This accusation of climate science malfeasance comes from here---the Moscow Based Institute for Economic Analysis (IEA), led by this Russian Libertarian and senior fellow at the CATO Institute. Though the site is in Russian, note the banner links down the left side of the page: Fraser Institute, Cato Institute, Hayek Institute, Freedom House. That's how you know its all crap.More by Mr. Lambert.
13 comments:
Curious.
When information comes from a scientist who, in black and white, suggests he would destroy documents to protect his own bias, we say, "Well, that doesn't mean he lied about EVERYTHING"..
When Al Gore has his stupid movie qualified by the British Courts as questionable propoganda, and gets caught, admittedly, lying..err.. "misspeaking".. we say, "Well, that doesn't mean he lied about everything.."
But when a story breaks that suggests these same guys are complicit in more lies.. the knee-jerk is "well, look who they associate with, enough said"?
I came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to take seriously the issue of global warming by asking myself, "what if it's true"?
Who is being close minded? Perhaps, at least, BCL, you should ask the same question of the Russian group.
"What if it's true?"
If there really is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists bent on worldwide domination then they will offer some competition to the Freemasons.
Who is being close minded? Perhaps, at least, BCL, you should ask the same question of the Russian group.
"What if it's true?"
It isn't. Not one bit.
Out of context statement by one scientist + stupid thing Al Gore said = group of privately funded think tanks who approach every issue from a pre-conceived angle and, without fail, always find evidence to support their worldview.
Pull the other one Rob.
I came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to take seriously the issue of global warming by asking myself, "what if it's true"?
And where did that get you? Did you follow that up by examining the evidence for the truth claims?
You seem to be confused, Rob. In assessing the claims reported by The Telegraph about the Institute for Economic Analysis, Tim Lambert assumed they were true and then examined the evidence.
That's how normal people act. When no evidence can be found, then a claim is unsupported at least.
If you want to falsify a claim, then you have to go looking for evidence that suggests an alternate explanation. This is what the deniers generally don't do.
BCL:
Sure, these people have a fairly clear free-market, anti-UN, and skeptical viewpoint. It's just too bad that you cant realize it's the same thing for the IPCC/environmentalists and "scientists" like Phil Jones, Michael Mann and James Hansen (Im not suggesting all climate scientists are corrupted, but the above 3 certainly cannot be considered objective following climategate - the AGW bandwagon employs a whole army of people - why would this not taint their analysis?)
And to quote Al Gore, or to repeat a quote Al Gore has used "when someone's job is based on not understanding something, they will not understand it" or something to that effect. To which I respond: EXACTLY!
Ti-Guy:
If you want to falsify a claim, then you have to go looking for evidence that suggests an alternate explanation.
Actually no. To falsify a claim, you need to show that the claim is inconsistent with observations. You do not need an alternative explanation.
Oh and BCL, I got to see your CBC appearance last night. Well done.
I am still a partisan conservative but on the issue of the so-called assassination picture, I am in full agreement with you. You seemed cool and collected and made more sense than Taylor's faux-outrage.
Oh yeah and Taylor's physical appearance was, hmmmm, eh, ..., unfortunate.
To falsify a claim, you need to show that the claim is inconsistent with observations. You do not need an alternative explanation.
What you're describing is the situation where the claim is merely unsupported by the evidence at hand. Falsified would entail evidence that demonstrates that the previous claim cannot be true.
Falsified would entail evidence that demonstrates that the previous claim cannot be true.
That's what I mean by claim is inconsistent with observations.
Example:
Claim = Ti-Guy was the second shooter in the grassy knoll.
Observation = Ti-Guy wasnt born when JFK was killed (I obviously dont know your age, just using this as an example)
The claim isnt compatible with the observation. You dont need to find that anyone else was in the grassy knoll to know that you were not there. Which is why Im saying that your statement that you have to go looking for evidence that suggests an alternate explanation is inaccurate.
PS: I dont actually think you killed JFK.
You're using an example with evidence that demonstrates a priori that the claim cannot be true. You're begging the question.
If you didn't have that (and most of the time, you don't), you'd only be able to conclude that the claim is unsupported.
If you didn't have that (and most of the time, you don't), you'd only be able to conclude that the claim is unsupported.
Yes you're right. But the only thing Im disputing here is your claim that falsification requires an alternate explanation. Im saying that finding an alternate explanation is distinct from falsification.
Using AGW theory as an example, if Henrik Svendmark's cosmic ray/solar cycle theory on climate was true, that wouldnt actually falsify AGW. It would provide an alternate explanation for the recent warming but it wouldnt say anything about AGW.
If however, whatever deal is reached in Copenhagen is dutifully ignored by its signatories the way Kyoto and the world continues to belch out CO2 unabated throughout the 21st century, and temperatures fall drastically, that would falsify AGW.
Well, now you're just losing me. I think you're making a major distinction between explanation and evidence. I'm not. If you have evidence that falsifies a claim, you have an explanation. Not necessarily a rigorously scientific and robust theory, but an explanation nonetheless.
Solar activity could still falsify AGW as far as I'm concerned. It's just that how it's been claimed to has not been well-supported.
Solar activity could still falsify AGW as far as I'm concerned. It's just that how it's been claimed to has not been well-supported.
This is really inside-baseball stuff and nitpicking on terminology on my part. But I think this distinction is real and important. I agree that solar activity is not yet supported enough by evidence to be accepted. But I dont see why AGW and solar activity couldnt both be true (strictly as a logical proposition, I dont actually believe in AGW, but of course I could be wrong).
Post a Comment