the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Steve Mosher on PJTV

Posted by Jeff Id on February 18, 2010

Steve Mosher left a link to this interview on my blog during work hours. Unfortunately, at work I have no sound on the work computer. The interview turned out to be quite good though when I finally got a chance to listen to it tonight.  Check it out – click the picture to play.

The interview is also posted at Lucia’s.

Unfortunately, I screwed up and forgot to give credit to her blog for hosting the video first.  She never mentioned it tho.


38 Responses to “Steve Mosher on PJTV”

  1. I was here first LOL
    look at my link on tammy’s cherry pick what a puke.
    (last post)

  2. Kendra said

    I stumbled onto the Mosher video yesterday, just because I like to see what’s on video at PJTV anyway, I was totally thrilled to see he was on with Bill Whittle.

    Looking forward to hearing other reactions – I thought it was excellent. And what a shock to see what he really looks like, I’d pictured him much differently!

    Now we just have to see Jeff interviewed too!

  3. […] Ms Wrong Wong cant see the big picture, Penny Wrong Wong and Boulton – peas in a pod, Penny Wrong Wong is not happy, […]

  4. George said

    John Stossel would be the perfect journalist for this story.

  5. Layman Lurker said

    Well done Mosh!

  6. P Gosselin said

    I think Steve did very well too, but I think he gives the so-called MSM too much credit. They are no longer the ones who decide what the news are. They are has beens.

    I’m wondering about this: Falling Sea Levels?
    http://www.climategate.com/sea-levels-proven-to-have-fallen-for-past-six-years#more-4236

  7. KevinUK said

    Just watched the PJTV video

    Very interesting to find out that I’ve been hanging out at ClimateAudit a lot longer than Moshpit!

    I don’t agree with what he said about the ‘Guardian trying to get it all out’ and that the UK media are currently being orchestrated by UEA’s press office. There’s very little doubt that the Muir-Russell investigation will be a whitewash given Boulton continued presence on it but I don’t necessarily think that this will mean anything anyway. I do agree with Moshpit’s analysis though that it will be a whitewash primarily so that UEA (and specificaly the Tyndall Centre) can be exhonorated and continue to receive it’s propaganda funding from DECC (DEFRA) as a consequence.

    The problem is that the UK is f***ed. We’ve closed our coal mines, we sold off our North Sea exploration rights far too cheaply and wasted the proceeds on unemployment benefits and are heavily reliant on imports. Instead of facing up to our imminent energy crisis we’d rather build over 4,500 wind turbines than continue to ensure that we have diversity and redundancy built into our electricity supply industry (ESI).

    Rather than generate real wealth and real growth in our economy, we’d rather rely on financial scams and tricks instead like the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). We are heavily committed to the AGW wagon despite the fact that now all four of its wheels have fallen off.

    Despite the fact that we are ‘going to hell in a handbasket’ our politicans would much rather look after their own self interest rather than do what we elect them to do which is to represent OUR interests and not THEIRS. And they wonder why the UK electorate is ever more disinterested in turning out to elect them.

    To use a phrase of John Brignell’s at ‘Numberwatch’, it’s time for us to ‘stop taking in each other washing’ and actually get back to what we used to do before we became subserviant to our EU masters. We must get back to exploiting what few natural resources we have left, dig stuff out of the ground and turn it into something useful that other people are prepared to pay good money (and not phoney money) for. We have to ‘cut our coat to suit our cloth’ instead of continuing to think that we can just forever keep increasing the burden of taxation on our population. Is that ever likely to happen? I doubt it!

  8. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I would strongly recommend listening to this interview. I think Mosher makes a number of insightful observations on the MSM response to the emails and their near collective failure to ask the right questions.

    An off-point observation of mine is that unfortunately, and sometimes frustratingly, too much of the media sympathetic to skeptics side miss the more nuanced points coming out of the emails and use generalized pronouncements such as the AGW hoax instead of dealing with the issues in more detail.

  9. Mark T said

    KevinUK said
    February 18, 2010 at 10:13 am

    Very interesting to find out that I’ve been hanging out at ClimateAudit a lot longer than Moshpit!

    It seems like I recall seeing your posts from the very beginning if I’m not mistaken, but I did not notice Mr. Mosher till the last few years or so.

    Mark

  10. Lady in Red said

    I think you deny the power of the MSM at your peril…

    Mosher’s cynical assessment of what is being “allowed” in British MSM is
    pretty right on. This is a tactic to see if the story continues to have “legs.”

    The US MSM has ignored it completely. Could there possibly be any justification
    for that? You’d think they weren’t competing for readership, if this were a
    sane world….

    If the skeptics, advocates of real science, are going to win, it is important to
    plan for a very long war.

    ………Lady in Red

  11. Here’s another interesting story from Pajamas:

    The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part One)

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/

  12. KevinUK said

    Mark T

    “It seems like I recall seeing your posts from the very beginning if I’m not mistaken, but I did not notice Mr. Mosher till the last few years or so.”

    Yes Mark, like yourself (and Jean S, UC, bender etc) I am a CA veteran, almost from the start of CA but not quite. Do you remember Dano and his ‘linkies’? What happened to TCO (I’ve seen him on some other blogs)? Whatever happened to ‘welikerocks’ and her geologist husband? I also came across one of my favourite trolls the other day (Peter Hearnden) on another blog. It’s quite amusing to see how things have turned out and just how wrong some of the trolls back then on CA have turned out to be. I’m not glotting honest!

    I hope he’s reading this (most likely not) but I actually have Tim Lambert to thank for my skepticism on AGW and for what caused me to visit CA in the first place. I’m a long time visitor to Numberwatch and have a lot of respect for John Brignell. When I saw Tim Lambert call him a ‘crank’ because of his skepticism on CAGW, I had to see why he would think that of JEB and the rest is history as they say.

    I watched Steve McIntyre’s testimony (almost ‘live’) before the sub-committee on Oversight and Investigations of the Commitee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Repsentatives back in July 2006 and Michael Mann’s later (because he couldn’t find a babysitter) testimony and got particularly annoyed when Mann referred to the Hubert Lamb IPCC FAR figured (that acknowledged the existence of the MWP and LIA) as a ‘cartoon’. How things have changed since then and how ironic it is has turned out given that CRU are housed in the Hubert Lamb building at UEA.

    For the non-veteran CA visitors, here is an snippet from the transcripts

    “Finally, I would like to welcome Mr. Stephen McIntyre, who
    will testify about attempting to understanding just what was behind
    the hockey stick graphic promoted by the IPCC. His work is a
    testament to the value of open debate and scrutiny.

    Now, I have talked about Dr. Mann and we invited Dr. Mann to
    be here today and he was unable to be here. We are extending another
    invitation for him to come and hope that maybe he will be here next
    week. Now, even though Dr. Mann could not come, he specifically
    asked us to request Dr. Crowley to testify on his behalf and Dr.
    Crowley is with us today from Duke University, and we look forward
    to his testimony. But as I said, the real purpose of this hearing
    is, let us just open the book. Let us look at everything. Let us
    look at the criticisms of all parties and see exactly where we are
    on this important issue of global climate change.

    QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ TEMPERATURE STUDIES: IMPLICATIONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS

    As you can see Mann chickened out the first week and sent Tom Crowley instead. Visitors reading this may be interested to know that Tom Crowley (and his wife Gabi Hegerl) currently work in the same Department at Edinburgh University as Geoffery ‘I’m completely neutral honest!’ Boulton who is on the Muir Russell UEA investigative panel who will be investigating the behaviour of the good Dr Phil ‘road to Damascus’ Jones shortly.

    I’m the one Mark if you can remember who referred back then to Steve Mc as ‘our resident Toto’. We’ll he has well and truely ‘pulled backed that curtain’ now hasn’t he? I’m also the one who often uses squash analogies (like the Rule 11 interference rule which Steve seems to appreciate) to explain the antics that Steve has had to put up with over the years. For those who don’t already know Steve Mc is a very accomplished (dare I say for his age world class)squash player and IMO this is one of the primary reasons why he never gives in and despite his opponents antics always plays fair.

  13. KevinUK said

    Oops,

    Missed the closing tag on my link to the transcripts and made a typo on the squash interference rule. It’s actually Rule 12.

    Rule 12 – Interference

    Note to self – don’t forget to proof read before finally clicking that ‘Submit Comment’ button.

  14. Ruhroh said

    Wow

    Quite the ‘Cheshire Cat Smile’ on the freeze=frame teaser of the video.

    BTW Jeff, is it difficult to add a ‘preview’ button?

    I have some visual impairments, but usually make higher quality (or perhaps less poorly crafted) posts when I see them in the preview window where it is available.

    Airvent is my goto blog for frequent new content, and also for the ease of checking the others in that handy list on the right. Thanks for so much that is great.
    RR

  15. Jeff Id said

    #14 If you install this you can get a preview system to work.

    http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/

  16. Layman Lurker said

    A quote from the Q&A of PJ at Science mag:

    Q: You’re a widely published scientist and with a lot more prestige than your critics. Why then were you reticent to share the data with these outsiders?

    P.J.: I was pointing them to where they could get the same data and they could do their own analysis. They are intent on repeating the analyses of others. They are of course entitled to do whatever they want to, it’s a free world, but they just don’t seem intent on wanting to do their own work. They just seem intent on wanting to repeat what others have done. They’re trying to slow us down, and waste time.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/327/5968/934/DC1

    Mosh, it looks like you were right.

  17. Layman Lurker said

    #16

    Sorry, that should be a h/t to Bishop Hill.

  18. gallopingcamel said

    KevinUK,

    Thanks for all your help. I just noticed that you mentioned one of my colleagues from the Nicholas School.

    Your comments on the following would be appreciated:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-250_162-6212892.html?assetTypeId=30&tag=contentMain;contentBody

  19. Ruhroh said

    OK, thanks for the reminder Jeff.

    I had it but I’ve had some problem with Mozilla where it gets crashy and I have to start a new user profile which loses all the cool stuff.

    Hopefully this will improve the quality of my posts. But, quoting the Secretary of State, “Hope is not a strategy…”

    I had a new idea for a thread, partly as a result of watching Mosh’ analysis of ‘why’…

    Analyzing the climategate mails for the 8 symptoms of Groupthink;
    A Seemingly Inevitable Human Mechanism of Overstated Consensus in Groups…

    1. Illusions of invulnerability creating excessive optimism and encouraging risk taking.
    2. Rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group’s assumptions.
    3. Unquestioned belief in the morality of the group, causing members to ignore the consequences of their actions.
    4. Stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, disfigured, impotent, or stupid.
    5. Direct pressure to conform placed on any member who questions the group, couched in terms of “disloyalty”.
    6. Self-censorship of ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus.
    7. Illusions of unanimity among group members, silence is viewed as agreement.
    8. Mind guards — self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information.

    Of course this kind of analysis cuts both ways! So, shine this light of insight on ‘groups’ you like as well as ‘groups’ you dislike.
    But then again, “we” seem to have the choice to join or decline to participate in the Overwhelming Consensus.

    Hopefully this (psycho)analytical task is amenable to ‘group’ processing, heh…

    RR

  20. Thanks guys.

    here is another piece:

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-not-fraud-but-noble-cause-corruption/

  21. Thanks kenneth.

    Others. if you want a real treat go back and read ‘dano” and bender and others in the early years.. kevinuk too.

  22. Mark T said

    steven mosher said
    February 19, 2010 at 3:16 am

    if you want a real treat go back and read ‘dano” and bender and others in the early years.. kevinuk too.

    Dano was a trip. Bender still posts, btw, just in spurts. The best, IMO, was Steve Bloom. Self banned because he crossed a line that even he knew was too far.

    Mark

  23. Mark T said

    KevinUK said
    February 18, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Yes Mark, like yourself (and Jean S, UC, bender etc) I am a CA veteran, almost from the start of CA but not quite.

    Me too. I searched one day, wondering when I started and it was within the first year, but later, like that November or something. Jean and UC have both been quite lately. I should roust them!🙂 Don’t know how to roust bender.

    Do you remember Dano and his ‘linkies’?

    He was a pain, as I recall.

    What happened to TCO (I’ve seen him on some other blogs)? Whatever happened to ‘welikerocks’ and her geologist husband?

    Another “self banned” type. Steve got tired of his drunk tirades and got a little… testy, as I recall, and then TCO finally got tired of nobody listening to him and left. He’s posted here a time or two, I think, certainly over at WUWT on occasion.

    I also came across one of my favourite trolls the other day (Peter Hearnden) on another blog. It’s quite amusing to see how things have turned out and just how wrong some of the trolls back then on CA have turned out to be. I’m not glotting honest!

    Yeah, but they’re still trolls. Peter was definitely another that really had the ability to grate.

    Mark

  24. KevinUK said

    gallopingcamel

    I not sure who your colleague is from Nicholas school who I mentioned.

    I’ve had a look at that interesting link.

    At the risk of going OT here, my first comment about that link is why what is so unsafe about PWRs? While I’d agree that using a coolant that in the event of a reactor excursion could change phase is not the best idea (see the RBMK design for example), history has demonstrated the PWR by any engineering safety standards to be a safe design. One of the problems we’ve always been dogged by in our UK nuclear power generation programme is never sticking to a proven design. We had 3 generations of Magnox reactors followed by effectively 4 different designs (Hunterston B/Hinkley Point B, Hartlepool/Heysham I, Dungeness B, Torness/Heysham II) of Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactors (AGRs). I thoought that finally we’d decided to stick to a proven design and replicate once the Sizewell Inquiry approved the construction of the Sizewell B NPP, but no, we only got to build just the one thanks to the privatisation of the UK electricity supply industry (ESI) as the subsequent ‘dash for gas’. I think its high time now that like the French we take a decision and commit to a single reactor design and replicate it for a whole new generation of UK NPP.

    However I don’t think we should embark on a new generation of NPP within the UK on the basis of another lie as we did in the vase of our first generation of UK NPPs. The first lie told to the UK taxpayer was that we were embarking on programme of Magnox NPPs so that we could generate electricity so cheaply that we wouldn’t even need to meter it. In reality we did so that we could breed enough plutonium to maintain our independent nuclear deterent. The second lie that we are being told today is that we need a new generation of UK NPPs so that we can avoid castastrophic man-caused global warming.

    This is nonesense, we need a new generation of UK NPPs because our UK politicians have decided to de-carbonise our UK ESI because our economy has had it because our North Sea oil and gas resources have all but ran and we about to have to depend on foreign imports. Our reluctance to re-open our coal mines, combined with our total suicidal committment to renewables generation primarily from intermittant sources like wind turbine farms, mean sthat we have very little option but to commit to a new generation of UK NPP. Our lights will literally go out in 10 year stime if we don’t. Now our UK politicians know that we won’t stomp up the taxes to pay for our renewables obilgations and a new generation of UK NPPs without a very good reason, so that’s despite all the evidence to the contrary they will not budge one inch on their ‘doom and gloom’ pronouncements.

    That’s why all our political parties in the UK are committed to continuing with the propaganda campaign. They know we are ‘f****d’ if we don’t attempt to de-carbonise our economy. This is why our UK government through DECC continue to fund the Met Office to tell us that the ‘sky is falling’ and that ‘we must act now to save the planet from dangerous climate change’. This is why Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband call us ‘deniers’. They are the real deniers and what they are denying is that they have ‘f****d up’ our UK economy by failing to act decisively in regard to our future energy policy and now expect us to pay for their lack of action and incompetence.

  25. gallopingcamel said

    KevinUK,
    Tom Crowley is the ex-colleague. My lab shares a parking lot with the Nicholas School of the Environment. Did he move to the UK?

    You sound a little down so here are some words of encouragement. Reality has a way of trumping dogma so the unreasonable expectations related to “renewables” are becoming more apparent day by day…..the aging Nukes in Germany that should have been decommissioned but had to be re-licensed to maintain base load capacity……the windmills in the UK and Denmark that produced almost no electricity in January……. It won’t be much longer before the shortcomings of wind, wave, geo-thermal and solar power become obvious to everyone.

    LWRs have an excellent safety record in spite of the extreme pressures required for the coolant and the sturdy outer containment structures required. The RBMK would have been fine but for human perversity. Even so, there are designs that operate at 15 psi pressure and cannot melt down if all controls and safeties fail. There are other designs that can be turned on and off like a light bulb.

  26. Jimchip said

    #18, #25 gallopingcamel

    Tom and Gabi are out in Edinburgh, Scotland now. Wrt to your cbsnews comment, I’m glad you said “if his science advisor (Chu)” “Chu” in parens – It still makes sense. Chu is the energy sec. Sci advisor is Holgren, a Mann friend/advisor
    (1066337021.txt)

  27. KevinUK said

    gallopingcamel

    Here is Tom Crowley’s CV

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/tcrowley/cv_full.doc

    based on the info in his CV he must of left Dukes University shortly after July 2007 to begin his new post of Professor of Geosciences School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, and Director, Scottish Alliance for Geosciences and the Environment (SAGES) in August 2007.

    and here is Mrs Crowley’s (Gabi Hegerl’s) CV

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/ghegerl/vita_hegerl0110.pdf

    again based on the info in her CV she didn’t relinquish her assocation with Dukes University until after July 2009 having moved to Edinburgh along with Tome and the kids in August 2007. She became Professor of Climate System Science at the School of Geosciences in August 2009.

    Rather mysteriously, Geoffery Boulton’s home page and CV are not on the School of GeoSciences web site

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/person.html?indv=437

    and he’s rather lacking in his publications list

    http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/people/publications.html?indv=437

    “It won’t be much longer before the shortcomings of wind, wave, geo-thermal and solar power become obvious to everyone.

    I think most people (even our UK politicians) already know this. That doesn’t necessarily mean that anything is going to be done about it.

    “LWRs have an excellent safety record in spite of the extreme pressures required for the coolant and the sturdy outer containment structures required”

    Agree, but I don’t thing I describe Sizewell B’s secondary containment building as ‘sturdy’.

    “RBMK would have been fine but for human perversity.”

    I disagree. I don’t think a reactor design that has an in-built large positive void coefficent of reactivity is ‘fine’. Far from it!

    Void coefficient

    “A positive void coefficient means that the reactivity increases as the void content inside the reactor increases due to increased boiling or loss of coolant; for example, if the coolant acts as a neutron absorber. If the void coefficient is large enough and control systems do not respond quickly enough, this can form a positive feedback loop which can quickly boil all the coolant in the reactor. This happened in the Chernobyl disaster. The construction of reactors with a positive void coefficient is illegal in the United States.”

    “fine but for human perversity”

    I’m not sure what you mean by this but if you are refering to the fact that the primary caus eof teh accident was human intervention in disabling the ECCS and other systems you are wrong. have a goo dread o fthi sentry on Wikipedia.

    Chernobyl disaster

    “According to this report, the chief reasons for the accident lie in the peculiarities of physics and in the construction of the reactor. There are two such reasons:

    The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient. The void coefficient is a measurement of how the reactor responds to increased steam formation in the water coolant. Most other reactor designs have a negative coefficient, i.e. they attempt to decrease the heat output in the presence of an increase of the vapor phase in the reactor, because if the coolant contains steam bubbles, fewer neutrons are slowed down. Faster neutrons are less likely to split uranium atoms, so the reactor produces less power (a negative feed-back). Chernobyl’s RBMK reactor, however, used solid graphite as a neutron moderator to slow down the neutrons, and the water in it, on the contrary, acts like a harmful neutron absorber. Thus neutrons are slowed down even if steam bubbles form in the water. Furthermore, because steam absorbs neutrons much less readily than water, increasing the intensity of vaporization means that more neutrons are able to split uranium atoms, increasing the reactor’s power output. This makes the RBMK design very unstable at low power levels, and prone to suddenly increasing energy production to a dangerous level. This behavior is counter-intuitive, and this property of the reactor was unknown to the crew.
    A more significant flaw was in the design of the control rods that are inserted into the reactor to slow down the reaction. In the RBMK reactor design, the lower part of the control rods was made of graphite and was 1.3 meters shorter than necessary and in the space beneath them were hollow channels filled with water. The upper part of the rod—the truly functional part which absorbs the neutrons and thereby halts the reaction—was made of boron carbide. With this design, when the rods are inserted into the reactor from the uppermost position, initially the graphite parts displace some coolant. This greatly increases the rate of the fission reaction, since graphite (in the RBMK) is a more potent neutron moderator (absorbs far fewer neutrons than the boiling light water). Thus for the first few seconds of control rod activation, reactor power output is increased, rather than reduced as desired. This behavior is counter-intuitive and was not known to the reactor operators.
    Other deficiencies besides these were noted in the RBMK-1000 reactor design, as were its non-compliance with accepted standards and with the requirements of nuclear reactor safety.

  28. gallopingcamel said

    I would guess that the Crowleys, Mann and Boulton are pretty tight. Boulton clearly has no intention of stepping down from the Muir Russell “investigation”. It looks like the Hockey Team has things under control at least in Edinburgh!

    KevinUK, you have clearly studied the Chernobyl disaster in much greater depth than I have. My expertise is in particle accelerators rather than reactor design.

    Given your point about the reactor void issue you will appreciate the inherent safety advantage of dissolving the fuel in fluoride salts as in LFTRs or GEM*STAR. The Xe135 is easy to deal with in these reactors.

    I am arguing for a clear legislative framework to be set up in the USA that will reward safer designs by market mechanisms such as mitigating insurance costs.

    Also new reprocessing technology should be rewarded according to the impact that it has on the higher Actinides that were destined for storage in Yucca mountain. Without large scale re-processing, Obama’s nuclear bandwagon is not going to roll very far!

  29. KevinUK said

    Jeff ID and Steve Mosher,

    I hope you don’t mind gallopingcamel and I hijacking this thread to some extent?

    gallopingcamel

    “you have clearly studied the Chernobyl disaster in much greater depth than I have”

    It has really been a case of studying the disaster but rather having personally been involved (second hand) in its investigation. I am an ex-safety and risk management consultant and at the time of the disaster I was employed by (the shortly after to be privatised) UKAEA. Although I haven’t personally been involved with the clean up, I shared an office with others who visited the site frequently and who were directly involved in the investigation of its causes.

    In regards to the LFTR, I watche dthe video and foundin it interesting. I’ve also watch this video which gives much more detail.

    The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

    So what do I think of Thorium and its potential for saving our planet from those nasty (water vapour excluded) GHG’s? Well unlike climate science I think it’s well worth spending my UK taxpayer pounds sterling on. However I’d prefer if we could use it in current proven reactor designs like the CANDU and LWR designs. Have a read of this very informative link.

    Thorium

    Do I think the ‘Thorium Reactor is what fusion wanted to be’? Most definitely! IMO fusion research is a waste of time, money and resources that should be spent on other much more practical nuclear technologies which have proven potential like thorium reactors. ITER will be an utter waste of money. Wil it go ahead? Most likely, because as we’ve seen now time and time again in climate science, it’s not just about the technology, it’s also about the vested interests of those who approve the funding.

  30. gallopingcamel said

    Decisions relating to “Climate Science” and “Energy Policy” affect standards of living around the world, with ripples extending generations into the future. As a scientist I would like to think that these weighty decisions are based on good science but there are growing reasons for doubt.

    In his farewell address in 1951 Dwight Eisenhower warned us:
    QUOTE
    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
    UNQUOTE

    Our governments pick the winners and losers beforehand by deciding which ideas will be funded and which will not. The recipients of the funding (e.g. Mann et al.) get published in peer review journals while basking in the adoration of the “Main Stream Media”. When things go wrong as in Climategate the establishment gets to pick the panels to conduct the “Investigations”, thus ensuring that the desired outcome.

    Lysenkoism did enormous damage in Russia but this new “Soft Lysenkoism” may be much more dangerous, especially if it is able to gain any traction at supra-national level through bodies like the IPCC.

    But for the Internet and blogs like this one how would the general public have any clue about what is going on?

    Does anyone agree with me that governments already have too great a role in picking technology winners and losers?

  31. AMac said

    Gallopingcamel #30,

    That’s a timely quote from Pres. Eisenhower’s Farewell Address of Jan. 17, 1961. Here’s a link; the immediately prior text makes clear that he was expressing concerns about the Military-Industrial Complex. I agree that his cautions should be applied more widely.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    “Soft Lysenkoism” is a great turn of phrase.

  32. Poptech said

    Some background on Mr. Mosher,

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/06/who-is-steven-mosher.html

    • Carrick said

      You come across as a dislikable scum-bag with that post. Was that your intent?

      • Poptech said

        Which fact do you have a problem with?

        • Carrick said

          A concerted personal attack on somebody you have technical disagreements with, and you’re asking what the problem is?

          I didn’t realize what a low-life you are till now.

          • Poptech said

            Since when are facts considered a personal attack? My disagreements lie with people not knowing his credentials and the creation of urban legends because of this.

          • Carrick said

            Supposed “credentials” should play no role in the determination of whether a scientific claim is true or not. You show little understanding of what constitutes a “scientist” or a “software developer”.

            One needs no special degree to be conferred upon one before they can be labeled either, so your argument to the contrary is itself risible.

            If I write scientific papers, that is I add to the scientific corpus, then I am a scientist. I know of somebody (a colleague of mine collaborated on this person’s first paper) who wrote his first peer reviewed paper when he was 16, well before he had his Ph.D. in physics. He also happens to be a software developer, selling a major software product, with no specific training in software engineering.

            If I have a Ph.D in physics and I write scientific paper, then I am a Ph.D physicist who is also a scientist. If I have the Ph.D. but say go into business management, then I am not a scientist, but a businessman. Simply having the Ph.D. itself does not quality me to be called a scientist.

            Similarly, if I have advanced training in software engineering, but I don’t write software, then I am not a software developer.

            That said, this doesn’t even make sense:

            My disagreements lie with people not knowing his credentials and the creation of urban legends because of this.

            What’s the urban legend? How is “people not knowing his credentials” a “disagreement”???

            disagrement (n): lack of consensus or approval.

            Mosher indisputably says somethings that are wrong. He’s guilty of being human after all. If you can’t find a technical issue with things Mosher has said (there are many that you could have selected from), but instead employ ad hominem (to the person) arguments, that just makes you look intellectual weak and ethically challenged.

            Not a wise course of action, but it’s your image, tarnish it as you will.

          • Poptech said

            People who argue credentials do not matter have never applied for a job.

            So Natalie Portman is a scientist?

            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed075p1270

            Claiming anyone can be a “scientist” makes the title meaningless. There is a big distinction between an amateur scientist and a professional scientist. A professional scientist is “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.” Since Mr. Mosher has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist, the only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.

            I find it hilarious you think I am unfamiliar with software development. My technical background is exactly why I could tell Mr. Mosher was bullshitting a lot. Self-appointed titles are easy to spot on resumes as I have extensive experience reviewing them. People BS using them all the time to try and get jobs, I would NEVER hire someone who knows next to nothing about programming like Mosher for a software development job.

            There are various urban legends surrounding him, mostly relating to his credentials and involvement in Climategate. I believe these urban legends only exist because people are unfamiliar with his actual background and he is very good at marketing himself.

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: