the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Pielke Saying the Truth

Posted by Jeff Id on December 4, 2009

Some don’t like that I let my political veiws show.  Which do you prefer, showing or hiding.

Roger Pielke Jr. called out Mann And Schmidt on this today on their politics.  My opinion is that the scientists at RC are guilty of the advocacy agenda (and it is a foolish extremist agenda) of globalism, socialism and non-elected government involvement in every aspect of our lives. These people live in a world where money comes from the government.  They don’t spend even one minute of their lives worrying about being laid off or making payroll.  They have never been concerned with supply of product or producing a good.  They live sheltered lives where such political views can make sense.  Not every professor get’s corrupted or fails to understand the outcome of these amazingly reckless policies, but many do.

You all hear from me enough, here’s Roger’s take.

Your politics are showing

Roger Writes:

I think we can get past the lie — and it was a lie — that these activist scientists, in the words of Gavin Schmidt, “are not taking a political stand.” They are indeed taking a political stand and they are doing so in stealth fashion using the authority and institutions of science as cover to do so. As the leaked CRU emails show, this group of activist scientists are firmly entrenched in the major institutions of climate science, such as the IPCC.


5 Responses to “Pielke Saying the Truth”

  1. Antonio San said

    Right on!

    The masks have fallen thanks to climategate.

  2. Sonicfrog said

    At least Hansen has the decency not to pretend that he was a neutral party,

  3. Pat Frank said

    It’s not that I object to your politics, Jeff. It’s that when politics are inserted into comments about science, your opponents will use your politics to discredit your science. Among scientists and engineers, political discredit counts for nothing. But politicized scientists and their NGO allies will focus on your politics to obscure and distract attention from your science. The public gives more credence to political tarring because they can’t really understand the scientific case. So, they just trust whoever speaks to their own political bias.

    We see this tendency written large in Congress, where politics decides everything about climate legislation, and science takes a poor back seat. I have read enough of the testimony before Congress to know that climate-sensitized Congress-folk, notably our California representatives, ignore powerful scientific testimony about the lack of a valid scientific case for AGW. They choose out the testimony they like and reject the rest, imposing their biases on the rest of us. The only encompassing explanation for this behavior that I can see is pure opportunistic political cynicism.

    So, I worry that your excellent science and really cogent analyses will be buried from public acceptance under attacks that target your political comments. What you write is your blog, your choice, and your right.🙂 But my worry.

  4. Brian B said

    It’s that when politics are inserted into comments about science, your opponents will use your politics to discredit your science.

    Politics are already used to discredit science by people whose politics are either unknown or whose politics are the opposite of what is alleged, just as fictional affiliations with Big Oil and evil capitalists are.
    Better to speak his mind IMO. I have a lot more respect for Hansen with his openly stated crackpot political pronouncements than I do for Jones and Mann with their sly snickerings and half hidden agenda.

  5. I felt compelled to post a satirical response to Monbiot (Dec 4) in the UK’s Guardian >>>

    ( see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/dec/04/debate-climate-sceptics?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments )
    >
    >
    Mr Monbiot, bravo to you, sir!

    You made a right mug of that old duffer, Lawson by ridiculing him with HadCRUT3 temperature series wheeze! I literally pissed myself when I read your ‘Guardian’ piece where you say, “What it actually shows is that eight out of the 10 warmest years since records began have occurred since 2001.” Corker! Mum’s the word now on that ‘reconstructed’ 1000 year record set ; )

    No one came back at you with the 12 Oct 2009 email, either. You know the part – where that dullard, Trenberth says to Mann, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t…. Our observing system is inadequate.” Twat!

    Trenberth and Jones are too much of a liability now. I’m starting to like that ‘apology’ you made more and more. I think I see where you’re taking this one ( thinking: sacrifices for the cause). The team talk in the locker room is Jones and Trenberth are plum scapegoats – throw them out and keep the integrity of the team intact, right? We may do something about this on RC. MM was wondering if you’d flim-flam some more in case someone does another ‘Trenberth’?

    Btw, SM and his team of holocaust deniers over on CA and WUWT haven’t yet chewed over the lost 800+ ground- based climate-measuring stations from the official GIStemp. We might want to cull another set of ‘cold’ ground-based stations and augment the HadCRUT3 with a slew from China near some power stations (UHI?). Any thought?
    Regards,
    GB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: