From ABC News:
Some of Mann’s main points and charges in include:
– “New McCarthyism” in US legislature directed at US climate scientists; details
– Death threats, dead rats, scientists’ families threatened.
– Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., campaign has aimed to discredit climate scientists…
– Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, misrepresented Mann’s science
– National Science Foundation and other panels have cleared Mann
– Koch Brothers, Scaife Foundation, involved in fossil fuel efforts to discredit the climate science
– Organized email and letter campaigns have intimidated and silenced climate scientists; details
– Believes intimidation campaigns will fail if “exposed to the light of day”
The political war against scientists has been described as the new McCarthyism because scientists have been so bullied and intimidated, many just do their work and keep their mouths shut. This behavior has been going on for over 10 years. Our own attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli sued for Mann’s emails. He was told he didn’t have standing.
The tobacco industry attempted to silence science for years. The attitudes in Europe are quite different than in the United States, for example. There has been a strong attempt to silence the entire science community who researches changes in climate. I wonder who could be trying to silence them? Hmmmmmmm …the fossil fuel industry? Perhaps.
I am simply not willing to bet the ranch on industry being right and the preponderance of scientific findings being wrong. That just makes no sense and there is only one earth. You screw that up, and there is no place else to go. The bullying and McCarthyism must stop. The use of government to thwart distribution of scientific discovery and discussion is a serious violation of trust and use of taxpayer money.
The entire transcript can be seen at ABC News.
Wow. I went away for a while and things blew up. First, I apologize for any insults taken. They were not intended. The point of the discussion was only in the context of Dr. Mann’s over the top findings and recomendations to reduce carbon emmissions and the support of Dr. Manns findings and, apparantly, his AGW solutions on this blog. He really does seek serious government intervention in ways that will severely impact our economy and our society and has been accused of “tailoring” the data to make his findings fit his recommended solutions. Having now gone over the discussion again several times, I also suggest that conservatives, capitalists, hat some folks are willing to do to oly
Actually, yes they (the insults ) were intended unless you have the social skills of chimpanzee. You don’t call people Maoist or socialist or communist because you think they might disagree with you. You especially don’t call the blog owner those names or any names. last time I am going to do my manners lesson.
I doubt that Mann seeks serious government intervention. What does THAT mean?
He has been cleared of any academic wrong-doing by several different groups of academic peers.
As for McCarthyism, Any time a government attempts to deprive a person of their livelihood by continual harrassment..that’s pretty much an attempt at depriving a person of their 1st amendment rights. The man has been cleared of academic wrong-doing. Just because his scientific findings aren’t to your liking, doesn’t mean he has to live under house arrest, like Galileo did, for the rest of his life. He has a vert strong acadademic background in math, physics, geology, meteorology and environmental sciences.
I don’t like it that the use of tabacco damages your lungs and other organs either. but facts is facts, as they say.
Opps. Not sure why that happened.
Having now gone over the discussion again several times, I also suggest that conservatives, capitalists, and those that did not buy into Dr.Mann, both on this blog and from the scientific community itself not be called McCarthyites or bullies. Those words carry historical meaning too and as pointed out here, Dr. Mann has his share of trying to stiffle debate and the vetting of his findings. I do not take offense at being called a capitalist or a conservative – as I beleive was intended. Actually, I wish I was better – more effective at both.
Now, to clarify, in reading through some of the literature and debate I do not beleive that Dr. Mann’s findings have yet been proven conclusive. I am even more concerned by the use of this government to use Dr.Manns findings to significantly restrict our use of energy, make society even more dependent on the government and further restrict private enterprise. Especially not now. This country would not exist but from a mini-ice age that impacted the British logistics system
No one will be called a bully if they don’t bully others.
You tried to bully me by denigrating me with highly politically offensive names rather than giving opposition to the ideas presented in the article.
I rest my case. Don’t bully and you won’t be called a bully.
By the way, you picked on the wrong girl here.
Moderation ???
I think that no conservative jumped to your defense because you so ably did it yourself, immediately.
The reason AGW is brought up because that is Mann’s topic…not pollution. We’re not talking about pollution. They are not the same. And we have pointed that out repeatedly. And yet, when we talk about AGW, which is the apparent topic… you say that we need to talk about pollution.
You ignore what we say.
You reject out of hand our sources.
Why discuss this anymore?
I don’t ignore what you say. I had nightmares all last night over what you say. I dont like your one source. You are right. I don’t reject it. How can I reject it. Others can read it. I just know what he is going to say. You have your go to source to disprove something. ie H:e has an agenda.
How on earth can you discuss carbon based gases from fossil fuels without discussing pollution? If you reduce all pollution you will have taken care of the problem many scientists attribute to global warming.
Moon, you asked how this was viewed in NY, It turns out most New Yorker’ believe in science,so we don’t mind changing our light bulbs and turning off the AC when we’re not home because burning fossil fuels does effect our climate apparently unlike the skies over Virginia
@Moon-howler
Fossil fuels put out pollution.
They also put out CO2.
CO2 causes plants to grow.
Pollution degrades the environment.
You cannot get rid of all pollution. You can reduce it, but you can’t get rid of it. Everything has a cost. Changing to the new light bulbs does not actually save the planet. They contain mercury and are made in China where there are fewer pollution controls and ship here by cargo ship, also using polluting oil.
By all means, I agree that pollution needs to be reduced. But, I don’t agree that CO2 is a pollutant. Otherwise, the EPA has control over our very breath.
@Cargo, there aren’t enough plants to use all the co2 also.
Of course you can’t get rid of all pollution. But you can cut down on a lot of it. Incremental change is better than no change at all. I don’t want to stop getting those big peapod bags. I use them in my trash cans, thus, I am not buying plastic bags for the cans. I am recycling. That is just a little bit of change. but it all adds up. Incandescent bulbs are also made in china…so….ditch China would be my solution for that.
Cargo, now realistically, how can co2 not be a pollutant? How can CO not be a pollutant. If carbon is given off in exhaust, it is a pollutant.
Could not beleive I saw this today:
Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought – and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years.
Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html#ixzz20KkX73ee
@Cargosquid
co2 is not a pollutant in moderation, up until the Industrial revolution there was a balance between co2 and the amount plants could convert to oxygen. Now we have overwhelmed the plants capability to convert.At the risk of repeating myself, according to the theory, carbon dioxide controls temperature because the carbon dioxide molecules in the air absorb infrared radiation. The carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere are virtually transparent to the visible radiation that delivers the sun’s energy to the earth. But the earth in turn reradiates much of the energy in the invisible infrared region of the spectrum..
@Bear
Bear: Your explanation is so oversimplified as to be almost misleading.
CO2 is a very mild greenhouse gas. One could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect by itself would be to increase temperature by only about 1 degree. Very strong warming can result only if the small increase in temperature from CO2 leads to increases in water vapor and cloud cover that amplify the small initial warming. These are known as climate feedbacks — they are non-linear and poorly understood.
The small effect of carbon dioxide is well known and understood by skeptics and proponents alike. In order to get catastrophic climate change, virtually all of the feedbacks have to be positive (i.e. amplify initial warming) and large. However, the feedbacks have proved to be very difficult to quantify, and so there is little evidence to support their modeled values.
Although there are other important debates, a primary controversy is over the sign and magnitude of the individual feedbacks.
So the 10,000 scientists who support various theories involving global warming should be be bullied and mistreated by the govt. Got it. Also, folks explaining various theories should talk up and use big words so that no one knows what they are saying.
Makes perfect sense to me. NOT.
If man keeps burning down the amazon and jungles there will be even less plant life to utilize the C02. How many forests are depleted in a week?
It is all one big vicious circle.
So Kelly, what’s wrong with basic explanations? You want to dazzle us with words?
