Deltoid - Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute

| 63 Comments

On Deltoid, Tim Lambert explores the similarities between the Discovery Institute’s list of ‘dissenting scientists’ and Inhofe’s list of ‘global warming deniers’.

Inhofe’s list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I’d compare the two lists.

First, numbers. The Discovery Institute’s list has 751 names, while Inhofe’s has only 604. (Not “More Than 650” as he claims – there are many names appearing more than once.)

Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute’s list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you’re disputing the global warming consensus and he won’t take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.

Third, what sort of scientists are on the lists? Well, the Discovery Institute list has a distinct shortage of biologists, while Inhofe’s is lacking in climate scientists. It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate.

There are 5 ‘scientists’ who show up on both list, one of them is…

Guillermo Gonzalez

Fascinating how ignorance can be a motivator in so many different areas, from the Intelligent Design argument to the Global Warming denial, science strongly contradicts the claims.

Read more at Inhofe: less honest than the Discovery Institute


Some have raised the question as to whether there is such a thing as Global Warming.

First the temperature record 280px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Followed by the CO2 concentration

280px-Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg.png

So what do we notice? First of all the temperatures have been rising since as early as the 1970’s. We also know how CO2 concentration and temperature are related and can thus evaluate the temperature response due to CO2.

By modeling the temperature response with and without the human caused forcing components one can show that most of the recent warming is indeed related to human actiity. tn_figspm-2.jpg

63 Comments

Wasn’t there an issue about some names on the DI’s list not being removed after a request? I know a few people have said they were mislead and signed it without knowing the DI’s intentions (the statement is ambiguously worded).

Compare it with the HIV Denial list too. http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php

The common features are.

a) Padded with people with no knowledge or experience of the field that they criticize. b) People are added to the list without their knowledge c) You can’t get your name removed from the list (even if you die from AIDS). d) Names such as Phillip Johnson and Jonathan C. Wells appear on more than one list

Here’s something I wrote about the relationship between global warming denialism and evolution denialism, aka Creationism:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/dis[…];pst=1008608

People of all persuations need to learn how to use real logic, not use fallacies regardless of the subject matter, avoid confirmation bias, and stick to what can be verified beyond a reasonable doubt. If you WANT to beleive in something, you can always find something on the internet to support your belief, even if what you find is pure bogusity.

Science is ultimately based on the scientific method, which is used to support and confirm all known scientific laws, and then those laws can be applied to deep time, both in the past and the future, to create new hypotheses. Over time, science becomes more accurate based on the continued accumulation of data, but it NEVER goes in a completely wrong direction. Peer review is used to detect and expose any errors made by scientists. Nitpicking a hypothesis (like evolution or man-made global warming) in an attempt to discredit it is pointless, since there are complexities in all matters of science that make it necessary to do more research. The analysis of those complexities leads to an already established hypothesis being made more accurate. If you want to refute a hypothesis or theory completely, you must attack the scientific laws on which it is based. Nothing else will do.

The list of signatories at “Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry” has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they’ve included dentists. Desperation?

Luke said:

The list of signatories at “Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry” has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they’ve included dentists. Desperation?

Dentists are surgeons, just like neurosurgeons. IIRC surgeons were, originally, barbers :)

I was kidding… :)

There is, as discussed in Don Exodus’s video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Wheels said:

Wasn’t there an issue about some names on the DI’s list not being removed after a request? I know a few people have said they were mislead and signed it without knowing the DI’s intentions (the statement is ambiguously worded).

Hi all,

Am not at all impressed with the qualifications of virtually all of those on this “list”. I almost expected to see the name of one of my college professors - Dr. Robley K. Matthews - a highly regarded paleoclimatologist who is a prominent skeptic of global warming - but thankfully it seems as though he had the good sense not to get involved.

Regards,

John

Apparently Professor Ian Plimer (an arch anti-YEC) has claimed global warming is not man made:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/[…]age=fullpage

We are not sceptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanised Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. “What we’re measuring is urbanisation,” Plimer said.

He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia’s Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah’s Ark in Turkey.

Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that “we’re dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational”.

Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”

see:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/200[…]=channellink

IIRC surgeons were, originally, barbers

As far as I know Kevin, surgeons were butchers(bad surgeons are still given that nickname today). Hence, when a doctor qualifies as a surgeon he drops the “Dr.” and reverts to plain old “Mr.”

Peter Henderson said:

IIRC surgeons were, originally, barbers

As far as I know Kevin, surgeons were butchers(bad surgeons are still given that nickname today). Hence, when a doctor qualifies as a surgeon he drops the “Dr.” and reverts to plain old “Mr.”

No, Barbers. See The Barber-Surgeons:

“The Company has close links with the Royal College of Surgeons of England and until the two organisations split, in the Eighteenth Century, the two were united. Hence the Company’s Hall is Barber-Surgeons’ Hall.”

rossum

rossum said:

“The Company has close links with the Royal College of Surgeons of England and until the two organisations split, in the Eighteenth Century, the two were united. Hence the Company’s Hall is Barber-Surgeons’ Hall.”

rossum

Indeed, and in England a Surgeon is formally “Mr…” NOT ever (heaven forbid) “Dr” - you graduate from medical school as a Doctor, then spend another 5 years or whatever training as a surgeon to become “Mr” again !

Its a nod to their “barber” heritage.

Steve

Steve Taylor said:

rossum said:

“The Company has close links with the Royal College of Surgeons of England and until the two organisations split, in the Eighteenth Century, the two were united. Hence the Company’s Hall is Barber-Surgeons’ Hall.”

rossum

Indeed, and in England a Surgeon is formally “Mr…” NOT ever (heaven forbid) “Dr” - you graduate from medical school as a Doctor, then spend another 5 years or whatever training as a surgeon to become “Mr” again !

Its a nod to their “barber” heritage.

Steve

I was under the impression that “Doctor” was a courtesy title, as a “medical” doctor’s qualification is, technically, not a doctorate. The current British hoi polloi doesn’t understand the Dr/Mr distinction, so dentists are tending to call themselves “Doctor” these days.

I must get this in. “If surgeons evolved barbers, why are there still barbers?”

Barbers is correct. Bad surgeons being referred to as “butchers” is also coincidentally a common term but has no historical basis. In Oz, surgeons take the title “Mr” or “Dr” depending upon which State they practice in.

Back on topic, I found this fascinating especially as a couple of well known conservative columnists here have been touting the “600 names” story on their blogs just recently. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that some names turn up on both lists of “doubters” of the science!

On Plimer, I find it rather ironic that he talks of the dogmatism of others given his history on the matter. He seems to be frequently sought out for comment by people from a particular political demographic and often obliges, surely in the knowledge that the angle and “balance” for the story has already been predetermined.

Luke said:

The list of signatories at “Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Inquiry” has the names listed three different ways to pad it out. And they’ve included dentists. Desperation?

Maybe it means that finding people to sign their list is like pulling teeth …

[quote] It does have a lot of meteorologists, but these are people who present weather forecasts on TV, not scientists who study climate. [/quote] [quote] Indeed, and in England a Surgeon is formally “Mr…” NOT ever (heaven forbid) “Dr” - you graduate from medical school as a Doctor, then spend another 5 years or whatever training as a surgeon to become “Mr” again ! [/quote] [quote] I was under the impression that “Doctor” was a courtesy title, as a “medical” doctor’s qualification is, technically, not a doctorate. [/quote]

Cultural differences note: It’s funny to see differences in names and titles across various countries and languages. Doctor ,as many surely already know, means teacher in latin. Hence Ph.D.= Philosophiae Doctor = Doctor (teacher) of philosophy. In greek although the latin term doctor is used we also use the word for healer (iatros). And doctors here don’t usually-generally prefix or postfix their name with any word to give away them being doctors.Only around their workplace or speaking about their job and medical issues one would usually call them doctor something. Being a doctor here,as in most places is certainly a prestigious occupation but that’s not enough to always being called Dr instead of Mr. Come to think of it only priests here are always called by the title for priest but following that is their Christian name and not their surname (ie papa Ioannes -> priest Ioannes (John)). Ph.D. in greek is Didaktor Philosophias.Didaktor,doctor are linguistically very related wors with the same meaning (teacher) but the greek term surprisingly is not used here for the medical profession ,instead it’s only used in its literal meaning (teacher-professor). Meteorologist is also the valid term in greek for the weather-climate scientist(that’s what it means and it’s a greek word anyway).Do you only use it for the people on tv presenting the weather forecasts? Lastly surgeons are surely counted as doctors here,indeed doctors of very high class.

Sorry,long time since my last comment here and I have forgotten the quote grammar-syntax used here.

Call me thick-headed, but what is the point of all this denial? What end does it serve? I could understand your reluctance if you were the CEO of exxon, but a lot of these people seem to just distrust science whenever it disagrees with them…

Jim said: what is the point of all this denial?

lowering stop co2 emmision means to increase regulation dramaticly due to the momentum of oil/energy enfrstruture (industrial rev) afairemember Oreskes does a great clip on how the Marshall institute evolves from the cold war to defended tobacco by using the F.Luntz strategy about skeptisism or lack of concensous. (i apologize for my horrible typing/spelling) and this strat is used by all sorts of denialists evolution or climate

oh. damn i forgot, there is also this strong dislike for a new movement counter to young earth (YEC’s) that suggests the YEC have an innacurate view of their (gods) earth

the new faith is called “science” and it has theories postulated by hubris phd zealots, and for some reason they (science) are getting allot of power slowly and have started censoring contrary “evidance” like the bible. not good, not good for bible at all,, its a “war” with launguge and political bending ,, so nothing new there, same old war of ideas. (apology for sloppiness)

Did someone say “history”?

Originally, a person who had attended a University and had taken a degree in medicine was referred to as a “physician”, “physic” meaning originally something like “material”, as in “not spiritual”. (Newton used it in the same sense.) Physicians diagnosed illness and prescribed for it, where “prescribed” means “laid down any course of treatment whatsoever”. They supervised the treatment and continued to consult without doing anything directly themselves, because they were scholars and (here’s the pitch) gentlemen - or at least, they wanted to be considered as such. Gentlemen did not actually work with their hands. Even mental work was a bit below them, and physicians were always a little sensitive on the subject. They didn’t want to be thought of as mere artisans. Hence the insistence on their academic title, which they even used socially, the only group of academics that did. (This is still the rule, incidentally.)

The courses of treatment they prescribed usually included specific diet, exercise and various other therapies. As a last resort - because it was intensely dangerous, not to mention painful - they also prescribed surgery, but of course they didn’t do that themselves. A chirugeon - a cutter - was called in to perform that function. Chirugeons were, as Stephen Maturin remarked, a respectable body, but they were tradesmen, not gentlemen. They didn’t have academic qualifications, and they learned their trade by apprenticeship. They barbered - which meant not only hairdressing, but also cutting warts, pulling teeth, chiropody, lancing boils, phlebotomy and the like, functions that were beneath the notice of physicians. “Chirugeon”, the Latin word, eventually was angicised as “surgeon”.

However, by the middle of the nineteenth century, this distinction was breaking down. As surgery became more effective and elaborate, surgeons began to train by formal study of anatomy, and eventually were qualified by degree in the Universities. Many of the latter retained the distinction between medicine and surgery by granting separate degrees, but reflected the new equality between the two by making them baccalaureates, while retaining the senior degree as a research or theory qualification. After 1830 the various governments established medical boards to examine and licence both physicians and surgeons, rather than leaving it to professional bodies or the Universities, and these boards accepted the new degrees. The result was that medical practitioners no longer qualified by doctoral degree, but the social convention of calling them “Doctor” remained.

Surgery became the cutting edge of medicine during the nineteenth century. Progress was palpably being made - anaethesia, then asepsis and antisepsis. The surgeons, revelling in their ability to actually do something, insisted on the distinction from physicians - previously injurious, now honourable. It was simply that status had changed foot. They still do that to this day, thus producing the ridiculous convention that a person qualifies in medicine, and is addressed as “Doctor” (a title to which he or she is not strictly qualified), and then specialises in surgery so as to revert to being merely “Mr”, “Ms” (etc).

It’s like the whale’s hipbones. Funny how history and biology sometimes intersect.

Dave Luckett said:

Surgery became the cutting edge of medicine during the nineteenth century.

Ahah. Ahahah. Hah.

Peter Henderson said:

Apparently Professor Ian Plimer (an arch anti-YEC) has claimed global warming is not man made:

Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”

This sounds suspiciously like an Ayn Rand Society aka “Objectivist” type. They reject creationism, but they also reject any scientific finding that they can associate, in any way, with “liberals” or “environmentalists” like Al Gore in this case. If it doesn’t support the so-called “objective” conclusion that anthropocentric capitalist consumption is the most rational approach at all times, then it is equally lacking in intellectual capacity as creationism or any other superstition. With nearly 30 years of Reaganomics currently (finally?) collapsing, hopefully some of this “objectivist” propaganda will go away.

Sorry to interrupt. I know how rude it is to mix politics with religion, but it’s kinda what I do…

Good work on your continuing fight for truth, science and the American way. I know my posting here is preaching to the choir (pun intended), so I do most of my best work away from ‘home base’ so to speak.

Here’s a couple paragraphs from a much longer post I made at my blog at Talking Points Memo. I hope it meets with your approval and some of you find the time to recommend and comment on it over there. The post was originally a comment I made in reference to another blogger’s use of the word ‘fuckers’ in reference to the usual cast of Republican asshats.

To wit:

The more I think about it, the more I’m willing to overlook your colorful and carnal use of colloquial curse words, so long as I still get to refer to the FUCKERS as enthusiast supporters of the torture of children’s testicles. Maybe Pastor Warren will explain it as necessary to torture the testicles of children because doing otherwise ‘might jeopordize the integrity of the unborn’. Did God not mention his stand on the torture of children’s testicles? Was he so preoccupied with condemning the homosexuals and seafood eaters that he overlooked the obvious? God gave us all noses, ears and and asses, never actually directing us on what their functions were to be used for. He must have known we were smart enough to figure out our heads from our asses. Too bad he didn’t have the forethought to forcefully and vehemently comment against the torture of toddler testicles. I thought that issue, (along with the Magna Carta), had been settled long, long ago.

and my personal favorite on Condi Rice’s possible employment opportunites…

.….she could open a think tank. It could be named the “Center Heading Research in Support of Torturing Toddler’s Testicles” aka CHRISTTT, which will of course be more informally referred to as the CHRIST CENTER for purposes of public consumption. That’s just how those FUCKERS roll.

Link:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ta[…]-fockers.php

Enjoy.

KP said:

Peter Henderson said:

Apparently Professor Ian Plimer (an arch anti-YEC) has claimed global warming is not man made:

Human-caused climate change is being “promoted with religious zeal … there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance.”

This sounds suspiciously like an Ayn Rand Society aka “Objectivist” type. They reject creationism, but they also reject any scientific finding that they can associate, in any way, with “liberals” or “environmentalists” like Al Gore in this case. If it doesn’t support the so-called “objective” conclusion that anthropocentric capitalist consumption is the most rational approach at all times, then it is equally lacking in intellectual capacity as creationism or any other superstition. With nearly 30 years of Reaganomics currently (finally?) collapsing, hopefully some of this “objectivist” propaganda will go away.

Don’t bet on it! After all, Christianity is still around, centuries after you would have expected it to have been debunked.

BTW, I know Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you just made her sound like a cult leader. Sheesh!

Dale Husband said:

BTW, I know Ayn Rand was an atheist, but you just made her sound like a cult leader. Sheesh!

Truth is stranger than fiction!

(And a lot more fun than Rand’s turgid borefests too)

So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating?

Or just lecturing each other about it?

John Holdren will be President Obama’s Science Advisor. :-) Here is a clip of him with David Letterman discussing Global Warming. http://www.cbs.com/latenight/latesh[…]953125.phtml

novparl said:

So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating?

Or just lecturing each other about it?

Why would we do any of those things?

I know your comment is really just a shrill Straw Man, but personally I’ve been trying to reduce my family’s home energy use for quite a while. I turn off lights and appliances if nobody’s going to be in a room, and started switching to CFLs several years ago (“I liked them before it was popular!”). When I had to buy a new car, I looked at the models with the lowest fuel consumption first, and then selected the one I liked best in the test drives. It turns out that this also got me a relatively inexpensive model overall, which is doubly good. I haven’t really suffered for trying to be a bit lighter on the environment, in fact I think I’ve come out ahead a few bucks.

novparl said:

So what are you doing about global warming? Giving up your cars? Abandoning central heating?

Or just lecturing each other about it?

I do many of the things Wheels mentions. I’ve also arranged my schedule so that I can work from home one day a week and commute at off-peak times most other days. Some of my research group’s work is on on energy technology. I do some limited consulting with industry regarding energy-efficient environmental controls. When possible, I teleconference rather than travel.

And I’m thinking about converting my home heating system to one that burns straw men proffered by denialists and delayists – it’s a renewable and seemingly unlimited resource!

As far as my resources suggest, the issue of global warming has moved largely from a scientific issue to a religious and political issue. There appears to be a strong evangelical divide where some have realized that we are the stewards of the earth.

See also this poll

Most of those who believe that the earth is getting hotter also believe that human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is responsible: based on the total sample, 50% say this, and 23% say it is mostly a result of natural patterns in the earth’s environment. But there are somewhat larger differences across religious groups on this question: 52% of Catholics and 48% of white mainline Protestants believe the earth is getting hotter and think this is because of human activity, while fewer evangelicals think this (37%). Fully 62% of seculars feel that global warming is occurring because of human activity.

Some of the difference between evangelicals and other religious groups regarding the existence of global warming are a result of the more Republican and conservative political views of evangelicals. But after these factors are taken into account, white evangelicals remain slightly less likely than others to believe that global warming is occurring or that it is the result of human activity.

Temperatures have not risen over the last ten years. The data set GISS uses is based on ground stations; see Anthony Watts’s blog for the pictures of stevenson screens totally misplaced and producing garbage.

The graph you have showing the corresponding rises of CO2 and temperature isn’t long enough – it starts out at the end of the Little Ice Age (are you saying the reason you can’t walk from the tip of Manhattan to Statten Island or go ice skating on the Thames in mid-winter nowadays is because of human induced warming? Great, let’s have more of it!)

In both the Roman and Norman periods wine grapes were grown in Britain. Was that because of human induced global warming? Mann et al. want to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period, but the evidence is not confined to Northern Europe – it is world wide.

CO2 is also a trivial greenhouse gas – the most important are water vapor and methane. CO2’s contribution to greenhouse warming is also logarithmic – Hansen has claimed there is a feedback; let him prove it!

As to there being a religious or political component to the debate, as far as religion goes my experience is that it does not matter (I am an agnostic) but politically there is. Those of us who doubt the new global warming religion see Al Gore and his ilk as the rent seekers they are.

John H. Costello said:

Temperatures have not risen over the last ten years.

So, all those new temperature records set in the last ten years, those are just a mass delusion? Never happened? It’s all part of a vast conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids? Is that your final answer?

John H. Costello said: As to there being a religious or political component to the debate, as far as religion goes my experience is that it does not matter (I am an agnostic) but politically there is. Those of us who doubt the new global warming religion see Al Gore and his ilk as the rent seekers they are.

Interestingly enough, the first mention of Al Gore in a climate discussion ALWAYS comes from the deniers. Global warming is not a religion. Al Gore is not a religious figure, EXCEPT to the deniers. They have set him up as the Source Of All Evil. They can’t address the facts, they refuse to even try understanding the science, so they need a human face to attack, much like the creationists’ worship of Charles Darwin.

Also, I notice you have no interest at all in addressing the actual topic here. Do you support Inhofe’s fraudulent use of the names of scientists who have publicly stated that they do not want him using their names for this purpose? Yes or no? Do you or do you not support FRAUD? Tell the truth. This is the issue here, Inhofe is LYING, and you don’t seem to have any problem with that. Since you clearly don’t place any value at all on honesty, why should anyone trust you or believe anything you say? The facts are against you, and you obviously don’t care.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 17, 2008 11:09 PM.

Carnegiea gigantea was the previous entry in this blog.

Three Years Already? Merry Kitzmas! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter