Power of Hollywood and Obama

[136 or 142]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/25/gender-diversity-lesson-california-school-riles-critics/

A two day lesson isn't a class, it's part of a class. I'd guess either sex ed or civics.

I hardly think devoting a few hours over two days is going to cause Johnny and Jane to no longer be able to pick up on math (or even grammar).

[SciFiAuthor]

1.Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician not a scientist.  His knowledge of climate science is no greater than any other interested lay person, though he does have an ability to understand climate science papers better than the average person.  Most scientists who opposed him probably didn't like him claiming to be a scientist (or  his supporters calling him a scientists) and claiming to be an expert on climate science when he was neither.damage as they will cure.

Actually he never claimed to be a scientist. That was integral to his first exoneration, that he couldn't be guilty of scientific dishonesty because he wasn't claiming to be a scientist. He simply wrote a book that climate scientists found to be unhelpful and they went after him to try to destroy him. That happens in no other scientific field, if it did Art Bell would have no guests because Hoagland, Kurzweil etc. would have been destroyed by now. It took the rest of the scientific community to step in and berate the climate scientists in the "Journal of Information Ethics" article to get them to leave Lomborg alone. It was disgraceful, a veritable rape of free speech regarding a person that wasn't even questioning the science, only the methodology in dealing with climate change.

I'm not saying buy the guy's conclusions, I'm saying read them and draw your own just like we would in any other field. But because climate science is so politically (and thereby unethically) charged, any opposition to the orthodoxy gets stomped in ways that are not acceptable in any other field. They didn't want you to have the ability to read the guy's book.

2.The vast majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 (and methane) is now so accute in the atmosphere that only technological solutions can help solve or, at least, reduce the problem.

The proof is in the pudding. ALL policy, worldwide, regarding climate change is based on the reduction of carbon emissions in the same way we've been talking since the early 90's, Kyoto Protocol etc. That is not a technological solution, that is a token reduction. The net result of the best of these is a .1% reduction in global temperatures by 2100. That is not a solution, that is a token. A token that costs hundreds of billions per year globally for no real effect. That is the end result of 30 years of climate science, climate activism and the rise of the climate change orthodoxy. It is an unrealistic, ineffectual approach.

There is currently no serious, truly technological solution that is currently being seriously looked at. It's all about reduction which seems to functionally be a dead end for various reasons.

I have no idea where you get the idea that climate scientists oppose technological solutions to global warming.  They rightly believe, however, that all of the proposed technological solutions are, obviously, untested, at least on a global scale, and that most of them probably won't work or will cause at least as much damage as they will cure.

Well, I'm an engineer. And I can fix a melting antarctic glacier. It's actually rather easy; pump water back onto the ice in an area where sub-zero temperatures freeze the water and lock it back up in a new glacier. I can already move oil from Alaska to California to the tune of millions of gallons per year. I can do that with water too. Most of the interior of Antarctica doesn't even have wildlife, much less people. I can account for albedo changes, weight distribution, any number of factors and I can work with scientists to ensure that we do it right.  How much success do you think I would have selling that to climate scientists, environmentalists etc.? The answer is zero. There's a reason for that.

[albrecht]

A two day lesson isn't a class, it's part of a class. I'd guess either sex ed or civics.

I hardly think devoting a few hours over two days is going to cause Johnny and Jane to no longer be able to pick up on math (or even grammar).

Still a waste of time. And weird. Let the parents talk to the children about gender-benders or homosexuals, if they wish. Though there is much, much time wasting in schools. Especially once the assessment tests are taken and before summer and Christmas, sorry Winter break (wouldn't want to offend people by saying Christmas.)

But you ignored my main point. What is the universal age for things, especially sex, for which all countries and cultures must adhere?

And why should a country not be allowed to say "I don't want to redefine marriage" or "I don't want teenage Johnny, who says he now is Jenny, to use the same locker-room and bathroom of my teenage girl Sally" if that is what the voters think?

And should activist judges, national governments, or, conceivably, international organizations override popular vote or legislation for EVERYTHING they disagree with or only on homosexual issues? Why have voting, ballots, or deliberative bodies at all if their decisions should be simply over-written if not "politically correct" or some other people, even in other states or countries, disagree with them?

[136 or 142]

Still a waste of time. And weird. Let the parents talk to the children about gender-benders or homosexuals, if they wish. Though there is much, much time wasting in schools. Especially once the assessment tests are taken and before summer and Christmas, sorry Winter break (wouldn't want to offend people by saying Christmas.)

But you ignored my main point. What is the universal age for things, especially sex, for which all countries and cultures must adhere?

And why should a country not be allowed to say "I don't want to redefine marriage" or "I don't want teenage Johnny, who says he now is Jenny, to use the same locker-room and bathroom of my teenage girl Sally" if that is what the voters think?

And should activist judges, national governments, or, conceivably, international organizations override popular vote or legislation for EVERYTHING they disagree with or only on homosexual issues? Why have voting, ballots, or deliberative bodies at all if their decisions should be simply over-written if not "politically correct" or some other people, even in other states or countries, disagree with them?

I have no idea.  Why should there be a universal age?

[albrecht]

I have no idea.  Why should there be a universal age?

I support states/countries/cultures defining for themselves, just as they should be able to decide if they want to redefine marriage, allowing gender-benders to use the same restrooms, and other odd social issues, etc. That is my point.

[136 or 142]

Actually he never claimed to be a scientist. That was integral to his first exoneration, that he couldn't be guilty of scientific dishonesty because he wasn't claiming to be a scientist. He simply wrote a book that climate scientists found to be unhelpful and they went after him to try to destroy him. That happens in no other scientific field, if it did Art Bell would have no guests because Hoagland, Kurzweil etc. would have been destroyed by now. It took the rest of the scientific community to step in and berate the climate scientists in the "Journal of Information Ethics" article to get them to leave Lomborg alone. It was disgraceful, a veritable rape of free speech regarding a person that wasn't even questioning the science, only the methodology in dealing with climate change.

I'm not saying buy the guy's conclusions, I'm saying read them and draw your own just like we would in any other field. But because climate science is so politically (and thereby unethically) charged, any opposition to the orthodoxy gets stomped in ways that are not acceptable in any other field. They didn't want you to have the ability to read the guy's book.

The proof is in the pudding. ALL policy, worldwide, regarding climate change is based on the reduction of carbon emissions in the same way we've been talking since the early 90's, Kyoto Protocol etc. That is not a technological solution, that is a token reduction. The net result of the best of these is a .1% reduction in global temperatures by 2100. That is not a solution, that is a token. A token that costs hundreds of billions per year globally for no real effect. That is the end result of 30 years of climate science, climate activism and the rise of the climate change orthodoxy. It is an unrealistic, ineffectual approach.

There is currently no serious, truly technological solution that is currently being seriously looked at. It's all about reduction which seems to functionally be a dead end for various reasons.

Well, I'm an engineer. And I can fix a melting antarctic glacier. It's actually rather easy; pump water back onto the ice in an area where sub-zero temperatures freeze the water and lock it back up in a new glacier. I can already move oil from Alaska to California to the tune of millions of gallons per year. I can do that with water too. Most of the interior of Antarctica doesn't even have wildlife, much less people. I can account for albedo changes, weight distribution, any number of factors and I can work with scientists to ensure that we do it right.  How much success do you think I would have selling that to climate scientists, environmentalists etc.? The answer is zero. There's a reason for that.

1.I said that I wasn't sure if Lomberg ever claimed to be a scientist, though I'm not sure that he never did.  His supporters certainly did call him a scientist.

2.Not sure about Kurzweil, but I don't see how you can miss the (deserved) attacks on 'scientist' Hoagland.  Just google "Phil Plait and Hoagland" or "Seth Shostak and Hoagland"

2.There are a number geo-engineering solutions proposed to address global warming but all of them have major drawbacks.  There is one carbon capture and sequestration currently in place in Saskatchewan Canada, but that may not be a major solution.

3.Water pipelines to California have been used in the past and many are proposing them again.

[136 or 142]

I support states/countries/cultures defining for themselves, just as they should be able to decide if they want to redefine marriage, allowing gender-benders to use the same restrooms, and other odd social issues, etc. That is my point.

If they have a constitution that promises equality before the law then they have to allow gay marriage.

[SciFiAuthor]

1.I said that I wasn't sure if Lomberg ever claimed to be a scientist, though I'm not sure that he never did.  His supporters certainly did call him a scientist.

He never did. And he never presented anything as science in his book rather he called into question our methodology in dealing with climate change. As far as his supporters, absolutely! Destroy the guy on the claims of a supporter!

2.Not sure about Kurzweil, but I don't see how you can miss the (deserved) attacks on 'scientist' Hoagland.  Just google "Phil Plait and Hoagland" or "Seth Shostak and Hoagland"

That wasn't my point, I'm one of the most vehement Hoaxland haters on this board. My point was that Phil Plait and Seth Shostak would never try to shut Hoagland up. It isn't done that way because of free speech concerns. They'll dispute him, sure, but they won't take him to court under charges as what happened with Lomborg.

2.There are a number geo-engineering solutions proposed to address global warming but all of them have major drawbacks.  There is one carbon capture and sequestration currently in place in Saskatchewan Canada, but that may not be a major solution.

Yes there are and they have drawbacks. But given that governmental efforts haven't resulted in any meaningful plan to reduce emissions on a serious scale after 30 years of discussion then you have only two options left:  1. deal with the effects of climate change or 2. geoengineer. I'd say the best options right now are either releasing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere; we've already seen the effects of that with Mount Pinatubo and we know what to expect or 2. increase cloud albedo using Stephen Salter's plan. Both methods appear to be adjustable and reversible. Well, obviously since we're no longer feeling the cooling effects of the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

3.Water pipelines to California have been used in the past and many are proposing them again.

Yes, they work. So put them to work in Antarctica creating artificial glaciers. Sea level rise problem solved.

[onan]

Thinking that pumping salt water onto the interior of Antartica, from this guy's perspective is flawed. Salt water freezes at 0 degrees Fahrenheit, -17 Celsius. Fresh water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 0 degrees Celsius. The average interior land temp of Antarctica is:

During winter, monthly mean temperatures at coastal stations are between −10°C and −30°C but temperatures may briefly rise towards freezing when winter storms bring warm air towards the Antarctic coast. The coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was −89.2°C at the Russian station Vostok in 1983.
Temperatures in Antarctica - British Antarctic Survey

So at some point salt water contacts fresh water-ice. When that happens large amounts of water will turn brackish and more ice will melt. That will bring on a huge water shed, not a drop in ocean level.

[albrecht]

If they have a constitution that promises equality before the law then they have to allow gay marriage.

That phrase never appears in the Constitution.  And certainly the writer's of the 14th wouldn't like how it has been expanded by court decree and Executive Branch mandates. Ignoring the arguments about the validity of the 14th, due to coercion and questionable voting, I don't think they would've thought it be stretched to say that some guy who 'identifies' should be able to use the girls locker-room in school, marriage should be changed to include homosexual (or who knows what other deviant style,)a small business should be forced to bake cakes or make pizzas for activists, or whatever other weirdness will be the next cause célèb from Hollywood or Obama.

And you still won't answer at what age would your Constitution "right" to use an opposite gender bathroom or 'marry' a same gender, or have homosexual sex kick in?

And why, then, are the laws different on age-of-consent, age to marry, (in addition to many other things) in different States allowed or laws, procedures, etc can differ between States? Clearly that is unconstitutional, right? Or how about how different countries in the EU have different age-of-consent and some have different ages for homosexual sex vs normal sex. Clearly against ECHR, right? So we've determined that sexual activity and contract law and laws can differ between States (and, of course, between countries) but homosexual "marriage" rights, can't ? That is the be-all end-all, most important thing to worry about that must apply to everyone, no matter how they voted, no matter the public opinion (hence the Hollywood/Obama propaganda and Executive Orders,) no matter how small the deviant population is (and even smaller number of that set who wants to marry?)

Regarding polar ice cap....can't we enact a law that all yuppies and preppers who have bottled water are seized, frozen, and dropped on the ice cap.

[136 or 142]

That wasn't my point, I'm one of the most vehement Hoaxland haters on this board. My point was that Phil Plait and Seth Shostak would never try to shut Hoagland up. It isn't done that way because of free speech concerns. They'll dispute him, sure, but they won't take him to court under charges as what happened with Lomborg.

I don't know the details of this, and wiki among other sites don't add much. Given that I don't see any evidence that the climate scientists have sued other scientists I can only assume that this was a one off in that they took issue with some of the claims Lomborg made that he based on his supposed expertise.  Apparently the court in question was an academic court of some sort that determines whether an academic has presented himself or his work accurately. In this, it is, of course, acting no differently than a journal editor or a referee of a doctoral thesis.

(If only journalists could be taken to a similar court!, here in Canada there is a standard's council but I don't believe they actually do much.)

Had Mr Lomberg presented himself merely as an author without citing his academic standing, I highly doubt they could have or would have taken him to this court.

It seems that even calling him a 'statistician' may be an overstatement as he actually has his advanced degree in political science (game theory). I don't doubt that there is a lot of mathematics involved in that, but I highly doubt he took all the courses a person receiving an advanced degree in statistics would have had to have taken.

[136 or 142]

And you still won't answer at what age would your Constitution "right" to use an opposite gender bathroom or 'marry' a same gender, or have homosexual sex kick in?

I don't see why that should be up to me to determine.  I also already told you I have mixed feelings over the use of opposite sex bathrooms.

On the other hand, you haven't told me exactly how Hollywood played a significant 'propaganda' roll in advancing 'the gay cause.'

If the lead role on two sitcoms can cause roughly 1/3 or more of Americans to change their attitudes towards homosexuals and gay marriage, then it should also have caused people to believe that a professor of science can fashion practically anything out of coconut shells.  Practically anything, that is, except a seaworthy sailing vessel.

While that is just one show, Gilligan's Island did have roughly the combined audience of Will and Grace and Ellen.

[albrecht]

I don't see why that should be up to me to determine.  I also already told you I have mixed feelings over the use of opposite sex bathrooms.

On the other hand, you haven't told me exactly how Hollywood played a significant 'propaganda' roll in advancing 'the gay cause.'

If the lead role on two sitcoms can cause roughly 1/3 or more of Americans to change their attitudes towards homosexuals and gay marriage, then it should also have caused people to believe that a professor of science can fashion practically anything out of coconut shells.  Practically anything, that is, except a seaworthy sailing vessel.

While that is just one show, Gilligan's Island did have roughly the combined audience of Will and Grace and Ellen.

Look at Cannes right now, Eurovision contest and controversy, the speeches at the Oscars/Globes, etc, the activists and their spending, etc. There is a big difference between social issues and a professor making coconuts into everything, though you can make a battery with a potato, or so I recall from some school experiment many decades ago . It is fairly well documented, they don't call television "programming" for nothing hahaha, that social views can be, over time, changed, or ramped up, redirected via media (whether for good or ill. Uncle Tom's Cabin verses Der Ewige Jude, etc. Companies, and politicians and, here in the USA, drug companies,) wouldn't spend billions on ads if they had no effect. If the 40 seconds bits in a tv show have some effect why wouldn't the remaining content of the film or show itself not? I mean apparently even a cheaply made production on YouTube can cause a terrorist attack halfway around the world!  Seeing even a relative few actual homosexual characters on tv for a decade can make people think: hey this is normal, there are so many of them, we should change our laws and language, etc when in fact they are a small deviant population (see original article.)

[136 or 142]

Look at Cannes right now, Eurovision contest and controversy, the speeches at the Oscars/Globes, etc, the activists and their spending, etc. There is a big difference between social issues and a professor making coconuts into everything, though you can make a battery with a potato, or so I recall from some school experiment many decades ago . It is fairly well documented, they don't call television "programming" for nothing hahaha, that social views can be, over time, changed, or ramped up, redirected via media (whether for good or ill. Uncle Tom's Cabin verses Der Ewige Jude, etc. Companies, and politicians and, here in the USA, drug companies,) wouldn't spend billions on ads if they had no effect. If the 40 seconds bits in a tv show have some effect why wouldn't the remaining content of the film or show itself not? I mean apparently even a cheaply made production on YouTube can cause a terrorist attack halfway around the world!  Seeing even a relative few actual homosexual characters on tv for a decade can make people think: hey this is normal, there are so many of them, we should change our laws and language, etc when in fact they are a small deviant population (see original article.)

Hollywood and Hollywood activists may have played a role in convincing gays to 'come out.' But, I suspect it was once people found out that they had gay friends who were 'just like them' that convinced people to change their minds on gay rights.

[albrecht]

Hollywood and Hollywood activists may have played a role in convincing gays to 'come out.' But, I suspect it was once people found out that they had gay friends who were 'just like them' that convinced people to change their minds on gay rights.

Maybe, though considering it is such a small population in relation to normal society I wonder. I've never had any friends or family "come out" though I'm pretty certain one second cousin is homosexual. Though, admittedly, it is stereotyping but very limp handshake and works in fashion last I heard. I did actually have a relation (I don't even know how to say how related- second cousin once removed or something- who married a guy who now, apparently, has become a woman. Though I'm not sure, and didn't ask or get into the scuttlebutt, if he actually had gotten snipped yet. But was on the meds, clearly, and dressed in a mumu-like dress and had makeup on. They even had a daughter, estranged from him, together some decades before they divorced and he changed. She died so I met him at the funeral. What an awful and shocking looking guy/gal! Sort of sad. Fat, unhealthy, and bizarre looking and I guess on SSI/Disability and was trying to get a cut of the estate (I don't know details, she had provided some minor $ stipulation for him and were divorced but she had kept him on her insurance after and "were friends," as she was very liberal and apparently 'always knew', and so he was trying to cut a larger cut of the estate to keep insurance or something. Sort of scary. At least for his daughter.) Again the weirdness and complicated situation mean more lawyers and billable hours I expect. And some hushed conversations at the funeral. I think the folks from Iowa and Minnesota coming down from their farms were a little taken-aback. Sort of funny.

But considering that it is a small population and also that small population seems to self-segregate to certain cities (or areas in cities) I think Hollywood has more to do with the "change" in opinions because people who are devoted to some tv show see a homosexual and think "this could be my friend", or in that weird way some people get into shows, "he is my friend."

[SciFiAuthor]

Thinking that pumping salt water onto the interior of Antartica, from this guy's perspective is flawed. Salt water freezes at 0 degrees Fahrenheit, -17 Celsius. Fresh water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 0 degrees Celsius. The average interior land temp of Antarctica is:

So at some point salt water contacts fresh water-ice. When that happens large amounts of water will turn brackish and more ice will melt. That will bring on a huge water shed, not a drop in ocean level.

We've been desalinating water on an industrial scale for decades. Bring in the contractors from Dubai and Saudi. They know how to desalinate huge amounts of seawater very efficiently. Not that we'll get to that stage, the rise in sea level will be so gradual that it may prove not to be the problem we think it will be. Some estimates go so far as to place sea level rises since 1887 as high as a foot. No one seems to have noticed that as it happened. We simply accommodated it pretty well painlessly. That may happen again.

And it's not something that you can fix anyway through standard channels. Antarctica is gone already. Once the ice melt starts, no amount of co2 reduction will act fast enough to stop it. Even a 100% cessation in output won't help because current levels are already melting the ice. You'd have to start dropping the co2 levels in the atmosphere that exist already. That's not going to happen any time soon. So the question may well end up being something like making ice to restore Antarctica rather than making ice to drop sea levels.


   

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't know the details of this, and wiki among other sites don't add much. Given that I don't see any evidence that the climate scientists have sued other scientists I can only assume that this was a one off in that they took issue with some of the claims Lomborg made that he based on his supposed expertise.  Apparently the court in question was an academic court of some sort that determines whether an academic has presented himself or his work accurately. In this, it is, of course, acting no differently than a journal editor or a referee of a doctoral thesis.

(If only journalists could be taken to a similar court!, here in Canada there is a standard's council but I don't believe they actually do much.)

Had Mr Lomberg presented himself merely as an author without citing his academic standing, I highly doubt they could have or would have taken him to this court.

It seems that even calling him a 'statistician' may be an overstatement as he actually has his advanced degree in political science (game theory). I don't doubt that there is a lot of mathematics involved in that, but I highly doubt he took all the courses a person receiving an advanced degree in statistics would have had to have taken.

Actually, it looks like he went out of his way to say that he wasn't acting as an academic:

"DCSD
noted, in this context, that in the preface
to the book the defendant had himself
drawn attention to the fact that he was
no expert in environmental issues. "

That's from the official report of the court. You can read it in English here:


http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2004/files-2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf

It's case #4,5 and 6.

It was a Danish government court that operated under the auspices of Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Oddly enough, the activities of the court, The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, in the case of Lomborg resulted in a petition that circulated around Denmark's academics that nearly resulted in the DCSD being abolished completely because the case against Lomborg apparently contained no documented actual problems with Lomborg's work. That's why the ruling was overturned. They failed to back up their assertions against the guy. They just ruled against him, apparently. 

The whole thing is bizarre. Climate science is so politicized and charged that a guy like Lomborg, not a climate change denier by any means, can't write a book about alternate methods of tackling climate change without taking heat. Yet Al Gore can produce a scare film that uses only the very worst, dire scientific predictions to produce a scenario that has no chance of happening and gets applauded for it. That is not a normal state of affairs, and if you look outside climate science there is a huge amount of academic disdain for climate scientists and their methods, not their research, but how they are conducting themselves within their field.

If you really want to see what this guy stands for, watch Ondi Timoner's documentary about him "Cool It". It's on Netflix.

[136 or 142]

Actually, it looks like he went out of his way to say that he wasn't acting as an academic:

"DCSD
noted, in this context, that in the preface
to the book the defendant had himself
drawn attention to the fact that he was
no expert in environmental issues. "

That's from the official report of the court. You can read it in English here:


http://ufm.dk/en/publications/2004/files-2004/annual-report-2003-danish-committees-scientific-dishones.pdf

It's case #4,5 and 6.

It was a Danish government court that operated under the auspices of Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Oddly enough, the activities of the court, The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, in the case of Lomborg resulted in a petition that circulated around Denmark's academics that nearly resulted in the DCSD being abolished completely because the case against Lomborg apparently contained no documented actual problems with Lomborg's work. That's why the ruling was overturned. They failed to back up their assertions against the guy. They just ruled against him, apparently. 

The whole thing is bizarre. Climate science is so politicized and charged that a guy like Lomborg, not a climate change denier by any means, can't write a book about alternate methods of tackling climate change without taking heat. Yet Al Gore can produce a scare film that uses only the very worst, dire scientific predictions to produce a scenario that has no chance of happening and gets applauded for it. That is not a normal state of affairs, and if you look outside climate science there is a huge amount of academic disdain for climate scientists and their methods, not their research, but how they are conducting themselves within their field.

If you really want to see what this guy stands for, watch Ondi Timoner's documentary about him "Cool It". It's on Netflix.

I don't doubt everything you said is true (except for maybe the part about the way other scientists regard climate scientists), but there must have been more to this than what you've said about Lomberg, given that you've shown no other examples of climate scientists trying to censor a person's work.  I would suspect (though without any actual evidence to be sure) that Lomberg may have slipped up a time or two in interviews and referred to himself as a climate expert or a scientist.  Otherwise, I really don't know why the European Climate Scientist community would have been so adamant in going after a person, who, as far as I'm aware was completely obscure prior to the court case raising his profile and probably helping him sell a lot more books.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't doubt everything you said is true (except for maybe the part about the way other scientists regard climate scientists), but there must have been more to this than what you've said about Lomberg, given that you've shown no other examples of climate scientists trying to censor a person's work.  I would suspect (though without any actual evidence to be sure) that Lomberg may have slipped up a time or two in interviews and referred to himself as a climate expert or a scientist.  Otherwise, I really don't know why the European Climate Scientist community would have been so adamant in going after a person, who, as far as I'm aware was completely obscure prior to the court case raising his profile and probably helping him sell a lot more books.

There's no question that there's no such thing as bad publicity and I'm sure he gained profile with the case, but that's an unintended happy consequence. If it were one of my books, I would really not want to go through a censure or trial or whatever just to promote it.

Oh there are tons of other cases. Look at the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. Scientists do not get more eminent within their field than him. Yet he questions just how much we actually understand about climate science and he gets lambasted. Again, he's not a denier, he simply scrutinized the methodology based on how such things are done within physics and the climate scientists have been tearing into him for years now.

It's all really just a symptom of a bigger problem that affects the world's debates on issues. Somewhere along the line we dropped the enlightenment's concept of humanism and replaced it with anti-humanism. Humans=bad, environment=good. That's gotten so bad that we've convinced ourselves that we cannot ever solve a problem like climate change with technology. We proceed from the assumption that we must curtail human activity in order to solve an environmental problem, such as making electrical power more expensive so we stop using coal. Or we shouldn't go into space because we'd just screw it up. All manner of really anti-human attitudes are creeping in from all sides. When you mix politicians and corporations with that, you end up with profit-making shams like cap and trade which was just Enron and Goldman Sach's figuring out a way to cash in on the green movement and the Al Gores and Barack Obamas were right there ready to sell the liberals out and add cap and trade to the narrative.

Coming from an engineering background, I'm astounded by it. Sometimes it gets outright bizarre. Greenpeace, for example, opposes ITER, the experimental fusion reactor, on the basis that it's based on nuclear energy. At first, they characterized it as the same thing as fission. It doesn't matter that there is a vast, fundamental difference between fusion and fission. They just put it out there that they thought it should protested it because it's atomic. Then I dig deeper and I find out that the real reason within the academic circles behind those ideas is that fusion energy is bad because it would be limitless and cheap which means the human race would continue to expand and progress at the cost of nature. That's fucking insane, they're literally protesting a total, green, absolute solution to carbon dioxide emissions because that might mean humans will expand and head out into the universe and fuck it up. So they trot out that evil word "nuclear" to scare people away from fusion.

Here's their latest silliness:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/ITERprojectFrance/

They basically oppose fusion energy now supposedly because it faces insurmountable technical problems. Um, no, it doesn't. Lockheed solved them last year. There is now nothing standing between limitless, clean, cheap energy for everyone on the planet other than creating a production reactor:

http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details

I can't wait to see how Greenpeace protests it. Thankfully, it's Lockheed Martin Skunkworks and they won't give a shit about the protests.

[136 or 142]

Oh there are tons of other cases. Look at the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson. Scientists do not get more eminent within their field than him. Yet he questions just how much we actually understand about climate science and he gets lambasted. Again, he's not a denier, he simply scrutinized the methodology based on how such things are done within physics and the climate scientists have been tearing into him for years now.

Being lambasted is no different than what Richard Hoagland deservedly gets, is pretty normal in the scientific community in general and is not the same as being censored.  Are there any other examples, excluding scientific journals which are a whole other thing, of climate scientists actually attempting to censor a person?

Because otherwise, It's pretty obvious this Lomborg case was a one off that must have had more to it than you are aware of.  The only thing I'm aware of that even comes close is the BBC decision to downplay the climate deniers.  But, even then it was based on an accurate ruling by the BBC standards department that giving equal time to climate scientists who believed in AGW and the handful of climate scientists who don't created a false impression that there was a debate in the climate science community regarding the reality of AGW where none really existed.  To be sure, there is no doubt debate around the margins, but that is a whole different issue.

I'm no fan of Greenpeace or other environmental extremists, or extremists of any type for that matter either.

[SciFiAuthor]

Being lambasted is no different than what Richard Hoagland deservedly gets, is pretty normal in the scientific community in general and is not the same as being censored.  Are there any other examples, excluding scientific journals which are a whole other thing, of climate scientists actually attempting to censor a person?

What other field attacks eminent scientists for questioning anything at all? That's what they're supposed to do, question question question. In fact, what other field engages in attacks at all? That's highly unprofessional from the outset. Dyson got attacked. He survived it because the rest of science realizes who and what he is, but within climate science he's a pariah.

More examples? Sure! This poor bastard got caught up in a firestorm of politics when the climate scientists were out trying to pin hurricane Katrina on global warming. Add that with an embarrassing possibility that the Army Corps of Engineers screwed up and well, the axe fell.  Dig in deeply, google away, you'll find nothing but deeply disturbing things about this case. The media didn't like to get into the motivations of the university staff, but dig in, you'll see.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/higher-ed-group-says-professor-fired-hurricane-katrina-174751941.html;_ylt=A0LEVr5EtGJVqL4AvYEnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

Because otherwise, It's pretty obvious this Lomborg case was a one off that must have had more to it than you are aware of.  The only thing I'm aware of that even comes close is the BBC decision to downplay the climate deniers.  But, even then it was based on an accurate ruling by the BBC standards department that giving equal time to climate scientists who believed in AGW and the handful of climate scientists who don't created a false impression that there was a debate in the climate science community regarding the reality of AGW where none really existed.  To be sure, there is no doubt debate around the margins, but that is a whole different issue.

I keep coming across it though. Examples where either the climate scientists were called into question because of what they were doing by other disciplines within science or dissenting scientists themselves were lambasted despite the whole thing being based on questioning, truth and peer review. I've got tons more examples for you. I'll give you as many as you want.

I'm no fan of Greenpeace or other environmental extremists, or extremists of any type for that matter either.

Happily agreed. I believe in a fundamental reasonability. I think we got off on the wrong foot with gay marriage initially. I wish them luck and want them to have full legal rights. I have gay friends and would attend their weddings. It's the method within politics in which their cause was advanced that I disagree with it. It turned into a bunch of politicians using it as a wedge issue to get elected, but they're politicians and they know that prolonging an issue is better than solving it. All the religious word "marriage" does is create opposition and prolong the problem. Politicians know that, and as a result they threw the homosexuals under the bus while at the same time pretending to champion them.

I believe in a fundamental and constant questioning of authority. The center left used to agree with me back in the 60's, but for some reason authority is now king, at least in regards to climate scientists. Very odd.   

[136 or 142]

1.What other field attacks eminent scientists for questioning anything at all? That's what they're supposed to do, question question question. In fact, what other field engages in attacks at all? That's highly unprofessional from the outset. Dyson got attacked. He survived it because the rest of science realizes who and what he is, but within climate science he's a pariah.

Academics tend to attack other academics, frequently viciously, though hopefully with facts and not smears, innuendos or half truths, it's hardly just the academic scientists.   A little different in that for instance, you don't often see Burger King bashing McDonalds, though you do frequently see Coke and Pepsi attacking each other, but the whole nature of the free enterprise system is based on going after your competitor.  This may seem like a non sequitor, but in the 'market place of ideas' attacking your opponents ideas is kind of expected.  To be sure, attacking your opponent personally is sometimes considered a logical fallacy, but there actually are many exceptions to this: if your opponent has a conflict of interest, if your opponent does not have the expertise they claim to have, if your opponent has a history of endorsing loony ideas, like outlandish conspiracy theories or if your opponent has a questionable prior relationship with the truth. Of course, none of those things prove your opponent is wrong in the specific case,which is why some philosophers claim going after your opponent is a logical fallacy, but most philosophers I'm aware of take the view that attacking your opponent personally in one of these situations is, in fact, a valid argument.


2.More examples? Sure! This poor bastard got caught up in a firestorm of politics when the climate scientists were out trying to pin hurricane Katrina on global warming. Add that with an embarrassing possibility that the Army Corps of Engineers screwed up and well, the axe fell.  Dig in deeply, google away, you'll find nothing but deeply disturbing things about this case. The media didn't like to get into the motivations of the university staff, but dig in, you'll see.

So, he got fired for essentially calling the Army Corps of Engineers liars. That certainly is a serious abuse of academic freedom, but what do climate scientists have to do with this?

[SciFiAuthor]

1.What other field attacks eminent scientists for questioning anything at all? That's what they're supposed to do, question question question. In fact, what other field engages in attacks at all? That's highly unprofessional from the outset. Dyson got attacked. He survived it because the rest of science realizes who and what he is, but within climate science he's a pariah.

Academics tend to attack other academics, frequently viciously, though hopefully with facts and not smears, innuendos or half truths, it's hardly just the academic scientists.   A little different in that for instance, you don't often see Burger King bashing McDonalds, though you don't frequently see Coke and Pepsi attacking each other, but the whole nature of the free enterprise system is based on going after your competitor.  This may seem like a non sequitor, but in the 'market place of ideas' attacking your opponents ideas is kind of expected.  To be sure, attacking your opponent personally is sometimes considered a logical fallacy, but there actually are many exceptions to this: if your opponent has a conflict of interest, if your opponent does not have the expertise they claim to have, if your opponent has a history of endorsing loony ideas, like outlandish conspiracy theories or if your opponent has a questionable prior relationship with the truth. Of course, none of those things prove your opponent is wrong in the specific case,which is why some philosophers claim going after your opponent is a logical fallacy, but most philosophers I'm aware of take the view that attacking your opponent if they fit into one of these situations is, in fact, a valid argument.

No they don't. That's extraordinarily unprofessional behavior against every notion of ethical behavior within science. Attack the work, not the man. In Lomborg's case they appear to have attacked the man. It goes much deeper than that with other scientists. Yes, you can question academic credentials, but only so far. You can't attack Hoagland based on his credentials because he never claimed to have any. You can attack his ideas. The climate scientists failed to do that with Lomborg. They admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist, but they took him to a court nonetheless which admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist but still condemned him over it without saying specifically why they were condemning him without listing the condemnations. We don't know why they disagreed with his book. They didn't say. Why? You're taking the defensive position, so you tell me and then we'll both know the truth. You keep trying to default on the position that he claimed he was something he wasn't. Well, show me.

So, he got fired for essentially calling the Army Corps of Engineers liars. That certainly is a serious abuse of academic freedom, but what do climate scientists have to do with this?

Research. Happy to help as you do, just ask me questions as you go through it and I'll point you to the things I found when I went through it myself. The key is the staff at the university that fired him. Trust me, they didn't fire him because the government said to. Dig in. Truth is good.

[136 or 142]

"No they don't. That's extraordinarily unprofessional behavior against every notion of ethical behavior within science. Attack the work, not the man. In Lomborg's case they appear to have attacked the man. It goes much deeper than that with other scientists. Yes, you can question academic credentials, but only so far. You can't attack Hoagland based on his credentials because he never claimed to have any. You can attack his ideas. The climate scientists failed to do that with Lomborg. They admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist, but they took him to a court nonetheless which admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist but still condemned him over without saying specifically why they were condemning him without listing the condemnations. We don't know why they disagreed with his book. They didn't say. Why? You're taking the defensive position, so you tell me and then we'll both know the truth."

In theory this is a valid argument, but, in practice it just isn't how things work. We all have a limited amount of time, and it's entirely reasonable to dismiss the work of a person who has a conflict of interest, who lacks credentials, who has a history of making outlandish claims or who has a history of making stuff up and move onto looking at the work of peers who don't have these problems.

So, since you don't look at their work, if they have one of these problems and they go after your work, of course your going to go after them on the basis of one of those four things, and not on their findings.  Is that entirely fair? Probably not, but then, they really only have themselves to blame.

Did Lomborg commit any offense in those four things, I don't know, but the climate science community, despite what you say, felt they had valid reasons to claim that he misrepresented his credentials.  Though, as you said, the quasi academic court did ultimately rule in his favor.

Seriously, do you look into every 'idea' of Richard Hoagland on their individual merits or do you say to yourself "Hoagland is a nut so his ideas are all silly."?  It would take a bigger person than I am (or most people are) to take the first position.

[SciFiAuthor]

Thinking that pumping salt water onto the interior of Antartica, from this guy's perspective is flawed. Salt water freezes at 0 degrees Fahrenheit, -17 Celsius. Fresh water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit and 0 degrees Celsius. The average interior land temp of Antarctica is:

So at some point salt water contacts fresh water-ice. When that happens large amounts of water will turn brackish and more ice will melt. That will bring on a huge water shed, not a drop in ocean level.

Onan. Favor requested. We always disagree, but I respect you as someone that can step out of your paradigm and free think . . . despite destroying the atmosphere with a gigantic septic tank that you're single-handedly destroying the atmosphere with as we speak. Actually I missed you *slips in the tongue*. Let's try something new. Finding truth. Moderate my discussion with 132 and let's try to arrive at a fundamental truth, if 132 agrees of course. Fuck politics, let's just try to come to a fundamental truth. Game?

[SciFiAuthor]

"No they don't. That's extraordinarily unprofessional behavior against every notion of ethical behavior within science. Attack the work, not the man. In Lomborg's case they appear to have attacked the man. It goes much deeper than that with other scientists. Yes, you can question academic credentials, but only so far. You can't attack Hoagland based on his credentials because he never claimed to have any. You can attack his ideas. The climate scientists failed to do that with Lomborg. They admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist, but they took him to a court nonetheless which admitted that he wasn't claiming to be a scientist but still condemned him over without saying specifically why they were condemning him without listing the condemnations. We don't know why they disagreed with his book. They didn't say. Why? You're taking the defensive position, so you tell me and then we'll both know the truth."

In theory this is a valid argument, but, in practice it just isn't how things work. We all have a limited amount of time, and it's entirely reasonable to dismiss the work of a person who has a conflict of interest, who lacks credentials, who has a history of making outlandish claims or who has a history of making stuff up and move onto looking at the work of peers who don't have these problems.

So, since you don't look at their work, if they have one of these problems and they go after your work, of course your going to go after them on the basis of one of those four things, and not on their findings.  Is that entirely fair? Probably not, but then, they really only have themselves to blame.

Did Lomborg commit any offense in those four things, I don't know, but the climate science community, despite what you say, felt they had valid reasons to claim that he misrepresented his credentials.  Though, as you said, the quasi academic court did ultimately rule in his favor.

Seriously, do you look into every 'idea' of Richard Hoagland on their individual merits or do you say to yourself "Hoagland is a nut so his ideas are all silly."?  It would take a bigger person than I am (or most people are) to take the first position.

No, actually I make fun of Hoagland's hair mostly. I don't buy a word Hoagland says. He's a professional bullshit artist that should have went into politics. But I'll defend his right to say and write his bullshit until the cows come home. That's free speech. What's your issue with that?

[136 or 142]

No, actually I make fun of Hoagland's hair mostly. I don't buy a word Hoagland says. He's a professional bullshit artist that should have went into politics. But I'll defend his right to say and write his bullshit until the cows come home. That's free speech. What's your issue with that?

I don't care, but it's 136 not 132 and it's actually 136 or 142.  It's from a Bob Dylan quote.

I don't have any problem with Hoagland's free speech and I don't know any scientist who doesn't think he should have a right to say what he says, though I suspect many of them cringe at the amount of things Hoagland's listeners will have to unlearn if they want to learn real science.

[SciFiAuthor]

I don't care, but it's 136 not 132 and it's actually 136 or 142.  It's from a Bob Dylan quote.

I don't have any problem with Hoagland's free speech and I don't know any scientist who doesn't think he should have a right to say what he says, though I suspect many of them cringe at the amount of things Hoagland's listeners will have to unlearn if they want to learn real science.

Oops, I was never very good with numbers or Bob Dylan. The thing that infuriates me most about Hoagland is that if you get him on any other non-artifact science discussion, he actually seems to have a solid basic knowledge of science. Yet he flutters off into the weeds when he talks about Mars or Hyperdimensional Physics. He knows that he's bullshitting his fans but does so anyway. Given that he's a NYT bestselling author, he's made some decent money off his pseudoscience. If I thought he actually believed his own stuff, it would be different. But I don't think he does.

[136 or 142]

It should be noted that however much scientists may engage in censorship pales in comparison to the censorship practiced by corporate interests and their political puppets.  Just look at the laws in the Ag states that outlawed negative comments on food after the Oprah Winfrey program or the laws outlawing whistle blowing on farms.