Saturday, February 16, 2013

Academia Will Not Tolerate Intolerance

Tolerance with a capital "T":
I’m reading an interesting book that does an excellent job of explaining the predominant spirit of our age: “The Intolerance of Tolerance” by theologian D.A. Carson. His basic thesis is that the old tolerance found throughout history is fundamentally different that what passes for tolerance today. The former believed even when it tolerated differences that there was a correct view; the latter insists that all views are equal. The result of this change, ironically, is the most virulent intolerance toward those who claim they hold the correct view, or who claim they know the truth, or that there is even such thing as objective truth.

Read the rest here

54 comments:

Lee said...

I've never understood this perspective. Met a lady once, a corporate trainer, with a Ph.D. in physics from Penn, who had drunk deeply of the postmodernist cocktail. It was impossible to pin her down that there had to be such a thing as objective truth.

"Well, that's your perspective," she kept saying.

> The former believed even when it tolerated differences that there was a correct view; the latter insists that all views are equal.

"All views are equal" is a truth-claim, too, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

Of course once upon a time and not so long ago, the various ecclesiastical establishments in the Christian West could persecute, jail, or excute "heretics", "blasphemers" and "apostates" too.
There was of course also the Catholic inquistion. And the burning at the stake or drown hundreds of thousands of "witches". And of course Protestants and Catholics waged decades long wars too, oft times slaughtering each other because of petty doctrinal differences and if they used a different hand when crossing the heart. And of course the "strange fruit" hanging from trees in the South of the USA were essentially the "product" of a puritannical Christian religious self-righteousness.

There are course quite severe restrictions on non-mainstream non-Christian religious and missionary activities in Christian Russia. Restrictions put in place via the power/request of the ecclesiastical establishment.

Which begs the question, how many Christians really get monstered by atheists in the Western world. And according to my research atheists are far more likely to be actively discriminated against in the USA than Christians are by atheists. Furthermore there are many places where atheists are barred from holding public office(s) in the USA, right up to the state level.

And when an openly avowed atheist can freely run for the office of Governor in every USA state,and for the President too, then you will know that the invisible poltically correct wall of prejudice against non-believers has been torn down.

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

Atheists are not legallly barred from holding any public office in the United States, since that would violate the Constitution. As a practical matter, there are many places where an open atheist could not win an election, just as, in previous generations, women and african-americans could not win. However, "atheists" are a surprisingly important voting bloc in American politics. Exit polling showed that "atheists"* constituted 12% of the US presidential electorate and provided the President with a larger margin of votes over Romney than Hispanics, who all the pundits have focused on, did. Added to the President's ability to also win every faith community except white evangelicals and Mormons, have left the GOP in desperate straits in national elections, which it will only be able to overcome by creating some separation between itself and the most reactionary members of the Christian community.

*I have to assume the the exit poll defined "atheists" generously as people who don't profess to believe in a god, as opposed to people who assert there is no God, to reach the level of 12% of the US electorate.

Lee said...

Anonymous,

Can you find for us a tenet of the Christian faith which requires, or even permits, a believer in Christ to lynch black people?

If your point is that people who claim to be Christians have often behaved atrociously, then point taken.

There still remains a question, though, on whether they behave that way because of Christian teachings or in spite of them.

And since you bring in the entire history of Christianity in order to indict it, would it not be fair to compare the atrocities of the Christian world to those of the non-Christian and pre-Christian world to see if there's a basis, on your terms, to prefer one to the other?

I'll even spot you the atrocities committed in Germany under Hitler. They certainly were *not* necessary under the teachings of Christ, but one can plausibly argue that the Catholics and Lutherancs should have done more to stop it from happening, and thus they share some portion of the blame.

So to balance your indictment -- the Inquisition, wars, lynchings -- let's counter with the human sacrifice common in the ancient world and pre-Columbian America; hundreds of thousands of Jews crucified because of a desire to be independent of ancient Rome; the wholesale slaughter of entire nations by the pagan Mongols; the French Revolution, where the philosophy of Rousseau was made flesh (more people killed in one afternoon than in centuries of the Inquisition); the Stalin atrocities in the atheist Soviet Union and the deliberate starvation of the kulaks in the Ukraine, thought to exceed 20 million; the Maoist atrocities in atheist Communist China, thought to exceed 60 million; Pol Pot in atheist Cambodia, claiming a fourth (1 million) of the population.

Need I go on?

Art said...

I continue to be amused that people (that would be conservatives) who so warmly embrace postmodernism when it comes to reality rant about it when it comes to the workings of the imagination.

Two examples from this blog reveal this hypocrisy plainly. The conservative faction here are adamant in their determination to teach kids that, when it comes to the age of the earth, 6000 and 4,500,000,000 are equally valid answers (even though all of the evidence shows one answer to be ludicrously wrong). So, when it comes to this bit of science, there is no absolute truth, no right or wrong answer. Whatever makes you feel good is OK. (Heck, this is Martin's approach to science education in his academy.)

Similarly, when it comes to global warming, conservatives demand that "yes" and "no" are equally valid answers to the question "is the earth warming", even though all of the data says one thing and one thing only. In this case, there is no absolute truth, there is only what makes your wallet happy. (In this regard, climate denialists are like the Catholic Church, that uses a financial ruler to decide on important matters such as the status of a fetus.)

So, the bottom line seems to be - when it comes to scientific reality, there is no right or wrong, no absolute standard, but only what agrees with the cult du jour. OTOH, when it comes to the imaginings of, say, the priesthood, there is an absolute truth. Moreover, when it comes to the hallucinatory machinations of theologians, one man's fantasy is correct whereas another's equally vapid musings are not.

As I said, very amusing.

Lee said...

> Similarly, when it comes to global warming, conservatives demand that "yes" and "no" are equally valid answers to the question "is the earth warming", even though all of the data says one thing and one thing only.

The data they discovered, or the data they made up?

If Prince Charles, Al Gore, and Tom Friedman are so convinced of this, why do they live in mansions and castles?

Lee said...

Love this Op-Ed, courtesy Mark Steyn:

"As the British newspaper the Independent reported:

'Capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, the Prince of Wales has warned. . . . And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the ‘age of convenience’ was over.'

"He then got in his limo and was driven to his other palace."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/227866/gaias-right/mark-steyn

KyCobb said...

Lee,

How Prince Charles and Al Gore live really isn't relevant to the fact that Global warming is real and we need to take action. 1353

Anonymous said...

Re: His Twitness, Prince Charles...Long live the Queen.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

We've been through all this before.

I am not an environmental scientist. And as I am endlessly lectured by my betters, I am therefore not really entitled to an independent opinion on the subject of global warming.

That means I have to rely on authority.

Authorities, however, can lose their authority. East Anglia is a textbook example on how this can be done.

To the best of my knowledge, you and Art aren't authorities on the subject, either.

Here's what I do see: the viewpoint is being popularized by people who are telling me to live one way as if the world depends on it, while they themselves proceed to live in a different way.

I don't need an authority to tell me when something looks like a scam.

Singring said...

'Authorities, however, can lose their authority. East Anglia is a textbook example on how this can be done.'

How does this impinge on the credibility of any other organization out there that has recognized the dramatic problem of Climate Change? East Anglia is not the be-all and end-all of climate science.

You're just using this as a lazy excuse to disregard what virtually every climate scientist on the planet is screaming from the rooftops.

'Here's what I do see: the viewpoint is being popularized by people who are telling me to live one way as if the world depends on it, while they themselves proceed to live in a different way.'

So because you see the people who are popularizing this as hypocrites (fair enough), you again think this is a valid excuse to disregard the actual evidence of what is going on.

Boy, our great-grandchildren sure will be proud to find out about the reasons we had for tossing their future out the window.

Singring said...

'If Prince Charles, Al Gore, and Tom Friedman are so convinced of this, why do they live in mansions and castles?'

Lee, just because someone is living in a castle doesn't necessarily mean they have a high carbon footprint. (In fact, Charles doesn't live in a castle). As much as I dislike the monarchy in the UK for a variety of reasons, it would suit you well to do a bit of research:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/19431055/ns/world_news-europe/t/prince-charles-household-carbon-neutral/#.USPoVPLwJaQ

Again, this is the least I would expect of someone who so casually shrugs of the weight of evidence.

Rule number 1: Don't believe everything the National Review writes, Lee.

Al Gore gore buys carbon offsets - yes, he does so from his own company, but all that means is that he pays less for his carbon offsets than he normally would:

http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40445/

I thought a liberal market guy like you would congratulate him on his acumen, Lee? What's with the envy of such a smart businessman?

So Al Gore is carbon-neutral as well (or at least claims to be).

Leaves Tom Friedman...who I honestly don;t care about.

Neither do I care about Al Gore or Prince Charles.

You know why, Lee?

Because when I'm interested in climate science, I don't worry about what these people are saying or doing, I worry about the actual science, published in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, if you want to look to 'celebrities' to learn about science, that's your right.

But then please don;t complain if neither myself nor any other scientist takes you and your opinions seriously on these matters.

Lee said...

> You're just using this as a lazy excuse to disregard what virtually every climate scientist on the planet is screaming from the rooftops.

Based on what I've read, the unanimity of thought among scientists doesn't exist.

Let me know when Tom Friedman moves into a condo, Al Gore sells his 30-room mansion for a bungalow, and Prince Charles is driven around in a Prius.

Meanwhile, don't begrudge me my Toyota Avalon and my 2300 sq. ft. rancher.

Lee said...

> Al Gore gore buys carbon offsets - yes, he does so from his own company, but all that means is that he pays less for his carbon offsets than he normally would

So your saying if I'm rich enough, I can buy indulgences?

> I thought a liberal market guy like you would congratulate him on his acumen, Lee? What's with the envy of such a smart businessman?

I don't begrudge Al Gore his rich lifestyle as long as he doesn't begrudge me my middle-class one. I'm not the one telling him he has to change. He's the one telling me I have to change. Him first.

> Rule number 1: Don't believe everything the National Review writes, Lee.

Nice try. I cancelled my subscription to NR in 2004. Except for the occasional article by Thomas Sowell or Mark Steyn, it would be difficult for me to care less about National Review. This is not your father's conservative magazine.

> Because when I'm interested in climate science, I don't worry about what these people are saying or doing, I worry about the actual science, published in peer-reviewed journals.

You mean, when they're not stacking the peer-review panels with people they know and trust?

Singring said...

'Based on what I've read, the unanimity of thought among scientists doesn't exist.'

Neither is their unanimity about whether the earth is flat or not. Do you use that as an excuse to be a flat-earther?

'So your saying if I'm rich enough, I can buy indulgences?'

Exactly. But unlike the Catholic ones, these actually work (if they're done right).

Mind you, it would be better to not even have to buy them in the first place (and I'm not a Gore fanboy), but it is complete nonsense for you or anyone else to claim he is a hypocrite. Those just aren't the facts.

'Meanwhile, don't begrudge me my Toyota Avalon and my 2300 sq. ft. rancher.'

So...you're allowed to begrudge, but no-one else is? Got it.

'He's the one telling me I have to change. Him first'

He has. He's living carbon-neutral. Are you?

'You mean, when they're not stacking the peer-review panels with people they know and trust?'

Once again, not a single word you wrote cites any data, refers to any kind of published science, all you seems to be interested in is in who lives where and what car they drive. If you want to base decisions on our planet's future on that kind of reasoning, I think you perfectly illustrate the problem we are facing.

'You mean, when they're not stacking the peer-review panels with people they know and trust?'

You mean like Richard Muller who publicly questioned that the planet was even warming and has now done a complete 180 *based on the actual data*?

I'm sorry if these journals are stacked with objective, rational scientists and not political ideologues.

Lee said...

> Exactly. But unlike the Catholic ones, these actually work (if they're done right).

Such faith. I like this quote:

> "If neither a seller of RECs nor the buyer will provide any details of how, exactly, their transaction is reducing carbon emissions, I would suspect it's vaporware," says Randy Udall, director of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency, an Aspen (Colo.) nonprofit that promotes renewable energy.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-03-25/another-inconvenient-truth

I suspect he's right. I suspect there's a lot of vaporware out there. I also doubt anyone can really quantify what good carbon credits are doing.

Sounds like a gimmick to me, a way for rich people like Al Gore and Tom Friedman to continue to consume the planet's resources and not have to feel guilty about it.

But it allows them to continue looking down on others for consuming a tenth as much as either of them.

> but it is complete nonsense for you or anyone else to claim he is a hypocrite.

If Al Gore is not a hypocrite, the word has lost its meaning.

> So...you're allowed to begrudge, but no-one else is? Got it

Reading is fundamental, Singring. Try it sometime.

> You mean like Richard Muller who publicly questioned that the planet was even warming and has now done a complete 180 *based on the actual data*?

Well, if this is true, then it's as I said: the alleged unanimity of thought among scientists regarding global warming doesn't exist.

So why did you just give me a load of nonsense for pointing it out already? E.g.,

> Neither is their unanimity about whether the earth is flat or not. Do you use that as an excuse to be a flat-earther?

Is Muller a flat-earther too?

Art said...

I guess I should thank Lee for helping make my point. He's clearly shown that, for him, "truth" when it comes to climate change is determined by his own wishes, and the facts are but annoyances that he chooses to ignore.

As I said, postmodernism and relativism form the very foundations of the conservative worldview. Which makes their criticisms of these rather amusing (and more).

Lee said...

> I guess I should thank Lee for helping make my point. He's clearly shown that, for him, "truth" when it comes to climate change is determined by his own wishes, and the facts are but annoyances that he chooses to ignore.

Never said anything of the sort, Art, but don't let that stop you.

Singring said...

'Sounds like a gimmick to me, a way for rich people like Al Gore and Tom Friedman to continue to consume the planet's resources and not have to feel guilty about it.'

So once again, without any actual evidence of what Al Gore is doing to offset his carbon emissions, you say it 'sounds like a gimmick', so you're just going to use that as an excuse for disregarding climate science...

And my friends wonder why I'm so pessimistic about us having the faintest change of stopping this disaster from happening.

'Well, if this is true, then it's as I said: the alleged unanimity of thought among scientists regarding global warming doesn't exist.'

When did I ever say there was unanimity? And do you honestly base your beliefs on things there is only unanimous consent on?

Then why are you a Christian? Why do you believe in a spheroid earth? Why do you believe you actually exist?

These are all thinsg where there is clearly no unanimous consent.

I think Art is right - I've rarely seen someone so adamant that they can just disregard facts because they don't like 'gimmicks' they perceive and certain people advocating in the media.

This is relativism taken to the absolute extreme.

Lee said...

I misunderstood your earlier remarks, Singring. Looks like Muller went your way on that issue.

But that means you didn't respond to my earlier point. Part of the East Anglia scandal was how they stacked peer reviews with reviewers known to hold favorable opinions.

You put up Mr. Muller as if his example was a refutation of what I said.

My point was that global warming is, apparently, not settled science. You can google the examples yourself if you just enter: global warming skeptics. Or: is the earth cooling? Seems there are other opinions about what's going on.

I think liberals want global warming to be true because it gives them an excuse to increase the size, scope, and expense of more government.

And the tu quoque, aimed at me, works too: I am philosophically opposed to such government growth and so I want global warming to be false.

However, there is a truth that exists beyond what liberals want, and what I want, which constitutes reality. So Art's protestations about my own postmodernist predilections are but so much greenhouse gas.

Maybe the earth is warming. If it's true, maybe it's because of our carbon emissions. If it's true, maybe it's bad for the planet. If it's true and it's bad for us, maybe we have the knowledge and power to stop it. If it's true and if it's bad for us and if we have the knowledge and power to stop it, maybe we have carefully considered the trade-offs and we won't overreact and so something stupid that would, I don't know, impoverish or starve a couple billion people.

Because, you know, government always does the wise and smart thing.

But that's an awful lot of ifs. We haven't even gotten past the first one yet.

And I remain skeptical that surrendering more power to government is going to pay any positive dividend.

So show me. If not in actual science, show me that those concerned about it, who presumably know more than I do, are actually living their lives as if they're as concerned as they tell me I should be.

That hasn't happened yet. There was, e.g., an article I read about the Copenhagen greenie conference a couple of years ago. Local car rental places had stocked up on economical cars expecting huge demand from the conventioners. The economical cars, however, languished on the lot.

But they ran out of limousines.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html

Private jets were involved, too...

> "The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone..."

Now... does bloviating about it show concern about global warming?

Or does it also matter whether people show it in the way they choose to live?

If I'm going to have to give up whatever power I still have in the marketplace because of what the greenies are saying, the least the greenies could do would be to show me they actually believe what they're telling me. And believe as well that it applies to their lives, too.

Anonymous said...

Herr Singring wrote of climate scientists screaming from roof tops. I like that image. I picture it with a Temptations' soundtrack...I Wish It Would Rain.

Art said...

So, Lee doesn't believe in global warming because those who he thinks believe in big government do believe in the phenomenon. In other words, his politics dictate his perception of reality; global warming cannot be real because it aligns with a political philosophy he does not like. (I'm ignoring the layers of fallacy that underpin Lee's arguments. Let's just grant him those.)

A few decades ago, Stalinist Russia rejected Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution in favor of a sort of Lamarckian biology that was championed by Lysenko. In Soviet Russia, it was decreed that the needs of the state could and would make subservient the biology of crop plants, such that new and improved varieties could be willed into existence according to the dictates of the state (and whatever 5 year plan was in vogue).

What is amusing is that Lee takes the exact same approach towards reality as Soviet Russia in the era of Lysenko - he insists that his political leanings are what determine climate, and not annoying things like facts.

This raises a question in my mind for you, Lee. Suppose you are a farmer in, say, ND who denies the reality of global warming, and thus wills that your farm will continue to have the same growing season and temperatures as it did 50 years ago. The question is - is the strength of your conviction enough to alter the climates of your neighbors' farms, where they are already growing crops that take advantage of the almost 2 week-longer growing season and higher temperatures? Or does the fact that they are your neighbors doom them? Will they also have to grow wheat?

Just wondering...

Singring said...

'My point was that global warming is, apparently, not settled science.'

Two points, Lee:

1.) According to the polls I've seen, somewhere between 95 and 99% of climatologists accept that climate change is real and that we are the predominant cause at the moment.

So if that doesn't count as 'settled science' for you, what would? If it needs to be unanimous, then I would suspect that you also believe the world is flat - because that's not settled science either. And I certainly would think that you would abdicate the Bible - because theologians are completely divided on what is says and whether or not what it says is actually true or not.

2.) Imagine the following scenario:

You are sitting in the passanger seat of a car, driving along an old mountain road at night. The driver is going at a good clip, speeding up the winding road.

You pass a sign that says 'WARNING: Road ends in 2 miles!'. The driver just keeps speeding on. You pass another sign that says 'WARNING: Road ends in 1 mile!'. Now you;re getting a bit uncomfortable because the driver is not slowing one bit - in fact he is accellerating. You ask him to slow down so you won;t drive off a cliff at the end of the road. He just smiles at you and says 'What are you talking about? that sign could have been put up by some kids as a prank! Who says the road actually ends up there?'

In other words: If we are faced with a situation where the most expert people in the world right now are telling us we are literally driving off a cliff, isn't it the most prudent course of action to slow down, do what we can to avert this possible disaster *even if * there's a slim chance they might just be wrong?

Or would you rather floor it (Because that's what we're doing right now)?

'I think liberals want global warming to be true because it gives them an excuse to increase the size, scope, and expense of more government.'

Sorry, Lee, but this is the most absurd thing I've ever read. Do you honestly think liberals *want* there to be a global crisis that will cause millions (if not billions) of deaths, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea-level rises, bush fires, water shortage?

Really?

What kind of twisted notion of your fellow man do you actually have?

I would be thrilled if climate change were a hoax or not happening. But I don;t have the luxury to think that because the science tells me I'm wrong.

Which brings me to my next point: You have yet to engage with any of the evidence at all - all you are going on about is perceived hipocrisy, problems you have with what kinds of cars and planes people use, your political agenda etc. etc.

Not a single word on the actual science, which you just said above is what you think should settle the issue.

'That hasn't happened yet. There was, e.g., an article I read about the Copenhagen greenie conference a couple of years ago.'

Here's some things you might want to remember when doing your own bloviating: Many if not most of the representatives at that conference (and others) *did not sign up to climate treaties*, including the US!

So why would you expect them to use green energy sources? Why are you blaming their failures in the people and countries who actually care?

How do you expect people to actually get to Copenhagen? Flap their arms?

I mean, seriously...

And again - theis has *nothing* to do with the actual science.

Anonymous said...

Singring, even if there was no argument about the "settled science" on "man made" climate change (there is IMO), there would still be much to argue about on politically mandated remedy. You get that, right? If not, then you resemble a person of faith trying to coerce an atheist into belief. Good luck and may American climate change skeptics prevail. Do what you want in Germany or Spain where that sunny country can't even make solar work economically.

Singring said...

'...there would still be much to argue about on politically mandated remedy. You get that, right?'

Of course I do.

I would love, love, loooove if we were at that stage to have a solid, evidence-based discussion on the policies.

However, as you see in this very discussion, we are unfortunately still stuck at a point where people think it's OK to refuse even having that argument because they a) don't like the house/car/plane person x is using so they needn't bother with the actual evidence or b) they think their 'opinion' on whether or not there is a debate among climatologists matters as to the actual facts of the matter.

It's very hard to have an adult conversation with someone who is plugging their ears screaming 'LALALALA' in your face.

Lee said...

> So, Lee doesn't believe in global warming because those who he thinks believe in big government do believe in the phenomenon.

Art, you persist in misrepresenting whatever I say. It's still there. I'm not going to explain it to you again.

> So if that doesn't count as 'settled science' for you, what would? If it needs to be unanimous,

So we take a poll and whichever position wins is the correct position?

> Sorry, Lee, but this is the most absurd thing I've ever read. Do you honestly think liberals *want* there to be a global crisis that will cause millions (if not billions) of deaths, drought, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea-level rises, bush fires, water shortage?

Singring, you're as bad as Art, maybe worse. I figure most liberals aren't specialists in physics, meteorology, or climatology. But they're philosophically disposed toward anything that gives them a mission to strip power from the people and hand it to the government.

What liberals want is the centralization of power. If we follow their recommendations, they will get the power they crave... even if the dire circumstances you envision don't happen. It's a win-win, from their perspective.

> You have yet to engage with any of the evidence at all - all you are going on about is perceived hipocrisy

I think the hypocrisy is more than just perception.

> How do you expect people to actually get to Copenhagen? Flap their arms?

Why, private jets, of course. And limousines for all! Nothing but the best for all those who want everyone else to live like a Spartan.

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

'So we take a poll and whichever position wins is the correct position?'

What?

Lee, it has been my entire point that you should be looking at the *evidence* to make your decision, NOT the authorities. I've asked you time and time again to engage with the *evidence*.

As Art has also pointed out, it has been YOU who is making the argument that you are dependent on authority to decide on the issue of climate change:

'That means I have to rely on authority.

Authorities, however, can lose their authority. East Anglia is a textbook example on how this can be done.'

It was YOU who used a supposed lack of unanimity as an excuse for accepting climate change data:

'Based on what I've read, the unanimity of thought among scientists doesn't exist.'

So I'm asking YOU what on earth then is your basis for deciding on this manner? one minute you tell us you need to rely an authority (fair enough), the next you reject the views of 'popular' authorities because of some perceive hypocrisy or 'gimmicks' or conspiracy theories and what have you - and then when someone points out to you that the vast majority of climate science authorities (not some vice President you seem to have a grudge against) actually accept that climate change is happening and that it is largely man made - you go aaaaaaall the way back to teh start and contradict yourself and say that you *don't* accept authority.

How is anyone supposed to have any kind of coherent, adult conversation with you if you can't even claerly articulate what would convince you of a scientific hypothesis like climate change?

'But they're philosophically disposed toward anything that gives them a mission to strip power from the people and hand it to the government.'

No, Lee, you don't get to fudge this one. Here's what you said:

'I think liberals want global warming to be true because it gives them an excuse to increase the size, scope, and expense of more government.'

So you honestly think that I and other liberals *wish* there was a global climate crisis that will cost the lives of millions, maybe billions and will make large areas of the earth inhospitable to human civilization?

In that case, you now join OldRebel in my 'ignore' column.

I honestly can't see how I'm supposed to have a sane conversation with someone who thinks I desire large-schale suffering to achieve ideological dominance.

'I think the hypocrisy is more than just perception.'

I ask for evidence, I get back an 'I think'.

'Nuff said.

KyCobb said...

Lee,

If there is even a small chance that climate change could lead to a mass extinction (including us)*, it would make sense to not run the experiment in reality to see what happens. There really isn't any disagreement about climate change, except from people being paid by the Kochs, who own trillions of dollars in fossil fuel reserves. And converting away from use of fossil fuels really doesn't require reviving the Third Reich or mass genocide. A study claims New York City could cut its emissions 90% without a reduction in creature comforts: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/02/urban_green_council_report_how_new_york_city_could_cut_emissions_by_90_percent.html

*http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mass-extinctions-tied-to-past-climate-changes

Lee said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html

Lee said...

Singring,

You're no better at summarizing what Art said than at summarizing what I said.

> In that case, you now join OldRebel in my 'ignore' column.

Darn.

Lee said...

> If there is even a small chance that climate change could lead to a mass extinction (including us)*, it would make sense to not run the experiment in reality to see what happens.

That depends on a lot of things. Two variables I can think of are not just risk, but exposure.

Also, we might want to look at the risks and exposure of any proposed solutions, assuming any are possible. We don't even know that.

> There really isn't any disagreement about climate change, except from people being paid by the Kochs, who own trillions of dollars in fossil fuel reserves.

I think there is disagreement, and we're not likely to discover the truth when the establishment view spends half of its time acting like hypocrites and the other half bullying anyone with a contrary interpretation.

Anonymous said...

I view American skepticism about certain politicians and bureaucrats and their selected scientists being able to set the planet's thermostat just right as a healthy sign that, just perhaps, Americans are not quite ready for the sheep pens.

Singring said...

'being able to set the planet's thermostat just right'

Can you cite any scientist or politician - anywhere - who claims we can artificially adjust the earth's temperature to a given temperature?

Can you cite any scientist or politician - anywhere - who claims that there is a certain 'right' temperature for the planet?

KyCobb said...

Anonymous,

Actually, they are being driven to the pens for slaughter by Big Oil, using the same people and tactics Big Tobacco used to keep them killing themselves with cigarettes.

Anonymous said...

KyCobb loves to demonize Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Banks etc. but never Big Government. Guess which one can drive people into sheep pens? Hint: See History of 20th Century and present day N. Korea, China, Cuba etc.

Lee said...

> KyCobb loves to demonize Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Banks etc. but never Big Government. Guess which one can drive people into sheep pens? Hint: See History of 20th Century and present day N. Korea, China, Cuba etc.

Might not be much fun for the people in the sheep pens, but the people holding the people in the sheep pens might like it just fine.

I'm sure big government in the U.S. would never put people in sheep pens. Unless, you know, they deserved it.

Anonymous said...

Just ask Japanese American citizens about pens, Lee.

