Heed The Heretic

Over the last week, more documents from the global warming movement came public, casting more and more doubts on the sincerity and accuracy of the scientists who are pushing the anthropogenic global warming theory. My colleague Rodney covered it pretty well.


I didn’t bother. I’ve avoided the whole topic, generally. It’s because I don’t see the point. I’ve been in a lot of similar arguments, and they end up going nowhere.


Those arguments? With pushy religious people about their faith. Poking through the excerpts, and listening to the arguments, it’s clear to me the global-warming advocates have a hell of a lot more in common with pushy religious bozos than scientists.


Scientists like being challenged. They welcome dissent and disagreement. They understand that their ideas are theories, and need to be proven — and re-proven. They are constantly reassessing their beliefs in the face of new evidence. Hell, even Einstein’s greatest theories are being challenged today, and there are aspects of Newton’s Laws that are being re-evaluated. And these are modified, changed, adapted, or outright discarded as necessary.


With the global warming folks, though, its’ just the opposite. The conclusions are sacrosanct. Evidence MUST support them, or be “adjusted,” adapted, refined, massaged, fixed, corrected, or buried. Challengers to the established dogma must be shunned, punished, excommunicated from the Faithful.


Here’s a little test I came up with a while ago: ask a global warming advocate what sort of evidence they would accept as disproving of their theory. Ask them, “what would you consider as proof that your theory is wrong?”

Real scientific theories have good answers to that question. For example, if you wanted to challenge the theory of gravity, one way would be to take a cannonball and a soccer ball of roughly the same size to the top of a building and drop them off. If they fall at the same speed, our understanding of gravity is affirmed. If the cannonball falls faster, then we’ve got a problem.


Alternately, you can test if light travels faster than sound. Stand about a mile away from an explosive, and set it off. If you see the explosion before you hear it, then yup — light’s faster.


Just try that with global warming advocates. Ask them how they would test their theories, what kind of evidence would disprove their theory. They won’t answer you.


It’s like arguing with religious people over their beliefs. As the old saying goes, “you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into.”


The average global warming believer doesn’t have the scientific background and education to properly assess the arguments. So they are operating on nothing more than faith. And their faith is based on how anthropogenic global warming reinforces their prejudices — that man and technology are causing harm to the earth, that our polluting ways are dooming us, how the evil polluting corporations are killing us all, and how nature is benevolent and kind and merciful.


And that is the core principle that fuels their belief. The scientific evidence is just rationalizing to cover that up. And challenging — even successfully — the scientific evidence is like treating the symptoms of a disease; it doesn’t actually resolve the underlying situation. It’s like refuting Biblical history to a die-hard fundamentalist; it does no good whatsoever. (Believe me, I’ve tried.)


So I, by and large, don’t bother getting excited over these releases. They’re interesting, and have the potential to possibly sway some who have open minds on the topic, but in the end they won’t change the hard-core believers. They’ll dismiss it as fake, or irrelevant, and talk about how it’s all a conspiracy by Big Oil to hide The Truth.


And I really don’t enjoy fighting with irrational fanatics.

Leave the Occupidiots alone!
Boogedy Boogedy Boogedy!
  • Anonymous

    Sharp stick, dead horse…

    I never argue with set in stone believers because its not productive and all it does is hone my ability to maintain normal blood pressure. They were averse to facts back in the 70’s and haven’t changed one bit since then other than to become more politically connected.

  • “Scientists like being challenged. They welcome dissent and disagreement. They understand that their ideas are theories, and need to be proven — and re-proven.”

    In Faery land. That’s the stated ideal, of course. But it rarely works that way. From handwashing to AIDS, scientists have a history of destroying dissenters. See the case of Peter Duesberg and the dirty conduct of Gallo, the FDA, drug companies, et al. “HIV causes AIDS” is a hoax at least as great as AGW, probably more so. Right up there with the DDT ban.

    • Anonymous

      So what does cause AIDS?

      • Anonymous

        It’s a conspiracy caused by the Trilateral Commission, or Emmission, or something like that I think.

      • retired.military

        “So what does cause AIDS’

        You and Bob Armstrong have long conversations about how good of a president Obama is.

      • You’ll need to do some reading. The cause is unsure but is probably related to environmental toxicity. Duesberg posits chronic drug use, as AIDS seems to closely track that.

        It is not my intention to derail the thread into a discussion on AIDS. Nevertheless, if you examine the issue closely you will be shocked. For starters, Robert Gallo (supposed “discoverer” of HIV) is a proven liar and a thief. He stole the virus, renamed it HIV, and appropriated it for himself. Legitimate scientific methods were abandoned or rationalized away (i.e. Koch’s postulates) in the rush to “do something.” Dr. Gallo’s assertion that HIV causes AIDS went straight to press sans peer review. The list goes on.

        Have you ever wondered why this supposedly highly contagious disease remains stubbornly confined to the original risk groups, or why the “epidemic” we were warned of never materialized? AIDS does not fit viral epidemiology. Period. Did you know that the definition of AIDS has been iteratively, and subjectively, redefined so as to include ever larger circles of people for political reasons? Did you know that there is no such thing as a standardized AIDS test?

        All the above is right off the top of my head. This is not something that I have failed to carefully consider. This is the end of the AIDS discussion as far as I’m concerned, just out of courtesy for the thread. Sorry.

        “At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of antibodies to HIV-1 and HIV-2 in human blood.”

        P.S. Watch this documentary. My conclusions on HIV/AIDS were formed long before this came out. But this is a good start: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwgmzbnckII

        • Anonymous

          How about those who got AIDS from blood transfusions and had no other risk factors?  Arthur Ashe comes to mind.  And, aren’t there thousands of heterosexual non-drug-users dying of AIDS in Africa?

          • You have to realize that AIDS is not a specific disease. It is not a disease at all, it is a syndrome. There are many diseases under the AIDS “umbrella.” When people get blood transfusions it means they are already facing something catastrophic. Especially hemophiliacs. Hundreds of donors make up a course of Factor 8. Blood transfusion is itself toxic and shocking to the body. It is not surprising that these people would suffer from immune deficiency. It does not mean they “caught a virus.”

            “And, aren’t there thousands of heterosexual non-drug-users dying of AIDS in Africa?”

            In a word, no. (Well, the non-drug user part is correct.) When the predicted pandemic failed to materialize in the U.S., the CDC and drug companies required another boogeyman. African “AIDS” fit the bill. Try living like an African and see how your immune system does. Dirty water, malnutrition, etc. There is a reason for the high incidence of TB, sickness, and immune depression in Africa. All the AIDS propagandist does is place the same old diseases under the AIDS umbrella. It is especially sad, since billions of dollars are spent on distribution of AZT or other toxic AIDS drugs, rather than giving these people the basic necessities for a healthy life.

          • jim_m

            . There are many diseases under the AIDS “umbrella.”

            And therein you demonstrate your total ignorance on the subject.  None of what you list there are actually diseases that are called AIDS.

            AIDS is a syndrome of the immune system that is marked by decrease immune function and loss of Helper T Cells.  The derangement of the immune system leaves the body open to other diseases which are opportunistic in nature.

            You have fallen for a bunch of ignorant crap, promoted by people ignorant about the disease, what it really is and how it works.  People who cannot distinguish between the actual disease and the other illnesses that accompany it.

          • Jim, accusations of “total ignorance…”  “ignorant crap…” yada yada, are not going to cut it. These are serious disagreements among serious scientists. These are not people just spouting off.

            “People… cannot distinguish between the actual disease and the other illnesses that accompany it.”

            You got that right.

          • jim_m

            Right.  There are people that cannot distinguish between the virus and the other illnesses that accompany it.  The conspiracy freak you link to is one of them.

            HIV infects lymphocytes.  It changes how they interact with non-self tissue (ie bacteria, viruses, cancerous cells, etc).  That is what leads to all the other infections.  The bogus idea that AIDS is really a bunch of these diseases and that they are brought about by drug abuse or unhealthy lifestyle is a bunch of ignorant crap.

            You are talking about people who dispute he fact that HIV virus even exists.  You are heeding people who do not understand what HIV does to the immune system and therefore confuse the side effects (opportunistic infection) for the actual disease. 

            And no. These are not serious disagreements between serious scientists.  Those kinds of disagreements actually do exist on the AGW front.  There is nothing of the kind with HIV.  There is no data showing that AIDS is caused by something else. There is no evidence that people have been conspiring to create a mythology of HIV and stifle research or cover up evidence that HIV does not exist.

            You provide a link to a person who right off demonstrates a lack of understanding of what HIV does and what AIDS is.  And you ask me to take anything he or you say about the subject seriously?  Not happening.

          • jim_m

            As to the person whose site you linked:

            After reviewing Duesberg’s claims the [Journal Science] stated they were based on an unpersuasive and selective reading of the literature and both venues (The Journals Science and Nature) came to the conclusion that though Duesberg had a right to a dissenting opinion, his failure to fairly review the evidence for HIV causing AIDS meant his opinion lacked credibility

            That’s a polite way of saying that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he hasn’t bothered to educate himself on the subject.  I think you will find that most of his fellow conspiracy theorists fall into the same category.

          • That’s kind of the whole point, Jim. Dissenters are ridiculed with vague ad hominem attacks rather than doing the hard work of serious rebuttal. What I said about Gallo is a fact. He rushed to the media prior to publishing his work, circumventing the peer review process, while stealing the work of Montagnier. AIDS is a political construct. Because of the bypass of an entire segment of the scientific community, the peer review has to take place retroactively. That is what is now happening. Sooner or later you will be confronted with the truth.

            “Crap from conspiracy theorists…”

            A crap argument. Disingenuous to boot. Every scientist who does not “go along” is tarred with this. History repeats.

            “Hasn’t bothered to educate himself on the subject…”

            Please. Do you realize that you are talking about one of the world’s foremost virologists? This is precisely the same arrogance held forth by AGW advocates, which is why I brought it up. Instead of circling the wagons around your preconceptions, how about taking a look at all the facts. You are the one who is failing to educate yourself.

            Born in Germany, Duesberg (dooz-berg) was educated at the University of Frankfurt where he obtained his PhD in chemistry in 1963. He immediately moved to the U.S. to work at the University of California, Berkeley, and was appointed professor of molecular biology in 1974.

            Duesberg established his reputation in molecular biology by his discovery of cancer-causing genes (oncogenes) in the retrovirus first described by Peyton Rous in 1910. In 1970 Duesberg and his Berkeley colleagues identified three genes, gag, pol, and env, which encode the proteins of the viral capsid, the enzyme reverse transcriptase, and the proteins of the viral envelope, respectively.

            Consequently when Gallo and Montagnier identified the HIV retrovirus in 1983 as the cause of AIDS, Duesberg was well qualified to comment on their judgment. In 1987 he published in Cancer Research a paper entitled Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectation and Reality in which he surveyed the published literature, citing 278 references in the process. The paper turned Duesberg into an international celebrity, winning praise from a few but savage rejection and complaints of irresponsibility from the majority of his colleagues.

            Duesberg attacked what he saw as a complacent orthodoxy by denying there was any evidence for the claim that HIV was responsible for AIDS. Being antibody positive would cause him no worry, he insisted, and he would be even prepared to inject himself with pure HIV to establish his point.

            Paper: The Chemical Bases Of The Various AIDS Epidemics 2003

          • jim_m

            No.  He’s not one of the world’s foremost virologists and that is part of the lie that people promote to fuel his false credibility.

            He is a cancer researcher. and a molecular biologist.  Note that other scientists are not making ad hominem attacks but saying that he simply has not  studied the area properly.

            The chief criticism is that he cherry picks his data and he dismisses out of hand data that contradicts him without bothering to deal with it at all.  That is very much the same criticism leveled at the climate fools.  That is not an ad hominem attack that is a substantive criticism in how he deals with data and does his science.

            [edit] in 1987 when he first made his claims they may have been reasonable. However, over 2 decades of scientific research has proven the link between the virus and AIDS. Duesberg’s continued denials have more to do with his ego than they do with science.

          • Part of resume: “University of California at Berkeley Postdoctoral Fellow and Assistant
            Research Virologist 1964”

            He is a cancer researcher. and a molecular biologist.

            Chopped liver then.

            The chief criticism is that he cherry picks his data and he dismisses
            out of hand data that contradicts him without bothering to deal with it
            at all.  That is very much the same criticism leveled at the climate

            And leveled BY them.

            If you read Duesberg’s paper that I linked, he levels numerous criticisms that I find convincing regarding the failure of HIV/AIDS predicted epidemiology. If AIDS were a contagion, especially of the aggressive sort that we have been led to believe,  then it would act like one.

          • jim_m

            Actually, the paper you linked was by an AIDS activist and not by Duesberg.  It was only on Duesberg’s site.

            My point still stands.  The allegations they make are simplistic and not founded in good science.  Duesberg’s position was founded in the science of the mid eighties and he has not kept up with anything but to accuse people of political coverups.  The fact is that we have learned a lot about the biology and unless he is going to put forward a theory that explains the disease better than the current understanding about HIV, then he is only a crank.

            The people that believed in the vaccines causing autism had more to go on than Duesberg does.  At least they had peer reviewed research that supported their position until it was proven otherwise.  Duesberg doesn’t even have that.  He has supposition and conjecture, not research.

            The one great test of his ideas was in South Africa and thousands died because of it.  An estimated 330,000 AIDS deaths can be laid at this idiot’s feet. 

            If AIDS were a contagion, especially of the aggressive sort that we have been led to believe,  then it would act like one.

            Actually AIDS is a syndrome and HIV is a virus.  If you knew anything about HIV you would know that it isn’t a very virulent virus when compared to other blood borne pathogens like Hep B virus.  Yes prediction of widespread global pandemic proved false, but those were made mostly before a good understanding of the virus’ virulence was known.    Basing a claim that HIV is not the causative agent of AIDS because early predictions of spread of the disease is foolish at best.

          • jim_m

            Ultimately what lays the lie to all this HIV has no relationship to AIDS and AIDS is a bunch of unrelated illnesses is the FACT that current treatments actually work. 

            It wasn’t due to drug use or malnutrition because you can correct those and AIDS doesn’t go away.

            It wasn’t due to drug abuse and malnutrition because those have existed for centuries (millennia in the case of malnutrition) and the constellation of symptoms that is AIDS was not seen until the 1980’s.

            But the drug treatments do work because they target the virus and its activity.  They delay the onset of AIDS by suppressing the virus.  If the virus had no relationship to AIDS then these treatments would never work.

            Your charlatan molecular biologist should keep to areas of his expertise rather than lending his name to an ignorant and foolish idea and contributing to suppression of efficacious treatment in South Africa that has lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

            …history will judge Duesberg as either “a nut who is just a tease to the scientific community” or an “enabler to mass murder” for the deaths of many AIDS patients in Africa.

          • It wasn’t due to drug use or malnutrition because you can correct those and AIDS doesn’t go away.

            Not really. You cannot back that up. Under the banner “malnutrition” lies toxemia. The chronic ingestion of fecal matter, parasites, etc., combined with malnutrition, till the body becomes disease ridden and the immune system collapses. Same thing with chronic drug use. Once the immune system deteriorates, Pandora’s box is open. You do not get to wipe away 10 to 20 years of poison with “Oops, I think I’ll stop now and everything will be better.” In such a scenario, one would expect a wide range of responses. Sometimes a moderately acceptable recovery, sometimes a small uptick, sometimes it’s just too late.

            It wasn’t due to drug abuse and malnutrition because those have existed
            for centuries (millennia in the case of malnutrition) and the
            constellation of symptoms that is AIDS was not seen until the 1980’s.

            In that case of malnutrition that is true. That was one of my original points. People HAVE been dying the same way for centuries and we did not call it AIDS.

            With respect to drug use, that is an overly broad generalization.The 60’s saw an unprecedented uptick in recreational drug use in American society continuing through the 70’s and to date. Start in the 60’s, add time for chronic effects, and voila. Here we are in the 80’s with “mysterious” widespread cases of immune deficiency.

            But the drug treatments do work because they target the virus and its
            activity.  They delay the onset of AIDS by suppressing the virus.  If
            the virus had no relationship to AIDS then these treatments would never

            That’s an interesting point. I am going to look into that. To what sort of drug treatments do you refer, exactly? There are many.

            “Your charlatan molecular biologist…”

            More ad hominem. A “charlatan” only because he can’t be bullied or bribed into conformity. Under that definition, anyone disagreeing with the prevailing doctrine is a charlatan.

          • jim_m

            You have to understand how ludicrous you sound saying that such a distinct syndrome like AIDS existed for centuries and only became obvious in the 1980’s.

            Just one for instance:  Kaposi’s Sarcoma was known since the 1870’s.  But it was relatively rare until the 1980’s when AIDS became known.  The issues of drug abuse and malnutrition were not new to the 80’s.  But HIV and Kaposi’s were. 

            Duesberg is a charlatan because he has ignored the research and focused on bogus theories that do not hold up to inspection.  His ideas when embraced have lead to the spread of AIDS and not the suppression.  That is the ultimate proof that he is a dangerous fool.

          • Ludicrous? Kaposi’s Sarcoma is linked to the prevalent use of “poppers” (nitrites) among homosexuals. They were all the rage in night clubs across the country. Many men would literally sniff the toxin all night long.

          • jim_m

            AIDS is a political construct.

            Spoken like a true outsider to healthcare.  AIDS is real.  It kills people.  Its cause is known it can be prevented, treated, but not cured by treatments targeted at the HIV virus.

            I have sat in lectures about how the HIV virus infects cells, how it down regulates immunity.   There is a detail of knowledge out there that you have no idea of and the lunatic ravings of a molecular biologist with only peripheral knowledge of the subject that is barely deeper than my own are not persuasive

          • Of course immune deficiency is real. No one disputes that. What is disputed is the practice of lumping diverse episodes of immune deficiency with varying cofactors under the single banner, AIDS.

          • jim_m

            For those who have little knowledge of the subject it may seem so.  However there is only one syndrome and it all relates to the virus’ effect on the immune system. 

            Duesberg made his claims back in the mid 80’s and has ignored 25 years of subsequent research on the subject.  He is a molecular biologist and deserves credit for unraveling viral DNA but he is not a virologist in the sense that he studies how viruses infect cells or in how the HIV virus works. 

            Back in the 80’s AIDS did seem like a bunch of loosely aggregated symptoms, but there is far more clarity on what is AIDS and what is a concurrent disease that goes along with it.

            What you don’t realize is the deep and detailed body of knowledge that has been created about the HIV virus. It is not just about infecting a cell and replicating. It is about modifying the cell’s ability to participate in the immune response. There is a lot of data on what the virus does that explains AIDS, what it is and how it works. Duesberg doesn’t address this science, he addresses ideas about political conspiracies and issues of 20+ years ago.

            One thing to consider is that if his ideas were true they would be gaining sway not losing it. Unlike in the case of climate science where global warming skepticism is gaining influence, Duesberg’s ideas are losing ground to the increasing evidence that HIV causes AIDS and AIDS is a real condition.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, it’s really hard to get around that whole HIV negative blood doesn’t transmit the disease while HIV positive blood does.

            The whole statement from jeff/otis about HIV antibodies shows a marked ignorance about how the virus works and how medicine tracks and evaluates the course of the disease.  The disease targets the immune system,  looking at antibody expression does not inform us about the disease since you can be infected long before the antibody can be detected.  Think about it:  Testing for an antibody hat disables the immune system just isn’t a reliable method of tracking infection.

            The best tests have always been direct tests for the virus itself.  Today we have molecular assays for the virus that are extremely sensitive and accurate.

            I love the question in the video:  “Why, 3 decades after it’s discovery is there no cure for HIV?”  Again, you are talking about a disease that targets the immune system and destroys it’s ability to fight disease. The immune system must kill disease.  Everything we do in the way of antibiotics and antivirals depends on the immune system actually finishing he job.  WHen the virus interferes with the body’s ability to recognize infection the immune system cannot do it’s part.  That is why when people say that there may never be a cure they are correct.

            This idea that HIV doesn’t exist or that it does not cause AIDS is very much like the people who say the moon landing never happened, or frankly, that global warming exists.  It requires not just a total ignorance of the science, but a willful disregard for the facts in evidence.  Is it possible that HIV is only correlated and not causative? Sure.  But no one is currently proposing a model that is in any way credible.

          • “Yeah, it’s really hard to get around that whole HIV negative blood doesn’t transmit the disease while HIV positive blood does.”

            Not really. It’s hard to get around that fact that many, many people who “test positive” remain asymptomatic.

            “The best tests have always been direct tests for the virus itself. 
            Today we have molecular assays for the virus that are extremely
            sensitive and accurate.”

            No, you don’t. What you have is smoke and mirrors.

            See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PQFxratWh7E

          • jim_m


            I have worked in the blood industry for over two decades.  I have more than smoke and mirrors.  HIV virus exists.   Period.   I have seen the assays.  I know how they work.  They are not smoke and mirrors.

            What you are doing is accepting a bunch of crap from conspiracy theorists that is not based in any real science.  In fact it is based on denial of science.  There are cases where we can say that viruses do not cause the disease but are only correlated with it.  HTLV-III and Hairy Cell Leukemia is one of them.  HIV is not.  We can see that cells infected with the virus have decreased ability to recognize infection.We see shifts in lymphocyte populations that are not caused by the myriad of other illnesses that your conspiracy theorists list off, but are caused by the HIV virus and are seen prior to any other opportunistic illness.

          • jim_m

            Also, you are looking at videos of people questioning the quality of the science from 1983.  Since then we have advanced much further in terms of isolating and defining what the virus is and does.

            You have some Russian woman carrying on about the use of reverse transcriptase as a marker for virus activity and the fact is that, while there is some limited reverse transcriptase activity in the human cell (notably by the enzyme telomerase), this is very limited and the assays one uses to detect viral reverse transcriptase are different from those to identify the presence of human enzymes like telomerase.  The notion that we are mistaking one kind of enzyme for another is again founded in a profound ignorance of molecular biology and the science of laboratory assays.

            Also the women seems to be very fixated on the idea that scientists used the supernatent for their assays. The fact is that HIV is not exclusively associated with the cells they infect (not like other viruses such as CMV which are almost exclusively found in the white cell and not in the blood). The supernatent will therefore contain viruses because unless you have an ultracentrifuge you will not succeed in centrifuging the viruses into the bottom of the test tube. They are just too light to do that.

          • jim_m

            I think that you haven’t responded to these criticisms speaks volumes about your belief in the conspiracy over any understanding of the science.  I knew when I engaged you on his subject that it was not one where I could convince you because your position is not based in factual evidence that you can speak to but based on a political conspiracy theory that you accept emotionally rather than intellectually.

    • Anonymous

      Otis, you have jumped the shark, only omitting the ephemeral theories of vaccine related autism.

      • The only thing I have jumped is a sacred cow.

        • Anonymous

          Ok, so HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, and black helicopters run on alien technology developed at Area 51.  Guess you got me there.

          • Remember this conversation. It only proves my point.

  • Anonymous

    “Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

    “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.”

    Compare and contrast these quotes.   The first quote is of course from the infamous Downing Street Memo, and the Left wing went crazy that it was proof positive that the Bush Administration was manipulating the data to reach a foregone conclusion.  Nevermind that the key word “fixed” has different meanings, especially to the British.  The quote can be read different ways depending on the usage of the word “fixed”.Still, how can the second quote be read as anything other than people were manipulating scientific data to fit a political narrative?

  • Anonymous

    The average global warming believer doesn’t have the scientific background and education to properly assess the arguments

    That’s also true of the average global warming non-believer.  I agree, I don’t have the background in physics, chemistry or climate science to understand the arguments.  Neither do many here.  So the vituperation of the concept is also uninformed, politicized and based on faith.  There are economic interests propagandizing on both sides, like the coal and petroleum industries.

    My view is that a transition from fossil fuels is necessary because of diminishing supplies, the war necessary to secure those supplies, and other environmental considerations.

    • Anonymous

      OMG, you mean we’re going to invade Canada to get their oil instead of harvesting our own now?

      • Well, hell… if we need it and they don’t want to give it, why not?  We’ll trade ’em some back bacon, and it’ll all be good.

        • Anonymous

          Maybe throw in a few hockey players,eh?

      • Anonymous

        Yes, probably around 2035.  Unless the Chinese get there, and Alaska, first

    • Anonymous

      Chico is again right. (That is actually painful to write.) The global warmists are, at the core, correct in the kinds of things they push. But they push them way, way too hard and way, way too far — provoking a hell of a lot of pushback. The problem is they take “common sense” ideas and run them through the Federalizing Machine. In the process, they take them to ludicrous lengths, push the “everything not forbidden is mandatory,” and don’t bother trying to persuade people.

      The CF lightbulbs are the perfect example. They have a shitload of disadvantages over incandescent bulbs, and their advantages are overblown. But instead of simply offering them as an alternative, they passsed laws making them mandatory.

      It all boils down to “appeals to authority,” and “my scientists can beat up your scientists.” Plus, of course, the money angle. There’s a shitload of money on both sides.


      • Anonymous

        I’m not so sure the warmists are correct in the kinds of things they push.  At a very high level, maybe, but certainly not in the details.  For example, we probably should explore alternative sources of energy.  But we should not force any particular one to be used or discourage the use of existing technology; those are market functions that government will just screw up if it tries to make decisions.

        We should also explore ALL possible alternative sources of energy.  For example, there is very interesting research going on in new kinds of nuclear energy that might remove all of the known disadvantages about current nuclear technology.  That seems more promising to me than the wind and solar boondoggles.

        • Anonymous

          That’s pretty much what I was trying to say. But that isn’t how they’re doing it — they pick THE solution, and ram it down our throats. We all have to pay for it and embrace it, because THEY have spoken.

          CF bulbs, low-flow toilets, Solyndra, doubling of mileage standards, shutting down coal, shutting down offshore oil, shutting down fracking, no nukes… it’s all the same. We aren’t allowed to choose.

          Kind of like how they talk about jacking taxes on the rich. They talk about “asking” them to pay more, but they mean “demand.” Because when you ask them, they say no — they only will if they are forced, along with the rest.

          I could almost get another article out of that…


          • “We aren’t allowed to choose.”
            Well, if you were allowed to choose, you’d choose wrong.  At least according to those who are supposedly better and wiser than you are.  Note the ‘supposedly.’, please, because the ‘better and wiser seem to be pretty damn pathetic when it comes to dealing with the real world.

    • retired.military

      At least the nonbelievers dont have to make up and jury rig scientific studies or beg for govt funds.    Lets see how many grants are out there to study global warming?  Tons.  How many are out there to disprove global warming?  ZERO.   And if you get a grant to study global warming and your study disproves the existence of global warming what happens to your grant money?  IT GOES AWAY. 

      How about using nuclear power Chico? Oh my. Cant do that. Nope. When was the last nuclear power plant put on line (the 70s?). ANd where are all the nuclear power plants that Obama has promised (no construction started on these shovel ready jobs since he has been President).

    • Anonymous

      I’m not a scientist, but I spent my working career auditing government programs,some of which were pretty technical (e.g. air traffic control and other FAA programs).  It is possible for a nonscientist to learn enough about a technology to spot a scam or other similar problems.  Global warming sure looks like a scam to me.

    • Anonymous

      The very fact that there is a division between believers and non-believers and both sides label the sides as such is proof positive that this is not a scientific discussion.  A scientific discussion looks at the facts as known, determines a set of explanations (hypotheses) and designs experiments to test the hypotheses.  There is no belief or disbelief and the best scientists test their favored hypothesis harder than the ones they don’t want to be true to allow for and alleviate the inevitable subconscious bias toward what you want.

      I am not a climatologist, I am however a trained, working scientist (chemist), so while I do not have training to evaluate the arguments I am trained extensively to evaluate how they are handling the data and how the sides are advancing their arguments.

      The AGW proponents have been caught manipulating their data to eliminate inconvenient points that do not fit the hypothesis for no reason other than the point does not fit the hypothesis (Mike’s Nature trick from the first batch of leaked e-mail).  Does not make them necessarily wrong, but it should be absolutely crushing to their credibility.  If I did that in my job, where the stakes are significantly less, I would expect to be summarily fired and I would deserve it.

      The AGW proponents also don’t answer legitimate criticism with data, but with table pounding.  Questions like “your own climate reconstructions show times with higher temperature and higher CO2 concentrations without run away global warming why is this time different?” or questions about the influence of the Urban heat island effect are answered only with “the science is settled.

      Finally the AGW proponents refuse to release their raw data for independent analysis.  In my mind this is damning as if as a scientist you have done a fair analysis of your raw data you would welcome the outside confirmation of your analysis.  That they do not release the data puts them in a guilty until proven innocent category in my mind.

  • Anonymous

    As far as AGW goes, follow the MONEY.  $cience at it’s best.

    • Anonymous

      Follow the MONEY… Ding Ding!  Your spot on GarandFan.  Its always about money, and the power it brings.  Flying cars have been around for decades tooling around the desert in Navada… take a look at ‘Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft’ and you’ll see what I mean.  Such technology endangers way too much entrenched monied interest.  Ditto for carbon fossil fuels.  

      Poor Chico thinks we are running out, and doesn’t have a clue as to economics of proven reserves, recoverable reserves, and/or its cost… especially the investment cost of the supporting infrastructure which makes it available.  Case in point, a pipeline to Cushing, OK (WTI spot hub) just got reversed and West Texas Intermediate dropped 5 bucks just like that.  Its all about cost and prices.

      You can afford to make a good profit and recover a lot of oil at 100$ per barrel that you couldn’t do at 25$ per barrel, and that’s a fact.  

      Global Warning?  Pffft.  Its a big planet folks.  Now if you want to talk about air quality, that’s not the same thing as global warming… causation and correlation and all that.   FWIW, I’m vacationing in Guam and the air quality is pristine.  The sun just came up, and I think I’ll put on my snorkel gear and go visit the look-at-me fish out on the reef…

      Semper Fidelis- 

      • jim_m

        FWIW, I’m vacationing in Guam and the air quality is pristine.

        Just be careful you don’t capsize the island OK?  The left is worried about that.

  • Anonymous

    For friends, associates, acquaintances, this is probably good advice.  But as a political matter it must be debated and the warmists must be exposed for the religious zealots they are.  Our country has wasted $trillions on this nonsense and plans to waste $trillions more.  Then we wonder why our economy stinks and our standard of living is stagnant or falling.

  • Anonymous

    When i googled “oil supplies are increasing”, I got 31 million hits. Depending on who and what you believe, oil appears to be replenishing themselves in certain areas. Plus there are a multitude of products made availabe from oil (again…googable). So there is no evidence of fossil fuels going away anytime in the near future. There simply is not a source of energy out there that is as cheap as oil. That’s why as a nation we are foolish in not trying our best to build refineries and explore getting oil in our own country. Why is this not being done? Sometimes I think the eco-alarmists are getting paid by other countries to keep us from doing anything productive.

    • Anonymous

      You mean like Saudi Arabia? 

      • Anonymous

        Among others. heck it could be NATO. These people know they can’t beat us with military so they will settle for a social collapse. Reagan bankrupted the Soviet union with space exploration so it’s not inconcievable that other countries are trying to cause our own demise.

  • retired.military

    How many grants would there be out there for scientists to study the climate if there were no global warming to study?   A lot less than there is now.

    How do you keep the money flowing into studying climate studies?   Show proof that global warming exists so that you can study its effects.