McKee starting to thaw on climate denial?
January 28, 2014 12:17 AM | 2304 views | 19 19 comments | 25 25 recommendations | email to a friend | print
DEAR EDITOR:

My letter dissecting Mr. McKee’s original Jan. 8 climate change denial column sparked quite a bit of interest in these pages both from Mr. McKee as well as from a number of online commenters, brave and anonymous, across the internet. As a champion of scientific literacy and critical thinking, I am glad that we are having this discourse and that we seem to be making progress.

Mr. McKee’s Jan. 23 column, “Europe’s latest move sheds light on hot topic of climate change,” appears to welcome a much more practical conversation, namely what to do about it. In my debates with climate change denialists, I often find they conflate “science” and “policy,” allowing the fear of the latter to obfuscate the evidence from the former. I’m not sure if this is simply a debate tactic to create red herrings that distract from the evidence or if there is a genuine misunderstanding between the scientific method and the policy implications of scientific findings. Either way, while the peer-reviewed science is clear, the proper policy responses remain a bit more elusive.

Whether climate change denialists like to admit this or not, planning for the potential economic and social impacts of climate change is already happening in insurance companies, real estate development firms, disaster response agencies, public health agencies and military commands across the world. These organizations and businesses do not have the luxury of relying upon a few well-known climate contrarians and right wing talk radio hosts for their climate science; instead they must responsibly plan based on evidence and probability. They and their stakeholders know that closing one’s eyes and plugging one’s ears is no way to tackle a problem.

R.L. Bays

Kennesaw

Comments
(19)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
on balance
|
January 31, 2014
I am a little confused. I have followed this issue for a few years now. I thought it had been, so to speak, put to bed with the exposure of the falsifying of numbers at the university. It was a thng of the past to me, a false alarm that had burned out. Now I see folks here attempting to bring ti to life again. Apparently they are about two years behind the data and the news. Illiminatoor, Guido and Cobbcoguy are on the money. I will not post any sources. Mr Bay, please read ALL sources. Do your own work.
R.L. Bays
|
January 31, 2014
You couldn't be more wrong. Take a few moments to read this joint statement from the most preeminent scientific academies on the planet:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Guido Sarducci
|
February 01, 2014
@on balance. I learned some time back that it is impossible to change the mind of a psuedo-scientist because they practice what is known as "preconceptual science." They begin with the desired result, then simply discard all data which does not support that preconceived conclusion. In the case of the Global Warming "researchers, they are motivated by the same thing that motivates the professional "race-baiters". Follow the money!!!

Without the global warming hysteria, these guys would be out of a job. Without racial strife, nobody would recognize the names Jesse Jackson and Al Sharption. They would be both actually have to go to work.
R.L. Bays
|
February 02, 2014
Guido, you are a perfect test case for willful scientific illiteracy. I wish you luck.
Illiminator!
|
January 30, 2014
Here you go! Try www.globalwarminghoax.com

All you'll ever need to see about the Climate Change scammers and how they manipulate data and make up facts to fit their agenda. All supported by the documents and the research. I supposed we could rely on the Great Obama to share his expertise on Climate Change just like he has shared his expertise on Health Insurance. I've got a lot of confidence in that!
Guido Sarducci
|
January 30, 2014
Mr. Bays, my apology. I failed, after all my talk, to post the link tot he article concerning the "fudging' required to establish a global warming trend.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/again-massive-fudging-on-global-warming-temps/

If you are interested in knowing why researchers would take such action to paint an erroneous picture, it can be summed up in three words.

"Follow the money."
CobbCoGuy
|
January 29, 2014
I'm gonna be lazy and just point to a site. This article questions Powell's nose-counting methodology.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html

CobbCoGuy
|
January 29, 2014
LA Times, Sept. 22, 2013, "Global warming 'hiatus' puts climate change scientists on the spot."

About half way down...

"All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet," Curry said. "However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact."

"Curry" is Judith Curry who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Add one more to Powell's headcount.
Illiminator!
|
January 29, 2014
Here you go!

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/mit-professor-global-warming-is-a-religion/

Guido Sarducci
|
January 29, 2014
Mr. Bays, here is a link to the news article I read about the findings of the data analyst, a man whose works have been published in Scientic Principia. I just saw this article and earmarked it until I have time to research the actual writings of the analyst.

You, sir, have a choice of either reading the article for the information contained therein, or dismissing it because it is not presented in what you consider an acceptable format.

Your choice will be an indicator of of whether you are interested in disussion or have a closed mind.

If the latter, then we have nothing further to talk about.
CobbCoGuy
|
January 29, 2014
R.L. Bays,

Have you spent any time on James Powell's website? Go to the tab "The Evidence" and watch the video.

He relies on the hockey stick analysis that is known to be pure statistical tripe.

I'll be back to talk about his counting methodology used to derive the 2,258 "peer-reviewed" papers.
R.L. Bays
|
January 29, 2014
Are you talking about Mann, et al. 98? There is nothing statistically suspect about it. It has been validated in numerous studies including Huang, Pollack & Shen 2000, Wahl & Ammann 2006, and Ljungqvist et al. 2012.
CobbCoGuy
|
January 30, 2014
Yes, Mann, et al. It was debunked by McIntyre and McKitrick. But, you and I can cite studies until the cows come home.

I believe the hockey stick was removed from the 2007 IPCC Annual Report? Any idea why?
R. L. Bays
|
January 30, 2014
You mean McIntyre and McKitrick who were rejected by Nature and thoroughly discredited by Rutherford et al 2005? And here is the graph you were erroneously thinking was removed:

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-6.html

Seriously, do you think climate scientists are complicit in a vast global conspiracy? I don't understand this unwillingness to accept data. Is it ideological?
Guido Sarducci
|
January 28, 2014
Mr. Bays, I am sure that I am not the only reader who is curious as to what your credenmtials might be that prompt you to make such concrete statements regarding a subject which, to most intelligent people, is still in question.

Would you be so kind as to list your credentials?
wonderin
|
January 28, 2014
Are there any credentials that would satisfy you Guido Sarducci?
R.L. Bays
|
January 28, 2014
Guido, climate change is not in question. That's my point. Just like one needn't be a pulmonologist to understand that smoking causes cancer, one needn't be a climate scientist to understand global warming. This concept is within reach of anyone with access to a library and the ability to read.
Guido Sarducci
|
January 29, 2014
Thank you Mr. Bays. What you are really saying is that you know nothing more than the average park bear.

Did you, perchance, read the story which I read b earlier this week stating that there had been some "fudging" in temperature comparisons, aimed at making a long trend of little to no change, appear to be a warming trend?

This report came from the scientific community, from qualified scientists.

I would be interested to know what you think, once you have read the report,.
R.L. Bays
|
January 29, 2014
Guido, I will be happy to read it. What scientific journal is it in or better yet, can you just provide the document number or Web of Science accession number? Thanks,

R.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides