FRANK MIELE
Whatever happened to liberals?
One thing I have learned by writing columns on global warming the past two weeks is that liberals are less interested in free expression of ideas than in total compliance with their ideas, less interested in critical thinking than in being critical, and less interested in the truth than in their truth.
It wasn't always so.
In fact, considering that I was raised as a good Democrat and a proud liberal, it pains me to have to admit such distaste for the current state of liberalism. But how can I remain silent when so many people tell me that they agree with my ideas, but are afraid to speak up for themselves because of the names they will be called? How can I remain silent when I have a position of power to defend myself, and I know that young people in colleges across this nation are afraid to turn in papers that contradict the liberal social agenda of their professors? How can I remain silent when there is so much at stake?
Week after week, I endeavor to write columns which raise questions and propose answers. Week after week I am told by my liberal friends that my questions are foolish and my answers are stupid. Yet I wait in vain for anyone to read my last two columns on global warming and show me where I went wrong. What I hear instead is that "all" the climate scientists in the world agree that global warming is man-made and ruinous, with the implication left hanging or spoken aloud that I am supposed to shut up, get in line and do what I am told.
Sorry, but I don't work that way.
What I believe in is looking at the evidence for myself, weighing it with the scales of logic and reason, and then making up my own mind. I have been studying the evidence on global warming for more than two years, and for all the reasons already listed the past two weeks I am convinced that this is a manufactured crisis.
Telling me that "all" the climate scientists in the world disagree with me doesn't counter my argument; rather, it demonstrates that my opponent is willing to fabricate evidence. Many, many scientists disagree with the hypothesis that human industry has accelerated global warming to a dangerous level. To claim otherwise does not make it so.
The other argument repeatedly used by global warming advocates to belittle their opponents is to say that their case is supported by "peer-reviewed" research. That's fine, but many opponents of the Global Warming Movement have also published in "peer-reviewed" journals. Besides, peer review does not ensure that the conclusions of an article are correct - merely that the author followed accepted principles of the scientific method in striving to prove a significant hypothesis. It should also be noted that when a vast majority of scientists concur with a theory, peer review may easily turn into peer pressure. Thus peer review could be a form of peer-imposed censorship as alternative viewpoints are marginalized or denied publication.
It is certainly a form of elitism - basically limiting discussion of serious ideas to a few thousand degreed academicians. Well, sorry, but I spent eight years in college and graduate school, and I don't buy the idea that universities are the fount of all knowledge. A good idea is just as good whether it came from the barbershop or the "Journal for the Preservation of Self-Important Professorships." Indeed, the marketplace of ideas is of no value whatsoever unless it is an open market.
At least, that is what I believe. So, too, I think, did Socrates - the father of philosophy. And so too did liberals in the days when I counted myself among them. In fact, liberals are supposed to welcome debate, free expression and open exchange of ideas. But you would never know it when you read the words of the global warming cabal. They are intent on halting debate, even to the point of proposing to make it a crime to "deny" global warming.
It is almost as though liberals are at war with liberalism itself - with the spirit of freedom. Consider, for instance, what liberals themselves say they believe in. Geoffrey Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago, wrote an interesting essay on "What it means to be a liberal" in which he lists 10 fundamental principals that encapsulate the liberal position. Here are the first three:
"1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.
"2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.
"3. Liberals believe individuals have a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate…."
Say what?
I just need to look at my mail bag to know that some liberals have gone seriously astray in their efforts to "doubt their own truths" and "be tolerant and respectful of difference." And as for rights, the only one I know for sure that liberals apportion to me is "the right to remain silent."
Here are a few examples of liberals "doubting their own truth" in response to my last two columns on global warming (note: grammatical and spelling errors have been corrected):
. "Those who claim that research has been falsified have not been able to demonstrate that to legitimate climatologists. It's easy to make claims. It's not so easy to back them up. But I'm not surprised that those on the right don't understand how science works. Those facts are cleverly hidden in books."
. "The way Frank Miele cherry-picks factoids to match his Rush Limbaugh opinions right down the line every week is absolutely irresponsible. He says there is no 'scientific certitude about a long-range trend' but he doesn't seem to realize the simple fact that there is no such thing as scientific certitude. There is however something called 'likelihood.' The overwhelming evidence is that this warming trend is most likely to be due to human activity. But Frank and his right-wing cronies only like things to be black or white."
. "Another right-wing rant… Frank does not appear to understand science."
. "With all your latent scientific knowledge you should be the USA's leading climate scientist. The problem is not that you're a schmuck, which you are, or that you're an a-hole, which you are, but that you're a damned FOOL."
Nor is this kind of ambush mentality limited to liberals who read my column, and want to shut me up. It appears to be part and parcel of the liberal agenda to bring all humanity into compliance with - well - the liberal agenda.
An example of this mentality was exhibited by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during the "Live Earth" concert last month, when he jumped into the vanguard of global warming fanatics by denouncing skeptics as "corporate toadies" for "villainous" enemies. Remarkably, he declared that holding a scientific view counter to his own was "treason," and said, "we need to start treating them now as traitors."
"Off with their heads," as the equally emphatic Queen told Alice in Wonderland.
Fortunately, RFK Jr. does not control public policy yet, but he speaks for a large group of people in this country who want to silence or besmirch the opposition. In a sense, the Global Warming Movement is the framework for a liberals' version of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, although presumably without the bloodshed. Today's "corporate toadies" would have been called "capitalist roaders" back in 1966 when Mao launched his attack on the culture, history and freedom of his own people - but aren't they really the same thing? Isn't the name-calling just an effort to stifle debate?
The Cultural Revolution was an effort to institutionalize Communist Party thinking as the mechanism of massive social change under the guise of inevitable progress. Similarly, the Global Warming Movement is intent on institutionalizing environmental thinking that will lead to massive social change under the guise of indisputable science. Mao used the Cultural Revolution to empower the masses to crush intellectual debate and the free exchange of ideas in the service of the "higher calling" of "class struggle." The Global Warming Movement is empowering the mass media to crush intellectual debate in the service of the "higher calling" of "saving the planet."
The pronouncement of the Cultural Revolution included these words:
"…our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic 'authorities' and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system."
Substituting just one phrase, we easily arrive at a pronouncement that describes the intentions of modern liberalism as embodied in the Global Warming Movement:
"…our objective is to struggle against and crush those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic "authorities" and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art, and all other parts of the superstructure that do not correspond to [our beliefs], so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system."
Well, I have been criticized and repudiated, but I'm not going anywhere. Needless to say, I am prepared to struggle against ignorance in all its forms, whether political or scientific, no matter how loudly I am shouted down. There is no opinion which does not have an opposite, and no truth which cannot be challenged.
Liberal or not, it is up to all of us to listen to opposing ideas, expose ourselves to challenges, and engage in Socratic dialogue. Otherwise we will be no more than stagnant, unevolving, politically correct lumps of mud that will never experience the pleasure of walking upright, unafraid and unbowed.
It is time to live the life of free thought that we espouse.
mtboat
Here is a fact. Prove me wrong. Co2 does not cause warming, it follows warming. It follows warming by several hundred years. I learned this in my first week of weather tech school. Every time I hear Al Gore, or anyone else say that Co2 is a leading contributer to green house gases I want to...laugh. And then to say it's human caused. The main emitter of co2 is the ocean. The main cause of either global warming or global cooling is the sun. I still haven't seen any factual statistics, that outside of the usual +/- errors possible in the averages, that there is a temperature rise at all. In the weather industry we measured temperature at ground level and with balloons every hour for entry into FAA and National Weather Service records, and satellites measure the atmosphere from above. And the the only "scientists" that seem to say otherwise are with the UN /IPCC. Did you know that approximatly 700 scientists left the IPCC in complete disagreement, and that many found their name on the report anyway and had to sue to get it removed? Including the lead writer of the report.
Jon
For someone who supposedly has been studying global warming for two years, you pay remarkably little attention to the details. As I pointed out last week, Scafetta and West, whom you cited, found that there is substantial warming beyond what solar activity could explain. They explicitly state that "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone." Furthermore, a recent study by Mike Lockwood at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire (among others) found that even though solar activity has been decreasing since 1985, temperatures have continued to rise. By the way, the claims of 'consensus' stem from documents produced that represent mainstream opinions (like the IPCC's reports), but there are also studies such as Oreskes' 2004 article in Science that found virtual unanimity among scientists that at least some part of the observed warming trend is human caused. Finally, the 'core' of the argument for climate change IS the data - the correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature is well established. The most common approach for 'skeptics' is to try to refute the data and explain away the correlations. They have largely failed to do so, and so they rely on
Jon
A horrible though just occurred to me. It appears to be part and parcel of Frank's agenda to bring all humanity into compliance with well Frank's agenda. Beware!
Jon
Re: mgsorens' comment: The NREP study you cite is online: http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm. The authors state that there were 793 responses, but it doesn't say how many surveys were sent out. If it was to all 12000 members, that's an abysmal response rate, and any conclusions it makes are almost meaningless. Second, it was NOT a survey of experts in climate change as you imply - there's a list of specialties, and the greatest (60%) is 'regulation.' Finally, you are confused about the 39% figure - it says nothing about priorities. Go back and look at the question - 100% of the responses accept the idea that humans cause GW.
lousia
thanks to Frank for a superior column, sunday's 2 cents, I to grew up in a liberal house hold, but they were different people then with different ideas, now its turning to much in to socialism, and name calling (filthy names) I still have family that don't know how to express themselves , and they hold grudges, and that is so sad. I can't beleive in this golbal warming bit, because the ppeople who are pushing it do not include themselves, take a look at their homes, airplanes, etc. but for us folks we better do what they say, no way I have seen to many men and women die, (hero's) for my freedom, and I am not bowing to a liberal; and check out history we had real hot and real cold weather in different places at different times. now all at once we are told different, maybe its big business, money::duh--oh yes (I seen a sign once that said ( engage brain before starting mouth)
robertg222
You must also realize that even real scientist could believe global warming is man made if they are using bad raw data. NASA recently had to change some of there bad temperature data that had 1998 as the hottest year,now 1934 is the hottest year. How much more of this bad data has been fed to good scientist so that they can come up with bad results. Lets stop Gorebull Warnings.
stormy
Excellent article.....and you didn't even mention the recent smear piece in Newsweek against skeptics!! My response to their drivel is below: Dear Editor, It's truly amazing how much effort Newsweek expends promoting the global warming scare and attempting to discredit any/every scientist who disagrees with the nonsensical hyperbole. You had to love the use of "denier" and "denial" (a blatant, purposeful and nauseating attempt to equate warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers) an astounding 21 times in your recent article, The Truth About Denial. If Newsweek would just apply 10 percent of that effort on real investigative journalism by closely examining the flawed science of global warming and scrutinizing the data, the entire global warming scare would completely unravel. Newsweek has reached a brand new low and is now just a tool of the great big green misinformation machine....anyone who believes otherwise is in denial.
robertg222
The real world doesn't match the GW models For the past 20 years, when climate models say increasing carbon dioxide should have caused a clear global warming in the lowest layer of the atmosphere, NASA satellites have been recording the temperature there. The satellite measurements are thought to be precise to 0.01 degree Celsius, and have been verified by independent samplings made by balloon-borne instruments. Result: The readings show no increasing global warming trend. Computer models predict exaggerated warming trends for the recent past; presumably they do for the future as well. Surface readings, likewise, show too small a warming compared to the model results.
pablom
You are mixing the dictionary definition of liberal with the political title of "Liberal." These are not the same. Don't be fooled by a title - you can call yourself what ever you want - it does not make you that way. As an example, North Korea's official title is "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but no really thinks it is democratic by any stretch. Anyway, (Modern) Liberalism is frankly illiberal. True liberalism (classic liberalism, laissez-faire liberalism) - which is what conservatives are trying to conserve - has been under attack for decades by modern Liberals. This mostly started with FDR and it was under him that the title of liberal changed in US politics. Anyway Europeans seem to have the diction correct - we have it screwed it up in the US. Our U.S. conservatives are called "liberal" in the true sense of the word over there. Our Liberals would be called called "socialists" (wouldn't be refreshingly honesty to call Liberals socialists?) Their "conservatives" are the aristocrats (which we don't really have in the US).
Justice Seeker
How many of you have noticed the offer at junkscience.com? He is offering $100,000to anyone who can actually, scientifically prove AGW. Personally, I think his money is safe.
bondmavn
The use of terms such as "weight of evidence", "scientific consensus", or, calling anthropogenic warming skeptics "deniers", etc., stems from a zealous desire to defend an unproven (nearly religious) belief by obfuscation. Environmentalism's socialist and anti-capitalist obsession to regulate all energy use "for the greater good" is what this is REALLY all about. As for proof of human caused global warming? The answer apparently is "Scientific Method?...We don't need no stinkin' Scientific Method!"
Jim Cripwell
The problem the proponents of AGW face, is whether to acknowledge that extraterrestrial effects, e.g. the sun, have a significant effect on climate. We know the medieval warming period and the little ice age existed, but no-one knows precisely what caused them. In the IPCC TAR, these periods were made to disappear with the Mann hockey stick; since shown by McIntyre and McKitrick, and later Wegman to be science fiction rather than fact. In the IPCC AR4, Chapter 2.7 - Natural Forcings spends 3 and a half pages showing that solar irradiance is almost constant, and then half a page to claim there are no other significant extraterrestrial effects. They do this by simply not including any evidence that this conclusion is wrong, despite many such references which have appeared in the literature over the last 10 years. For example, they quote Svensmark and Marsh 2000 and 2001, and dismiss these papers on the basis there is no experimental evidence to support them. Then they omit Svensmark et al Proc. Roy. Soc. A October 2006, which provides some supporting data. If the IPCC agrees that the sun has a significant effect on climate, the next question is, what is the
Jim Cripwell
Posted by Mooseberryinn "OK - so we all agree[?] that maybe there is global warming. What, exactly, can we do about it? Drive less? well, at the price of gas we more or less have to. We've cut our driving to only essentials. what else? turn down the furnace? Yup, it's down to 63. What else? ideas? anything. But don't tell me we need to raise taxes." We probably agree that global temperatures rose at the end of the 20th century. This rise in temperature has now ceased, and there are signs that temperatures have started to fall. Solar cycle 24 shows no signs of starting. The more CO2 there is in the air, the better. However, we do need to do such things as becoming independent of fossil fuels. The IPCC has got the science all wrong, and a very gullible public has fallen for the massive PR put out by people like Al Gore.
Jim Cripwell
Nemo writes. "Jim, you said that temperatures are starting to fall. Can you point me to the study that shows this? I'd like to read it" Here is a response when I asked the same question on Climate Skeptics Yahoo group. "I refer you to any of several papers by Landscheidt, in particular "New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming"; and to the recent paper by Dr. Foster "Will it be Warmer or cooler? Just wait Time reveals Truth" in which he states, (concerning Sun cycles) the "predicted return of a 'quiet Sun' means the next little Ice Age should be fully developed by 2030" And in connection with one of the "triggers" for climate change, the P.D.O. Which is 1975/6 last shifted, It is predicted that its next shifting is due within the next year. This will reverse the warming since 75 and bring on a colling period. Landscheidt goes into great detail and draws together research in Solar cycles, particularaly the Gleissberg cycles which he plots back nearly 2000 yrs. It is his conclusion that the next Gleissberg minimum is beginning right now, and will continue for the next few decades where we will trend cooler with
Jim Cripwell
Continuing. May I refer you to three sets of data on global temperatures. These are NASA/GISS, NCDC/NOAA and HAD/CRU, the latter generally considered to be the most reliable. Go to http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl. HTH.
Jim Cripwell
Jon. Mea culpa! Mea Culpa! Mea maxima culpa!! I should have checked the references before posting. My explanation as to why the earth is going to get colder not warmer is simple. If you believe the IPCC that CO2 increases temperature and there are no extraterrestrial effects - cf WG1 AR4 Chap 2.7 -, it follows with all the inevitability of the inevitable that temperatures are going to rise. However, if you believe CO2 is "saturated", and that the sun drives climate, then what probably matters is when solar cycle 24 starts, and the maximum sunspot numbers for cycles 24, 25, and 26. If, as forecast, these are low, and a quiet sun when it ought to be active means a cold earth, we are in for a new little ice age.
pablom
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." -Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential Candidate That's what it's all about.
mooseberryinn
I have also noticed that the present day liberals seem to support free speech, and the exchange of opinions, as long as the speech and opions agree with their own. Or, Like the liberal media, they refuse to report such.
Jack Rail
Today's liberals are McCarthyites, just as the Alger Hisses of the Fifties were. They exist behind walls of usually dirty names and skulking dirty tricks such as flattening the tires of GOPers. They call others what they are and accuse others of doing what they do. Someone rightly said that if you want to know what liberals are up to, just listen to what they're accusing the rest of us of.
mgsorens
The 'core' of the Global Warmists argument is not data, but the claim that a consensus of scientists agree with them. They claim that scientific measurements (polls) of those scientists show that the scientist are in nearly unanimous agreement regarding that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. But that claim is entirely untrue! I have been unable to find anyone who could direct me to such a poll. The nearest thing I've seen was mentioned by Lawrence Solomon in his series of articles on global warming. That poll of the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. So in that poll a majority of 59% believe in anthropogenic global warming, BUT only 39%, a minority give it a high priority.
mooseberryinn
The very same tactics of intimidation are being used in every conflict. Be it the war against Islamic terrorism, Global Warming, Oil Exploration, Timber harvest etc. Agree, or you' re bad, bad, bad.