Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Mike Mann _The hockey stick and the climate wars_

In a message dated 2/19/2012 12:02:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, writes:

It is a long time since I saw such a pile of rubbish. Accusations,
insinuations, leaps of logic, and non-sequiturs. Only Nazis and Hitler
are missing, although even they are alluded to with the "denier"
moniker. I often disagree with John, but I never expected this. Rather
than dissect it, I suggest we better just pretend it never happened. Ze'ev

This isn't an argument. Your comments are what is best left forgotten.

Bob Zannelli

On 2/18/2012 8:16 PM, John Clement wrote:
I am just tired of the sort of nonsense that is written without any
evidence. I will admit that the science is very difficult, and without
expertise in this area it is impossible to fairly evaluate all claims.
what I see it exactly the same thing going on with this issue as is
going on
in the realm of evolution. There is a contingent that wishes to deny
science and is trying to shoot the scientists. Most people on this list
bring up good arguments, but we need to be aware that there are many
not on this list who are trying to force their beliefs on others. Some
this is done for political reasons, religious reasons, or just social

What would you do if your scientific work was subpoened and subject to
ridicule the way legitimate climate scientists are experiencing? I did
realize until I read the physics today piece how climate scientists are
being personally attacked and intimidated. I feel that people should be
exposing these tactics and making this very public. My concern stems
more than just a feeling for fellow scientists, but also from personal
family experience. I heard all of the stories about how actors were
stranded by managers who absconded with the proceeds, before the actors
unions were able to put a stop to this type of thing. I have seen how
religious persecution still survived in the US in the last half of the
century. I know a lady who was told she could not be allowed to teach
history in the Durham public schools because she was a Catholic. I have
also gotten arguments by global warming deniers which are exactly the
used to deny evolution. Is it no wonder that I tend to be extremely
skeptical of the deniers? Now the divide is between the scientists and
people who wish to vilify them.

I will fully admit that there might be other reasons for the recent
warming, but the preponderance of evidence points to human induced
I would love to be convinced that it will reversed on its own, and that
will not have serious consequences down the road.

I also live in a state where the governor has publicly stated that ID is
taught in the schools. He also appointed ID and creationist supporters
head the TX board of education. I live fairly near Santé Fe TX where
violated the constitution repeatedly by having school sponsored prayers
public school. Of course only one religious group ever composed the
prayers. Then when two religious families sued, they had horrible things
done to them. The uninvolved Jewish city manager had garbage dumped on
lawn along with death threats. So I see the persecution and personal
attacks on climate scientists as something that is very bad and could
to us all. In TX the conservatives tend to be anti-evolution/global
and the liberals pro evolution/global warming. This is a horrible state
affairs. Fortunately the Houston public schools are "liberal" on

I read everything I can, whether I agree or disagree. I feel that the
author who claimed the deniers are naïve or influenced by economic
did not go far enough. There is a whole block of people influenced by
religious or social convictions who are opposed to a lot of science
including global warming and evolution. Make no mistake they are linked
these people's minds. I know some of them, and have seen the sort of
mindedness that is exhibited. Most people on this list are not like
so please do not take this as necessarily being aimed at one person
individually. However I feel free to question particular statements.

Barry Goldwater once said that he couldn't deal with the strongly
people because they wouldn't ever admit to being wrong. Of course he was
talking about a particular group. There are many religious people among
scientists and many who are flexible enough to change their positions.
was true with Galileo. It was the narrow minded low level thinkers who
against him, while he was shielded by other intellectuals in the church.
doubt that Goldwater was anti-evolution, so at one time conservatives
be positive on science. Goldwater also said that when a religious group
buys into one political position, the politicians would use them to
their (the politician's) ends.

We are dealing with an attack on science. It can very well spill over
other fields of science. At present there are organizations that are
marshalling stronger defenses against the deniers. But consider that
sort of nonsense is perhaps stronger evidence of a decline in the US.
you have half the people evolution deniers and personal attacks on
scientists this is strong evidence of a possible decline. Couple this
the attacks on teachers, and you have a real decline in education.
that one denier organization is planning on putting anti global warming
curriculum into the schools. Who is going to parse this curriculum to
sure it is accurate? Let us remember the numerous inaccuracies in many
traditional texts.

I see the deniers as exhibiting signs of concrete operational thinking
because of the types of arguments they use. I would say this physics
has some skeptics rather than deniers, which is a very different thing.
High level thinkers can and do change their minds. They also can see the
influence of multiple variables and look at the preponderance of the
evidence. In either case one also has to defer some to the experts.
When I
was in Los Alamos I heard that the MDs had problems with the PhDs who
question diagnoses. The PhDs thought because they were nuclear experts
they could be good medical diagnosticians, but that is not true. OTOH
MDs found that once the patient was convinced of the diagnosis they could
follow the treatment more closely than average patients. So like JD I
agree that the circumstantial evidence is very convincing, but I don't
enough knowledge to dissect fully the climatological models. So I am
willing to defer to the climatologists who have reached a 97% consensus.
admit that I am convinced!!!

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

On 2012, Feb 18, , at 11:52, David Marx wrote:


Normally, I respect you and enjoy your posts on this list.
But your response to my post was simply
dismissive to which I say, "Hogwash!" You are as guilty as
all of the "true believers" of never
addressing valid scientific questions.

I am one that has tried to track down the answers from
climate scientists to these claims. It is an
endless circle of hand-waving, excuses, and ridiculing
statements. I demand more of scientists,
regardless of their field of study. I thought you did too.

Forum for Physics Educators

Forum for Physics Educators