The Political Denial of Science

[skierinvermont]

can you please link some of these?

already have multiple times

[Mencken_Fan]

There are about 8 regular posters and maybe a dozen more readers of this forum. Do we really have to get our panties in a knot over the organizational scheme? If you don't like the thread, don't click it. Nobody is forcing you to be here.

Maybe religion rants are going a little too far, but the effect of capitalism on the environment and climate is certainly relevant to this forum.

Are my religious rants that extreme; or do they just appear that way - in a country that is so secularly passive it accepts as normal the need to walk on eggshells around the delusional religious masses? How many of the rationally educated hundreds of millions of Europeans would so much as blink at what I've said in the past?

I know...I know...I should just pack up and move to Europe.

FWIW, my qualm is not with religious people (the vast majority of whom have been brainwashed since birth and can't help themselves), it's with the secular people who delude themselves into thinking religion is so "harmless." It's the 21st Century for god's sake - yet we as a society are like scared little mice when it comes to challenging bronze-age ideology. It's insane!

A Pentecostal friend of mine (well, I do live in North Carolina...) once showed me a pamphlet that was all hellfire and brimstone about Europe rising up to become the capital of the "new world order." Well.....at the rate he and his fellow Pentacostalists are going, that shouldn't take too long - LOL! (To our fundamentalists, Europe is of course the "demon continent.")

Hey - I just thought of an employment motto: "Hire fundamentalists, they're fun to listen to." He-he.

Anyway, I'm near 60 now; long past the point where I'm going to walk on eggshells for anyone - but if I get too much in the habit of beating a dead horse, y'all are free to throw some manure at me. One is never too old for a dose of constructive criticism.

Best regards to all.

[tacoman25]

Are my religious rants that extreme; or do they just appear that way - in a country that is so secularly passive it accepts as normal the need to walk on eggshells around the delusional religious masses? How many of the rationally educated hundreds of millions of Europeans would so much as blink at what I've said in the past?

I know...I know...I should just pack up and move to Europe.

FWIW, my qualm is not with religious people (the vast majority of whom have been brainwashed since birth and can't help themselves), it's with the secular people who delude themselves into thinking religion is so "harmless." It's the 21st Century for god's sake - yet we as a society are like scared little mice when it comes to challenging bronze-age ideology. It's insane!

A Pentecostal friend of mine (well, I do live in North Carolina...) once showed me a pamphlet that was all hellfire and brimstone about Europe rising up to become the capital of the "new world order." Well.....at the rate he and his fellow Pentacostalists are going, that shouldn't take too long - LOL! (To our fundamentalists, Europe is of course the "demon continent.")

Hey - I just thought of an employment motto: "Hire fundamentalists, they're fun to listen to." He-he.

Anyway, I'm near 60 now; long past the point where I'm going to walk on eggshells for anyone - but if I get too much in the habit of beating a dead horse, y'all are free to throw some manure at me. One is never too old for a dose of constructive criticism.

Best regards to all.

It's not about beating a dead horse or walking on egg shells. It's about going on and on about religion in a climate change forum. There are places to talk about your opinions, but this isn't it.

[WeatherRusty]

It's not about beating a dead horse or walking on egg shells. It's about going on and on about religion in a climate change forum. There are places to talk about your opinions, but this isn't it.

This thread was started by me to introduce a bit of the political side of AGW into the mix. Current events in the Congress concerning the EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gases should be of interest to anyone involved in the discussion of climate change as it pertains to relevancy beyond the actual science. Let's face it, many would not give two hoots about global warming if it were not for its political and economic implications.

Part of politics is satisfying the party political base. The religious right in this country represents a huge constituency of the Republican party. Macken_Fan is merely tying all of this together in order to demonstrate the mindset of the demographic the Republicans represent and seek to placate. It is very relevant to the politics and can be part of the discussion. This climate change issue has very broad tentacles!

[skierinvermont]

Are my religious rants that extreme; or do they just appear that way - in a country that is so secularly passive it accepts as normal the need to walk on eggshells around the delusional religious masses? How many of the rationally educated hundreds of millions of Europeans would so much as blink at what I've said in the past?

I know...I know...I should just pack up and move to Europe.

FWIW, my qualm is not with religious people (the vast majority of whom have been brainwashed since birth and can't help themselves), it's with the secular people who delude themselves into thinking religion is so "harmless." It's the 21st Century for god's sake - yet we as a society are like scared little mice when it comes to challenging bronze-age ideology. It's insane!

A Pentecostal friend of mine (well, I do live in North Carolina...) once showed me a pamphlet that was all hellfire and brimstone about Europe rising up to become the capital of the "new world order." Well.....at the rate he and his fellow Pentacostalists are going, that shouldn't take too long - LOL! (To our fundamentalists, Europe is of course the "demon continent.")

Hey - I just thought of an employment motto: "Hire fundamentalists, they're fun to listen to." He-he.

Anyway, I'm near 60 now; long past the point where I'm going to walk on eggshells for anyone - but if I get too much in the habit of beating a dead horse, y'all are free to throw some manure at me. One is never too old for a dose of constructive criticism.

Best regards to all.

Well I'm an agnostic atheist and I'm definitely not a fan of the fundamentalists it just seemed a little too far outside the scope of this forum.. not that I care really.. at least anti-intellectualism and oil industry lobbying ties in a bit. But I don't really care what we talk about in here and I'm the last person to tread lightly around religion although I agree all too often we are forced to.

[tacoman25]

This thread was started by me to introduce a bit of the political side of AGW into the mix. Current events in the Congress concerning the EPA's role in regulating greenhouse gases should be of interest to anyone involved in the discussion of climate change as it pertains to relevancy beyond the actual science. Let's face it, many would not give two hoots about global warming if it were not for its political and economic implications.

Part of politics is satisfying the party political base. The religious right in this country represents a huge constituency of the Republican party. Macken_Fan is merely tying all of this together in order to demonstrate the mindset of the demographic the Republicans represent and seek to placate. It is very relevant to the politics and can be part of the discussion. This climate change issue has very broad tentacles!

No, he's just ranting on his pet topic. If you can't see how obvious it is, I don't know what to tell you.

If he made these posts on the main forum where a lot more people pay attention, they wouldn't fly. Just like climate change rants don't fly over there. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY BELONG.

It's pretty damn simple, and it doesn't depend on any of our personal viewpoints.

[tacoman25]

Well I'm an agnostic atheist and I'm definitely not a fan of the fundamentalists it just seemed a little too far outside the scope of this forum.. not that I care really.. at least anti-intellectualism and oil industry lobbying ties in a bit. But I don't really care what we talk about in here and I'm the last person to tread lightly around religion

So it would be cool with you if someone started spouting fundamentalist, religious viewpoints in every post on here?

[skierinvermont]

So it would be cool with you if someone started spouting fundamentalist, religious viewpoints in every post on here?

No that would probably be a little excessive and it's not for me to say anyways.. like I said it does seem a little outside the scope of this forum.

[WeatherRusty]

No, he's just ranting on his pet topic. If you can't see how obvious it is, I don't know what to tell you.

If he made these posts on the main forum where a lot more people pay attention, they wouldn't fly. Just like climate change rants don't fly over there. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE THEY BELONG.

It's pretty damn simple, and it doesn't depend on any of our personal viewpoints.

OK

[Mencken_Fan]

It's not about beating a dead horse or walking on egg shells. It's about going on and on about religion in a climate change forum. There are places to talk about your opinions, but this isn't it.

The opening paragraph of this thread: "I give up. There is no argument which could restore to science the respect it so richly deserves. Academics are now looked down upon. Being an expert at something brings ridicule and condescension. Ideology, politics, money and religion are reclaiming a strong foothold in the determination of our country's future. Science be damned."

Whether you realize it or not tacoman, you just provided a perfect example of religious social tyranny. Aside from the fact religion is a key component of this thread, many will never be comfortable with religious criticism. This particularly American form of social tyranny (or religious correctness) is the reason why it's impossible for politicians or mainstream media outlets to so much as whisper a disparaging word about religion. Anyone can challenge science at any time or place - but religion? Not unless one enjoys social, political or career banishment. Well, at least that beats the punishment one might get in Afghanistan....

I've said more than enough on this subject; I just wish I'd hear others step up to the plate more often. (I'm referring to all people everywhere.)

[tacoman25]

OK

Like I said to skiier, would you want a religious fundamentalist ranting their viewpoints on here? Religious opinions, for or against, don't belong in this forum.

I can't believe there is even any debate about this.

[tacoman25]

The opening paragraph of this thread: "I give up. There is no argument which could restore to science the respect it so richly deserves. Academics are now looked down upon. Being an expert at something brings ridicule and condescension. Ideology, politics, money and religion are reclaiming a strong foothold in the determination of our country's future. Science be damned."

Whether you realize it or not tacoman, you just provided a perfect example of religious social tyranny. Aside from the fact religion is a key component of this thread, many will never be comfortable with religious criticism. This particularly American form of social tyranny (or religious correctness) is the reason why it's impossible for politicians or mainstream media outlets to so much as whisper a disparaging word about religion. Anyone can challenge science at any time or place - but religion? Not unless one enjoys social, political or career banishment. Well, at least that beats the punishment one might get in Afghanistan....

I've said more than enough on this subject; I just wish I'd hear others step up to the plate more often. (I'm referring to all people everywhere.)

Just because he mentioned religion among a myriad of other things in the first paragraph does not mean this thread is for religious opinions. Which is what comprises 90% of your average post.

Religious social tyrrany? Give me a break. I wouldt be just as "uncomfortable" with someone preaching their fundamentalist, religious viewpoint on here.

[nzucker]

Like I said to skiier, would you want a religious fundamentalist ranting their viewpoints on here? Religious opinions, for or against, don't belong in this forum.

I can't believe there is even any debate about this.

I think it's fine to mention how religion is tied to the political parties and their views on climate change (such as Young Earth theory, humans not being in control of the planet's future/Second Coming, etc)...But Mencken is clearly pushing it with the atheist propaganda. There has to be a line somewhere or I could be talking about the Yankees game and how global temperatures allowed mosquitoes to swarm Jaba Chamberlain's head in a northern region, causing us to lose the series.

[skierinvermont]

I think it's fine to mention how religion is tied to the political parties and their views on climate change (such as Young Earth theory, humans not being in control of the planet's future/Second Coming, etc)...But Mencken is clearly pushing it with the atheist propaganda. There has to be a line somewhere or I could be talking about the Yankees game and how global temperatures allowed mosquitoes to swarm Jaba Chamberlain's head in a northern region, causing us to lose the series.

I remember a Sox game in Cleveland a few years ago at least I think where some kind of bug, I think it was fruit flies, swarmed the field. You could see them swarming around the players in the sunlight.

A statistical analysis reveals a strong positive correlation between such fruit fly related baseball incidents and global mean surface air temperature.

Also the Sox are going to murder the Yankees this year.

That is all.

[Hambone]

Funny you should mention nuclear power. Here is a realistic scientific assessment concerning nuclear power and it's future as an energy source (SEE BELOW). People who look to science for their understanding of the risks and benefits involved in utilizing nuclear power are not lost, they are informed. What is wrong with caring for the Earth such that you must call people "tree-huggers"?

Why is OK to be the only species which intentionally fouls it's own nest? Is it morally correct to drive to extinction by untold numbers the plants and animals of the land, sea and air? Is it not OK to want to preserve our air, water and land in a state which supports large biodiversity? Are these ideals compatable with continued, never ending human expansion and industrialization? Could it be that there is a better way into the future than 20th century technology?

A group this tree-hugger belongs to

You are a trip... here's the lowdown on your non partisan, scientifically pure "group"...

Union of Concerned Scientists

2 Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02238

Phone 617-547-5552 | Fax 617-864-9405 | Email [email protected] <BR clear=all>

Overview

Committed to an “open-minded search for truth,” and armed with “unrivaled scientific expertise,” the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) “doesn’t say anything [it] can’t back up with solid evidence.” At least, that’s what its fund-raising letters say. The reality is quite different.

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

More recently, UCS pulled a partisan, election-year stunt in 2004 aimed at the Bush Administration. The group rounded up 60 scientists to sign a statement complaining that “the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.”

On issue after issue, UCS insists, the White House fails to embrace global scientific “consensus” -- and that automatically means it has “politicized” science. But UCS itself is frequently guilty of that exact sin. For instance, it works overtime to scare Americans about a whole host of imagined environmental problems associated with genetically modified food. But every authoritative regulatory agency, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, declares that biotech food crops are perfectly safe.

UCS routinely abuses and politicizes science. Its crusade against farm animals receiving antibiotics presents guesswork as scientifically rigorous analysis, and is calculated to scare the public about risks it admits are groundless. UCS helped initiate the vicious attacks on Danish scientist (and “Skeptical Environmentalist”) Bjorn Lomborg, only to be repudiated by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Industry. And in 2003, the group dressed up its “strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq” as an exercise in science.

Like many environmental activist groups, UCS uses the twin motivators of cheer and fear. A giggly Gwenyth Paltrow and a catty Cameron Diaz headlined a series of short appeals about energy conservation that UCS produced. The two mega-stars crow that they turn the water off while brushing their teeth, switch off the light when they leave their bedrooms, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees. “Its time for us to band together and really make every effort to conserve our natural resources,” chirps Diaz. That’s the sunny side.

But UCS is more adept at producing horror stories than chick flicks. They are fear-mongers of the first order -- turning the sober science of health and environmental safety into high drama for public consumption. For example, UCS recently warned that by 2100 the U.S. might suffer 50-80 million more cases of malaria every year if the Senate fails to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Such racy statistics are based on clumsy modeling of worst-case scenarios, and assume -- against all evidence of human behavior -- that no countermeasures whatsoever would be employed. “Not considering factors such as local control measures or health services,” in their own words. Of course, you won’t find those caveats in the press release.

Genetically Modified Science

Among UCS’s many concerns, “the food you eat” is at the top of the list. More than a million dollars went to its food program in 2001. Genetically enhanced foods -- dubbed “Frankenfoods” by opponents -- have caused worldwide hysteria even though no reputable scientific institution can find anything to be afraid of. But that doesn’t stop UCS’s “experts” from playing cheerleader to these unfounded fears.

They warn that biotech foods could result in the “squandering of valuable pest susceptibility genes,” “enhancement of the environment for toxic fungi,” and the “creation of new or worse viruses.” They scream about “Poisoned wildlife” and “new allergens in the food supply.” Biotech foods, they claim, might “increase the levels of toxic substances within plants,” “reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease,” “contaminate foods with high levels of toxic metals,” “intensify weedy properties” and cause the “rapid evolution of resistance to herbicides in weeds,” leading to “superweeds.”

Rigorous scientific analysis led UCS to this list of horrors, right? Wrong. That was merely a “‘brainstorming’ of potential harms.” So how likely are any of these to occur? “Risk assessments can be complicated,” UCS says, and pretty much leaves it at that. In other words, they have absolutely no idea.

In contrast, more reputable authorities have a very good grasp of the potential risks of genetically enhanced foods. The U.S. Environmental protection Agency says that genetically enhanced corn “does not pose risks to human health or to the environment.” The World Health Organization says that biotech foods “are not likely to present risks for human health” and observes that “no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population.” Even the European Union, which has gone out of its way to stifle food technology for political reasons, notes: “The use of more precise technology [in genetically enhanced crops] and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods.”

The Food and Environment Program at UCS is headed up by Margaret Mellon and her deputy Jane Rissler, both of whom hold Ph.Ds and have held positions at prestigious universities. So what do a couple of highly trained research scientists, armed with nothing but guesswork, ideology and a million dollar budget, do? They fight biotech food every step of the way.

Although UCS claims that it “does not support or oppose genetic engineering per se,” Mellon and Rissler in fact have never met a GM food they didn’t mistrust. That’s because they hold biotech foods to an impossibly high standard.

In 1999, UCS joined the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and the Defenders of Wildlife, in petitioning the EPA for strict regulation of corn modified to produce large amounts of the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin. Bt is a naturally occurring insect poison that protects plants from pests like the European corn borer. UCS’s letter was part of a major scare campaign to convince the public that Bt corn posed a risk to the Monarch Butterfly.

Both the USDA and the EPA later concluded that Bt corn caused no harm to the Monarch. This reinforced the findings of federal regulators who had performed a comprehensive safety review of Bt corn before it was allowed into the marketplace. UCS remains unconvinced, even though the safest place for a Monarch larva to be is in a Bt cornfield. Rissler argued there was “insufficient data” to make such a conclusion.

Precautionary Nonsense

Of course, “sufficient” data can never exist for zealots like Rissler. She continued: “Do we assume the technology is safe… or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it’s safe.” It’s impossible to prove a negative, to absolutely demonstrate that there are no dangers whatsoever for any given product. The scientist in her knows that too, but she and her colleagues at UCS continue to be guided by the “Precautionary Principle.” This misguided maxim argues that, based on the fear that something harmful may possibly arise, we should opt for technological paralysis.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized in 2000 that The Precautionary Principle “is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trump scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don’t like.” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists because it justifies their paranoia and serves to bludgeon technological progress.

Martin Teitel, who runs another misnamed activist group called the Council for Responsible Genetics, admitted as much in 2001. “Politically,” Teitel said, “it’s difficult for me to go around saying that I want to shut this science down, so it’s safer for me to say something like, ‘It needs to be done safely before releasing it.’” Requiring scientists to satisfy the Principle by proving a negative, Teitel added, means that “they don’t get to do it period.”

It should come as no surprise that UCS joined Teitel’s organization and other die-hard opponents of biotech foods in an activist coalition called the Genetic Engineering Action Network. While acknowledging that “we know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms,” UCS consistently opposes their introduction to the market on the basis of purely hypothetical risk.

Confronted with the real-world benefits of biotech foods, UCS simply changes the subject to its anti-corporate, socialist leanings. Rissler’s appearance on the PBS show Nova – on a program called “Harvest of Fear” -- is a case in point. When the interviewer suggested that “genetically modified crops are arguably much less harmful to the environment” Rissler responded: “It depends on where you want to compromise. There’s another issue here with corporate control of the food supply.”

UCS’s knee-jerk reaction to biotech foods is matched only by its animus towards agribusiness. A 1994 press release condemning FDA approval of biotech foods complained that some of the data used by the oversight agency was provided by private enterprises.

In her zeal to decry increased food production from the corporate adoption of biotechnology, Mellon has argued that it’s “not clear that more milk or pork is good.” And UCS supports a radical vision of “sustainable agriculture.” That means no pesticides or herbicides; no fertilizer (other than E.coli-rich manure); and eating only “locally grown” produce. If it’s not clear under this plan where New York City would get its rice or how Chicago would scrounge up any bananas, there’s a reason for it. They wouldn’t.

Pigs, Chickens and Cows, Oh My!

Hogging It, a UCS report published in 2001, argues that the use of antibiotics in farm animals could result in human diseases that are resistant to conventional treatments. The report received a great deal of press attention, and UCS is not afraid to brag about it. “We developed the numbers that everyone uses when talking about… overuse of antibiotics,” trumpets a fund-raising letter. But how did they go about developing those numbers? “Rigorous scientific analysis”? Hardly. While the livestock industry actually calculates the amounts of antibiotics administered to farm animals using hard sales figures, UCS guesses at average drug dosages and then multiplies by the total number of animals. That’s “brainstorming.” Not science.

The real experts, like David Bell, coordinator of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s anti-microbial resistance programs, aren’t impressed by Hogging It. Interestingly, UCS admits the weakness of its evidence. The executive summary of Hogging It complains about a “gaping chasm” in the data. Nevertheless, the authors are proud to produce the “first transparent estimate” of livestock antibiotic use in America.

Estimate? That’s right. “The numbers everyone uses” are just estimates. Moreover, UCS measures antibiotic usage in total tonnage. But is that relevant in any way? UCS concedes that it’s not. The activist group wants the FDA to track antibiotic usage by “type,” since most antibiotics used in animals are unlike those used in humans.

Consumer Reports quotes Margaret Mellon saying, “We know nothing. We are flying blind.” No wonder the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Coalition for Animal Health also reject Hogging It’s findings. But none of that stops UCS from scaring the wits out of the public. Mellon warns of an “era where untreatable infectious diseases are regrettably commonplace.” That might be worth getting “Concerned” about, if only it were based on good science.

Unfortunately, political science masquerading as real science can have real-world consequences. In July 2003, identical bills introduced in the U.S. House and Senate threatened to ban the routine use of eight entire classes of antibiotics in livestock. Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW), a slick PR coalition of activist groups, was especially pleased with the news because its favorite statistic became the legislation’s main factual “finding.” Namely: “An estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs used in the United States are fed to farm animals.”

Guess who “estimated 70 percent” for KAW? The Union of Concerned Scientists, a long-time coalition member. UCS admits that this estimate was created from mere guesswork, saying on its own website that “data to answer [the following] questions are not available”:

• What is the total amount of antibiotics used each year in the United States?
• How much of this is used to treat human disease?
• How much is used in animal agriculture?
• How much is used to treat sick animals and how much to promote their growth?
• How much of each major class of antibiotics is used as supplements to animal feed or water?
• Is agricultural use increasing? By how much?
• Which agricultural uses are most likely to contribute to problems in treating human disease?

For a group facing so many unanswered questions, answers seem to come remarkably easily. While freely admitting that no good science exists to determine the effect (if any) of livestock antibiotics on human health, UCS managed to convince members of Congress otherwise. At the same time, UCS activists protested outside fast-food restaurants, holding giant “pillburgers” (prop hamburgers stuffed with oversized drug capsules) and chanting “Hey hey -- ho ho -- Drugs in meat have got to go.”

Motivation

The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT -- the original “union” -- sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”

Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War -- a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”

An early petition from UCS argues: “A new ethic is required -- a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth… This ethic must motivate a great movement.” So activists with lab coats are now presuming to instruct us on matters of ethics and politics.

Among its ethical appeals that have nothing to do with science, UCS’s approach to farming stands out. The activist group advocates “a sustainable approach, based on understanding agriculture as an ecosystem.” They call it an “agroecosystem,” and label it “holistic.” They call it “science”; the rest of us call it Zen.

At UCS, politics drives science -- not the other way around. “We undervalue our scientists and agriculturalists if we accept today’s productive, but highly polluting agriculture,” UCS claims. Of course, UCS advocates organic-only agriculture, the widespread adoption of which (at today’s anemic levels of production) would result in mass starvation. So in this instance, some form of technology will surely have to save the day, even for organic farmers. But when it comes to something UCS opposes -- like missile defense -- they argue that the technology will never work.

Respectable scientists operate by considering a question, developing a methodology to answer that question, and only then arriving at a conclusion. They disdain political interference, and go to the media only when their conclusions warrant immediate public attention. The Union of Concerned Scientists stands this process on its head. It develops a press strategy first, and then conducts politically tainted and methodologically flawed analysis. After all, it’s getting harder to convince the media that your environmental scare is more lurid than the next guy’s. You need good PR. That’s why UCS partners with slick Washington PR firms -- to get attention, whether or not there’s good science behind the sound bites.

Black Eye

By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong. A few examples:

• In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”
• UCS invested significant resources in “a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly.” Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it’s supposed to kill.
• Based, we suppose, on some “science” or other, UCS’s Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it “probably represents a turning point.” What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing down.
• In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.
• To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.

UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again.

[WeatherRusty]

You are a trip... here's the lowdown on your non partisan, scientifically pure "group"...

The lowdown spun by whom? No friend of environmental protections I presume.

UCS

[Mencken_Fan]

I read the whole thing but then to my dismay find no link to its authorship. Darn I hate that. Unless Hambone is the author, it's called "plagiarism."

[BethesdaWX]

I remember a Sox game in Cleveland a few years ago at least I think where some kind of bug, I think it was fruit flies, swarmed the field. You could see them swarming around the players in the sunlight.

A statistical analysis reveals a strong positive correlation between such fruit fly related baseball incidents and global mean surface air temperature.

Also the Sox are going to murder the Yankees this year.

That is all.

Yanks will knock 'em dead like they always do.

that is all

[nzucker]

Yanks will knock 'em dead like they always do.

that is all

Probably not but I'd like to think so...

[WeatherRusty]

To what extent do you think the following Gallup poll results indicating that 40% of Americans believe in strict Creationism as the origin of human beings, affects the general population's attitude toward other scientific findings such as AGW?

SEE GALLUP POLL

[VAwxman]

To what extent do you think the following Gallup poll results indicating that 40% of Americans believe in strict Creationism as the origins of human beings, affects the general population's attitude toward other scientific findings such as AGW?

SEE GALLOP POLL

Good question, and I really don't know. Obviously many conservatives try to downplay AGW, and conservatives tend to be the more religious type, but on the flip side, I have heard many religious figures talking about AGW existing and that it is just one more sign of humans being reckless and supposedly condemning ourselves.

[Clifford]

I have heard many religious figures talking about AGW existing and that it is just one more sign of humans being reckless and supposedly condemning ourselves.

Hopefully those aren't the same religious figures that try to prevent the use of birth control. Fight against abortion. And encourage large families.

Our population growth over the last century, or last few centuries is just not sustainable, and is a major contributor to global pollution, as well as increases to atmospheric CO₂. Overpopulation also limits our ability to develop agriculture based energy sources.

