Muffti-
I would say the difference between professors in the hard sciences and the soft ones is largely one of degree. Read any biography of Einstein or Darwin to see how dogmatic physical scientists can be, and how often new theories are only accepted because old professors die off…I also think that staffing/tenure decisions in these faculties are still impacted by administrative levels that have been infiltrated/subsumed by left-wingers.

Sorry B-D, but as someone who actually works in a university with a thriving science division, Muffti sees very little (but not none) evidence of this. Is there any evidence yo can site that this is a widespread phenomenon? Hiring is nearly always controlled by deans and deans are almost always hired professors within the field. And dean hiring is usually (though not always) done with massive input from the many departments over which the dean is head — so its not like there is an environmental science dean typically who gets hired by people interested in a single agenda – usually s/he’s a dean of science and is hired with input from biologists, physicists, chemists…

At least admit that the cui-bono point cuts both ways: the people flogging the global warming theory have as much “vested interest” in their theory as those debunking the theory – and the global warming folks stand to directly profit if their opinion carries the day, as opposed to the dissenters.

These same people whipped up a similar hysteria not more than 30 years ago – about a coming ice age.

The agenda is to justify socialist-style regulation and control of trade, industry, and other previously free and private sectors and behaviors.

So far the closest scientific fit to the climate data we have is solar activity. Not human activity.

2) “numerous scientists backing that claim” does not budge the numbers one bit. This kind of argument uses several logical/rhetorical fallacies at once.

Similarly, it doesn’t matter who supports or opposes environmental policies. Such an argument is, perhaps, revealing of your own motivations for believing as you do – but it doesn’t change the science one bit.

May I suggest:

nizkor.org/fea...

Further waffling:
Considering that Germany and Luxembourg are the leading nations in environmental research (and oddly enough the industrialized nations with the healthiest environments, too) I’m wary of turning to researchers whose living depends on salaries provided by countries favouring unrestricted industrialization.
- – - – - – - -
Take a look at the list – scientists from industrialized and third-world countries are represented. Several of the dissenting scientists are themselves veterans of the UN/IPCC and other “politically correct” NGOs. They simply feel they can no longer ignore the lack of evidence and distortions used to prop up PC climate theory.

This is hogwash – and typical of one-sided PC “credentialing”: you are wary of the motives of those who dissent, yet you do not question for a moment the economic/career motivations of your fine German/EU-funded researchers.

Yes, you’re copping out. Paddling furiously away from the real issues.

The only point of contention was/is whether or not human processes have significantly impacted the global climate – therefore justifying significant, far-reaching, and expensive government policing of previously unregulated activities.

Look at the quotes, and read the report. That is what these scientists are addressing.

There is no practical distinction between “apocalyptic scenarios” and the assertion that change is “exogenous” (assuming you exclude human activity from any given ecosystem). Once you believe that human behaviors are the primary factors changing the climate, it leads directly to calls for regulation of those behaviors.

Regarding science not being “black and white” – the preponderance of corroborating evidence gives the “theory” of evolution a certain authority and reliability. This is directly related to its being a uniquely good explanation for observed evidence, its ability to predict outcomes, and to the fact that it is not contradicted by significant evidence.

The “theory” of human-centric global warming is, as you say, not nearly as “black and white” as you and your brother (I assume he agrees with you) seem to think. Not so uniquely fit an explanation, not able to predict future climate trends, and contradicted by much other evidence.

That’s what all these other scientists are pointing out. They are engaging in scientific discourse.

If your talk of endogony/exogony refers to localized phenomena like the pollution cloud over Mexico City – that is obviously not what is being discussed, and you are copping out.

I think the 650 scientists signing on to this understand “what global warming is in scientific terms.”

They seem to be saying that there’s not much there – that the charge of human influenced climate change is “lefty, green-party pop-culture” without much science to back it up.

Why don’t you show your scientist brother this link, and have him scientifically refute the scientific, factual criticisms of global warming theory made by these scientists?

And maybe you could tell us exactly how many scientists must sign on before you’ll stop dismissing their dissent and actually examine their critique?

Your response takes the somewhat laughable position of claiming you understand the science better than they – either that, or the more revealing postmodern/PC notion that facts don’t really matter.

Which brings us to Muffti.

Muffti-

I would say the difference between professors in the hard sciences and the soft ones is largely one of degree. Read any biography of Einstein or Darwin to see how dogmatic physical scientists can be, and how often new theories are only accepted because old professors die off.

When there is money involved, science profs can be just as open to manipulation as any others. And there is a lot of money flowing through that part of the quad in this technological age.

I also think that staffing/tenure decisions in these faculties are still impacted by administrative levels that have been infiltrated/subsumed by left-wingers.

The case of slavery and affirmative action, on the other hand, come out of the soft science where one would expect some of the wonky policy ideas to originate with an academy rife with rather radical ideas who don’t have to worry a whole lot about how the rubber meets the pavements. For all that, Muffti ins’t ENTIRELY convinced that AA is such a bad idea (though he’s not convinced htat it is a very good one). SO Muffti thinks the analogy is somewhat flawed – in the case of global warming and climate change, there are facts to argue about and then there are policies to argue over. AA and slavery reparations you really only have the policy issues; next to no facts that anyone knows how to analyze, interpret or even use in any clear way. But Muffti guesses part of your point is that the data is equally unclear in the case of GW?

And how did you lads even get to talk about that topic? Now I’ll have to read the entire comment thread…

Many of these people believe what they are saying because they want/have to on emotional and other levels. It confirms other deeply held values/opinions they have – about themselves and society. Considering that climate prediction is notoriously imprecise, it’s open to interpretation.

What’s telling in this case is the speed with which these theories solidified into ideological dogma. That’s obviously related to the Left’s domination and politicization of academia, which has resulted in a dissent-stifling echo chamber.

We can also point to the Leftist intelligentsia’s concerted, decades-long attack on the very notion of objective reality. Post-modern thought has so skewed the rules of discourse that it’s hard to conduct a rational, evidence-based inquiry – even about a scientific matter.

More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore…. including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC…. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grow louder in 2008 as a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments challenged the UN’s and former Vice President Al Gore’s claims that the “science is settled” and there is a “consensus.”

Even the mainstream media has begun to take notice of the expanding number of scientists serving as “consensus busters.” A November 25, 2008, article in Politico noted that a “growing accumulation” of science is challenging warming fears… Canada’s National Post noted on October 20, 2008, that “the number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly.” New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin noted on March 6, 2008, “As we all know… there are heaps of signed statements by folks with advanced degrees on all sides of this issue”. (LINK) In 2007, Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.”

- – - – - – - – -
Almost every sentence contains clickable links – including a link to the actual report. The article is a clearinghouse of the mounting scientific objections to the theory of man-made global warming.

But the best part are the quotes from the scientists themselves – some of which note the heavy-handed Bolshevism of leftists in imposing their “faith” in climate change:

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

Read the whole thing:
epw.senate.gov...

Just looking at Chanuka, we have many “ethnic/cultural” Jews who have already redefined the holiday to mean the exact opposite of its original religious intent:

These people will tell you it’s a holiday of “tolerance for diversity” when in fact it was a separatist battle against such multiculti formulations.

Some have even appropriated the menorah symbol of Chanuka to endorse gay rights – which was a particular aspect of Greek culture that the warrior-priests of Chanuka opposed:

flickr.com/pho...

… the (obviously unintentional) visual parallels between that float and the famous frieze on the Arch of Titus is a telling reminder that there are many “kitsch-level” Jews who care not a whit about Torah morality or the covenant at Sinai.

The best that can be said is that they are ignorant and therefore tone-deaf to the discordance between their actions and Jewish teaching.

But your point is well taken.