Cliff Lyon's Huge Hammer
I posted a call for depoliticized scientific inquiry (as it applies, for example, to the Right’s desire to muddle science with Divine Design and the Left’s desire to shut down scientific inquiry into global warming).
Cliff Lyon demands (in the comments) that I recant or face an Internet inquisition. (Cue Announcer: "In tonight’s production of Fear of Scientific Inquiry, the part of Pope Urban VIII will be played by Cliff Lyon").
Cliff warns:
I'm challenging you Steve. Retract this shameful post or we will be forced to take a special interest in your re-election.
When I ask him to engage in some scientific curiosity with me, he threatens:
Last chance Steve. You of all people should appreciate the power of blogs.I suggest you just delete the whole post. Certainly such a tactic lacks integrity, but not as much as parading around as an expert in Climate Science while deceiving Utahns in order to pander to the oil and gas industry (hmmm, Iol & gas, St George, hmmm)When I have questions about things I know nothing about, I refer to experts. And Mr. Urquhart, unless I'm missing something, you are no expert on climate science.If however, you have any questions about the real power of blogs, please feel free to call. I'm listed in Holladay.
Not an expert. Just a guy with some observations and opinions. Mr. Lyon, then, clarifies:
OneUtah is a hammer with a huge Utah audience (in case you weren't paying attention.
Ya, I guess I wasn’t paying attention, though I have enjoyed watching OneUtah rally tens of people to protest BUSHITLER in Salt Lake.
The real power of blogs is to advance discussion, not for some ninny like Cliff Lyon to shut it down with threats. So, sorry, Cliff. The post stays up. Let that huge hammer drop.
By the way, though, once you've rallied your huge audience, see if any of them can explain how the significant cooling since 2000 fits the doctrinal canon of anthropogenic global warming.
UPDATE: This is just too funny to be true. I believe that public-oriented blogs should allow all comments and have a publicly accessible site meter. That's just my preference; if you don't agree, fine. I checked my site meter at the end of the day (available at the bottom of the blog for all to see), and I saw a referral from Cliff's blog. Apparently, this afternoon he posted a warning to me on his blog. As far as I can tell, his post and link sent me ONE reader.
Maybe the huge hammer claim is relative to really small nails.
Cliff Lyon demands (in the comments) that I recant or face an Internet inquisition. (Cue Announcer: "In tonight’s production of Fear of Scientific Inquiry, the part of Pope Urban VIII will be played by Cliff Lyon").
Cliff warns:
I'm challenging you Steve. Retract this shameful post or we will be forced to take a special interest in your re-election.
When I ask him to engage in some scientific curiosity with me, he threatens:
Last chance Steve. You of all people should appreciate the power of blogs.I suggest you just delete the whole post. Certainly such a tactic lacks integrity, but not as much as parading around as an expert in Climate Science while deceiving Utahns in order to pander to the oil and gas industry (hmmm, Iol & gas, St George, hmmm)When I have questions about things I know nothing about, I refer to experts. And Mr. Urquhart, unless I'm missing something, you are no expert on climate science.If however, you have any questions about the real power of blogs, please feel free to call. I'm listed in Holladay.
Not an expert. Just a guy with some observations and opinions. Mr. Lyon, then, clarifies:
OneUtah is a hammer with a huge Utah audience (in case you weren't paying attention.
Ya, I guess I wasn’t paying attention, though I have enjoyed watching OneUtah rally tens of people to protest BUSHITLER in Salt Lake.
The real power of blogs is to advance discussion, not for some ninny like Cliff Lyon to shut it down with threats. So, sorry, Cliff. The post stays up. Let that huge hammer drop.
By the way, though, once you've rallied your huge audience, see if any of them can explain how the significant cooling since 2000 fits the doctrinal canon of anthropogenic global warming.
UPDATE: This is just too funny to be true. I believe that public-oriented blogs should allow all comments and have a publicly accessible site meter. That's just my preference; if you don't agree, fine. I checked my site meter at the end of the day (available at the bottom of the blog for all to see), and I saw a referral from Cliff's blog. Apparently, this afternoon he posted a warning to me on his blog. As far as I can tell, his post and link sent me ONE reader.
Maybe the huge hammer claim is relative to really small nails.
posted by steve u. at 9/03/2008
Subscribe
12 Comments:
I remember when I was a youngster, one of my favorite albums was by MC Hammer. And the name of that album really encapsulates my plea to Cliff "The Hammer" Lyon:
"Please, Hammer, don't hurt 'em!"
Be afraid, Steve, very afraid. Some of the people reading OneUtah have been to St. George on their way to San Francisco, and might be able to find it on a map.
It may be too late. Withdraw while you still can...
That's totally silly. It's like he saw how I and many others laid the smack on a certain pirate captain and thought "me too". The difference is that you're not behaving like a child and instead have the audacity to post a differing opinion. What a rube.
Steve,
Site meters are problematic. I prefer to post server stats occasionally.
For example, OneUtah logged 14 clicks to your site between 6pm and midnight. I promise you, my server stats are better than Bloggers (you get what you pay for eh?)
These are fairly recent
While I appreciate your call for "depoliticized scientific inquiry", I find it a bit disengenuous since this "inquiry" has been conducted and closed for some time now.
The hypocrisy of your thesis, "depoliticized scientific inquiry" is confirmed by the title "Newsflash: Sun Affects Earth’s Climate", followed by "Regardless how many lemmings are willing to jump off the same cliff"
Would you really respect anyone who might be convinced by THAT kind of cynicism of your earnest desire to understand the science?
Perhaps you think folks in St George are new to this now ancient ploy; "there is much about this amazing planet that scientists... don’t understand", to dismiss by fiat any scientific conclusion you choose, but I do not think so.
Our respective political blogs are hardly the place to re-open a scientific debate. Without the participation of credentialed scientists, such a debate would be an embarrassing display of mutual puffery.
The good news is we do not need to rely on bad syllogisms to convince readers to agree with our unqualified scientific conclusions. We can simply refer to the great body of scientific consensus coming from the world's most respected experts and institutions.
So lets be honest with ourselves Steve. Neither you nor I are qualified to teach 3rd grade science.
So why don't we agree on a standard of credentials for sources of scientific knowledge that we would ask our children's teachers to use.
I would also ask that we agree to except (not accept) any scientists with ANY connections to Exxon or their funding vehicles.
Can you agree to that?
I will be top posting a vigorous survey of the exceptionally robust scientific consensus on the effect of sun spots on climate as time permits.
What sun spots is he talking about? The science I have read states last month was the first time without sun spots ever. Does this mean we are in an ice age? Climate changes do exist they are called seasons
Should find it curious that a sitting Utah Senator cannot put his Bio on his campaign website so close to the election?
9:29 Anon-
I'm pretty sure Senator "Wild" Bill Hickman is alive. So, until Rep. Steve wins and is sworn in, he's not a sitting Senator.
I know, it's nit-picky. But I'm with Elvis: Only fools rush in. And rushing into a debate without any clue who the blog publisher is seems, well, rushed...
Don't be too hard on anonymous. Senator Dayton called Representative Urquhart "Senator Urquhart" during interim committee last month. We all went, "Huh?"
I thought it had a nice ring to it.
So Steve, I notice your blog is still up and running.
Cliff's anti-Steve campaign must be in stealth mode.
It has been quite entertaining reading this discourse. I try to be open minded about the climate change debate and am willing to accept new evidence. Cliff, you lost me with your retort to not "re-open a scientific debate." The beauty of science is that it is objective and always open for debate. Only theologians find it necessary to close a discussion. I think you need to reexamine your political incentives. This is scientific discovery not an inquisition.
I stumbled into this blog yesterday as the result of learning about the Western Climate Initiative, and subsequent google searches on the general subject. I've been a participant in back 'n forths on AGW in two other web forum sites and just one other blog. Plus I've had a couple of letters-to-the-editor published in my local newspaper about the debate (or lack thereof).
Cliff Lyon - what can I say, his "rhetoric, propaganda and [lack of] manipulation" is simply breathtaking. Since the 'hammer' of the OneUtah blog sounded fairly impressive, I dutifully went over there to look around, thinking I might find a significant, wide ranging series of discussions on AGW. The first entry I see is about Exxon 'paying' scientists. No substantiation of that anywhere, but we are blessed with the rest of the entry being lifted straight out of the Daily Kos.... the Daily Kos!! The next one is about the Alaskan Inuit teenager testifying at a House committee and Rush Limbaugh's 'attack' of her. Nothing from Lyon disputing Limbaugh's assertions or substantiating the girl's claims, just a swipe at Limbaugh and the dreaded "C" word - consensus - in Lyon's comments as basically the only supporting argument he can dredge up.
If this is the best the mighty hammer of OneUtah has to offer, it's no wonder Steve U. doesn't have any urge to delete this blog entry. A better suggestion is for Lyon to start deleting his rants rather than continue to embarrass the cause he supports.
AGW and its proponents are a house of cards. If it weren't for the acceptance and support of the mainstream media, this phenomenon would have collapsed long ago. It's hilarious to see how AGW supporters undermine their cause, Lyon being just one more of them:
* not only is the IPCC agenda-driven, it openly admits its scientific reports are subject to government review
* the IPCC distributed a summary before the reports (that are summarized) were finished, then openly acknowledged the reports were altered to match the summary
* the IPCC based one report on Michael Mann's graph that was later thoroughly discredited
* Michael Mann and his co-authors repeatedly blocked inquiries about his methodology
* Michael Mann is one of the cornerstones of the realclimate.org blog, often cited by AGW proponents as being unbiased
* the main publicist of the IPCC, Al Gore, bars reporters from asking him questions, and refuses to debate the subject with scientists
* the head of the IPCC debunks AGW 'deniers' as 'flat Earth believers', and similarly refuses to debate the subject
* the NOAA administrator in charge of hurricane studies resigned from the IPCC when they tried to use data that wasn't supported by his extensive research
* consensus has never been part of the acceptance of scientific findings in the entire history of the Scientific Method, any grade school science teacher could tell you that
* the Oregon Petition Project is said to be discredited out of hand when a signer doesn't fit a narrow definition of who is acceptable, yet no effort is made to explain away the presence of multiple climate scientists who are absolute experts on the topic
* no explanation has yet been given about how the polar bears survived the last period of global warming
* explanations that say the last period of global warming never happened are continually undermined by studies that prove it did happen
* one of the primary 'deniers' S Fred Singer is vilified all over the internet as being a shill of the tobacco industry, yet there is not a single critic who can cite direct words from him saying second hand smoke isn't unhealthy
* Singer is also vilified as being on the payroll of big oil, yet no one can find evidence of it beyond a no-strings donation years ago of $10,000 over a period of three years
* another 'denier' Pat Michaels is widely said to be discredited because he was fired from the University of Virginia - he is still there
On and on. When AGW proponents put out those pathetic arguments, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Then, absent finding more credible arguments, they attack the messenger - either my direct sources or me. I've been vilified as a right wing, super religious, gun toting, SUV hugging nut by people who couldn't correctly guess my religion, politics, number of weapons I own, or the size of my vehicle if I gave them multiple chances. They have literally no idea how damaging it looks to leave rebuttals unchallenged, or how ridiculous they look when they retaliate with utterly unsubstantiated accusations.
Bottom line: if AGW is bulletproof, line it up side-by-side with the critic's scientific findings, prove they are wrong using straight forward explanations and irrefutable facts, answer challenges to the scientists' credibility and disprove the critics in the same way, and fully disclosure where all the facts come from.
Fail to do that, and the house of cards collapses. It's inevitable.
Adding further insult to injury - unfortunately lost in all the news of the housing crisis bailout yesterday was this item:
"Up for sale today [Thursday 9/25/08] are allowances, sold in blocks of 1,000, to emit more than 12.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.
Connecticut and five other states -- Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont -- will participate in this first auction. Four other states in the coalition, Delaware, New Hampshire, New York and New Jersey, are expected to join in for subsequent auctions, which will be held quarterly.
The bidding is not limited to power companies. The bidders include manufacturers, financial companies and individuals; anyone willing to put up money or collateral in advance was eligible to apply to bid..."
Utah and six other western US states along with four Canadian provinces who are partners with the Western Climate Initiative ( http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/ ) may soon be blessed with this situation, if it isn't knocked down.
Here's where the insult & injury comes in. All of this carbon allowance / carbon offset / carbon credit nonsense relies on the concept that CO2 is a pollutant and humans are causing this problem, the conclusion of a "consensus" of scientists. All of which S Fred Singer says is wrong. "Singer?", says the clueless politician or electric utility president who is too lazy to do anything beyond superficial research, "I looked up that guy on Wikipedia, he isn't credible."
Except when you start digging a little deeper, what do you find out about Wikipedia? Quoting Lawrence Soloman at http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
"..[William] Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at Wikipedia -- an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment....
...Connolley and his cohorts don't just edit pages of scientists actively involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding."
Even more troubling is something Marc Sheppard wrote about at The American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/06/gores_grave_new_world.html which isn't much different than what our friend Cliff Lyon demands, censorship of criticism rather than open debate:
"...Gore's intimidation tactics over the course of the last decade and a half have achieved his desired goal through a menacing combination of politics, words and financial control. At a glance, it would certainly appear that a significant number of American scientists have been molded into obedient, PC puppets....how can we possibly hope to ever learn the truth about Earth's climatology?"
This simply doesn't look good. Whenever we try to verify a plausible sounding claim made by a proponent of human-caused global warming, instead of getting clarification, we find problems with it that lead to larger problems when we keep digging. Is it any wonder, then, why these guys don't want us to keep digging? This doesn't inspire average citizens to have confidence in the idea, instead it ends up looking more and more like......... a house of cards.
Post a Comment
<< Home