Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Does this kid have some sort of handbook of right-wing talking points?

First of all, the climategate 'scandal' was blown way out of proportion by the right and their hyperbole. If you actually read all the emails in context and understand the scientific jargon of what they are saying, instead of making knee-jerk reactions, you will see that nothing substantial was said. The only thing that it showed was that the climate scientists needed to be more open with the data, which does nothing to undermine the actual climate science.

"they had distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views"

Dishonest and exaggerated. What right-wing blog did you get this from? You would be right if data was actually 'destroyed' and preventing of 'publication of dissenting views' actually happened, but they didn't.

"When science combines with politics, a little skepticism will serve us well."

"History shows that liberals are in the habit of manufacturing climate change fears every few decades. Americans must not forget this fraud like they did the global cooling scare of the 1970s"

Yes.. complain about politics being forced into science and then write a completely one-sided political column in which you distort science to enforce your agenda. Whatever dude.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on February 10, 2010 at 9:41 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Nice spin Fugu, but unfortunately the global warming religionists have produced their own world-class version of Clinton's "stained blue dress." And it's not going to wash away. Even their political ALLIES are calling 'em out on this one.

Here's a great example from editor Clive Crooks (Atlantic Monthly/Financial Times) from 2009:

"I'm also surprised by the IPCC's response. Amid the self-justification, I had hoped for a word of apology, or even of censure. (George Monbiot called for Phil Jones to resign, for crying out loud.)

"At any rate I had expected no more than ordinary evasion. The declaration from Rajendra Pachauri that the emails confirm all is as it should be is stunning. Science at its best. Science as it should be.

Good lord. This is pure George Orwell. And these guys call the other side 'deniers.'"

Perfectly stated. Climategate is real, and if it had taken place within Wall Street or other big business venues, some of these global warmers would be facing RICO jail time--which they surely deserve!!

American

• Upvote 0
• Posted by mellotron on February 10, 2010 at 10:08 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Real or not, can we stop calling it "Climategate"?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by reuben on February 10, 2010 at 11:33 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Okay,

So let's say global warming is not occuring or is not affected in large by our carbon footprint as we have been led to believe.

What do we do when our oil and coal run out and the alternatives have been kept on the back burner because global warming was no longer an issue?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Dan on February 10, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific backbone behind climate change. I try to follow the science the best I can, which can't be said for most people in the debate.

Attempts to cherry pick bits and pieces of information from the science to advance one's political agenda feeds the skeptic machine to absurd levels. Also using terminology like 'climate gate', 'global warming religionists', 'plotting to destroy', 'conspiracy', and using scare tactics by talking about a 'great excuse to raise taxes and slap more regulations on corporations' and an likening it to an Orwellian State have no real value other than to creating and perpetuating a meme in which everyone starts to believe. It's unfortunate that it has worked so well with some. It's only a 'slam dunk issue' when you distort and spin the truth.

I will say again that this so called 'climategate' is not what it has been spun to be. I invite you, mellotron, to look objectively into 'climategate' and tell me what exactly those East Anglia climate scientists need 'jailtime' for? If you truly put everything in context and look objectively, you will find that nobody "distorted research' 'destroyed data' or 'prevented the publication of dissenting views'.

I also invite you to take your knowledge on climate science and tell me how anything that the IPCC has done really undermines the sciences behind AGW, and while your at it, publish your findings in a peer reviewed journal.

Also, there are several climate scientists right here at KU. If you are so sure that the science is part of some 'liberal agenda' why don't you take your concerns to them? I mean, you have such strong proof that the science is a hoax right (one of them even helped out with an IPCC report)? Why don't you enlighten our own climate scientists with your profound grasp climate change.

Fact check 'climategate': http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/ Wanna learn more about the science? realclimate.org

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Fugu on February 10, 2010 at 1:27 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Obligatory: cool story, bro.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by G_E on February 10, 2010 at 4:55 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Last time I checked, scientific evidence had no ideological bias. It is, simply, factual.

I'm also pretty sure liberals have not been fabricating or doctoring SST or albedo changes that have been monitored for decades or "manufacturing climate change fears" as you say. How about you pop over to Lindley and have a talk with some tenured professors/leaders in physical geography who don't confuse truth and fact with reports on Fox News.

I'm also curious where your "facts" or research is coming from. From this, it's pretty obvious you haven't earned the right to your extreme right wing opinion based on an argument with no credible, factual research. You just end up looking like an idiot.

Writers/columnist like you who are so loyal to a party or ideology that they refuse to recognize fact and truth is exactly what is wrong with journalism today. I can at least respect an opinion I don't agree with when it is truthful.

Good luck getting a job in this economy, buddy. I'm pretty sure employers these days, especially in journalism, are looking for honesty and integrity.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by richardlee on February 10, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

The real question would be why people who say they are interested in science are so much in a hurry to sweep Climategate, and the subsequent IPCC scandal, under the rug. Exactly how does "not calling it Climategate" solve anything? That's like saying, "Don't call it Watergate" or "Don't call it Travelgate." Honestly doesn't work, folks.

(Besides, as of November 2009, the term had appeared on the Internet over 9 million times, according to Christopher Booker of the Telegraph (UK). The word "Climategate" is not going to go away anytime soon.)

The first step to replacing bad science with good science--especially when people are being preached at to pay trillions of dollars in the name of that science--is to stop pretending that bad science has occurred. And with both Climategate and the subsequent IPCC "glacier" scandals, EXTREMELY bad science has taken place.

Just how bad can bad get? Start by checking out Christopher Booker's article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

As Booker asked, "What is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?"

Now check out the IPCC "glacier" scandal, (which wasmentioned by Chet Compton). How bad can that one get? William Engdahl explains it:

http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/engdahl/2010/0122.html

As an appetizerl, notice this statement from a leading IPCC scientist:

"Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published.

"This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."

What kind of mess is that? Can anybody refute what glacier scientist Kaser wrote? Know of any KU professors that have refuted his statement? No?

Remember, people are being asked to pony up trilliions and trillions of dollars in the name of the global warming religion. But "Climategate" represents YEARS of solid unscientific crap, being passed off as "science", Worse yet, because of all of the faking and foolishness, we now can't even go back and retrieve the CORRECT climate data to draw accurate conclusions with.

These are seriously messy scandals that some of you seek to downplay or deny. By doing so, you merely confirm that your belief in global warming is a religion, not a science.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by mellotron on February 11, 2010 at 6:29 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

I wasn't saying that it's not as scandal, as it seems like you are implying, I was just remarking on how stupid I think it is to just add the word "gate" on the end of something for people to know it's a scandal.

A set of emails or a flawed report made by someone who took some quotations out of context, no matter how rude or obviously wrong they look now, do not outweigh decades of research.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by reuben on February 11, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Compton: Scientific skepticism key in good politics

Decades of research end up in conflict with each other in many cases, though. It's not clear-cut as some would have you believe that we are facing a period of catastrophic global warming brought about by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.

If this isn't the case then treaties, laws, and taxes initiated for the purpose of restricting carbon dioxide emissions are a waste of human resources that could have been used for other purposes.

It's not a trivial question, a matter of right wing ideologues vs. left wing ideologues. It's a question of resource allocation. Any time someone says "the science is beyond dispute," that person is ignoring a great deal of research that makes it obvious that the AGW theory is not completely solid.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by connerm on February 11, 2010 at 1:41 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal