Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/01/2010 10:54:58 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Just in case anyone out there has missed it, there is one of those landmark posts on Watts Up this weekend. Judith Curry tried to explain how Climate Scientists need to rebuild trust, and made the mistake of using the “Denier” insult (even though she thinks of it as just a label, rather than a perjorative term). She is still trying to blame poor communication or poor strategies to explain why Climate Science is looking so shonky at the moment. Then Willis Eschenbach diplomatically fries that idea, and points out that the only way to regain trust is not to look like honest scientists but to be honest scientists: to disavow the bad practices and disown the people who have failed science so badly.
To her credit she is engaging skeptics, and she points out in the comments to Willis’ post that:
… by staking this middle position, i pretty much am getting tomatoes thrown at me from both sides, but I am hoping to provoke both sides to think about productive ways of moving forward in getting climate science back on track.
And I agree. She is in a “wedged” position, and importantly she also makes the point that she feels angry too…
“… since I may have been using unnecessarily inaccurate surface temperature data in my research. Ecologists, chemical engineers, etc. who have made career decisions in directing their research toward climate change impacts or mitigation have been trusting the system to work. Etc.”
The point is nigh when the single mass of “climate scientists” (that never really was one mass) fractures into opposing groups. Honest scientists who rode the gravy train will have to admit that it’s never OK to withhold data, dodge FOI’s, exaggerate scares, and make thousands of adjustments to data without explaining the details of what they did and why they did it. In short: it’s not just high time to throw the corrupt scientists under a bus, it’s about five years too late.
All in all, this interchange is a good step forward.
I would add two things to Willis’ prosaic comments (some copied below).
One: Judith has also been taken in that there ever was a “Denial Machine”. Big-Government outspent Big-Oil 3500 to 1. The paltry $2 million or so a year that was available to some skeptics was vastly outweighed in every sense by the monster funding from government, the UN, and the Greens devoted to smearing and crushing dissent.
Two: I would also add that “denier” is one of the worst insults that can be thrown at a scientist, and while this exchange is a step forward, there can be no real conversation until the “denier” label is dropped in all shapes and forms, which is why I insist it can not be used as a group label in comments on my blog. After all, who would listen to a denier?
Following is a shortened edited version from Willis’ brilliant response:
Well,...I think we are making headway.
There ARE deniers. CLIMATEGATE DENIERS.
I refuse to play “defense” on my position. They make the socialist assertion that man is killing the planet. I say BACK IT UP WITH EVIDENCE.
Guess I should have a direct link to the article at the JoNova website:
The loooooong road to regaining trust?
**********************ALSO******************************
162 Responses to “The loooooong road to regaining trust?” at the JoNova Website
This is more like the ‘bong road to regaining trust.’ Take another hit, you lying, grant-snorfling weasels. We still don’t believe you.
The only truely fair terms are “promoters” or “advocates” for the pro AGW crowd and “skeptics” for the con.
Trust must be earned... these guys are out of work and America is no longer hiring.
LLS
Belief in Evolution = Science
Sceptism about Evolution = Religion
Evolution = any genetic change. Voila! Evolution is proven to occur!
Species = whatever definition doesn't embarass my current position.
Gradual genetic drift = occuring at incredibly fast rates whenever my current position calls for it.
I have been wanting to post this for some time - remembering that the term was used to describe nylon stockings in the 50’s.
I think it’s appropriate.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-denier.htm
Denier is a measurement that is used to identify the fiber thickness of individual threads or filaments used in the creation of cloth, carpeting drapery material, and similar products. Originally, the concept of denier was applied mainly to natural fibers, such as silk and cotton. Over time, the unit of thickness for synthetic fibers such as rayon and nylon also came to be identified as denier.
Late ping.
Just finished reading a history of Chaos Theory. All recognize Edward Lorenz as the father of Chaos theory. Lorenz, a meteorologist who had designed a 13 equation computer model of weather patterns, noticed that small rounding errors in an equation would cause disproportionate results in output. His insights into this phenomena resulted in the Butterfly theory. His final take on modeling the weather was that the best one could do was about 7 days of accurate forcast before the model imploded and needed to be reset. Amazing insight that Lorenz sees about 7 days of accuracy but the AGW see centuries of accuracy. Who are you going to believe?
Belief in Evolution = Science
Sceptism about Evolution = Religion
Evolution = any genetic change. Voila! Evolution is proven to occur!
Species = whatever definition doesn’t embarass my current position.
Gradual genetic drift = occuring at incredibly fast rates whenever my current position calls for it.
Just remember, the church of the primordial ooze believes that the physical attributes of “time” can create life out of matter. They also believe “time” can create conciousness out of life. It truly is a belief system. Whenever they are questioned about their theories they deflect to the magic potion of “time” to argue their theory. What is the difference between a miracle and time imposing life on matter? There is none.
AGW has been reduced to a carny side show...wait until the fraud suits start to come forward. Problem is Federal agency collusion as well.
I disagree. When people uses “denier” as an insult; they simply betray their total misunderstanding or disdain for science; or they reveal themselves as (at best) sophists. They are insulting themselves.
All scientists should have a healthy reserve of skepticism. They should remind themselves that scientific hypotheses can be disproved; but never proved. If a hypothesis is disproved; it follows that it can be denied, on the basis of sound science. The grand theory of AGW has not yet been disproven — but, several of the main supporting hypothesis have been (e.g. the “hockey stick”). The science is most definitely not settled — in fact, the work of true science may just be beginning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.