellectual superiority. Consequently, the secular nature of this additional level of superiority has provided the justification for government overreach and the professional crucifixion of agw heretics. Environgelicals, thus, are able to write their own version of the 10 commandments, not in the name of eternal salvation, but in the name of a loftier, more practical, more fashionable, more acceptable, and more sophisticated environmental salvation, absolutely guilt-free.
Whether or not global warming is (wo)man-made or not, it is smart policy to legislate protections for the earth. Whether the oceans will rise and even boil
within 10 years or not, it is irresponsible to leave the earth worse off than when we came into it. However, the reported leak undercuts a major premise in agw. Agw called for major changes in human behavior based on an imminent environmental apocalypse. If the environmental rapture is as fraudulent as the ever-rescheduled religious raptures prophesied every 10 years, as skeptics have long argued, the damage isn't going to be just on the environment.
The agw scientists, it would seem, have been conducting politics more than science. This deriliction of duty, which is shaping up to be more than a smoking gun but a mushroom cloud, will seriously damage an already unpopular politics as well as science. Whether agw skeptics could restore confidence in the supremacy of science over politics, of reason over activism, of proof over "consensus" or further erode an already thin confidence and continue the annexation of science as the research-arm of politics will determine the future of politics, of science, and (un)hopefully, of the environment.
The protection of the environment is critical enough to stand on its own. Wedding enviromental protection to an ideology masquerading as science that, in turn, is in bed with politics that legislate these protections is a dangerously abusive relationship that will hold the environment hostage to the latest pet causes of the fashionable class and will only hurt the very environment it hopes to protect through massive distortions and attacks against real scientific research.
Repent! Global Warming Is Near!
We should take responsibility for the protection of the earth regardless of the extent of anthropogenic influences on global temperatures. It just seems practical and desirable to breathe cleaner air and and drink uncontaminated water for their own sakes. However, I've always had deep suspicions about the global warming bandwagon since I stumbled upon Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Global warming is a multi-billion-dollar industry that provides reliable source of funding and revenues for various research institutes and green and sustainable businesses. This arrangement creates a dependency that almost always leads and necessitates anything from perpetuation, to exaggeration, and even to fabrication of crises in order to justify the continued flow of research grants and business loans. Needless to say, this dependency can and often compromise the independence and integrity of scientific research.
The attacks against anthropogenic global warming skeptics seemed to take on a religious dimension in its intensity and absolutism over time. For those who have at least a passing familiarity with the agw debate, the persecution of skeptics (ie by being hauled into kangaroo courts for intellectual crimes, like what happend to Lomborg or losing chairmanships or memberships in science organizations like what happened to several scientists) is eerily reminiscent of the Inquisition.
Earlier today, the blogosphere was buzzing with reports that the computer server of a british university involved in agw research has been hacked. Notes and emails allegedly stolen from the server detail how the agw inquisitors distorted their own research and minimized contradictory findings in order to whip up an agw frenzy.
Now, the NY Times has picked up the story and confirmed in interviews with several scientists on the email list the authenticity of the stolen files. Even if only partially true, this story further reinforces the worst suspicions the skeptics already have towards the financial beneficiaries of pro-agw research and could potentially damage public measures taken thus far to curb carbon emissions.
Global warming is a multi-billion-dollar industry that provides reliable source of funding and revenues for various research institutes and green and sustainable businesses. This arrangement creates a dependency that almost always leads and necessitates anything from perpetuation, to exaggeration, and even to fabrication of crises in order to justify the continued flow of research grants and business loans. Needless to say, this dependency can and often compromise the independence and integrity of scientific research.
The attacks against anthropogenic global warming skeptics seemed to take on a religious dimension in its intensity and absolutism over time. For those who have at least a passing familiarity with the agw debate, the persecution of skeptics (ie by being hauled into kangaroo courts for intellectual crimes, like what happend to Lomborg or losing chairmanships or memberships in science organizations like what happened to several scientists) is eerily reminiscent of the Inquisition.
Earlier today, the blogosphere was buzzing with reports that the computer server of a british university involved in agw research has been hacked. Notes and emails allegedly stolen from the server detail how the agw inquisitors distorted their own research and minimized contradictory findings in order to whip up an agw frenzy.
Now, the NY Times has picked up the story and confirmed in interviews with several scientists on the email list the authenticity of the stolen files. Even if only partially true, this story further reinforces the worst suspicions the skeptics already have towards the financial beneficiaries of pro-agw research and could potentially damage public measures taken thus far to curb carbon emissions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