I guess your previous post was directed at me. I’m not sure what big words I used, but I am willing to discuss what I wrote.
As I have said before, science is not a democracy, so I am not troubled at all to be in the minority. But if it’s numbers that interest you, consider this: A survey of the membership of the American Meteorological Society (of which climatologists are a part) found that 56% believe that global warming is much less of a concern than claimed by the climate community. So those in the AMS whose livelihoods do not depend on the existence of global warming are much less alarmed by it.
As for intimidation by the government, these guys are heavily involved in political activities to get laws passed that would affect my freedoms, such as cap and trade. They have moved from providing subject matter expertise to heavy lobbying. If they limited their activities to research and were being harassed, then that would be a different story. But they have established themselves as political partisans who engage in vigorous lobbying and intimidation themselves that goes far beyond scientific research. So I am not all that sympathetic.
I saw that you asked about my degree in a much earlier post. My degrees are in a branch of physics and I do work in that field. If you want more details, send me an email.
I didn’t accuse you of using big words. I was defending Bear because you said he was being overly simplistic and I was being sarcastic. It’s a bad habit of mine.
Interesting choice of words.
To me, that doesn’t dismiss the fact that climate change exists, it simply means 56% aren’t doing the Henny Penny thing. What does worry me is that 44% of them must be very concerned. Does that cause anyone else discomfort? It sure does me. In the world of math estimation, it is easy to now say that nearly half of all the climatologists are very concerned over climate change. I would rather take the moderate approach myself.
@Spider Tingle
So what’s wrong is that CO2 by itself does not have much effect on the climate. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, it produces a small warming that generates indirect effects, leading to big climate changes. For example, it is hypothesized that warming by CO2 would result in more water vapor in the atmosphere, which would produce a lot more warming in the atmosphere. There is no proof that this increase in water vapor is actually happening, but that is what the climate models predict.
There are many hypothesized “feedbacks” other than the one I was just talking about, which is called the water vapor feedback. If the models get these feedbacks wrong, then the dire predictions of strong warmings are likely to be incorrect..
@Kelly, it sounds like saying we aren’t sure is probably the most accurate answer. I am comfortable with not sure. I am not comfortable with “I know for a fact this is not going to happen.”
The great thing about all of this is that our life span is so short that we won’t be around when someone finally comes up with the answers about cause and effect of global warming. What a shame.
And yes, the earth has been warmer and colder than it is now. It was much warmer when all of the matter that is now “fossil” fuel was being developed and I suspect it was a hell of a lot colder during the ice age. Or did Amy of that really happen? Maybe the oil and coal were created by whatever supreme being you believed created the earth/universe. And the ice age? Well maybe the creator left the fridge door open one night.
Does any of it really make any difference? Probably not. One good meteor strike and it would not be an issue. Or, as seems to be going on, in a few millennia, all of this will be under the Atlantic Ocean or whatever it will be called then. The New Capital will probably be in St. Louis or perhaps Denver–renamed, “The New Washington DC” or “Washington DC West”, which will really be the new east.
Botto line–may not make a rat’s ass bit of difference what we do unless we blow ourselves up.
@Bear
At the risk of repeating myself, I understand the greenhouse effect. What I seem to have to repeat is that scientists are still arguing what amount of forcing, if any, the greenhouse effect has, if the greenhouse effect is actually valid, and if so, is it valid in a global weather system.
So, until the warmists start treating this like a crisis and stop jetting around to conferences, until they release raw data to other scientists without a need for FOIA requests, and treat it like real science and not politics…. I’ll keep my skepticism.
The main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity are:
-burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations in the air. Land use change (mainly deforestation in the tropics) account for up to one third of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
-livestock enteric fermentation (we must stop animals from farting) and manure management (and pooping), paddy rice farming (particularly by those farmers who use poop for fertilizer), land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are sources of atmospheric methane (perhaps we also need to stop people from pooping).
-use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.
-agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations.