From Melanie Phillips:
The key point made by Lord Lawson in his lecture is, as he says, the flight from reason that all this represents. We are looking here at a situation in which the essence of scientific rationalism, that conclusions are arrived at only by the application of reason to evidence which is clearly ascertainable, has been systematically overturned by pseudo-science whose methodology is demonstrably flawed, whose conclusions contradict accepted facts and which is clearly not science at all but politicised, ideological propaganda. This bogus science is then used as a political stick with which to beat up opponents through campaigns of vilification, abuse and professional intimidation.
One of the many distinguished scientists who are outside this alleged ‘consensus’ on climate change makes the point today in an impassioned letter in the Telegraph. Professor Paul Reiter, of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, writes:
I have seen Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, read the book, and read the Stern report. As a scientist, I am appalled. Both authors present myriad dangers as truth – no doubts, a 100 per cent consensus. Yet a glance at the professional literature on glaciers, hurricanes etc. confirms that this consensus is a myth. Besides, consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science.
I am reminded of Trophim Lysenko, who used pseudoscience and myth-making to establish ‘scientific proof’ of Marxist genetics. Lysenko dominated Soviet science for more than two decades by propaganda and ruthless liquidation of his opponents. When he was finally discredited, the Soviet Nobel Laureate Nicolai Semyonov wrote: ‘There is nothing more dangerous than blind passion in science. Given support from someone in power, it can lead to suppression of true science, and… to inflicting great injury on the country’.
Popular knowledge of scientific issues is again awash with misinformation. Alarmists use the language of science to manipulate public perceptions by judgmental warnings. Scientists who challenge them are branded as a tiny minority of ‘sceptics’. One of the few geneticists who survived the Stalin era wrote: ‘Lysenko showed how a forcibly instilled illusion, repeated over and over at meetings and in the media, takes on an existence of its own in people’s minds, despite all realities.’ To me, we have fallen into this trap. A genuine concern for mankind demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse.
The Stern review’s cornerstone argument for immediate and strong action now is based on the suggestion that doing nothing about climate change costs 20% of GDP now, and doing something only costs 1%. However, this argument hinges on three very problematic assumptions.
First, it assumes that if we act, we will not still have to pay. But this is not so–Mr. Stern actually tells us that his solution is “already associated with significant risks.” Second, it requires the cost of action to be as cheap as he tells us–and on this front his numbers are at best overly optimistic. Third, and most importantly, it requires the cost of doing nothing to be a realistic assumption: But the 20% of GDP figure is inflated by an unrealistically pessimistic vision of the 22nd century, and by an extreme and unrealistically low discount rate. According to the background numbers in Mr. Stern’s own report, climate change will cost us 0% now and 3% of GDP in 2100, a much more informative number than the 20% now and forever.In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern’s attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.
Moreover, there is a fourth major problem in Mr. Stern’s argument that has received very little attention. It seems naive to believe that the world’s 192 nations can flawlessly implement Mr. Stern’s multitrillion-dollar, century-long policy proposal. Will nobody try to avoid its obligations? Why would China and India even participate? And even if China got on board, would it be able to implement the policies? In 2002, China decided to cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 10%–they are now 27% higher despite SO2 being nationally a much bigger health and environmental problem than climate change.
Related, also in the WSJ.
Scaremongering Republicans are, of course, concerned by the convenient fiction of radical Islamic ambitions to a Caliphate, imposition of Sharia, blah blah blah. While we’re concerned about the Chimperor’s fiddle playing, the whole world is going to climate hell in an emissions handbasket! Crackly-skinned future generations of walruses will surely curse us! Which is why we need to massage the data–because otherwise the idiots will focus on Islamofascism!
Meanwhile, of course, nations rival to the West ought to be given dispensations, so that . . .
Well, here’s an idea. We’re all concerned about the damages, measured in dollars, wreaked by these terrible hurricanes. And it seems the more stuff we’ve got in areas liable to be hit, the more we lose. So, obviously, if we repress the Western economies, there’ll be less stuff built on or near the coasts, and when the hurricanes come through, less will be lost. It’s brilliant, I tell you!
Image from the Stix Blog. And a shout out to Bingley and THS at Coalition of the Swilling, who have an even better graphic. But it brings me to my real topic:
Giant Al Gore or Gamera? Who would prevail, and why?
Gamera: Patron Monster of Children.
Shit. This post reminds me that I left my Escalade running all night, my thermostat is set at 80 and that aerosol can experiment that I started last week needs to be checked on. Thanks Dan for the heads up.
You know one thing that I ask any eco-scare mongers that I know is why would the evil “gaia killers” want to kill mother earth if that meant there own end too? Believe it or not, I never get a coherent answer from the rabble. This is not to say that I don’t do little things to try and save energy. By saving energy I save money. But the full blown scare tactics that these people use is hilarious. Mother earth is going to be ok, their concern is really about mother “redistribution”.
tw: soviet33
Could any TW be more appropriate?
Oh no—they say he’s got to go
Go go Gorezilla!
Gamera would kick his ass because Al Gore is the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt-sex with a fish squirrel.
Dan, BABY! You’re a GIANT among men! (I don’t care WHAT the girls’ room wall says…)
I got 5 bucks on the Turtle.
The Sept. 9th Economist, page 11, story: “The Heat Is On”
Subhead sez “The Uncertainty Surrounding Climate Change Argues For Action…”
Is there ANY realm of science wherein uncertainty calls for action ? Well, there is now.
I reckon The Economist is now officially part of the MSM.
…as the National Weather Center steps up its assurances that the 15 major hurricanes that failed to materialize in the season just passed will probably show up next year, adding to the 2007 totals. But the spokesman was cautious, saying that on the other hand, we might see none, since these things are entirely unpredictable.
– Never the less, citizens along the lower tier states are warned to gird up for some really bad storms along the Tornado/Hurricane corridore, sometime in the next 100 years, with magnitudes that could range over the whole scale of severity.
– On a related note, NWC scientists have layed out their projections for that same time period. The latest report cites a definate cooling trend, followed by a warming period, then returning to a cooling trend, and back to a warming trend. The scientific community as a group supports the report, and states “We should all pay close attention to this report, because it reflects exactly the sort of climate changes we can expect, and therefore plan for. Summers will tend to be warm, followed by cold winters, repeating in an ever more steady sequence of seasonal changes.
– In a published response to the NWC report, a spokesman for the Democratic party said “We warned you……The end is near”.
OMG! The Gorebot taking out the Twin Towers pushes a boundary I didn’t know existed.
But hell, it’s 5 days to an election. The MSM has been covering this up for weeks now. Might as well let it rip.
I believe in the wisdom of children.
The first time I saw Gore on TV fire-and-brimstoning from the Senate floor in favor of media censorship (his apocalyptic fantasies were less Revelation-literalist back in the ‘80s), I briefly mistook him for Paul Stanley.
This is when “Tears are Falling” was out.
So put me down for a dime on any turtle.
I’m not old by any means but I remember at least three other environmental “scares”: global cooling(!) that Newsweek just said, “Oops, we got that story wrong before”, acid rain (there was a whole Diff’rent Strokes episode about it), and smog.
I used to think enviro-whackos were just tree-hugging hippies. Now, I’m coming around to the point of view that they really are out to destroy the economy.
I agree. It’s a real problem when that sort of stuff is used to bolster a political agenda. The form of the argument seems to be:
1) Here are some actions that affect society as a whole, based on dubious science.
2) If we don’t do something, we are all going to suffer in some poorly defined way.
3) Therefore, let’s pass a bunch of laws to restrict everyone’s freedom.
I hate when that happens.
Major John–
You’ll notice Gamera’s wearing the body armor that Rummy would have provided if he cared about the troops the way Democrats do.
Gamera! Get away from Jeff’s house! Bad Gamera! Bad! *sprays with squirt bottle*
IBA – Individual Ballistic Armor becomes ITS – Individual Turtle Shell?
tech – that was brilliant!
Gamera would win easily.
Due to the constant slime that oozes from Gorezilla’s body, he could never get a proper grip on the giant terrapin, so Gamera could just headbutt him to death.
Major, I have my moments. Mostly senior, but I have them.
Ardsgaine:
Here we are having a Gortastic time whooping up on Enviro-loonies and the scientists who empower them and what do you do? You have to bring religion into it. Geez, were you the kid who used to bring the low fat milk to birthday parties so that the kids could “keep their teeth strong?”
River! Hey, River! It’s time for another fatwa on the Godless Spendthrift!
PS Gamera would kick Gorezilla’s butt!!!
Quick! Sing the Mothra song!
BJ, what can we expect when threadjackers are so regularly rewarded?
Ards: You got some kind of chip on your shoulder against the KKKristofascists?
All evolutionary science beyond ‘genetic drift’ is 100% dubious. Evolution is taught via the ‘historic’ method—interpretation of fossil records, etc– stuff that could be interpretted to mean evolution, or could mean nothing at all.
I’m no I-D’er, but I think evolution is baloney. Because we all know that tree-squirrels having buttsex with monkey-fish-frogs is where we came from.
Besides, Ards, you’re angering the Dark Lord. Here is a picture of what happens to those who do!
[bonus info- I’m in this picture! I have different shades now, though.]
Wingnuts, away!
(note the connection to fish-frog-monkey buttsex.)
10 bucks on Aquaman to cover the over.
Look, I know you don’t want Gamera, Mothra and the ‘dillo in one place at one time. It’s like crossing the streams or something. You remember the last time that happened ‘round here?
It was a bad experience for all involved, including Margaret Thatcher. She’s not been back since.
This consensus crap has gotta stop. check out http://www.oism.org/pproject/ for a list of 17 THOUSAND SCIENTESTS who have signed a PETITION that rejects the entire shitaree. Stew over that, pukepuppets.
BTW, not too long age the consensus was that the earth was the center of the solar system.
retro: Guess mass education was good for something?
Ooo, oo. I can sign! I’m a ‘computer scientist’! See? I got a four-year degree.
er, strike that, reverse that, retro. I misread the page. Apollergies.
TW: Dammit River, Where’s the LOVE?!??!?!?!
I’m guessing that you’ve heard of the Great Science Oracle™ from Down Under, A Computer Scientist who Knows All, Sees All, and Speaks Nothing Rational.
Goes by the name of Tim Lam_bert*. I’d link him, but he’s an attention whore, in addition to being an idiot.
========================
*: Delete the “_” for the proper spelling, I understand he loves to Google for his name.
TW: opened52. Huh? We ain’t playing cards!!!!
My favorite response to the global warming shrieks is to ask them, as calmly and patiently as possible, “Do you believe in evolution?” When they inevitably respond, “of course,” I simply ask if global warming isn’t just nature’s way of forcing us to evolve?
Not the Mothra song, but
I thought the Gamera song went like:
Gamera! Gamera!
Gamera is really neat
He is full of turtle meat
We all love you Gamera!
But that’s from memory, and my memory seems to fade as the years go by.
I see you learned nothing from my comment on the “pants” post. Gamera is here. Of course, you have to haved watched the show from the beginning to get all the references. And you miss out on the Michael Feinstein arrangement.
But here’s a poem by Dylan Thomas:
Not for the proud man
Apart from the raging moon I write
Gamera! Gamera!
What dark despised dreams dwell
In the sullen weighty bones
‘Neath your impenetrable shell?
Hic!
RiverCocytus:
Did you read what it was they signed? I’m beggin’ ya, do so. There is no consensus. You are still pukepuppets.
That was just my way of saying, “Wow! Would you look at the size of that mote!”
I was terrified of those flying monkeys as a kid, but then I discovered science and realized that monkey’s–even if they had wings–would be incapable of flight due to high bodymass and poor aerodynamics. So, bring on the flying monkeys, Mr. Rove, if indeed you have any, fakir!
Dammit, man, I’m a philosopher, not a biologist. All I can tell you is that pointing to the flaws in any given scientific theory will never prove the existence of God. One has to start from the evidence and go from there. The process of elimination method doesn’t work, especially when it’s done in a completely biased manner. “We can’t explain (yet) exactly how life got started, therefore, God exists.” (And not just any old god, but the Judeo-Christian god.)
It’s jumping to the supernatural explanation, not even as a last resort, but in preference to any natural explanation, that I call bullshit on. Someday, if the jihadis don’t destroy us first, we will figure out life began from inanimate matter. Using God as the explanation for natural phenomena would mean the death of science. What if Newton had said, “God made the apple fall,” and hadn’t looked any further? What if he had noted that a falling apple accelerates at 32 ft/s^2 today, but then concluded that tomorrow God will cause it to accelerate at whatever rate serves His Divine Purpose that day? Science can’t be done that way. The best you can do is say there was this guy who wound the watch, and got things going. If he’s still monkeying around with the watch, then science is futile. They should all trade in their lab coats for monks’ robes, and go back to arguing about angels and pinheads.
We’re still talking about pseudoscience, right?
That is one version of the Gamera song. I remember others. For instance, Crow did a rap version on a later episode. However, my older sister used to watch some of them with me, and she most likely influenced my memory since she would sing her own version (apparently) of the song.
In my defence, I think my version is the version they would have written if I had written it.
I also recall the version where Mike played the piano and sang it lounge-like.
Besides, I like to rely on my failing memory since it makes for more interesting assertions. The fact that I’m often wrong doesn’t bother nearly as much at 42 as it did at 21.
Gorejira
(C) 1954,, Toho Inc.
Don’t forget about the ozone hole, precursing the end of the world toot-sweet.
Not to terrify you all anew…but have you ever seen a bumble bee?
I’ll take gobal warming seriously when all its proponents quit flying in jets, sell their cars, and start riding bikes as their sole means of transportation.
Gamerwatha – Henry Wadsgoreth Longfeller
By the sores of Itchee Gummy
‘Cause of shining Big-Pee-Water
Stood the wig WARM of Nokanmiss
Daughter of Rev. Moon, Nokanmiss.
Dark behind it rose the Gorest,
Rose the slack and gloomy swampies,
Rose the curs with phones upon them;
Right before they beat the water,
Beat the clear and heavy water,
Beat the shining Big-Pee-Water.
There the wrinkled old Nokanmiss
Nursed the little Gamerwatha,
Rocked him in his Bushy cradle,
Bedded soft in Roves and Rushes,
Safely bound with Alpha Male sinews;
Stilled his fretful wail by saying,
“Hush! or the Pelosi Bear will hear thee!”
Lulled him into slumber, singing,
“Oy-vey! my little tuttle!
Who is this, that lights the wigwam?
His breath of fire lights the wigwam?
Quit burning down the f*cking wigwam!
Oy-vey! my little tuttle!”
tree hugging sister-
Outstanding work! I give it a 96. It has a great beat and you can dance to it…
tree hugging, I’m deeply grateful that you waited until I’d finished this here Diet Coke.
Ardsgaine, why is it either-or? Let’s say Newton believed in a God (as I understand he probably did). Why would he have had to stop at “God made the apple fall” rather than saying “Yes, well, it’s easily said that God made the apple fall because [clockwork deity] God created the scheme that ultimately caused the apple’s fall – I wonder what that scheme is?” or “[a more interventive deity] God not only created the scheme that caused the apple to fall but also created my intellect that urges me to seek patterns in the universe, and in fact is tickling that urge right now – I wonder what pattern I can discern here? Wow, intellect is a wonderful, if demanding, gift from God – I wonder what it’s made of?” etc., etc. Is there positive harm, in your eyes, in seeing a purpose to your life? Or, even if you yourself don’t believe your life does have a purpose, does it harm you if I believe my life (and yours, incidentally) has (have – I hate what parentheses do to my grammar) a purpose – a purpose I discern only imperfectly and only occasionally, but a purpose nonetheless?
Being religious doesn’t necessarily mean being anti-intellectual, much less blind. I, for instance, certainly don’t demand that you stop investigating the state of things in order to keep from approaching God too closely; I have a lot more faith in God than that.
Uh Oh
Jaime, I’m afraid to say that you have loosed the whirlwind which shall blow it’s mighty, godless, wind upon the faithful, wreaking keyboard damage and Aristotlean swoops of capitalist council! Be prepared for a 2 volume encyclopedia reply.
However, I’ve found that if you havs him a heavy glass filled with 25 yr. old Scotch/Rocks, he will turn away, murmuring to himself in tongues…
hand him. Stupid arthritic fingers…