« thanks, two-party system! | Main | happy days »

October 09, 2008

CONSENSUS WATCH – 10/09/2008

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed immediately if we are to forestall cataclysm. After all, without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data and alternative hypotheses that better fit recorded observations!

The Consensus has come under assault from a familiar foe.

At a recent presentation before the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Roy W. Spencer, Principle Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville, demonstrated how testing current climate models against actual satellite data reveals fatal flaws underlying the assumptions regarding the feedback mechanisms related to heat capture, CO2 and cloud formation.

This is a standard smear tactic used by global warming deniers in which they take observed data and apply it in a straightforward manner to reach verifiable conclusions.

Okay, that doesn’t sound as bad when you say it out loud.  However, we’ve already established that The Consensus is true so the real question is not so much how do we subject it to critical examination that may yield superior climate models and in so doing generate information that could be better acted upon by policy makers, it’s how do we defend it from any and all criticism.

Fortunately, Al Gore has two suggestions on how to better shore up the science underlying The Consensus:

  1. Vandalism
  2. Suppression

Vandalism: Al Gore has called for “civil disobedience” to stop the construction of new coal plants that do not incorporate “carbon sequestration,” a process by which coal plants are made too expensive to build. (So it’s sort of a win-win.) This kind of direct action skips the laborious, time-consuming process of building political support among the citizenry, who, let’s face it, clearly do not recognize the size and magnitude of the problem Al Gore is still having getting over the 2000 election.

Suppression: Al Gore has also called on attorneys general across the country to prosecute public companies for committing stock fraud if they challenge The Consensus. People who might object to using state law enforcement to suppress dissenting views clearly lack an understanding of the history of scientific inquiry:

Galileo Opposing The Consensus

If someone as revered as Galileo can face criminal prosecution for challenging the prevailing consensus, then who are we too argue?

Of course, Galileo lived in what we now refer to as the “Golden Age of Consensus Enforcement.” It makes our attempts at intimidation look feeble in comparison.  Sure, you can threaten to strip someone of their scientific certification.  But you know what would be better? Threatening to imprison them for life.

Sometimes it’s that little extra bit that helps to get you over the top.

Now, yes, you could argue that Galileo happened to be, in the strictest technical sense of the word, “correct,” regarding the motions of the planets, but that’s not really the point.  The point is that we need a similar enforcement mechanism to get Richard Lindzen to sign something like this:

I, Richard Lindzen, having before my eyes and touching with my hands, the Fourth Assessment Report, “Climate Change 2007,” swear that I have always believed, do believe, and by Al Gore's help will in the future believe, all that is held, preached, and taught by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But whereas -- after an injunction had been judicially intimated to me by the United Nations, to the effect that I must altogether abandon the false opinion that the sun is possibly a greater contributor to climate change than anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and that I must not hold, defend, or teach in any way whatsoever, verbally or in writing, the said false doctrine.

Therefore, I, the said Richard Lindzen, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and in witness of the truth thereof I have with my own hand subscribed the present document of my abjuration, and recited it word for word at Al Gore’s mansion, in the state of Tennessee, this ninth day of October, 2008.

Now that’s how you set someone straight, old-school.


(Welcome, ICECAP and Planet Gore readers (and more recently, Junk Science). In addition to the other random nonsense here, we do have a dedicated "Global Warming" category, (link on the left, above the calendar) where, among other things, you will find more entries in our CONSENSUS WATCH series. Thanks for stopping by!)

Bookmark and Share

October 9, 2008 at 02:59 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference CONSENSUS WATCH – 10/09/2008:


And now - out of the high plains of the Texas panhandle - comes the hottest new idea to come down the pike in a long time. Bonfires. Bonfires using worn out tires as fuel. A fitting protest against the stupid global warming scam and that little poser and fixer Obama. Let's celebrate "Black" week with some good old fashioned pollution. Liven up your tea party with plumes of smoke from a thousand tires. Show the pricks in control what you think of cap and trade and losing your good paying job. Coordinate with other confederates to employ a shotgun start at a hundred different sites at the same time. Undo a year's good work by all the little stooges who value polar bears more than humans. I'd like to see at least a hundred major tire fires going at once with lawyers across the land debating what to do about it. Talk it up with your friends.

Posted by: r henson | Apr 21, 2009 9:44:17 PM

You might want to google "Huntsville Alabama" and "rocket scientist." ;)

Posted by: Planet Moron | Oct 14, 2008 6:34:33 PM

So, is debunking only credible if it comes from a blue state? Or an Ivy League School? Or Berkley?

I particularly like the Loser comment. It sealed the deal for me.

Posted by: Joe B | Oct 14, 2008 6:14:39 PM

Oh sure! Your "debunking" comes from Huntsville, Alabama. As if Huntsville is full of rocket scientists?


Posted by: Michael | Oct 14, 2008 2:27:15 PM

Post a comment