The Death of Real Science

[Old Rocks]

No, you haven't provided "proof".

You have provided us with OPINION masquarading as proof.

You have the ability to cloud your own mind....the refusal to change, and accept new evidence. While not surprised at your resonse, I am disappointed.

Evidence: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


First, the writing of the most prominent 'scholars' in the area of post normal science, who clearly explain that objectivity and data no longer matter. Did you read the link? Pretty scarey to anyone interested in truth.

Second, the essay by an actual professor of 'global science' who admits that we need not wait for the data to determine our conclusion. He admits the scam!

Can't you just hear them laughing in the prep room: "I even published it in the paper!"

Third, maybe you missed the emails from East Anglia admitting that they fudge data and hide competing measurements. I can provide the link if you need it.


Live and learn, huh?


BTW, if any require same, I can write a monograph showing how this ideology arose, from the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

You can write a monograph on Joseph Fourier? I am surprised that you even know the name.

 

[editec]

The data leading us to concluding that the earth is warming isn't lacking.

The scientific supposition that mankind's burning of hydrocarbons is probably the leading cuase of this event, is likewise good science.

YOu can deny it all you want, but pretending that there's some kind of worlwide conspiracy of evil scientists all of whom are out to lie to us is patently absurd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, you haven't provided "proof".

You have provided us with OPINION masquarading as proof.

You have the ability to cloud your own mind....the refusal to change, and accept new evidence. While not surprised at your resonse, I am disappointed.

Evidence: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


First, the writing of the most prominent 'scholars' in the area of post normal science, who clearly explain that objectivity and data no longer matter. Did you read the link? Pretty scarey to anyone interested in truth.

Second, the essay by an actual professor of 'global science' who admits that we need not wait for the data to determine our conclusion. He admits the scam!

Can't you just hear them laughing in the prep room: "I even published it in the paper!"

Third, maybe you missed the emails from East Anglia admitting that they fudge data and hide competing measurements. I can provide the link if you need it.


Live and learn, huh?


BTW, if any require same, I can write a monograph showing how this ideology arose, from the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

You are merely projecting what the deniers do. Not only do deniers not wait for the data to determine their "conclusions" they never even take measurements of any kind. All they do is attack everyone else who actually takes measurements. Deniers have no ground temperature measuring stations, not a single one!!!

In the one and only attempt deniers made to try to create some data contradicting global warming, the UAH satellite data of Christy and Spencer, they got caught fudging the data by using the OPPOSITE sign in correcting for diurnal satellite drift. That is why deniers have no choice but to muddy the water by accusing everyone else of fudging the data like the deniers do.

Your attacks on science describe the tactics of deniers trying to pass themselves off as scientists.

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

Friend Ed, while I was disappointed but not surprised by the other ed, as I have seen some erudition and common sense from him, your post neither surprises nor disappoints.

You are a member of the boiler-plate-left, programmed to ignore any info not constitent with your left-wing mentors.

Mull this over:
1. I know you haven't he ability to understand the 'post normal science' link, but the idea is that for science, conclusions, well doused with ideology, come both before and in opposition to data.

2. For 'climate scientists,' influence in forming policy is more important than actual experimtal data. Is that science?

3. Since this is not directly related to GB Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh, it may have limited interest for you. I understand, one can only apply the number of cerebral neurons that one has.

OK, wipe that puzzled look off your face, and go back to the couch and the pork rinds.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The data leading us to concluding that the earth is warming isn't lacking.

The scientific supposition that mankind's burning of hydrocarbons is probably the leading cuase of this event, is likewise good science.

YOu can deny it all you want, but pretending that there's some kind of worlwide conspiracy of evil scientists all of whom are out to lie to us is patently absurd.

Rather than obfuscation, I suggest that you use your usual strategy: simply move on.

The huge flaws in your post revolve around the attempt to make the hub 'denial of global warming,' while the thrust here is that the fraud is admitted by letfies at the very center of the scam...and you choose not to comment on either the 'post normal science' link or the professor of East Anglia, 'climate science,' who confessed in public!

Can't you do the usual: He must be lying...or paid by Big Oil!!

Doesn't work, huh?


To review:
These are NOT my words, they are testimony of those directly involved in the deception.

And here you are, still defending the - and I use this phrase purposely- 'snow job.'

 

[edthecynic]

You have the ability to cloud your own mind....the refusal to change, and accept new evidence. While not surprised at your resonse, I am disappointed.

Evidence: The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.


First, the writing of the most prominent 'scholars' in the area of post normal science, who clearly explain that objectivity and data no longer matter. Did you read the link? Pretty scarey to anyone interested in truth.

Second, the essay by an actual professor of 'global science' who admits that we need not wait for the data to determine our conclusion. He admits the scam!

Can't you just hear them laughing in the prep room: "I even published it in the paper!"

Third, maybe you missed the emails from East Anglia admitting that they fudge data and hide competing measurements. I can provide the link if you need it.


Live and learn, huh?


BTW, if any require same, I can write a monograph showing how this ideology arose, from the Age of Enlightenment and the French Revolution.

You are merely projecting what the deniers do. Not only do deniers not wait for the data to determine their "conclusions" they never even take measurements of any kind. All they do is attack everyone else who actually takes measurements. Deniers have no ground temperature measuring stations, not a single one!!!

In the one and only attempt deniers made to try to create some data contradicting global warming, the UAH satellite data of Christy and Spencer, they got caught fudging the data by using the OPPOSITE sign in correcting for diurnal satellite drift. That is why deniers have no choice but to muddy the water by accusing everyone else of fudging the data like the deniers do.

Your attacks on science describe the tactics of deniers trying to pass themselves off as scientists.

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

Friend Ed, while I was disappointed but not surprised by the other ed, as I have seen some erudition and common sense from him, your post neither surprises nor disappoints.

You are a member of the boiler-plate-left, programmed to ignore any info not constitent with your left-wing mentors.

Mull this over:
1. I know you haven't he ability to understand the 'post normal science' link, but the idea is that for science, conclusions, well doused with ideology, come both before and in opposition to data.

2. For 'climate scientists,' influence in forming policy is more important than actual experimtal data. Is that science?

3. Since this is not directly related to GB Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh, it may have limited interest for you. I understand, one can only apply the number of cerebral neurons that one has.

OK, wipe that puzzled look off your face, and go back to the couch and the pork rinds.

And your arrogant condescension never surprises or disappoints also.

In typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, rather than supply these mythical "competing measurements," you spew nothing but personal insults.

And since you brought up your MessiahRushie, Stuttering LimpTard, he seems to think you exhibit the characteristics of a leader in the Democratic Party.

Are you a seminar Dem deliberately trying to make CON$ look stupid?

"I want to pause here for a second. I want to talk to you a little bit about human nature. I want to talk to you about arrogance and cockiness, the feeling of superiority, feeling of being the smartest guy, smartest person in the room. Those are characteristics that apply like glue to today's Democrat Party, and especially its leaders."
Rush Limbaugh September 13, 2007

 

[Oddball]

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

Ummm....Maybe the same way that they gathered temperatures from observation stations that didn't exist?

 

[Oddball]

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

I can't see either of these papers (competing measurements) being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Phil Jones, CRU at East Anglia and IPCC

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are merely projecting what the deniers do. Not only do deniers not wait for the data to determine their "conclusions" they never even take measurements of any kind. All they do is attack everyone else who actually takes measurements. Deniers have no ground temperature measuring stations, not a single one!!!

In the one and only attempt deniers made to try to create some data contradicting global warming, the UAH satellite data of Christy and Spencer, they got caught fudging the data by using the OPPOSITE sign in correcting for diurnal satellite drift. That is why deniers have no choice but to muddy the water by accusing everyone else of fudging the data like the deniers do.

Your attacks on science describe the tactics of deniers trying to pass themselves off as scientists.

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

Friend Ed, while I was disappointed but not surprised by the other ed, as I have seen some erudition and common sense from him, your post neither surprises nor disappoints.

You are a member of the boiler-plate-left, programmed to ignore any info not constitent with your left-wing mentors.

Mull this over:
1. I know you haven't he ability to understand the 'post normal science' link, but the idea is that for science, conclusions, well doused with ideology, come both before and in opposition to data.

2. For 'climate scientists,' influence in forming policy is more important than actual experimtal data. Is that science?

3. Since this is not directly related to GB Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh, it may have limited interest for you. I understand, one can only apply the number of cerebral neurons that one has.

OK, wipe that puzzled look off your face, and go back to the couch and the pork rinds.

And your arrogant condescension never surprises or disappoints also.

In typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, rather than supply these mythical "competing measurements," you spew nothing but personal insults.

And since you brought up your MessiahRushie, Stuttering LimpTard, he seems to think you exhibit the characteristics of a leader in the Democratic Party.

Are you a seminar Dem deliberately trying to make CON$ look stupid?

"I want to pause here for a second. I want to talk to you a little bit about human nature. I want to talk to you about arrogance and cockiness, the feeling of superiority, feeling of being the smartest guy, smartest person in the room. Those are characteristics that apply like glue to today's Democrat Party, and especially its leaders."
Rush Limbaugh September 13, 2007

Pretty much as I predicted: you ignored both, as they were well "above your pay grade."

I think that I should thank you for a somewhat tortuous complement, in "arrogant condescension."
I guess that means that you believe that I was talking down to you?

So true, so true.

But shouldn't you be inured by now, as I suppose most folks do?


Or are you following Gray's proscription, hiding your 'purest ray serene' ?

Well, you sure are doing a good job!


“Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”

 

[edthecynic]

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

I can't see either of these papers (competing measurements) being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Phil Jones, CRU at East Anglia and IPCC

What do you want to bet those highlighted words do not appear in an unaltered email?

Now what is referred to were not "competing measurements" but two discredited papers, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), that actually DID appear and were discussed in the IPCC report, neither of which has stood the test of time.

Try again.

 

[edthecynic]

Friend Ed, while I was disappointed but not surprised by the other ed, as I have seen some erudition and common sense from him, your post neither surprises nor disappoints.

You are a member of the boiler-plate-left, programmed to ignore any info not constitent with your left-wing mentors.

Mull this over:
1. I know you haven't he ability to understand the 'post normal science' link, but the idea is that for science, conclusions, well doused with ideology, come both before and in opposition to data.

2. For 'climate scientists,' influence in forming policy is more important than actual experimtal data. Is that science?

3. Since this is not directly related to GB Shaw or Mr. Limbaugh, it may have limited interest for you. I understand, one can only apply the number of cerebral neurons that one has.

OK, wipe that puzzled look off your face, and go back to the couch and the pork rinds.

And your arrogant condescension never surprises or disappoints also.

In typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, rather than supply these mythical "competing measurements," you spew nothing but personal insults.

And since you brought up your MessiahRushie, Stuttering LimpTard, he seems to think you exhibit the characteristics of a leader in the Democratic Party.

Are you a seminar Dem deliberately trying to make CON$ look stupid?

"I want to pause here for a second. I want to talk to you a little bit about human nature. I want to talk to you about arrogance and cockiness, the feeling of superiority, feeling of being the smartest guy, smartest person in the room. Those are characteristics that apply like glue to today's Democrat Party, and especially its leaders."
Rush Limbaugh September 13, 2007

Pretty much as I predicted: you ignored both, as they were well "above your pay grade."

I think that I should thank you for a somewhat tortuous complement, in "arrogant condescension."
I guess that means that you believe that I was talking down to you?

So true, so true.

But shouldn't you be inured by now, as I suppose most folks do?


Or are you following Gray's proscription, hiding your 'purest ray serene' ?

Well, you sure are doing a good job!


“Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”

Exactly as I predicted, more condescension and still no "competing measurements."

You are soooooo predictable!

 

[PoliticalChic]

And your arrogant condescension never surprises or disappoints also.

In typical CON$ervoFascist fashion, rather than supply these mythical "competing measurements," you spew nothing but personal insults.

And since you brought up your MessiahRushie, Stuttering LimpTard, he seems to think you exhibit the characteristics of a leader in the Democratic Party.

Are you a seminar Dem deliberately trying to make CON$ look stupid?

"I want to pause here for a second. I want to talk to you a little bit about human nature. I want to talk to you about arrogance and cockiness, the feeling of superiority, feeling of being the smartest guy, smartest person in the room. Those are characteristics that apply like glue to today's Democrat Party, and especially its leaders."
Rush Limbaugh September 13, 2007

Pretty much as I predicted: you ignored both, as they were well "above your pay grade."

I think that I should thank you for a somewhat tortuous complement, in "arrogant condescension."
I guess that means that you believe that I was talking down to you?

So true, so true.

But shouldn't you be inured by now, as I suppose most folks do?


Or are you following Gray's proscription, hiding your 'purest ray serene' ?

Well, you sure are doing a good job!


“Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”

Exactly as I predicted, more condescension and still no "competing measurements."

You are soooooo predictable!

Without my posts to copy, how would you be able to compose yours?

Another unintended complement?

BTW, I noticed that you have now combined 'conservatve' with 'fascist.'

I'll assume that that means that you dispise both...although as always one take a chance when
one assumes that you know what you are doing...

And herein you have revealed my raison d'etre: educating the uninformed...that would be you.
A while ago I explained that your sig-hero, George Bernard Shaw was a fascist...yet you still include his words.
Consistency is not your strong suit...Do you have any strong suits?


Now for today's lesson...let's call it a Father's Day Lesson.

It's called "Liberals/Progressives Fell From The Fascist Forest," by me....for you.

Most of us were raised on the liberal-progressive narrative which sidesteps the fact that the liberal intellectual tradition comes from the same font as does fascism, both are utopian, and replace Christianity with a new religion of the divinizes state, and the nation as an organic community.

Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

You're welcome.

 

[Oddball]

So please explain how East Anglia can "hide competing measurements" when no such measurements exist???

I can't see either of these papers (competing measurements) being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers

Phil

Phil Jones, CRU at East Anglia and IPCC

What do you want to bet those highlighted words do not appear in an unaltered email?

Now what is referred to were not "competing measurements" but two discredited papers, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), that actually DID appear and were discussed in the IPCC report, neither of which has stood the test of time.

Try again.

Yeah..."Discredited" by the CRU/IPCC echo chamber.

But if those papers were so easily discredited, why not allow them to be presented then rip them to shreds with your alleged "science"?

Why even entertain the notion of "redefine(ing) what the peer-review literature is"?

Because you're an intellectual fraud, who is trying to quash any and all alternative information and findings which don't parrot your alarmist orthodoxy, that's why.

 

[HUGGY]

Thank God the Right Wing doesn't believe in "fake science" or live by "ideology". From now on, I'm getting all my science from them. After all, look at all the success they've brought the world. All the inventions that come from "conservative scientists". The amazing technology. The biological science. The list is endless.

Do you really want to go there? Do you want me to list all the scientific discoveries and engineering advances that come from conservatives?
Before you answer, you might want to remember that I am typing this in one place, and you are reading it in another, through something called the Internet. The Internet was designed by the military so they could communicate in the event of war, it was not invented by Al Gore.

I've got a minute...go for it.

 

[edthecynic]

Phil Jones, CRU at East Anglia and IPCC

What do you want to bet those highlighted words do not appear in an unaltered email?

Now what is referred to were not "competing measurements" but two discredited papers, McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003), that actually DID appear and were discussed in the IPCC report, neither of which has stood the test of time.

Try again.

Yeah..."Discredited" by the CRU/IPCC echo chamber.

But if those papers were so easily discredited, why not allow them to be presented then rip them to shreds with your alleged "science"?

Why even entertain the notion of "redefine(ing) what the peer-review literature is"?

Because you're an intellectual fraud, who is trying to quash any and all alternative information and findings which don't parrot your alarmist orthodoxy, that's why.

There's that dumb act again!!!! :rofl;
Both papers WERE cited and discussed in Chapter 3 of the IPCC AR4 report.

So how is including the reports in the IPCC report "QUASHING" anything???????????????? What a moron!

You are just sore that the reports have not stood the test of time!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Pretty much as I predicted: you ignored both, as they were well "above your pay grade."

I think that I should thank you for a somewhat tortuous complement, in "arrogant condescension."
I guess that means that you believe that I was talking down to you?

So true, so true.

But shouldn't you be inured by now, as I suppose most folks do?


Or are you following Gray's proscription, hiding your 'purest ray serene' ?

Well, you sure are doing a good job!


“Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”

Exactly as I predicted, more condescension and still no "competing measurements."

You are soooooo predictable!

Without my posts to copy, how would you be able to compose yours?

Another unintended complement?

BTW, I noticed that you have now combined 'conservatve' with 'fascist.'

I'll assume that that means that you dispise both...although as always one take a chance when
one assumes that you know what you are doing...

And herein you have revealed my raison d'etre: educating the uninformed...that would be you.
A while ago I explained that your sig-hero, George Bernard Shaw was a fascist...yet you still include his words.
Consistency is not your strong suit...Do you have any strong suits?


Now for today's lesson...let's call it a Father's Day Lesson.

It's called "Liberals/Progressives Fell From The Fascist Forest," by me....for you.

Most of us were raised on the liberal-progressive narrative which sidesteps the fact that the liberal intellectual tradition comes from the same font as does fascism, both are utopian, and replace Christianity with a new religion of the divinizes state, and the nation as an organic community.

Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

You're welcome.

And STILL no "competing measurements."
No surprise there!!!

Interesting that you bring up the beating you took when you parroted your CON$ervoFascist sources' deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking you were being brilliant by echoing their BS because, while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you. As I have said many times CON$ lie to your level of IGNORANCE!

You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs and now you say you are going to "school" me about CON$ervoFascism just like you did on Shaw!
I would say you know less about Fascism than you do about Shaw. And you know nothing about Shaw.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Well, anything to distract from the fact that you still have no "competing measurements."

 

[Oddball]

Right...That's why Jones threatened to "redefine peer review".

In the meantime, we've seen more and more evidence that the CRU/UCAR/NCAR/NASA/Penn State axis is an exclusivist echo chamber, to the point that even some of the true believers say that the whole process should be suspended.

This is very unfortunate. I think that the IPCC should suspend the AR5 process, fix the procedures for nominating and selecting authors, and postpone the report to 2015. I’d rather bet on New Zealand winning the world cup.

Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. (Examples include the date of disappearance for glaciers in the Himalayas, the mix-up on weather and climate for agriculture in Africa, and the projected number of people at risk from water stress.) Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded from academic research. (Examples include the attribution of market-driven and welfare-improving improvements in energy efficiency to climate policy, the omission of the opportunity costs of energy research and development, and the use of gross (rather than net) estimates of job creation.) These biases can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/ipcc-time-will-be-different-not-guest.html

http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/2010/05/submission-to-iac-second-draft.html

~Richard Tol

 

[Oddball]

Speaking of debunked and discredited....

 

[edthecynic]

Right...That's why Jones threatened to "redefine peer review".

In the meantime, we've seen more and more evidence that the CRU/UCAR/NCAR/NASA/Penn State axis is an exclusivist echo chamber, to the point that even some of the true believers say that the whole process should be suspended.

This is very unfortunate. I think that the IPCC should suspend the AR5 process, fix the procedures for nominating and selecting authors, and postpone the report to 2015. I’d rather bet on New Zealand winning the world cup.

Working Group 2 systematically portrays climate change as a bigger problem than is scientifically acceptable. (Examples include the date of disappearance for glaciers in the Himalayas, the mix-up on weather and climate for agriculture in Africa, and the projected number of people at risk from water stress.) Working Group 3 systematically portrays climate policy as easier and cheaper than can be responsibly concluded from academic research. (Examples include the attribution of market-driven and welfare-improving improvements in energy efficiency to climate policy, the omission of the opportunity costs of energy research and development, and the use of gross (rather than net) estimates of job creation.) These biases can be found in the chapters, the technical summaries, the summaries for policy makers, and the synthesis report.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC: This Time Will be Different (Not), A Guest Post by Richard Tol

IPCC5 Key Economic Sectors and Services: Submission to the IAC (second draft)

~Richard Tol

Keep posting, you keep making a fool of yourself.

From your OWN link:

WG2 has put me forward as a convening lead author of one of the chapters in AR5.
~Richard Tol

And:

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Richard, thanks for this. FYI, I was asked to serve as an LA for WG2, and I have declined the invitation.

So to spell it out for you and so you can't play dumb, both critics of the IPCC were INVITED to be lead authors.

Again please explain how including competing reports and inviting the very critics you linked to is "QUASHING" anything?????????

 

[manifold]

Perhaps the faux-scientists on both sides could come together, sing kumbaya, and finally conclude that global warming is real AND was intelligently designed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Exactly as I predicted, more condescension and still no "competing measurements."

You are soooooo predictable!

Without my posts to copy, how would you be able to compose yours?

Another unintended complement?

BTW, I noticed that you have now combined 'conservatve' with 'fascist.'

I'll assume that that means that you dispise both...although as always one take a chance when
one assumes that you know what you are doing...

And herein you have revealed my raison d'etre: educating the uninformed...that would be you.
A while ago I explained that your sig-hero, George Bernard Shaw was a fascist...yet you still include his words.
Consistency is not your strong suit...Do you have any strong suits?


Now for today's lesson...let's call it a Father's Day Lesson.

It's called "Liberals/Progressives Fell From The Fascist Forest," by me....for you.

Most of us were raised on the liberal-progressive narrative which sidesteps the fact that the liberal intellectual tradition comes from the same font as does fascism, both are utopian, and replace Christianity with a new religion of the divinizes state, and the nation as an organic community.

Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

You're welcome.

And STILL no "competing measurements."
No surprise there!!!

Interesting that you bring up the beating you took when you parroted your CON$ervoFascist sources' deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking you were being brilliant by echoing their BS because, while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you. As I have said many times CON$ lie to your level of IGNORANCE!

You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs and now you say you are going to "school" me about CON$ervoFascism just like you did on Shaw!
I would say you know less about Fascism than you do about Shaw. And you know nothing about Shaw.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Well, anything to distract from the fact that you still have no "competing measurements."

Now, now, EdattheClinic...

You are prevaricating again...

1. "...deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking..."
I actually gave you the youtube of Shaw championing killing folks.

Need more? How's this:
"Less amusing is the number of intellectuals, businessmen and political leaders who gave eugenics their blessing or fervid support. The list begins with Darwin, who in The Descent of Man praised his cousin Galton and decreed that genius "tends to be inherited." Other champions included the young Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, ..."

Read more: Cursed by Eugenics - TIME

2. " ...while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you."
Well, I certainly know more than you...is that sufficient?
And my quote about Shaw, above, does that make "a complete fool of you"?

3. "...You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs ..."
That is a cute allusion, and I must admit that I don't recall such, but if there were any questions that you feel I left unanswered, please refresh my memory and I will be certain to "school" you about same.

And, since you do seem to be in the...let's call it the 'slow row,' a review is probably in order:
a) you conflated conservative with fascist

b) I documented that it is your team, the left, that, philosophically, progresses (pun) from fascism.

c) to keep you from further embarrassing yourself, study the following:

‘’’the title Liberal Fascism comes from a speech delivered by H. G. Wells, one of the most important and influential progressive and socialist intellectuals of the 20th century. He wanted to re-brand liberalism as “liberal fascism” and even “enlightened Nazism.” He believed these terms best described his own political views — views that deeply informed American progressivism and New Deal liberalism.Basically, Wells believed parliamentary democracy is incapable of bringing about a proper political order. Only an authoritarian, technocratic elite can do so. But when the ideal order is realized, it will be in some ways liberal. “One prosperous and progressive world community of just, kindly, free-spirited, freely-thinking, and freely-speaking human beings”. Liberal Fascism: Wings Over the World Edition — Crooked Timber

Oops. Sorry if this indicates "pretending to know more than anyone,..." Or, more than you, at least.
(Emphasis mine, because I don't trust your reading skills.)


And, you're welcome.