<< QUOTE SEASON CONTINUES V ~ MAIN ~ QUIT DIGGING, ALREADY >>
BURN THE HERETIC!
Oceanographer and climatologist Kevin Vranes reveals his concern over global warming alarmism:
We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the “it’s happening” side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side.
But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they’re ready to take action. And now we’re wondering if we didn’t create a monster.
We’re wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we’ve oversold the science. We’re wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as “skeptics.” We’re wondering if we’ve let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we’re wondering if we’ve let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.
Brave fellow. He’ll likely be lynched for this.
We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be.
What did he think he was doing, heading a cattle drive to Abilene?
We’re wondering if we’ve let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized.
Well, yeah, if you’ve pretty much “internalized” all those “caveats”, the unwashed might, indeed, have failed to pick up on them.
In spite of the horrible prose, the message is still pretty clear - scientists manipulated the evidence “for our own good”, and then found out that some of their fraternity got, shall we say, a little carried away with their messianism? Vrales now finds himself to be somewhat in the position of the desperate hero in Invasion of the Body snatchers, with one big difference - he’s known about the pod people for a long time and he’s a little late in the day sounding the alarm.
Simberg had a link to another version of this essay, with comments. The comments are interesting…
I see this as a Clarke Moment[1]: the distinguished and elderly scientists have reached a consensus, which the younger ones are starting to see holes in but can’t get the attention of the Establishment.
Phlogiston, anyone?
Regards,
Ric
[1]"When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong. When a distinguished and elderly scientist says something is possible, he is probably right.”The point is that established scientists, with reputations and positions, are just as much of a herd as any other similarly-sized group of people, and just as likely to fall in with the Conventional Wisdom. Frequently the Respected Elders have to die off before the new ideas can be accepted. Let’s hope not, in this case—they’ve injected themselves so far into politics that a lot of damage could get done first.
--RGosh, he’s so tentative.
Lots of scientists will have nothing to do with what modern science turned into, which is what used to be a mere local disturbance when somebody wanted to advance his career at any cost, now gone global.
The identifying mark of real science continues to be curiosity.
That’s not in the media stereotype, nor apparently in this fellow’s.
Grimmy, they are all worried about how they can keep on lying ot keep receiving their government funding. Am I right that the US alone gives out $1.9 billion each year for this subject.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 27 at 12:51 PM • permalinkThus is the road to hell paved: with good intentions.
Posted by cobalt blue on 2006 12 27 at 01:12 PM • permalinkHm. Bongoman one time give Paco recipe for long pig. Him say, “Nothing say ‘hit’ like something in the pit”. Pit-cooked heretic, wrapped in herbs, put in ground when sun come up, roast ‘till sun high in sky, by ‘n by, heretic be tender, juices sealed in. Serves 12. If Phil Adams guest, serves one. If Phil Adams main dish, serves tribe for two moons.
#21 Blood-brother Grimmy: Paco almost forget. Bongoman, him say roll heretic down rocky hill before you plant ‘em in ground; make much tender.
Paco have own recipe for heretic ("Just Like Paco’s Mother Used to Make!"). Tie heretic to long green vine, dip ‘em in mouth of volcano pretty quick, haul ‘em out. Called “Fire God Fondue”. Crunchy on outside, chewy on inside. You like ‘em - like cajun cook mans say on TV, Paco “gahrantee”.
I see that Tim Labert is handing out the pine knot torches for the lynching party.
Actual, Non Ironic, quote from comments
This is the simple Rovian attack against strength to establish a new meme, the guilty consensus.
#5 Ric
I liked this from the comments:Problem is, the open discussion and hard questioning that is facilitated by the emergence of blogs on the internet is exposing sloppy science that is now leading to a serious loss of credibility for many “climate scientists” who have taken the lead in scaring the public.
Yeh! Go bloggers!
I wouldn’t have a problem with them if they stopped calling themselves “scientists” and used the term “lobbyists” instead.
Then they could line up with all the other good industries that are forced to use lobbyists these days to get anything done - tobacco, alcohol, drug and chemical manufacturing, uranium mining, oil drilling, forestry, freeway builders, landmine manufacturing, airport expansion etc etc etc.
I believe a lot of the “scientific” hoo-ha is just a cover to gain more funding.
Want to go to that conference in Rio? Describe it as a global warming bash.
Need a new supercomputer in the lab? Say that it will be used for climate change modelling.
Need some more research assistants? Describe them as climate change analysts.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 12 27 at 06:06 PM • permalinkBut remember, guys, you can’t boil friars.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 12 27 at 06:14 PM • permalinkCSIRO scientist calls bullshit on the link between the drought and global enwarmenifying.
The whole problem is that climate change is a non-falsiable hypothesis - and no real scientist would ever propose it in the first place.
Let’s remember these are government scientists on large budgets and if the axiom of CO2 >>> AGW is false (which it is incidentally) then no money and of course taht is a problem if you have a mortgage and other debts.
Big Science is a monster that created itself, and it’s practitioners need to find “causes” to continue their employment. Most of them, I suspect, would be unemployable in their chosen vocation outside government.
Mind you government scientists also do the government’s bidding as well, part of policy, so one becomes doubly sceptical.
To cap it off, knowing some ALP connections personally in government, the whole climate scare thing is simply a means to start people behaving in an ecologically responsible manner. - it is, really, a means to an end that was halted temporarily by the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The social engineers simply changed horses. Same mob, same goals, different means.
Hmmm, interesting, isn’t it? It looks like the ‘next generation’ is starting to question their elders. Oh dear, but maybe, just maybe we’ll be saved by human nature after all before we our economy is wrecked by gerbal varmer loony suggestions like “a much greater level of government intervention is likely to be initially required to … address climate change in a meaningful way". Yeah sure, bring on the regulators!
#36 C.L.
CSIRO scientist calls bullshit on the link between the drought and global enwarmenifying
A nice link and but notice he still defers to gerbal varming, then I suppose he does have his job to think about.
And about droughts, John O’Brien’s poem Said Hanrahan about says it all. Hanrahan’s words echo those of the gerbal varmers and it’s funny when you consider that the poem was first published in 1921.
Some things never change!
There was a very interesting radio program on BBC4 of all places about scientists concerned that climate change was being oversold. You can listen to it here
Posted by TokenModerateGuy on 2006 12 28 at 12:50 AM • permalink...we are scientists, after all...”
No, you aren’t.
Chemists are scientists because they can actually test chemical theories under laboratory conditions (and these tests can be repeated by others). That’s pretty much what makes scientists scientists, as opposed to say astrologists or oceanographers.
Oceanographers can’t really do that (all they can do is make observations under uncontrolled circumstances and then guess at what it all means), nor can the theory of man-made global warming be tested scientifically (not until you can create an earth in a test tube...plus another one to act as a control).
So, shut up about science, already.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2006 12 28 at 04:37 AM • permalink#25, moptop,
From the comments on your linked site - here’s part of one that caught my eye.
We are in a period of glaciation. Thoughout the majority of the Earth’s geologic history it has been ice free. ...
Posted by: mgr | December 27, 2006 04:21 PMHow that fits with the idea that we’re warming up and that said warming is bad is beyond me.
I question the timing. The faux-scientists lied. The moonbats unquestioningly spread the lies. Now, the exaggerated nature of their claims have invited intense scrutiny by real scientists and thinkers.
Hockey sticks, their computer models and Al Gore are all tanking fast. So what to do as your lies are about to be exposed quicker than Monica Lewinsky’s Thong?
Confess: We HAD to lie otherwise the great unwashed would not understand the threat. “Dey’s not as smart as we’uns...”Posted by BlackRedneck on 2006 12 28 at 04:45 PM • permalinkI’ve posted this before, but it seems terribly appropriate:
Professor Steven H. Schneider, “a leading climatologist and environmental policy analyst” who worked on the UN’s IPCC, wrote:
And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.
(Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996)
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 12 28 at 09:16 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
So you opt for a strategy of pathological lies and then worry that you’ve become liars?
This man should be more concerned over his stupidity causing him to become a moron.