Spire
01-13-2010, 03:29 AM
ClimateGate and the Progressive Left
Hi. I just happened across this forum while looking for a discussion on Rachel's take on Climategate. She is a fantastic intersection between the progressive left and Geekdom, a sciency domain. The Left is on the side of science, reason, rationality (except in congress). Climategate has the legs for being a monster scandal in science, irrespective of right and left sensitivities. It is a monster because the consequences of the IPCC's thesis, anthropogenic global warming, includes a global governance board that collects carbon taxes. I have heard figures up to $47 Trillion at stake.
I'm not a climate scientist, but there are two very important sets of omissions uncovered in the East Anglia emails. The first involves historical events, namely the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent Little Ice Age -- these were not local phenoms. You do not even see them on the Hockey Stick; with them you would have a camel. The second set of omissions is the deleted data -- this is an immediate red flag in science, though it seems to be regarded as a measly little detail being exaggerated by the right. I assure you, it is extremely important, especially since tax dollars are paying for this work and because of the huge payoffs at stake as a result of their conclusions.
Then there's the name-calling ("deniers" and "flat-earthers") leveled towards the skeptics of AGW. You expect this from the right because they do it all the time. But name-calling along with appeals to consensus saying "AGW is settled science" -- over and over again -- and I get the idea we are looking more at a PR campaign than the most important science project of our lifetimes. These kinds of things tarnish respectable science; they make it crass. Further, if there was no there, there, -- as Rachel seems to imply -- why are there dozens of high level investigations into the released materials and their ramifications that provide at least the appearance of impropriety? Why wasn't Climategate settled in the first 72 hours, if there was no there, there?
Again, this science has nothing to do with the right and the left. It is on an entirely other level. Science is not a democracy. I think the left is a bit confused on this. Consensus is not, or ought not be, a tool for establishing or defending a scientific proposition. Replicability is.
Climategate changed the playing field and AGW is anything but settled. It is one of the greatest science headline stories in decades. (Back in the 70s it was all about the coming Ice Age.) I'm a real progressive, possibly worse, but not a commie. Folks like Rothschild at the helm of the eco movement worry me and I can't help thinking there are wolves at both ends of the continuum. And carbon taxes exacted by international banksters doesn't exactly fill me with warm fuzzies.
Overall it is a fascinating ongoing chapter in the modern history of the world. And Rachel, who is my favorite all-time multi-media journalist, thinks Climategate is just a bunch of poo. Truth, justice, social justice vs. GE? Or does she really, really feel that way? If so, why?
Hi. I just happened across this forum while looking for a discussion on Rachel's take on Climategate. She is a fantastic intersection between the progressive left and Geekdom, a sciency domain. The Left is on the side of science, reason, rationality (except in congress). Climategate has the legs for being a monster scandal in science, irrespective of right and left sensitivities. It is a monster because the consequences of the IPCC's thesis, anthropogenic global warming, includes a global governance board that collects carbon taxes. I have heard figures up to $47 Trillion at stake.
I'm not a climate scientist, but there are two very important sets of omissions uncovered in the East Anglia emails. The first involves historical events, namely the Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent Little Ice Age -- these were not local phenoms. You do not even see them on the Hockey Stick; with them you would have a camel. The second set of omissions is the deleted data -- this is an immediate red flag in science, though it seems to be regarded as a measly little detail being exaggerated by the right. I assure you, it is extremely important, especially since tax dollars are paying for this work and because of the huge payoffs at stake as a result of their conclusions.
Then there's the name-calling ("deniers" and "flat-earthers") leveled towards the skeptics of AGW. You expect this from the right because they do it all the time. But name-calling along with appeals to consensus saying "AGW is settled science" -- over and over again -- and I get the idea we are looking more at a PR campaign than the most important science project of our lifetimes. These kinds of things tarnish respectable science; they make it crass. Further, if there was no there, there, -- as Rachel seems to imply -- why are there dozens of high level investigations into the released materials and their ramifications that provide at least the appearance of impropriety? Why wasn't Climategate settled in the first 72 hours, if there was no there, there?
Again, this science has nothing to do with the right and the left. It is on an entirely other level. Science is not a democracy. I think the left is a bit confused on this. Consensus is not, or ought not be, a tool for establishing or defending a scientific proposition. Replicability is.
Climategate changed the playing field and AGW is anything but settled. It is one of the greatest science headline stories in decades. (Back in the 70s it was all about the coming Ice Age.) I'm a real progressive, possibly worse, but not a commie. Folks like Rothschild at the helm of the eco movement worry me and I can't help thinking there are wolves at both ends of the continuum. And carbon taxes exacted by international banksters doesn't exactly fill me with warm fuzzies.
Overall it is a fascinating ongoing chapter in the modern history of the world. And Rachel, who is my favorite all-time multi-media journalist, thinks Climategate is just a bunch of poo. Truth, justice, social justice vs. GE? Or does she really, really feel that way? If so, why?