[iceicebyebye]

Our population growth over the last century, or last few centuries is just not sustainable, and is a major contributor to global pollution, as well as increases to atmospheric CO₂. Overpopulation also limits our ability to develop agriculture based energy sources.

a good portion of the few posts i make here mention similar themes: BAU emission paths, driven primarily by past/current/future energy needs of human civilization, and a population on the road to 9B, ensure continued global heating and HICC

how anyone can claim that humans do not influence and change the climate through our collective actions, including translation of many millennia of carbon into the atmosphere over a few centuries is beyond me

how anyone can argue against the physical and earth science basis of climate change boggles the mind.

i'm indifferent to the motivations...be it dogma, religion, politics, ingorance, financial interests, paranoia, love of snow, hate for "elites", etc....rejection of science for any of these reasons is unfortunate

i'd like to think the entrenched interests and the bulk of humanity will come round to the issue eventually, but it probably will not make a difference in the end game...

[Clifford]

how anyone can claim that humans do not influence and change the climate through our collective actions, including translation of many millennia of carbon into the atmosphere over a few centuries is beyond me

how anyone can argue against the physical and earth science basis of climate change boggles the mind.

Is "Climate Change" the same as "Global Warming"?

I have no doubt that irrigating where we've never irrigated will change the local environment.

Cutting down forests and building cities will change the local environment.

Much of the Global Warming science was based during a natural upswing in global temperature patterns in the 80's and 90's, and seem to have over emphasized the human influence, and under emphasized the natural climate cycles.

Projections of the long-term consequences of AGW are crude at best.

But, it doesn't preclude the need for conservation of resources and recycling. And, without global population control efforts, our standard of living will decline.

[WeatherRusty]

Is "Climate Change" the same as "Global Warming"?

I have no doubt that irrigating where we've never irrigated will change the local environment.

Cutting down forests and building cities will change the local environment.

Much of the Global Warming science was based during a natural upswing in global temperature patterns in the 80's and 90's, and seem to have over emphasized the human influence, and under emphasized the natural climate cycles.

Projections of the long-term consequences of AGW are crude at best.

But, it doesn't preclude the need for conservation of resources and recycling. And, without global population control efforts, our standard of living will decline.

The climate change we are concerned with is the consequence of global warming brought about by human activities. As the world warms all the aspects of climate such as average temperature, average humidity, prevailing wind direction, average cloud amount, precipitation type and amount etc. will change at any given location. Global warming represents the averaged global temperature as it increases over time frames measured in decades to centuries.

The basic physics behind AGW began to take shape over a century ago and has progressed mostly since the 1960's to the state of the science today. To say this science was formulated only since in 80's and 90's is just wrong.

Everyone should familiarize themselves with this website: The Discovery of Global Warming

Projections of long-term global warming are in the first place rooted in standard physics which informs us that a doubling of CO2 will produce a climate forcing equaling 3.7W/m^2 (watts per square meter). This forcing according to Planck's Law and the Stephan Boltzmann equation will warm the planet a bit less than 1.2C AT EQUILIBRIUM and before the consideration of feedbacks.

Secondly, the EQUILIBRIUM CLIMATE SENSITIVITY is ESTIMATED to lie somewhere between 2.0C and 4.5C. This factor (involving feedbacks) is figured from the study of past climate's response to understood forcing, volcanic eruptions and yes computer modeling. Here is where most of the uncertainty resides. That we can pin this down to a net overall climate response to a doubling of CO2 is better than a crude estimate.

If a tipping point is passed, such as the oceans becoming a net source of CO2 rather than a sink, or methane release from melting permafrost in the northern tundra regions takes hold, the effect would be much more significant than that from a mere doubling of CO2. At the rate we are going, we will easily exceed a doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times by mid to late century. We stand to potentially warm the globe to a level not seen for over 15 million years if we unleash these climate changing forces, and it would occur in just a few centuries rather than over many thousands and millions of years.

This would absolutely be uncharted territory for much of today's life adapted to current conditions, let alone well outside the climate in which humans have evolved and thrived enabling our population to approach 7 billion worldwide.

That last figure is the biggest problem of them all, it's not so much what we do as it is how many of us are doing those things.

[BethesdaWX]

Its much more complex than simple physics that don't take into account the climate system, and what it does with its energy.

Understanding that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 is a problem with alot of these predictions, simply based on the complexity of our climate system.

Sensitivity has been estimated much much too high. The saturation of the 14.77micron band will pose problems to any "base warming" of 1.2C, as you state. The Nimbus Satellite, which measured the radiative spectra clearly show a deep notch at the 14.77micron wavelength band as a result of 325ppmv atmospheric CO2 concentration at that time (1970). The depth and width of this notch demonstrate that over 90% of the Earth’s thermal radiation from this wavelength band that could possibly be affected by CO2, had already been affected at a concentration of just 325ppmv. Knowing the first 100-150ppm do 85% of the job.

Models that Predict future warming assume that past warming is CO2 caused. If it is not CO2 caused, then we have to attribute that Temperature increase to something else, as in balancing energy.

Good read

http://www.ilovemyca...ouse_effect.pdf

Lets look at past temperature fluctuations. Not only is our current temp quite "normal", but we See spikes between 1-3C constantly, we've been over 2C warmer than today within the holocene, as a result of Solar Activity. If solar activity can Create a LIA, with temps falling over 1C from the WP beforehand, and spikes of 2-3C, todays high Solar Activity can do the Same, given todays Solar is quite Similar. Knowing what the Sun has done, this completely dis-lodges the formula you constantly give for the sun.

[WeatherRusty]

Its much more complex than simple physics that don't take into account the climate system, and what it does with its energy.

Understanding that 2+2 doesn't equal 5 is a problem with alot of these predictions, simply based on the complexity of our climate system.

Sensitivity has been estimated much much too high. The saturation of the 14.77micron band will pose problems to any "base warming" of 1.2C, as you state. The Nimbus Satellite, which measured the radiative spectra clearly show a deep notch at the 14.77micron wavelength band as a result of 325ppmv atmospheric CO2 concentration at that time (1970). The depth and width of this notch demonstrate that over 90% of the Earth’s thermal radiation from this wavelength band that could possibly be affected by CO2, had already been affected at a concentration of just 325ppmv. Knowing the first 100-150ppm do 85% of the job.

Models that Predict future warming assume that past warming is CO2 caused. If it is not CO2 caused, then we have to attribute that Temperature increase to something else, as in balancing energy.

Good read

http://www.ilovemyca...ouse_effect.pdf

Lets look at past temperature fluctuations. Not only is our current temp quite "normal", but we See spikes between 1-3C constantly, we've been over 2C warmer than today within the holocene, as a result of Solar Activity. If solar activity can Create a LIA, with temps falling over 1C from the WP beforehand, and spikes of 2-3C, todays high Solar Activity can do the Same, given todays Solar is quite Similar. Knowing what the Sun has done, this completely dis-lodges the formula you constantly give for the sun.

I am not going to argue with you over this, it's not worth it.

But, to say climate models presume past climate change to be caused solely by CO2 is preposterous. What do you think scientists are, a bunch of fools?

Past climate change has nothing to do with it anyway. We know what the physics of the greenhouse effect implies and how CO2 impacts the greenhouse effect. What we don't know is exactly what total impact this will have on future climate beyond a likely 2 - 4.5C temperature increase at equilibrium.

The saturation argument is totally bogus and long ago demonstrated to be based on a failure to understand the physics properly.. An absorption band can always widen due to pressure broadening, and the altitude of emissivity to space can always extend higher. If not Venus could not have a greenhouse surface temperature more than 300F above it's effective temperature at altitude.

I get sick and tired of these long ago dispelled arguments being perpetually presented by nascent deniers.

[BethesdaWX]

I am not going to argue with you over this, it's not worth it.

But, to say climate models presume past climate change to be caused solely by CO2 is preposterous. What do you think scientists are, a bunch of fools?

Past climate change has nothing to do with it anyway. We know what the physics of the greenhouse effect implies and how CO2 impacts the greenhouse effect. What we don't know is exactly what total impact this will have on future climate beyond a likely 2 - 4.5C temperature increase at equilibrium.

The saturation argument is totally bogus and long ago demonstrated to be based on a failure to understand the physics properly.. An absorption band can always widen due to pressure broadening, and the altitude of emissivity to space can always extend higher. If not Venus could not have a greenhouse surface temperature more than 300F above it's effective temperature at altitude.

I get sick and tired of these long ago dispelled arguments being perpetually presented by nascent deniers.

I'm not arguing complete saturation of CO2, as 90% of absorbtion is done in the 1st 100ppm. I'm arguing based on measurements, wwe have maybe 10% PWP left. Proxies show Past warming of 2-3C occurregularly, not related to Co2, but to the sun.

When something doesn;t fit an argument, it is changed....just as Mauna Loa has been.

I have my doubts, but they do not factor into my argument even if CO2 were 450ppm right now.

The IPCC uses a CO2 concentration history that shows a low pre-industrial CO2 content which increases during the industrial era. The IPCC may have used corrupted CO2 data in its analysis of climate change. Their conclusions and projections of climate change are all based on the assumption of low CO2 concentrations in the pre-industrial atmosphere based on ice core studies. Unfortunately, ice cores do not form a closed system. In the highly compressed deep ice, CO2 combines with liquid water to form gas hydrates, or clathrates, which are tiny crystals. When the ice core is brought to the surface, the pressure falls causing the clathrates to decompose to the gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades, forming tiny cracks in the ice. Other cracks are formed by the ice decompression. Gas escapes through these cracks as the ice core is brought to the surface, but since CO2 forms clathrates at lower pressures than other gases, CO2 is preferentially lost leading to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice core. Consequently, the measured CO2 concentration from deep ice cores is less than the CO2 concentration of the originally trapped air.

The graph on the left shows the IPCC history of CO2 concentration in air.

Data from shallow ice cores such as from Siple, Antarctica, show that the CO2 concentration of pre-industrial ice (from depths too shallow for clathrate formation) are much higher than that measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii in 1960.

Actual Siple, Antarctica Ice Core and Mauna Loa Data

Note that the measured concentration declines with increasing load pressure and depth.

Shifted Siple, Antarctica Ice Core and Mauna Loa Data

As the actual measurements show ice deposited in 1890 AD is 328 ppm, not the 290 ppm required to fit the IPCC human caused increasing CO2 concentration and global warming hypothesis, the average age of air was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped.

The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record, and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”, but they failed.

CO2 Measurements between 1800 and 1955

IPCC modellers ignored the direct measurements of CO2 concentration indicating that the 19th century CO2 concentration was 335 ppm.

The encircled values were arbitrarily selected by Callendar for estimation of 292 ppm as the average 19th century CO2 concentration.

A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppm, and 9600 years ago 348 ppm, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.

See here for more information.

Recently, Ernst-Georg Beck has summarized 90,000 accurate chemical analysis of CO2 in air since 1812. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post 1990 literature on climate change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm not arguing complete saturation of CO2, as 90% of absorbtion is done in the 1st 100ppm. I'm arguing based on measurements, wwe have maybe 10% PWP left. Proxies show Past warming of 2-3C occurregularly, not related to Co2, but to the sun.

When something doesn;t fit an argument, it is changed....just as Mauna Loa has been.

I have my doubts, but they do not factor into my argument even if CO2 were 450ppm right now.

The IPCC uses a CO2 concentration history that shows a low pre-industrial CO2 content which increases during the industrial era. The IPCC may have used corrupted CO2 data in its analysis of climate change. Their conclusions and projections of climate change are all based on the assumption of low CO2 concentrations in the pre-industrial atmosphere based on ice core studies. Unfortunately, ice cores do not form a closed system. In the highly compressed deep ice, CO2 combines with liquid water to form gas hydrates, or clathrates, which are tiny crystals. When the ice core is brought to the surface, the pressure falls causing the clathrates to decompose to the gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades, forming tiny cracks in the ice. Other cracks are formed by the ice decompression. Gas escapes through these cracks as the ice core is brought to the surface, but since CO2 forms clathrates at lower pressures than other gases, CO2 is preferentially lost leading to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice core. Consequently, the measured CO2 concentration from deep ice cores is less than the CO2 concentration of the originally trapped air.

The graph on the left shows the IPCC history of CO2 concentration in air.

Data from shallow ice cores such as from Siple, Antarctica, show that the CO2 concentration of pre-industrial ice (from depths too shallow for clathrate formation) are much higher than that measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii in 1960.

Actual Siple, Antarctica Ice Core and Mauna Loa Data

Note that the measured concentration declines with increasing load pressure and depth.

Shifted Siple, Antarctica Ice Core and Mauna Loa Data

As the actual measurements show ice deposited in 1890 AD is 328 ppm, not the 290 ppm required to fit the IPCC human caused increasing CO2 concentration and global warming hypothesis, the average age of air was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped.

The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record, and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”, but they failed.

CO2 Measurements between 1800 and 1955

IPCC modellers ignored the direct measurements of CO2 concentration indicating that the 19th century CO2 concentration was 335 ppm.

The encircled values were arbitrarily selected by Callendar for estimation of 292 ppm as the average 19th century CO2 concentration.

A study of stomatal frequency in fossil leaves from Holocene lake deposits in Denmark, showing that 9400 years ago CO2 atmospheric level was 333 ppm, and 9600 years ago 348 ppm, falsify the concept of stabilized and low CO2 air concentration until the advent of industrial revolution.

See here for more information.

Recently, Ernst-Georg Beck has summarized 90,000 accurate chemical analysis of CO2 in air since 1812. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post 1990 literature on climate change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.

Isn't it amazing how a denier can come up with a complex dissonant argument for any possible mainstream scientific bit of knowledge if that knowledge just happens to support AGW science? You're good Bethesda!

[Mencken_Fan]

Past climate change has nothing to do with it anyway. We know what the physics of the greenhouse effect implies and how CO2 impacts the greenhouse effect. What we don't know is exactly what total impact this will have on future climate beyond a likely 2 - 4.5C temperature increase at equilibrium.

The saturation argument is totally bogus and long ago demonstrated to be based on a failure to understand the physics properly.. An absorption band can always widen due to pressure broadening, and the altitude of emissivity to space can always extend higher. If not Venus could not have a greenhouse surface temperature more than 300F above it's effective temperature at altitude.

I get sick and tired of these long ago dispelled arguments being perpetually presented by nascent deniers.

Bethesda is very detail-oriented but in my opinion short on analytical ability. Analysis is part skill and part art; much of it is innate; one is either born a good analyst or one is not. Bethesda is still young; his skill set will develop in the years ahead.

I'm reminded of the recently posted Michael Chrichton essay, and how I had rejected those several "generally accepted scientific claims" that turned out to be false. I correctly rejected them not because I looked at piles of data but because my innate analytical ability said to reject them. Furthermore, without any formal education I rose from computer operator to programmer to applications analyst to defense contractor with my own employees over a period of only 5 years. I later added stock market technical analyst to my belt (unfortunately though, only after I'd lost a fortune...I took it on as a case of "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.")

One may be a salesman (marketer, televangelist, bartender, politician, etc.), an artist (actor, architect, sculptor, etc.), and so on. I, and others of my bent, are simply analysts (people who excel at problem solving and seeing through the "clutter.") We all have innate abilities; and when we try to excel at something we're not born to be good at, it's obvious to others (sometimes even painfully so.) The expression "you can't con a con" is not without merit, lol.

Oh well, it's going to be a long journey here; let's all try to make the best of it.