Someone obviously has a lot of money to push this agenda.

Too bad the teach-in wasn't today. The snow might have saved a few young minds from even more completely one-sided, intellectually void brainwashing.

What happened to the great tradition of debate at universities? Are we too scared to listen to other points of view? Are we gods who need to save the world, and have no time or patience for dissent?

Sad to see the US educational system turning into just another Soviet style brainwashing machine.

Reply: Actually PH it was a very open forum. People in the audience were allowed to speak and throw whatever question they wanted to at the panel, and there was plenty of good debate between the panel and some people from the audience who had opposing views.

How many experts with opposing viewpoints were invited and allowed to speak? Reply: In terms of opposing experts, I did not see any. I was just talking about members of the audience.

People should read about how the Fascists came to power in Italy and Germany. There are many parallels between them and the politically correct crowd that runs our colleges and universities.

Reply: Wow!! That's all I can say about that comment.

I am glad that they were able to have this form of disucssion. However, there seemed to be quite a bias amongst the 3 at PSU. And when the big screen showed Mann and Alley, any doubt left the table. If this was a serious teach in, opposition views would be on the stage not in the peanut gallery.

And I'm sorry, how does Ozone recovery fit into climate change? (Reply: I would suggest looking up Dr. Anne Thompson of PSU. She is currently involved with the subject.) I was under the impression that the last round of economic losses endured by the american consumer addressed their concerns.

Can anyone tell me why nearly all of the researchers who believe in the theory of AGW seem to exhibit the stereotypical appearance of a 60's hippy concerned mostly about the "man"? Not that I'm saying anything or nothing...

I am glad that opposing views were allowed to ask questions, but I am more curious of how the presenters responded. Did they look down upon the question as unenlightened or did they seriously think about the response? (Reply: No, I did not get the impression that they looked down upon a question. They were certainly not vain.)Based upon the tenor of the statements put forth by the three, I would be willing to bet their was condenscension in their voices. Reply: Not from this group.

I wonder if Patrick or other deniers would support an intelligent design "teach-in"?

Hi Brett,

Fair enough. But why where there not dissenting experts on the panel? Reply: I do not know. I guess that question should be sent to the Focus the Nation committee.

Creating the impression of a huge body of alarmed experts vs. uneducated masses is perpetuating the media/Dan Fagin myth of "only two or three skeptical scientists left in the world."

Do the students not deserve to hear from or about the substantial body of dissenting scientists?

Mark:
To answer your question, no.
I for one would not give Intelligent Design any more credence than AGW.
Both are Ideologically driven.
Both rely on junk science
Both demand unquestioning faith from their followers
Both ridicule any descant ion.
Both begin with the conclusion and cherry pick the facts to support it.
Both depend on Goebbelsian methodology to propagate the myth.
I certainly would NEVER advocate that believers should be censored in any way however.

heh, heh, mark,

that was pretty good...especially from an AGW'r...have a nice day, bro...

Hi Mark. Why not? It would give legitimate science a chance to prove or dis-prove Intelligent Design once and for all. Isn't that how science is supposed to work? After all, Intelligent Design is only a theory, nothing to be afraid of, right? Maybe we can learn something from studying it. Maybe we can learn how to fill in the gaps of evolutionary theory. If Intelligent Design is proven incorrect, that would only strenghten evolutionary theory correct?

To the current topic: Even Hansen says that all aspects of climate change are not fully understood. Why not present everything related to climate change? What about the sun? Solar Cycle 24 hasn't started yet and has many thinking that we may be in store for another Dalton Minimum type event.

If the goal is to teach and enlighten, give them all of the information.

Hi Mark,

I would love to see a serious debate in our schools about the origins of life.

No one knows enough about it to hold a "teach-in." One extreme is armed with a literal interpretation the Bible, and the other extreme has just enough factual information to be spectacularly deluded.

It would be best to not let either of those groups dominate the discussion.

This should have been presented there:
Its a must read:
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Excerpt:
David Archibald
International Conference on Climate Change
March, 2008
Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and nature are suspended? No, we do not. Can we expect relationships between the Sun�s activity and climate, that we can see in data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years? With absolute certainty.
In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth�s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.
To put the solar � climate relationship in context, we will begin by looking at the recent temperature record, and then go further back in time.
Then we will examine the role of the Sun in changing climate, and following that the contribution of anthropogenic warming from carbon dioxide. I will show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial. The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better the planet will be � for humans, and all other living things.

There was at least one hopeful sign-a lot of empty seats. I have yet to meet a single person in my circle of friends and acquaintances who buys into the GW hysteria.

Fair enough on the replies. Concern withdrawn on my behalf.

While I am curious about the ozone issue the Prof. mentioned, I guess I will have to prove BT right on this topic, not gonna bother looking up a bunch of academic data on the topic. Just wanted the cliff notes version at this point. I'm sure the issue is amazingly stimulating.

Mark:

I suppose you could try to have an "intelligent design" or other conservative topic teach in. And I would suppose that many would attend. The problem would be that it could never get off the ground because wildly liberal groups and individuals would likely sue to stop it. If that didn't work well enough they would picket it into submission. We see this often that it is OK to have a meeting about a liberal talking point in today's society but if you dare to mention anything even remotely considered conservative out come the insta-mob to harass you.

Fair enough. But why where there not dissenting experts on the panel? Reply: I do not know. I guess that question should be sent to the Focus the Nation committee.

Apparently Lindzen and McIntyre were unavailable.

Creating the impression of a huge body of alarmed experts vs. uneducated masses is perpetuating the media/Dan Fagin myth of "only two or three skeptical scientists left in the world."

I think a better description is reporting the truth. We've agreed that Lindzen and McIntyre qualify. How many more similarly qualified scientists does PH suggest there are? Oreskes couldn't find any, based on peer-reviewed literature. PH has ducked the question every time it's been asked here, so apparently he don't have any to offer.

If the population is small enough that Lindzen and McIntyre are the only names we've got so far, how large does PH assert it is? Are there 50 qualified scientists who reject the AJW hypothesis? 100?

I submit that the actual number is comparable to the number of credentialed biologists who assert the truth of the "theory" of Intelligent Design -- namely, not many -- if any at all.

Do the students not deserve to hear from or about the substantial body of dissenting scientists?

This "substantial body" exists only in the hearts and blogs of the right-wing contrarian blog world.

As we've already established here, the principle characteristic of the "substantial body" that PH generally cites here is their status as charlatan, crank, crackpot, religious fanatic, industry lackey, or some combination of all of the above. Haven't we already seen enough of Singer and Ball?

Beyond Lindzen, McIntyre, and say a dozen or so more, there just aren't any "dissenting scientists". That's the best and most factual answer to the question of why they aren't on any such panels. It's the reason why they aren't represented in the peer-reviewed literature.

They aren't represented because they don't exist.

"People should read about how the Fascists came to power in Italy and Germany. There are many parallels between them and the politically correct crowd that runs our colleges and universities."

I'm not as surprised as Brett was with this comment. The right-wing constantly compares every little thing with fascism, communism, and Marxism, and they have some perverse obsession with the idea that we face a nuclear holocaust if we don't do X, Y and Z. Someone needs to tell them that the Cold War is over.

What our right-wing friends -- and, by association, AGW deniers -- don't seem to understand is that their scare-tactics are an attempt to govern by fear. It is no different than the forms governments they criticize.

OK BT.
Have at it. Here is a partial list.

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal'
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

150 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/Open_Letter.pdf

105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change'
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html

100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations'
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

77 Skeptical Scientists (
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming'
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html

41 Scientists debunk global warming alert
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/23/dt2301.xml

35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers'
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

And the BIG Concensus��..
Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007
http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

BT says "their status as charlatan, crank, crackpot, religious fanatic, industry lackey, or some combination of all of the above."

I would tell BT to go to Hell, but he would undoubtedly complain to the Devil about the warmth until Hell freezes over... Academic Myopia and plain bigotry are difficult to differentiate; both are despicable when their only arguments are insults and denigration. I don't believe in Intelligent Design - not if it resulted in BT.

Mark:
Bush is a good example of an extreme. He has been our first facist President. Look up the defention! No hyperbole. The reaction to this stranger in a strange land, has been a good lesson for those fringy people. He has ruined our economy, made America hated around the world, and will loose the favor of his party,when the republicans lose next November. You have to be smart about what you wish for. If the debate was misrepresented then why didn't one of these University students stand up and say so. Don't let your kid be one that sits by, but encourage him to be involved. We get what we deserve.
Kipp

Hi BT,

No matter how many times the lists of skeptics and non-alarmists are published, you choose to ignore and forget about them.

Here is one particularly distinguished group.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

Mark,

My wife grew up in the Soviet Union. They had excellent schools for core academics, and the children were generally only presented one viewpoint about social or political issues. It was believed that for the good of society, disruptive thoughts should not be presented to the children.

She can can scarcely see the difference between the Soviet schools and the public schools my children attend now, other than the fact that US academic standards are much lower. No teacher would dare question global warming (or any other PC topic) because they would be made to suffer for it.

The world depends on raising carbon-neutral, politically correct children, and there is no longer time for debate. It is just too dangerous to delay any longer, and debate will only slow down the all-important working of playing god and making a vain, irrational and futile attempt to save the world from the carbon bogeyman.

Dear Brett, this is what I and millions of others are talking about! This one-sided horsecrap like the "Teach-in" poluting our young childrens minds! Reply: what young children. Those in attendance were college students (young adults who can decide for themselves). Brett......Where is your Accuweather objective point of view? Putting some nice looking "babe" on the childrens screen of influence is not objective but is certainly pervasive. Paul

Patrick,

Schools are simply teaching what modern science tells us today. There are a few scientists out there who do not believe tobacco is carcinogenic. Should they be teaching this in schools to appease "the other point of view?" There are some crackpots out there who believe asbestos and lead aren't that bad for us, and our decision to eliminate them back in the 1970s was wrong. Should this "other point of view" be taught in schools? Give me a break.

The science is what it is, and even though it's hard for you to accept, the fact is that a large majority of scientists agree that AGW is happening. If the other side of a scientific issue is in a small minority -- as is the case with AGW -- they do not have any right to have "equal" 50/50 representation. This isn't speech and debate.

I have no problem with textbooks mentioning that further research is being done and all of the intricacies of our climate aren't fully understood, but to have charlatans like Dr. Gray or Steve Milloy given their own pages in a textbook is what would truly corrupt a child's mind.

Evolution is settled science. Yet, most schools do not teach this because the religious right-wing will not allow it. That, Patrick, is more representative of Soviet style schooling than anything you have mentioned.

"I suppose you could try to have an "intelligent design" or other conservative topic teach in"

You couldn't have a teach-in for intelligent design because there is no science behind it. What the heck would they talk about? What papers would they reference?

I think these teach-ins are for science and math and perhaps other academic areas. I don't think they are for political issues or "conservative topics." Yes, AGW has been politicized by the right-wing, but the science is what it is and it appears that the teach-in simply discussed the state of the science today.

The problem is deniers don't want to discuss the state of the science today, because it is inconvenient to their political views. Plain and simple.

GAry -
Hey. Don't forget to include Bishop George Browning of Canberra among the skeptics. His standard of scientific evidence is even lower than the rest of those listed, improbable as that seems.
J A

Hi Mark,

As a scientist and an engineer, I can assure you that there are as many different opinions as there are individuals.

The concept of "settled science" is a left-wing fantasy. We are just barely scratching the surface with our knowledge in many fields, including climate and our understanding of life processes. That is what makes it fun and exciting to do science.

Teaching children only one point of view is a need of small, scared minds.

Jay Alt:
"His standard of scientific evidence is even lower than the rest of those listed, ..."

Wow. I am impressed. You were able to look up 5000+ names in a matter of hours and determin that they are all inconsequential boobs.

YOU ARE IMPRESSIVE, I must say.

The Penn State Focus the Nation event participants were specifically all Penn State faculty and students. The reason there were no viewpoints in opposition to anthropogenic climate change for this event is because we have no (climate or meteorological) scientists on faculty at Penn State who actually take opposition with the AGW viewpoint. If we did, or if there actually was any sort of debate going on within our scientific community, we would have reflected this in the content.

The Penn State event was 1 of over 1600 across the country. Our event was specific to our institution and in recognition of the accomplishments Penn State has made in climate and meteorological science, as well as in human geography and ecology. Please do not judge all Focus the Nation events and their content based on ours.

If you are looking for an opposing viewpoint to climate science, I suggest you sort through the other 1599 or so events that went on. I'm sure you'll find an opposing voice or two in there somewhere.

For a complete list and recording of events and presentations, please visit the websites: http://pennstatefocusthenation.org and http://focusthenation.org

Penn State Propagandize The Nation,

Thanks you so much for the gratuitous response. No doubt there isn't a single scientist in Pennsylvania with a dissenting viewpoint.

Odd though, I've heard rumors that there is a fairly vocal skeptic who works for a local company, named Joe Bastardi. Apparently those rumors must be mistaken. But you did manage to find Michael Mann, who contributed a notoriously discredited piece of the IPCC report.

It also seems that out here in Colorado the organizers were unable to locate either of the Pielkes, Bill Gray or Chris Landsea.

Because dissenting points of view just don't exist. Just like in the Soviet Union.

The reason there were no viewpoints in opposition to anthropogenic climate change for this event is because we have no (climate or meteorological) scientists on faculty at Penn State who actually take opposition with the AGW viewpoint. If we did, or if there actually was any sort of debate going on within our scientific community, we would have reflected this in the content.

Is this clear enough?

The cranks, crackpots, extremists, and industrial lackeys will, of course, claim this as evidence of a vast conspiracy. Sort of like the vast conspiracy that resulted in the "myth" of the Apollo moon landings, or the vast conspiracy that results in the "myth" of the fossil record.

The rest of us see that, rightly or wrongly, with the academic and scientific communities, the science is settled and the debate is over.

My goodness, do I detect a bit of BT type arrogance in the response from Penn State Focus the Nation?

Dr. Richard P. Feynman, the late scientist who won the 1965 Nobel Prize in physics, would be rolling over, no that would be thrashing, in his grave right now, based on where the US educational system appears to be going.

*In April 1966 Dr Feynman, the master teacher, delivered an address to the National Science Teachers Association in which he gave his fellow teachers lessons on how to teach their students to think like a scientist and how to view the world with curiosity, open-mindedness, and above all, doubt.*

An Excerpt taken from his speech entitled *What Is Science?*

*You teachers who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, maybe you can doubt the experts once in a while. Learn from science that you MUST doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.*

From *The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, The best short works of Richard P. Feynman.*

Penn State Focus the Nation:

I have a serious question:
If anyone on Penn State Staff came forward and stated opposition to AGW Theory, What would be the reaction of the rest of faculty and what effect would it have on their future employment status.
Please answer as honestly as you can.

My honest belief is that they would be professionally shuned because Acedemia is notoriously Left wing.

Hi BT,

Yes, it is very clear that Penn State is lacking the diversity required of a great University.

Princeton, Harvard, MIT, and Rutgers all have well known skeptics on their faculty. Consider Boulder, Colorado - home of the Pielkes and of NCAR. Very diverse viewpoints, which allows students the opportunity to think and debate - the mark of an intellectual community.

Sad that Penn State meteorology students are being overexposed to Mann's ugly manipulations with no counter-balance. They will be likely be crippled professionally.
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/images/jpgs/Mann_InterviewScreenshot.jpg

As a child, I lived on a hill overlooking Oxford. I could see the spires of Christ Church College out the bedroom window, and frequently imagined the wonderful debates which went on there. It is diversity of opinion which makes a great university.

It is genuinely sad to see people so fearful and insecure that they feel the need to exclude other points of view.

I didn't intend to get the discussion off-topic with my previous comment.

Many people mistakenly believe Fascists were right-wing, but they were actually left-wing. The Fascists wanted to destroy contemporary morality, destroy religion, destroy contemporary society and replace them with Utopian designs of their own making.

Hmmm....Wow, somebody seems to have touched a nerve so much so that the conference itself felt it needed to reply.

So what is really being stated is that the faculty at PSU are in lockstep possibly solely to garner grants or other recognition. Frankly, I found it amazing that no one on staff has an issue with the "settled" science.

I would love a reply to this question (if the writer of the post could oblige me): Take a poll of the staff at PSU, would they consider themselves to be in favor or not of the environmental movements of the 70's and 80's? Also, while their at it, do they tend to vote conservative or liberal?

But since everyone is of one belief, and I am sure it is based solely upon their great understanding of all things climatological, I would love to hear their collective predictions for the metereology of the next year or so. And since they have likely bought into AGW for years, can they let us know what their prediction was for last year and how they fared?

The science is settled. No need for IPCC, NOAA or NASA. No need to spend more money researching the sun, the moon, the oceans or future climate. The science is settled.

Brookline Tom would like us to believe that any scientist, researcher, journalist or average citizen that dis-agrees with the "consensus" of AGW is a crank, crackpot, extremist or industry lackey. He would also like us to believe that anyone who dis-agrees with the AGW consensus lacks credibility. When really all BT wants to do is shut down the opposition and turn this into a political debate.

The cranks, crackpots, extremists, and industrial lackeys will, of course, claim this as evidence of a vast conspiracy. Sort of like the vast conspiracy that resulted in the "myth" of the Apollo moon landings, or the vast conspiracy that results in the "myth" of the fossil record.

The rest of us see that, rightly or wrongly, with the academic and scientific communities, the science is settled and the debate is over.

Did BT even watch the video from Focus the Nation? Does BT even know how scientific skepticism works? The globe IS warming. The earth WILL experience another ice age. These are indeed scientific facts. Does it mean the debate is over and the science is settled? NO.

"Sad that Penn State meteorology students are being overexposed to Mann's ugly manipulations with no counter-balance. They will be likely be crippled professionally."

Penn State probably has the best meteorological program in the country, Patrick. Certainly better than all those other schools you mentioned. About 25% of all the meteorologists in the country went to Penn State.

Most of Accuweather's mets also went to Penn State.

It's quite sad to see people force an idea down people's throats -- all in the name of "balance" -- when that idea is not embraced by most of the scientific community.

Hi Mark,

You consider that presenting multiple points of view is forcing "an idea down people's throats?"

Quite the opposite.

If Penn State wants to maintain their reputation, that might seek diversity and not allow the department to be dominated by someone who's work has been discredited. They wouldn't want to sink to (as you described) the lower standards of MIT, Harvard and Princeton.

The science is settled. No need for IPCC, NOAA or NASA. No need to spend more money researching the sun, the moon, the oceans or future climate. The science is settled.

No, Gary, it's your side that advocates shutting off the research spending.

Brookline Tom would like us to believe that any scientist, researcher, journalist or average citizen that dis-agrees with the "consensus" of AGW is a crank, crackpot, extremist or industry lackey.

I think I've been reasonably clear. The alleged scientists who disagree with the fundamental reality of AGW are, in fact, cranks, crackpots, extremists, and industry lackeys. That's just a fact. I know the right wing doesn't like it, it its simply and objectively true.

Sort of like it is similarly true that no credible scientists in any of the life-sciences challenge the basic tenets of evolution. None. That simple fact is loudly objected to by the religious right-wing -- including many who, like our own Patrick Henry, make the objections about the life sciences that they make about AGW.

I, frankly, don't care in the slightest what anyone "believes" or doesn't believe about these two simple facts. They are, simply, facts.

The alleged "scientists" who dispute the fundamental tenets of AGW either cranks, crackpots, religious extremists, industry lackeys, or some combination thereof. That's simply true, and that's what the good folks from Penn State are telling you -- whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not.

He would also like us to believe that anyone who dis-agrees with the AGW consensus lacks credibility. When really all BT wants to do is shut down the opposition and turn this into a political debate.

How can anyone -- even me -- "shut down the opposition" and "turn this into a political debate"? Isn't that an oxymoron?

The truth is I don't want to do either -- but a little thing like the truth has never stopped our cranks, crackpots, extremists, and industry lackeys before.

I think I've been fairly clear about what what I "really want to do" and what my "real agenda" is. I love how cranks and crackpots always try to put words in my mouth -- as if I don't have enough there already.

What I really want to do is:

1. Call lies "lies". No conversation or discussion can be meaningful when participants lie. There are a myriad of creative ways to lie, and the right-wing is well-practiced and highly-skilled at many of them. The only way those who care about the truth can take back the conversation is by firmly and forcefully exposing lies and the liars who spread them.

2. Talk about science when we claim we're talking about science. There is plenty of science to discuss, and I'd love to discuss it. We do precious little of that here. Rehashing ridiculously mis-informed ignorance about elementary physics -- such as the perpetual dispute about IR absorption by atmospheric CO2 -- isn't "discussing science". We know the earth is warming. We don't know how fast, we don't know what the impacts will be, we don't know what -- if anything -- we can do about it. That's a LOT of science to talk about.

3. Call it "politics" when we talk about politics. When we talk about politics -- which is inevitable -- I want us to admit that we're talking about politics, and jettison the lie that it's anything but that.

That really IS my agenda, guys. It really is.

BT:
Call Lies Lies????

Your comments above about your opinion being FACT is just such a lie.
Being an Engineer I know you think your opinion makes it fact but; Surprise Surprise; it does not.
It is merely your opinion and worth exactly what any other opinion is worth.

Please attempt to stick to the truth.

Thanks

BT - science is science whether it comes from Jim Hansen or Roy Spencer.

Just because I will consider scientific work from Roy Spencer, doesn't make me a believer of intelligent design. I have an open mind. I seek information.

If you look at credentials alone, both men are similar:

Both have PhD's. Both have published papers. Both have received awards. Both work or have worked for NASA. Let's use an analogy: If Spencer were in a different field and found the cure for cancer, would we not use it because of his endorsements of intelligent design? My point, is that if Spencer has valuable science to add, it should be considered. Call him a crackpot, if you will. Call his work lies. The bottom line is that the science will speak for itself.

BT- I'm far from right wing. "My side" wants to cut funding? Which "side" am I on? I vote independently. I can proudly say that I've never voted for a Bush for president. I'm all for funding research. My statement:"No need for IPCC, NOAA or NASA. No need to spend more money researching the sun, the moon, the oceans or future climate. The science is settled" was typed with sarcasm.

I care about the planet and many things nature. I think the Iraq war is a mistake. We can agree on many things. I simply dis-agree with your assertions that the science of GW is settled. Hansen himself said that many aspects of climate change are not fully understood. If that is the case, then the science cannot be settled.

I'm going to continue to ask questions and doubt the experts until the theories are proven or dis-proven.

We know the earth is warming. We don't know how fast, we don't know what the impacts will be, we don't know what -- if anything -- we can do about it. That's a LOT of science to talk about.

I couldn't agree more. Let the scientific study continue. The science, is not settled.

Both have PhD's. Both have published papers. Both have received awards. Both work or have worked for NASA. Let's use an analogy: If Spencer were in a different field and found the cure for cancer, would we not use it because of his endorsements of intelligent design? My point, is that if Spencer has valuable science to add, it should be considered. Call him a crackpot, if you will. Call his work lies. The bottom line is that the science will speak for itself.

If it weren't for the bombing, Baghdad would be a lovely place to live! Spencer doesn't work in a different field. Nobody who has published in peer-reviewed journals of cancer research also advocates Intelligent Design. Nobody. Spencer's research in climatology is being considered, presumably on its merits.

Be that as it may, it is also true that: (a) he accepts significant funding from ExxonMobil, (b) he is an outspoken Intelligent Design proponent, and (c) he is something of a celebrity in extremist right-wing political circles.

An ad-hominem attack is only fallacious when it is irrelevant to the question at hand. An allegation that a scientist "cooks" data or intentionally biases research based on funding sources is serious and is taken seriously.

If there was any evidence that Hansen was guilty of any of the myriad of crimes he is accused of, then he would have long ago been drummed out of the scientific community in disgrace -- just ask Dr. Hwang Woo Suk.

The complaints against Spencer -- as well as Singer, Ball, and so on -- are simply TRUE. The man is who is, does what he does, takes money from who he takes money from, and promotes what he promotes.

If we didn't pay attention to complaints like this, we'd still be watching physicians pitch Camels during Tuesday evening prime time.

I couldn't agree more. Let the scientific study continue. The science, is not settled.

When I write "the science is settled", I mean the aspects of the science that our contrarians loudly deny. They deny that the earth is warming. They deny that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes surface temperatures to rise. They deny that the increases in atmospheric CO2 are anthropogenic. When forced to admit that perhaps surface temperatures are increasing, they blame factors that have long-since been shown to be irrelevant or insignificant. Why do you think Patrick Henry and Marie flood these boards with their cherry-picked backyard weather reports?

In my view, the reason we need to stop arguing about the aspects that are settled is in order to focus on the HUGE amount that we don't know.

I remind you that I and those who feel as I do advocate increased federal spending on scientific research. Those who most loudly proclaim the contrarian position advocate decreased spending on scientific research.

Which posture do you think is more likely to yield high-quality scientific results?

If it weren't for the bombing, Baghdad would be a lovely place to live!

Hi BT,

If it weren't for the Iran/Iraq war, Saddam, Saddam's son Udi, the Gulf War, UN Sanctions, Al Qaida and Iranian interference, Baghdad would have been a better place to live the last 30 years.

The difference now is that they have a chance, thanks solely to President Bush and the US military.

Kipp, facist is not a word, try to look it up. If you meant fascist lets look at the definition of fascism: A system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, (North Korea) forcible suppression of opposition, (Cuba) private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, (Venezuela) belligerent nationalism, racism, and militarism. (Iran) But since you are fan of looking stuff up here are a few recommendations. Compare unemployment rates and standard of living of the U.S. with all other industrialized countries. You may also look up how much the American people give to charities around the world compared to every other country. And it is good to know that this country is so hated that we have 20 million people from around the world that are here illegally just to be poor in America. Unfortunately there are many people in this country who have no clue what life is like for most of humanity. They see America as the real problem in this world. All I can say is how sad.

The man is who is, does what he does, takes money from who he takes money from, and promotes what he promotes.

BT,

If you really believe that, then you need to disregard all of the science funded by the IPCC and other organizations which exists to promote the idea of climate change. To the tune of 50 billion dollars.

If it wasn't for the money, very few scientists would be wasting their time on this.

I wonder if Mr. G has considered the definition of fascism as described by Mussolini, the dictator who coined the word and created its first example.

Consider, for example, this excerpt from his 1923 pamphlet "The Doctrine of Fascism": If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. Mussolini's vision was a government formed of, by, and for corporate interests.

Vice President Henry Wallace summarized the risks of Fascism to Americans in 1944 in a piece published in the NYT -- at the height of WWII:

A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends. The supreme god of a fascist, to which his ends are directed, may be money or power; may be a race or a class; may be a military, clique or an economic group; or may be a culture, religion, or a political party.

The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power.

I agree with Mr. G. that we in twenty-first century America have much to fear from fascism and fascists.

I suspect that Mr. G and I disagree about who those fascists are, and what political party aggressively promotes their interests and adopts their tactics.

Wow, Brookline Tom actually just described the far left liberal wing of the Democrat party with the excepts he posted. BT correctly indicates that the far left has taken on fascist tactics. There may be hope for BT yet.

As Brookline Tom points out, the far left is so focused on obtaining power over the masses they are using the AGW religion to try and spread fear among the common man so the common man will give up his freedoms and money to fall in lockstep with the far left AGW crowd. And as BT points out they are using the media to do this and spread their lies to deceive the public about the AGW catastrophe.

What a guy BT!

I know Brett, back on topic.

Gary B., one is considered by his colleagues to be at the top of the field and the other at the bottom. Other than that they're pretty much equal.

BT:

I would be willing to wager a small oil-producing country that you and I also disagree on who might be the true American "fascist" party as well.

But, I submit, based upon the the sentences in BOLD in your above post, that we only need to look at the political leanings of our main stream media for the answer.

The polls as written about on MSNBC, FOX, and the big three all indicate that the majority of reporters lean liberal and vote liberal.

Strange that the two primary contenders for one party are trying to out liberal each other and their apparent opponent is considered to be fairly liberal himself.

I think your gonna like what we end up with no matter what. Me, not so much.

BT "His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

I could not agree more.

Now lets look at who is asking the public to give them more money and power. Or mayby you think that a carbon tax would accualy let more people keep what they have made. And telling people how to live, what to drive, what to eat, and so on is giving people more personal controle of there life.

Do you REALLY you believe this?

I know BT, I was using Spencer in a different field, as a theoretical example. I was trying to prove my point, that I would accept science from Spencer, if it was good science, and don't care what his thoughts are on intelligent design.

I don't agree with the theory of Intelligent Design, but I do believe that Spencer can add valuable information about the climate. So I would listen to that information. Mainly because there are so many things about climate change that we don't know.

I'm sure Spencer has accepted money for his work. Many scientists have. Most things ARE about money nowadays. It is a sad state of the world I must say. Don't get me started on money AND politics! Even some of the solutions for GW, for example the carbon tax, have to do with lots of money. I don't agree with it. Someone is going to get rich at someone else's expense, and it might not even do any good.

It's important to note that our (the US) emissions of CO2 are projected to be at or below the world average. Which means that we are not alone in this mess. China and India should be included and held accountable. That I believe will be hard to do.

I don't mind the weather reports from Patrick and friends. I think it's interesting. Not that it proves or dis-proves GW. I do like to study the weather and it is interesting to hear what it's like in other places besides Pennsylvania. Plus, if you have time to read the links that they provide, sometimes you can find some real good information.

I didn't understanding why BT and others were saying that the science is settled. BT - You've explained it, so now I understand what you meant.

I can agree with you BT that we need to focus our resources on studying what we don't know. Even if it means rehashing old information and settled science. Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. Thanks by the way for clarifying your position. Maybe from now on we can debate without dis-agreeing so much.

Sorry to go off topic Brett, But I have to add my two cents.

The billions we spent in Iraq could have been used for something better. (maybe fixing roads and bridges?) The war was started for the wrong reasons. Sadaam was bad yes. BUT, We put him in power! Read your history! Relive the Reagan years! Reagan was a great man, but the seeds were sown, during his time, for the problems we have now in the Middle East. The resources we wasted in Iraq could have been used to get Bin Laden and wipe out Al-queda BEFORE they established themselves in Iraq. Umm, Bin Laden is still alive. Al-Queda is stronger than ever. Iran is threatening us, with possible nuclear weapons. Pakistan has suddenly become unstable. George Bush is no Ronald Reagan. Has GW Bush done a good job? You do the math.

Now lets look at who is asking the public to give them more money and power.

I don't know about Mr. G, but I do know what concerns me far more than any proposed "carbon tax". I'm far more concerned about an administration that put in place massive and illegal domestic spying, persuaded huge corporations to do their dirty work, and -- when caught red-handed by the voters -- now demands that their corporate accomplices be given retroactive immunity for their crimes.

I'm far more worried about an administration that "disappears" whoever it chooses for whatever reasons it chooses for as long as it chooses, then tortures them -- I'm far more worried about that than I am about a carbon tax.

If its "fascism" we're concerned about -- and I am concerned about it -- I think we're far more at risk from a party who hires and fires US Attorneys based on their political and religious affiliation than from any AGW-sponsored political initiatives. I think we're far more at risk from an administration that puts reporters in jail for refusing to release their sources -- especially when the same administration is convicted of perjury in connection with the cases in question.

Whether a carbon tax is or is not adopted is a question that is being addressed in open, public debate -- precisely what a free, open, and democratic society is supposed to do.

I'm weary of having proponents of one side of that debate hurl epithets like "fascist" while the officials that they support hide from war-crime charges, admit to ordering torture, conduct massive and illegal surveillance operations, and continue a catastrophically expensive illegal war begun with an unprovoked invasion supported by a web of distortions, "mistakes", false information, and outright lies.

Yes, let's please do discuss "fascism" and "fascists" and its role in the issue of AGW.

Brookline Tom:

You don't seem to know or have read a lot about history and politics and appear to be getting the majority of your info from the biased left-wing media. You also appear to have a very limited knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and how the Government works. Anyway, based on your "concerns" and knowledge of politics, I think I probably now have even less confidence in your knowledge of climate change and science.

But that's you and I certainly would never be against your right to your opinions or beliefs.

But you should really cheer up. Remember, Bush is not running for office, it will be pretty hard for him to take over the world or even the U.S. by November. You gotta let go.

Barack Obama or BO will probably be our next President, you only have to wait until November and BO will rectify all past ills. He said he is going to stop global warming, bring all the troops home, stop the war, fix the Constitution, open up the borders, be friends with our supposed enemies, etc. BT, don't worry, you have something to look forward to! Life will be good with BO!

BT:

Your analysis of the Bush Adminstration is so far off base that if I didn't think you really believed that stuff, it would be funny. Really funny.

I truly cannot understand how a clearly intelligent person can believe those things in the context in which you state them. Though several of the charges are absolutely true, they are at best an abhorrent misinterpretation of fact, at worst, outright slander with intent to damage.

I know a lot of people from all walks of life and have made it a point to specifically ask all of them if they know of a single person that has been adversely affected by the "illegal" and massive spying. I have yet to find a single person affected. Do your know anyone?

As far as the other issues put forth, your ignorance of reality in the face of aggressive groups on this planet is appalling.

Oh, and by the way, EVERY administration this country has seen over the last 100 years or so would probably be considered guilty of exactly the same things you just mentioned. Even the failure of the Carter years and the weirdness that was the Clinton years. Not saying that it is right or wrong, it just is a fact. While you choose to conveniently forget that fact until a conservative comes along, the rest of us understand it.

I don't fear a carbon tax as such but find it to be unnecessary and wasteful, just like most things that governments impose. Funny thing is the distortions and outright lies sounds like the statements I see from the AGW side of this issue.

BT you have no clue. Its not even worth my time to show you where you are wrong with your left wing anti Bush propaganda and slogans. Good luck and good bye.

Darren,

If what BT says isn't true, then why is the country moving to the left?

The fact is, many independents and conservatives also believe what BT is saying, which is why you have a country shifting to the left. If Republicans like you continue to stick your head in the sand and ignore this reality, this leftward shift will continue for a long time to come.

Mark,

Congrats you did it!!! You and BT have apparently figured out the only cause of Political Dissention.

It probably has nothing to do with the Heavy Liberalism of our colleges and universities, no way could that be any part of it... right?

There is a large group of people that were college students during this whol Iraq War thing, and were subject to a lot of propaganda, some true, some spun so horribly it was purely for brainwashing purposes. Of course the country is leaning left now. And the left side will take over, and screw some things up and the pendulum will swing back to the right side.

Americans will always be like that because of general ignorance and propaganda. What am I? I am just left of center and I will be voting for Obama more than likely. My beliefs fall in line slightly better with Hillary, but she comes off as abrasive, so I did not side with her.

I am sure you are well aware of how this stuff works, you jsut conveniently left it out of your post, making your post more propaganda.

Mark:

That's an extraordinarily good question.

I suppose I could go with the party line of the Rushies etc. and say it is some sort of conspiracy, but I don't think that is the case.

Sorry, this is long one.

I really think it has to do with the fact that conservatives on face value do not show well as being compassionate. And unfortunately, the people of this country are becoming less independant and self-sufficient thereby placing their collective lives in the hands of others. So, when tough decisions come around, like the terriost issue, like GW, a liberal is going to play better to the masses. Since if a politician can lure the masses, they can get elected. And when Bushie tried to be compassionate, it backfired. Look at the mess created by Katrina. He gives away the key to a bunch of money, and the people in trouble are still having issues.

Now there is something to media presentation. And I think we can all agree that the media as a whole has a liberal bias. Depending upon the tenor they take in an article, people get either positive or negative vibes that they then carry with them and extend to others around them.

Once again Katrina, I vividly recall Bush declaring the area a federal emergency TWO DAYS before the storm and telling people to take cover and prepare. It was a Saturday and I was there in my shop watching the announcement thinking, what an idiot, the storm will either miss or weaken and he'll look like a monkey again. Can't wait to hear people belittle him over this mess.

So, Katrina blows in, in a weakened state, right in the area that Bush sought to help preemptively. I'm thinking whoa at least the FEDS are thinking ahead and Bush might be seen as doing a good thing. Then 30 year old levies fail, the area is locally ill-prepared and there is a complete mess. Within a day, there are rumors and stories in the media that the Bush Administration is at fault and he should have been down there to "fix" it. I especially like the ones where people actually feel that Bush blew up the levies. And it actually got air time. I mean come on. I really did not like Carter (mainly cause Dad Didn't) but to this day, I would never even imply that Carter, or any sitting president, would do something that heinous.

Well, he did what he could early, and he still gets the blame. We still have people on this site using it as an example. Just try to tell them that Bush was two days ahead with the declaration, they don't believe it. Why not, because the media doesn't say it. So, it must not be true.

The fact is that most people are not interested in learning the facts behind any issue. Look at GW. How many times have you answered a question about a sound bite that someone heard somewhere? They take that snippet, for or against, and use it as though it is the whole story. And when someone like you or me put reality into the equation, they glaze over and don't listen.

What I find more intriguing is the positions held by BT, and probably yourself and other AGWers, about these sorts of topics. Many, if not nearly all of the AGW minded souls on this site are quite intelligent (psst don't let that get around), and generally I have found that better knowledge leads to better analysis and better understanding. Typically, when a person has a better understanding of something they tend to extol the conservative position. Don't get me wrong here, I am not saying that liberals are dumb, or anything of the sort, it's just that they often seem to make decisions based upon less than complete information. I know since I work closely with several people who are rabidly liberal. On non-political topics they will often act upon or make decisions based on incomplete data. But when we sit down to discuss it, they often are drawn to my solution since I have studied it and looked at the whole situation. And no, I'm not a genious, I just play one. I notice that my liberal friends act upon wishes and desires or their feelings often. So, I don't know, is it simply that you can't acknowledge facts if it comes from a conservative or is it that you only believe liberals.

I mean take Iraq, the data came from the same people who were in the Clinton Administration. And, this data was used in the Clinton administration to strike iraq unilaterally on multiple occasions. Why is it suddenly all wrong in 2002 when Bush talked about going into Iraq. And lest we forget, this administration went before the UN and got several new resolutions passed with the same info that Clinton used to get the 12 previous ones. Don't quote me, I don't recall the specific numbers but I know it was over 10. Also, how many time have you heard that we "rushed" to war. Not sure about you, but waiting over six months after a direct threat of war and over a year with directed threats doesn't seem like rushing to me. And besides, Bush was merely implementing the policy initiated during the Clinton Administration. Doesn't matter anyway. No one looks back at it. All they see is the here and now.

Fundamentally, that is the difference. American recollection of history used to be decades previous in the past. Now it is what happened yesterday and anything over a week really doesn't matter. Since liberalism is based upon feelings not reality, it makes it tough to get anything substantive done. Look at Obama. Have you heard one actual piece of how he will accomplish the utopia he has talked about? I really haven't. And yes, I have listened deeply to his speeches. If you get past the pie-in-the-sky platitudes, there ain't nothing there. He does do a great speech though. Great communicator and speaker. Reminds me of Clinton and maybe Reagan. That brings up something else. Bush, as the de facto leader of the Republicans, and the representative that everything thinks of when you mention conservative, is a complete monkey when he speaks. His command of the English language stinks, and his ability to speak off the cuff blows. Basically, he shows badly.

Your right, not sure how long the liberals will remain in power, but just becasue they show well, and tell a good story, does not mean they are right in every topic. And i think that some of the conservative positions wil be moderating to some degree in the next two years. That is a good thing, some of them are just plain stupid. The whole religion thing, stem-cells, the gay marriage ban to name a few. I mean times change and you have to change at some point. So, I will continue to look at facts and the history and make decisions based upon what those things tell me. Probably still won't be popular though.

But my head isn't in the sand about it. I think I have a good grasp of what is happening overall. I could go on but Brett is probably pretty ticked at this point or asleep.

But you asked.

Have a good weekend. Supposed to warm up here, which is good, my chickens need to get some out of coop time.