Comments on: Man-Caused Climate Change (and other) Advococracies: A Perversion of Science

By: Hal Gershowitz

Hal Gershowitz — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 07:45:03 +0000

I think your assessment is, basically, correct. In fact we made the
point that “the real tragedy here is that the possibility of
man-caused climate change may, in fact, be a very real problem that
needs to be vigorously addressed. But the pseudo scientific
“pretenders” at the CRU who apparently plotted so clumsily and so
brazenly to sandbag alternate scientific points of view have
forfeited, at the altar of expediency, their right to be taken
seriously.”

We appreciate your sharing your thoughts with us.

By: garbro

garbro — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:58:05 +0000

I’ve got a thick-headed brother who has taken issue with your positions in this article (I should have probably not even bothered to forward it to him). Be that as it may, he made specific comments in a subsequent chain of emails that I found outrageous. First was the comment that “this is the absolute worst kind of bullshit journalism imaginable” in direct response to his initial reading of the article. Then there was the characterization that “This article is anti-green, anti-environment, pro-economics, pro-politics, pro-oil/coal/natural-gas and pro-bullshit. ” He also seemed to diminish the importance of the East Anglia mess with this comment: “I have also researched the CRU email ‘theft-gate’ crap and accept that it is the (somewhat) shameful result of some humans being exposed as – hard-working-honest, mediochre or simply assinine. Hello and welcome to our human existence – inside and outside the scientific community.”
While all of these things bothered me and caused me to vigorously oppose his comments, there is one thing that bothers me above all the others. And that is when I read what someone else has to say, I like to think that I have understood the author’s purpose and salient points. I wrote to him that “the author’s key points…in this debate [are that] science has been hijacked by scientists (and many others) with an agenda, and that if there truly is a climate problem, then the science upon which we depend has been done a great disservice by those same folks. The final point is that those very same agenda-driven proponents are trying mightily to minimize the damage done to the ‘cause’ by the anonymous leak of emails out of East Anglia.” He seems to think “The thrust of the article is NOT the East Anglia email theft-gate leak – which is merely a point of reference used by the author to further his/their own anti-AWG opinions.” Could I have possibly misread your fine article so completely? I know that there are other points this article made, but I would sure like to know, from you directly, if I am totally misconstruing the thrust of your article. Also, if you could make some comments about the ‘anti-green…’ blather my brother went on about, and state your true stance on these issues, I would be glad to have it from you. I believe my brother has completely miscast your stance, in fact, I do not know how he could have derived this from your remarks.
At any rate, I would love to have you correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation, as well as your response to the comments from my thick-headed brother. If you wish to send directly to my email address, please use: garbro1@windstream.net

Thanks for a great article and most excellent website!

Gary Broughton

By: Bill_H

Bill_H — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:36:19 +0000

Indeed

By: Hal Gershowitz

Hal Gershowitz — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:59:08 +0000

Indeed, it would be absurd to cast aspersions on an entire community because of the transgressions of a “few.” But, speaking for “the fools we mortals be,” when “the few,” conspire to keep those who disagree with them from being published, or appearing at conferences or when they “cook the books” to give greater credence to their position, it is they who cast aspersions on their fellow scientists.

By: mkaback

mkaback — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:31:37 +0000

What fools you mortals be! Are you suggesting that because a few self-motivated “scientists” —”cook the books” that the enormous majority of proven, recognized, and superbly honorable members of the scientific community are part of some conspiracy? You both are grossly misled and way off base!! It would be like saying all trash collectors are Mafia, or all lawyers are charlatans. ABSURD…

By: Bill_H

Bill_H — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:41:07 +0000

If GW is real & manmade, mankind has no choice but to drastically reduce its population & restore the forests that were stripped away during mankinds industrial rise.
&
Just because there are those who say that a ground breaking technology is green does not make it so. If one peers into the future regarding the energy exchange process between large scale wind power generation around the globe and the atmosphere, one does have to ask: What is the impact of this new technology on global climate, given its increasing interference with the global heat exchange process between the equator and the poles ?

Without a clear answer, we may well be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.