Lee said...

> Just ask Japanese American citizens about pens, Lee.

Concur. Good thing a Republican wasn't president, or that whole fiasco would have been a gross violation of the Constitution.

Singring said...

I'm still waiting on those quotes, Anonymous.

But I see you're busy spinning conspiracy theories, so I better leave you to it. Having to think about actual facts might derail the paranoid delusion express you've got going there.

Anonymous said...

Make Google your friend, Singring, there are tons of scientists who dissent from your certainty about man made climate change. On the other hand, the head of the UN International Panel on Climate Change, which you so adore, is Rayendra Pachauri, an Indian mechanical engineer...are mechanical engineers "scientists", Singring? He also shared the Nobel Prize with well known scientist and divinity school dropout, Al Gore. This group does a lot of circle jerk peer reviewing which seems very selective about what gets reviewed. Some "peers" are more equal than others. Do what you want in Germany, more and more Americans are on to the con no matter what kind of crap our new Secretary of State bloviates as he tours the world. The American economy is bad enough as it is without wrecking it further by letting politicians become weatherman with teeth.

Daniel said...

Dear Martin,

Have you read “The Intolerance of Tolerance”? If so, how is it?

Sincerely,
Daniel

Singring said...

'Make Google your friend, Singring, there are tons of scientists who dissent from your certainty about man made climate change.'

Ah yes - the classic route to academic success - Google stuff!

I guess this is why we routinely mark down students for using websites as academic sources.

Gee - if only I had known that I could have saved me all that work of looking up and reading 300 + primary research articles for my PhD thesis simply by Googling some scientist's names and selectively picking ones that agree with me!

And another point: How many of those scientists are actually working in climatology? and how much is 'plenty'?

'On the other hand, the head of the UN International Panel on Climate Change, which you so adore, is Rayendra Pachauri, an Indian mechanical engineer...are mechanical engineers "scientists", Singring?'

That depends on what field they work in - I'd say a mechanical engineer is probably much better situated to understand the modelling of mechanical (because that's what they ultimately are) processes in the atmosphere tha, say, a biologist.

'He also shared the Nobel Prize with well known scientist and divinity school dropout, Al Gore.'

Kudos - wrapping a personal attack in a guilt by association attack! Haven't seen that too often.

'This group does a lot of circle jerk peer reviewing which seems very selective about what gets reviewed. Some "peers" are more equal than others.'

You didn't even specify which 'group' you are talking about here, so I have a hard time evaluation your outlandish claims.
Consipracy Theory 101: if you disagree with the opinion of experts, claim they are some sort of 'cabal' pushing an agenda.

Have you forgotten the recent announcement by Richard Muller who expressly set out to falsify the hockey-stick graph and came back saying that climate change is real and that we are the cause? How does that fit in with your fantasy?

'Do what you want in Germany, more and more Americans are on to the con no matter what kind of crap our new Secretary of State bloviates as he tours the world.'

Wow - you're really starting to pile on the evidence here...

To sum up:

You claimed that scientists and politicians knew there was a 'right' temperature for the world and that they claimed they could set the worlds temperature to just that.

You have not given a single quote, article or any other kind of evidence to support any of this.

In this whole rambling diatribe above you have not given a single piece of actual evidence, all you do is make incoherent attacks on people or groups you don't even bother to define.

And this is what our grandchildren's future balances on?

Great work!


Daniel said...

Dear Singring,

I'm not a climate skeptic, but if you want a defense of that perspective to take apart, here:

http://www.drwile.com/ecohyst.pdf

Peace,
Daniel

Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Singring said...

Thanks for the link, Daniel.

A few points:

I have had interchanges with Dr Wile before and he has a habit of being blatantly dishonest in his use of source material and his portrayal of scientific data.

I'm not quite sure how you cam across his 'handout' on climate change, but regardless of your own position on climate change (and I am gald we seem to have some agreement on this) but obviously a Creationist with a PhD in nuclear chemistry is not a reliable source of any kind of information on climate science.

If I gave you a link to a flat-earth geologist's website as a source for information on antibiotics, I doubt you would take that seriously. I'm sure you will agree that the same standards apply here.

Just glancing through the handout portion on climate change I can spot some serious flaws in logic and data presentation.

For example, he says 'FACT: The data say NO!!!' and then shows us a graph of two different types of temperature measurments spliced together - surface temperature and satellite measurements - giving no justification whatsoever as to why this would be permissible.

In fact, if you read his following statements, he says:

'Global warming occurs FIRST in the atmosphere. Thus, the atmosphere must warm
first, THEN the surface of the earth will warm.'

So clearly he says that atmospheric and surface temperatures respond differently to warming. Well then why on earth did he include BOTH in his first graph and just splice them together as if that was perfectly OK?

It is patently obvious that this is intended to mislead the audience - perhaps inadvertently, but in that case I would really have to question Dr Wile's attention to detail if he can't spot these kinds of mistakes.

Let's look at some other statements:

'Surface Temperatures are rising a bit:'

What exactly is 'a bit' supposed to mean here? If you ask me, looking at that graph, global temperature is clearly rising quite a lot. A scientist is not supposed to use vague words like this - either the temperature is rising or it isn't. It is especially disingenuous to say they are just rising 'a bit' and then show a graph that seems to tell a very different story.

He then goes on to make a series of claims about why surface temperature is not measuring actual global warming (none of them supported by any evidence) and some of them patently false.

For example, he states that 'Global warming is supposed to be GLOBAL. Surface temperature measurements are
weighted to LAND, which is about 30% of the earth!'

This is nonsense. There are perfectly good ocean temperature data sets available - inclding atnospheric data that shows the same trend as surface data. For example, see here how nicely the trends in warming match between different types of data set:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/12/global-temperature-news/

As you can see, this website, run by real climate scientists, links to actual primary research literature - in this case, this paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/

The paper linked to at RealClimate.org also includes two data series from satellite measurements. As you can see, they show a warming trend almost identical to that measured at the surface.

Why doesn't Dr Wile show these data in his handout if he thinks surface temperatures are no indicator of warming. Why would he not show you the atmospheric measurements he himself claims should eb more reliable?

Then the handout degenerates into a series of quote-mines, which are so obviously fallacious (you can find someone saying something and quote them out of context on anything), that I really hope don't have to waste any time discussing them in detail.

So let me put this bluntly and with the utmost respect for you (but not Dr Wile, I'm afraid):

Dr Wile is lying. I don't know if he is doing it intentionally (I suspect he is) or if he is doing it because of a lacking understanding of the issues involved.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I have had interchanges with Dr Wile before and he has a habit of being blatantly dishonest in his use of source material and his portrayal of scientific data.

Huh?

I've known Dr. Wile for years and have never known him to be dishonest. Leveling wild charges and ad hominem arguments doesn't do the rest of your case any good.

Singring said...

'I've known Dr. Wile for years and have never known him to be dishonest. Leveling wild charges and ad hominem arguments doesn't do the rest of your case any good.'

Well, I've given an example of his dishonesty right here. It's blatantly obvious - he makes up nonsensical graphs and omits data that he himself claims would be informative.

If you take issue with it, then engage with the evidence.

For other examples of Wile's dishonesty, all you need to do is peruse his Proslogion blog. It is ripe with quote-mining, selective presentation of data and omission of counter-evidence etc. etc.

Anonymous said...

I throw out a metaphor (mine) about about man made global warming zealots acting as if they can set the planet's thermostat just right, and Herr Singring demands that I provide quotes and citations of scientists and advocates who have claimed they can set the planet's thermostat just right. Geez. The same guy btw who sees a mechanical engineer who worked for the Indian railroads as a climate expert, and continuously gets snitty when some of us question the credibility of Al Gore, who Singring gushes about living "carbon neutral", or, as Lee put it, an indulgences buyer. As for Muller, whom the left used to condemn as a Koch brothers tool, now that he has converted he's accepted into Singring's apocalyptic flock. That's very christian of Singring. I wonder if the fact that Muller and his wife now run Muller and Associates, a for profit consulting firm, diminishes his divinity? PS Singring, my grand kids would sic the dog on you. The little feller's French, what can I say.

Singring said...

'PS Singring, my grand kids would sic the dog on you. The little feller's French, what can I say.'

Once again your statement shine forth like a beacon of coherent rationality, Anonymous.

There is obviously no counter to your litany of peer-reviewed smears and German-bashing innuendo and I should have known better than to ask for any actual evidence to support your allegations...come to think of it, how inappropriate of me, lowly Teutonic slime that I am, to even dare ask for anything resembling factual data when it is so clear that we decide these kinds of global issues by reference to the businesses of the wives of people we disagree with.

How silly of me.

My sincere apologies. I hope I didn't ruffle your tin foil hat.

Anonymous said...

OK, students, no more Google research for you, so drag out your parents' encyclopedias. In the meantime, scientists will transform economies and lifestyles ( and the weather) based upon computer models... aka the new alchemy. And never forget, Herr Singring never stereotypes or slurs or insults . Never.

Lee said...

> In the meantime, scientists will transform economies and lifestyles ( and the weather) based upon computer models... aka the new alchemy.

It's your lifestyle they wish to transform. Not theirs. It's good to be the king.