Deniers” in their midst – All is not well in Nobel Prize Land

[quietfan 233]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum.

I've got two. How about you?

If you'll defer to me on constitutional, economic, and technology issues, I'll consider deferring to you on science issue.

I guess this may turn into one of those, "my degree is bigger than your degree" things.

Hopefully not, but that is certainly a danger when dealing with human egos, and there are certainly some large egos that post in this forum.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, but popular with the masses and practically mandatory in religion. In the opening article, the thirty signees of the declaration were Nobel laureates also, so any presumed "authority" attached to possession of such a medal by Giaever is shared by the thirty signees.

[quietfan 233]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. :-\

[AUDub 11,141]

Overall it appears the science is not settled or they all would have signed it.

Science is never "settled". That is, unlike religion, science is always open to revision or correction based on new evidence. But as I argued earlier, there is no basis for drawing ANY conclusion about the scientific opinion of those who didn't speak out based on their silence. One may not even assume they even HAVE an opinion.

QF, good stuff. I recently read an article where commenters did not want teachers to present opposing views on global warming because the science was settled. As a student, I would much rather be presented with all the evidence and draw conclusions based on that.

I'll agree with you on "making a conclusion about their scientific opinion". I would be willing to say many of the one's who didn't sign it felt it was outside their field and therefore did not pertain to them.

That can be taken too far. Balance fallacy.

True. That's exactly the argument creationists make.

I was debating on whether or not to link an article on Discovery Institute's teach the controversy campaign. LOL

[AFTiger 282]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. :-\

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

[homersapien 11,357]

Clearly they don't know anything about science. How many Nobel Prize winning Physicists are on this forum?

I am more interesting in knowing the number of science degrees on the forum.

I've got two. How about you?

If you'll defer to me on constitutional, economic, and technology issues, I'll consider deferring to you on science issue.

I guess this may turn into one of those, "my degree is bigger than your degree" things.

Take it up with Weegle, not me.

[homersapien 11,357]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. :-\

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

Otherwise, that 30 couldn't actually be a subset of the 65.

[quietfan 233]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. :-\

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

Yep, I too was taught in grammar school that 65 > 30. Presumably they also taught you in grammar school that "over 30 [signed a declaration]" does not mean the same thing as "only 30 [signed a declaration]"?

Basically, the article's first sentence is a mess.

A better wording would have been: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference which assembled 65 Nobel laureates on Mainau Island on Lake Constance and released a declaration regarding climate change on Friday, July 3rd." As per my original post/ highlighting, "over 30 signed a declaration" is a factually incorrect statement if sentence #2, "only 30 signed the declaration", is correct.

Of course, the author's writing skills are not relevant to the science of climate change, and I don't mean to engage in an ad hominem attack on his/her opinion (or Dr.Giaever's) based on the awkwardness of that first sentence (i.e, "He's a poor writer so he must be wrong on climate change!"). I just found it interesting that a (supposedly) professional journalist or essayist could construct such convoluted contradictory language as demonstrated in those first two sentences, regardless of the subject or facts of the article.

[japantiger 4,051]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. :-\

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

Yep, I too was taught in grammar school that 65 > 30. Presumably they also taught you in grammar school that "over 30 [signed a declaration]" does not mean the same thing as "only 30 [signed a declaration]"?

Basically, the article's first sentence is a mess.

A better wording would have been: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference which assembled 65 Nobel laureates on Mainau Island on Lake Constance and released a declaration regarding climate change on Friday, July 3rd." As per my original post/ highlighting, "over 30 signed a declaration" is a factually incorrect statement if sentence #2, "only 30 signed the declaration", is correct.

Of course, the author's writing skills are not relevant to the science of climate change, and I don't mean to engage in an ad hominem attack on his/her opinion (or Dr.Giaever's) based on the awkwardness of that first sentence (i.e, "He's a poor writer so he must be wrong on climate change!"). I just found it interesting that a (supposedly) professional journalist or essayist could construct such convoluted contradictory language as demonstrated in those first two sentences, regardless of the subject or facts of the article.

Your mistake was in thinking that there is such a thing as a "professional" journalist.

[AUDub 11,141]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. <_</> :-\/>

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

Yep, I too was taught in grammar school that 65 > 30. Presumably they also taught you in grammar school that "over 30 [signed a declaration]" does not mean the same thing as "only 30 [signed a declaration]"?

Basically, the article's first sentence is a mess.

A better wording would have been: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference which assembled 65 Nobel laureates on Mainau Island on Lake Constance and released a declaration regarding climate change on Friday, July 3rd." As per my original post/ highlighting, "over 30 signed a declaration" is a factually incorrect statement if sentence #2, "only 30 signed the declaration", is correct.

Of course, the author's writing skills are not relevant to the science of climate change, and I don't mean to engage in an ad hominem attack on his/her opinion (or Dr.Giaever's) based on the awkwardness of that first sentence (i.e, "He's a poor writer so he must be wrong on climate change!"). I just found it interesting that a (supposedly) professional journalist or essayist could construct such convoluted contradictory language as demonstrated in those first two sentences, regardless of the subject or facts of the article.

Your mistake was in thinking that there is such a thing as a "professional" journalist.

Marc Morano has made a good living as a climate "skeptic."

[homersapien 11,357]

Did anyone else notice (as I only did just now) that the very first two sentences of the opening article contradicted each other? Quoting:

"A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference, on Friday, 3 July, over 30 Nobel laureates assembled on Mainau Island on Lake Constance signed a declaration on climate change. Problem was, there were 65 attendees, and only 30 signed the declaration." [My highlighting and underlining]

Nice writing or counting, Climate Depot. <_</> :-\/>

I don't have a degree in mathematics, but in grammar school, I learned that 65 was more than 30.

Yep, I too was taught in grammar school that 65 > 30. Presumably they also taught you in grammar school that "over 30 [signed a declaration]" does not mean the same thing as "only 30 [signed a declaration]"?

Basically, the article's first sentence is a mess.

A better wording would have been: "A couple of days ago we reported on the Mainau Nobel Conference which assembled 65 Nobel laureates on Mainau Island on Lake Constance and released a declaration regarding climate change on Friday, July 3rd." As per my original post/ highlighting, "over 30 signed a declaration" is a factually incorrect statement if sentence #2, "only 30 signed the declaration", is correct.

Of course, the author's writing skills are not relevant to the science of climate change, and I don't mean to engage in an ad hominem attack on his/her opinion (or Dr.Giaever's) based on the awkwardness of that first sentence (i.e, "He's a poor writer so he must be wrong on climate change!"). I just found it interesting that a (supposedly) professional journalist or essayist could construct such convoluted contradictory language as demonstrated in those first two sentences, regardless of the subject or facts of the article.

Your mistake was in thinking that there is such a thing as a "professional" journalist.

Marc Morano has made a good living as a climate "skeptic."

Which makes him a "professional" climate "skeptic".

[quietfan 233]

Your mistake was in thinking that there is such a thing as a "professional" journalist.

A reasonable point!

(And in my own writing, I probably should have used the adjective "responsible" or "respectable" journalist. Plenty of alleged journalists make a living at their task, i.e., qualify as "professional". Respectable or responsible, as you imply, is a different story! )

[TexasTiger 12,828]

"Giaever is currently a science advisor at The Heartland Institute, a think tank known for its conservative stances on man-made climate change and for its skepticism of the links between smoking, secondhand smoke, and health risks.[16] According to Greenpeace, the Heartland Institute received around $676,500 in donations from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2007.[17]"

It's data--make of it what you will.

[homersapien 11,357]

"Giaever is currently a science advisor at The Heartland Institute, a think tank known for its conservative stances on man-made climate change and for its skepticism of the links between smoking, secondhand smoke, and health risks.[16] According to Greenpeace, the Heartland Institute received around $676,500 in donations from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2007.[17]"

It's data--make of it what you will.

Chicken scratch. They are funded by the Koch's.

[homersapien 11,357]

Must be Ivar Giaever month.

Then back to Roy Spencer I suppose. :-\

[AUDub 11,141]

"Giaever is currently a science advisor at The Heartland Institute, a think tank known for its conservative stances on man-made climate change and for its skepticism of the links between smoking, secondhand smoke, and health risks.[16] According to Greenpeace, the Heartland Institute received around $676,500 in donations from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2007.[17]"

It's data--make of it what you will.

Chicken scratch. They are funded by the Koch's.

Morano's ClimateDepot is also Exxon funded.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25

[homersapien 11,357]

It's a tightly knit little community.

[AUDub 11,141]

It's a tightly knit little community.

It really is.

InsideClimate News also documented all those who were cc'd on the email, including the following skeptics and groups:

Ron Arnold

Timothy Ball

Joseph “Joe” Bast

Joe Bastardi

Michael Bastasch

William Briggs

Russell Cook

Judith Curry

Joe D'Aleo

James Delingpole

David Paul Driessen

James Enstrom

Steve Goddard

Pierre Gosselin

Greenie Watch

William Happer

Jim Lakely

Patrick J. Michaels

Steven J. Milloy

Christopher Monckton

Marc Morano

Joanne Nova

Roger Pielke Sr. (Or Roger Pielke Jr. - Unclear in Email)

Thomas P. Sheahen

S. Fred Singer

Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon

Roy Spencer

James Taylor

Anthony Watts

DeSmogBlog covered the emails here: “Merchants of Doubt Film Debuts, Textbook Denial Attack Campaign Led By Fred Singer Ensues” and DeSmogBlog also archived a full copy of the Singer email thread.

[AFTiger 282]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

[AURaptor 1,122]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

You will be made to not only care, but to agree.

Or else.

[homersapien 11,357]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

Since when is withholding your opinion on a question automatically mean you oppose it?

Unlike Mr. Giaever, perhaps the half that didn't sign didn't feel comfortable with standing behind a Nobel prize and forwarding a definitive position on something involving a completely different expertise from their own.

But the most important take-away from this thread is the revelation of how it's actually the deniers who are the ones who are collaborating in a conspiracy.

[homersapien 11,357]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

You will be made to not only care, but to agree.

Or else.

Or else?

Or else get a paycheck from the denier industry?

[AFTiger 282]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

You will be made to not only care, but to agree.

Or else.

Or else?

Or else get a paycheck from the denier industry?

or be fined $135,000 for expressing a contrary fact.

BTW. Alarmists are all on the government payroll.

[homersapien 11,357]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

You will be made to not only care, but to agree.

Or else.

Or else?

Or else get a paycheck from the denier industry?

or be fined $135,000 for expressing a contrary fact.

BTW. Alarmists are all on the government payroll.

You need to reference the first statement. I don't get it.

The second statement is complete BS.

[Weegle777 78]

But my degree is bigger than yours...

Said the one with not a single Nobel Prize...

[quietfan 233]

Stale and predictable tactics from the sewing circle. 35 nobel scientists refuse to assign blame to human activity so attack the web site, accuse them of questionable associations, question their right to an opposing opinion.

I'm drawing no conclusions about the 34 scientists that kept silent. I'm attacking the website for seeming to suggest that the silence of those 34 somehow implies that the 30 that did sign represent a minority opinion or erroneous scientific thinking.

The association, at least by e-mail, of those on Bens' list is apparently documented fact. Since I'm unfamiliar with those names, I draw no conclusions regarding the "questionability" of that association. And I haven't seen anyone challenge the right of the deniers to an opposing opinion, only the objectivity and/or scientific validity of that opinion.