Labels

Today marks the 1 year anniversary of the Air Vent. None of this was planned and had I realized the work level it takes to run a blog, I don’t know if tAV would have been started. Either way, I’m happy with what we’ve done here and offer my heartfelt thanks to all those who have contributed and commented as you are the ones who keep me going. Blogs are 100% comment powered. To some degree, it’s surprising how worthwhile it feels to do a post and have myself and others learn from it. It’s also invaluable to have a venue for another individual to describe some aspect of AGW not everyone has considered.

The Air vent has had some effect on individuals and scientists. This project revealed to me the underground network of highly skilled professionals who work behind the scenes as true scientific skeptics, many of whom are supportive yet fear for their careers to take a public position. I have concerns about that myself, despite what some advocates seem to think, family IS more important than a few C of global warming.

This past year revealed to me a small group of technically skilled blogs and scientific discussion which on the skeptic side is unmatched for quality of science and integrity in blogland. The whole experience has given me a comfort and understanding that individuals do exist who understand and can counter some of the more extreme claims of climate science and more importantly have the inherent willingness to let the data take them where it does.

From these connections, we’ve seen examples of peer review being used to fight back good papers which demonstrate clear evidence to the contrary of extremist global warming and accept bad papers in support. Fortunately, the outlet for some of this work has shifted to blogland where the damage to the journals and credibility of peer review is creating a negative feedback which, if it hasn’t already, will eventually influence the process for the better.

So for the 430,000 views and 7,200 comments left, thank you. The rookie season has ended and we’re on to bigger and better things.

————-
This weekend was spent buried in stats again in relation to the Antarctic Reconstructions and hope to have some new posts on that soon but it takes time. In the meantime, I keep reading the news to see whats going on, as reported by our now state run media. Don’t worry, no political venting coming, I’m so disgusted with politics, it feels like there may be months before the nausea settles and anything else comes up.

This morning, I read a report by the Chicago Tribune which was reporting on the heartland institiute’s Chicago get together of AGW individuals who wish to promote the view that AGW is false or highly questionable science.

Global warming skeptics gather to share disbelief

In an obvious effort to marginalize dissent, attaching labels to Skeptics has become a passion of today’s press. Reporters flatly refuse to differentiate between skeptic’s and climate change deniers preferring to understand skepticism using some form of street definition where the nuance of the meaning is lost replacing it as a synonym for denier. This is not entirely the press’s fault as the advocate scientists for AGW seem to enjoy the perpetuation of this blurring this particular definition. In fact, to my own dismay many self proclaimed skeptics have even missed the difference so let’s be clear. A scientific skeptic is defined in Wikipedia as:

A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation.

This is obviously entirely different from denial. Denial, is a complete disagreement with a statement or position. My view is that only one position is currently reasonable regarding climate change, skepticism. By that, I’m saying – we don’t know.

Can you prove unequivocally or even with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the earth has warmed unusually in the last 50 years? – Nope

Can you demonstrate that the warming that has occurred is clearly created from the addition of global warming gasses to the atmosphere? – Nope

Can you state that the current change is outside the natural variability of the global climate? – No you can’t.

At the same time does the opposite hold true.

Can you prove unequivocally or even with an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the earth has NOT warmed unusually in the last 50 years? – No.

Can you demonstrate that the warming that has occurred is clearly NOT created from the addition of global warming gasses to the atmosphere? – Nope

Can you state that the current change is NOT outside the natural variability of the global climate? – Nope.

We do however know that CO2 is good at catching outgoing long wave radiation due to greybody emission from the earths surface and atmosphere. The addition of CO2 WILL definitely cause an increased capture of heat. This is known to a very high degree of certainty, and is as solid a fact as there is in science. No matter what the feedback level, this guarantees some form of warming from the addition of CO2. The real question is, how do the atmospheric feedback mechanisms react to the CO2 based warming and for this — nobody has the answer.

Yet despite the above truths, scientists and polyscienticians have oddly declared consensus. Of course to anyone with an inkling of scientific background knows the claim of scientific consensus is actually the weakest argument possible in science, especially when it’s not true. Polling of scientists is astoundingly unscientific for support of a scientific conclusion.

Now you may be tempted to argue the above points. I’m aware of the arguments on both sides but that is not the point of this post. If you don’t mind, lets focus on the other aspect of what’s happening, it is more important than the nuances of the above arguments. The point of this post is the different from whether or not you think an item is proven or strongly demonstrable. The point I’d like to make is one of labels.

From my internet travels, the best label available for a scientific skeptic is Lucia’s brilliantly coined Lukewarmer. Lukewarmer acknowledges the facts that CO2 does cause some warming in conjunction with the fact that advocate scientists are promoting literature and conclusions on the most extreme side of possibility as known fact. The only reason I don’t claim it is because it sounds like a reduced level of warming is proven, when it is not, actual warming could be higher or lower than measured. I do believe (like many here) that a reduced level of warming is probably the real answer. I am somehow certain that the global disasters are nothing but BS. This is admittedly unscientific, however, it is IMO scientifically equal to some of the peer reviewed disaster papers based on ridiculous data and proxies. How about that idiotic paper on fish shrinking due to global warming. 🙂

Therefore warming can still be on the extreme edge, just as the consensus proclaims or it could even be immesurably small in relation to climate variation. Nobody actually knows.

So what stirred me up this morning, the article linked above has a few unfortunate labels for the Heartland institute convention which do an excellent job of demonstrating some of the reporting bias. First, I’d like to start with an obnoxious quote of the sort that gives AGW skeptics a bad name:

“The science is settled,” said S. Fred Singer, a University of Virginia environmental sciences professor, mimicking a line that former Vice President Al Gore used in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” “And it’s settled in concluding that most of the warming of the climate is caused by natural forces, not human activity.”

While it may feel good to hear, Fred would need a license to be more full of crap. Clearly nothing has been settled. However, the rhetoric is equally balanced by the other side where consensus has been declared and the labels are flying as fast as they can, check this alleged quote out from David Doniger with the addition of the authors own description. (my bold)

Depending on one’s perspective, the skeptics are either Davids going up against the Goliaths of the UN climate panel, left-wing environmental groups, and the liberal media, or they are “an oddball collection of ideologues, deniers, and front men for energy companies,” in the words of David Doniger, head of climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the climate skeptics’ chief adversaries.

So skeptics are Davids, oddballs, ideologues, deniers and front men for energy companies whereas advocates are Goliaths of a panel, environmental groups and liberal media. I have a great deal of difficulty with the media (Stevenson Swanson in this case) continually hammering away that somehow skeptics are energy funded and therefore non-credible for that fact while COMPLETELY ignoring the tens of thousands of times greater funding for government science. All the while somehow missing the minor detail that the government is not an impartial observer as it is a clear and in my opinion the only beneficiary of AGW proposed (alleged) mitigation policies.

I also have a problem of the scintists/advocates in AGW science being viewed as Goliaths, fat maybe but Goliaths?

Skeptics are skeptical of conclusions, not in denial of conclusions but rather willing to question the basis or supporting facts behind the conclusions. Skepticism does not detract from credibility but is rather substantially enhances credibility relative to the advocates of the IPCC. From the thousands of similar examples to the one above, it has become apparent that it is the activist media which is working in conjunction with advocate government funded scientists to distort and marginalize an otherwise accurate term into something it is not. Rather than change my own moniker, I’ll resist.

I am a skeptic!

Anyway, here’s to another year of healthy skepticism on tAV. I’ll leave this happy post on those who refuse to be sheople with the following telling quote from the above article. A statement which is oddly supposed to give MORE credibility to the IPCC.

“We’re using the word “most’ very carefully here,” said Solomon, who noted that the panel’s work was reviewed by more than 600 scientists and accepted by more than 100 governments.

It’s hard to imagine reporters missing the bias in that beauty.