Status Quo vs. Disruptive Science

(CBS)  Harry Fuller writes a environmental blog for ZDNet.

---

The international conference on global warming is going on next week in Copenhagen. In every participant's mind will be the propaganda battle over the emails and documents hacked from the University of East Anglia and posted online. To proponents of "climategate" there's now proof climate science is rigged and corrupt. To many climatologists it's astounding that so much scientific data from so many differing studies around the globe can be dismissed as phony.

Last week a sincere scientist published his lament about having his East Anglia emails hacked and the increasingly strident politics around global warming research. History shows repeatedly that political opposition to scientific findings is as old as empiricism and power. Copernicus and Galileo boldly tested theories in the real world. That threatened kings and the Papacy. They ruled by divine right, right?

Historic conflicts between science and entrenched power are often long, bitter and often tragic. This is the Semmelweis Syndrome. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was a 19th Century Hungarian physician. He discovered doctors, nurses and hospitals were themselves passing along infection. Hospitals then (early 1800s) killed a majority of maternity patients, and their newborns. This was long before antibiotics. Semmelweis thought he should share this information. It could save lives, he reasoned.

What Semmelweis did, in fact, was challenge the entrenched "knowledge" and power of the medical establishment. He was dismissed, attacked and finally destroyed. Even if you're doing science to understand what's happening, you must measure your opponents and realize what they are defending. Power. Position. Money. Status and status quo.

What threat does global warming bring to the status quo? Take the Rocky Mountain Institute, which researches renewable energy. On the company's Web site it says they are "reinventing fire to drive the profitable transition from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables." Transition? Sounds like a disruptive revolution if you run a fossil fuel company.

Earth revolves around the sun? DDT is dangerous to man and birds? Tobacco smoke is deadly? Asbestos can kill? Agent Orange makes soldiers sick? Each of these science discoveries met bitter opposition. Confront the comfortable and the profitable? Expect all the forces and propaganda skills of the status quo to come down upon you. Expect long, bitter, costly battles over every scientific finding that endangers current practice. It is always easier to hire a lawyer or a spinmeister than it is to reform an industry or Semmelweis's hospital.

Current global warming science goes much further than simply challenging hugely profitable industries in many nations. It says the "free market" is faced with a pending disaster that requires massive government action. This strikes at the heart of several existing power structures. And the doctrine of government de-regulation. Global warming may even force many humans to change their daily life. That's some serious economic disruption and those doing well right now always oppose disruption.

The scientists doing global warming research are smashing against a major source of wealth and power on this planet: the fossil fuel industries and the states and nations that feed off of it. Saudi Arabia with its oil. Canada with its tar sands. Russia with its oil. The U.S. with its coal.

In the U.S. there are 21 coal-producing states. That means 42 votes in the U.S. Senate from coal states. Over 30 states produce at least some crude oil. Of the top thirteen, only one is a blue state. That's California. Oil and conservative politics go together like oil and conservative politics. Those two now almost require global warming skepticism. Texas, BTW, leads the nation in oil and CO2 production.

Find a new product they can make from oil and sell at a profit and they'll support you. Tell them their multi-trillion dollar industry is endangering the planet and they inevitably fight you every way they can.

By Harry Fuller:

[Noval53]

The Copenhagen Summit is a gathering of the climate change cult church that seeks to silence all dissent. Any dissenter or deniers of the faith, are to be excommunicated from the church and shunned forever. Any scientists that aren't priests or converts of the cult are to be denied any tenure, grants, or support of any kind. Members of the climate change cult are venomous and don't take kindly to criticism. The climate change scam truly is about power, money, and positions within the climate change / global warming cult church. This CBS story is just more propaganda to support the faithful of the church and cover up the shameful lies exposed by Climategate.

[ssquared8484]

Article author Harry Fuller has the analytical ability of a wart.

How many "reporters" can take a tale of lying, disingenuous "scientists caught in a conspiracy" declare the liars are telling the truth.

The main stream mediia is really only good at fueling their own destruction...couldn't happen to a better group of unprofessional scumbags led by none other the purky Couric and always idiotic Thomas Freedman.

[louiville35]

"Your false dichotomy belies your ignorance.

by porcine_aviator December 5, 2009 11:40 AM EST

There is no way for us to remove the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere...its neither tehcnically nor economically feasible."

by porcine_aviator December 5, 2009 11:49 AM EST
"Just because something participates in a cycle does not make it infinite. It takes millions of years to create oil from decaying plant matter. We are extracting the hydrocarbon wealth of this planet over a million times faster than it can be replenished. Thus, we are interrupting the cycle, and returning it to conditions unseen since the late Permian...300 million years ago. "
===============================================================

LOL I see you must have checked on the "Carbon Cycle" in the nine minute gap between posts. Maybe you should check (engage brain) before shooting off your mouth.

BTW You should look up recharging oil fields and Bio fuels!

[troutfishyman]

by luadda22 December 5, 2009 10:46 PM EST
trout, you are the one that needs to do the research, and are just flat a** wrong. Was Rachel Carson your mama? Once the author states erroneous information you can not place any credence in his other points. Again he is just another environmental wacko.



Write a letter to the EPA - they still have it listed as a probable carcinogen. I suspect they know a little more about it than you do. Also, the NTP classifies it as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen". The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it is as a "possible" human carcinogen. These evaluations are based mainly on the results of animal studies.

DDT is toxic to a wide range of animals in addition to insects. It is highly toxic to aquatic life, including crayfish, daphnids, sea shrimp and many species of fish. It is less toxic to mammals but cats are very susceptible, and in several instances cat populations were significantly depleted in malaria control operations that used DDT, often leading to explosive growth in rodent populations. DDT may be moderately toxic to some amphibian species, especially in the larval stages. Most famously, it is a reproductive toxicant for certain birds species, and it is a major reason for the decline of the bald eagle, brown pelican, peregrine falcon, and osprey. Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species.

[luadda22]

trout, why should I trust the EPA?

William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery.

Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility.

Extensive hearings on DDT before an EPA administrative law judge occurred during 1971-1972. The EPA hearing examiner, Judge Edmund Sweeney, concluded that "DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man... DDT is not a mutagenic or teratogenic hazard to man... The use of DDT under the regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife".

Overruling the EPA hearing examiner, EPA administrator Ruckelshaus banned DDT in 1972. Ruckelshaus never attended a single hour of the seven months of EPA hearings on DDT. Ruckelshaus' aides reported he did not even read the transcript of the EPA hearings on DDT.

Kind of sounds like CO2 doesn't it, the environmental wackos hide or destroy data, attempt to close debate and attack people who question "their" findings. AND THEY CALL US CLOSE-MINDED!!!

[troutfishyman]

by aburr December 5, 2009 11:27 PM EST

Relativity- theory
Evolution- theory
Quantum physics- theory
Manmade climate change- proven science that cannot be questioned by ANYONE, and anyone who does is stupid.



Climate change is a theory, and just like your examples, currently stands with a very high degree of confidence among most scientists. High enough that most reasonable people agree that action is warranted.

[luadda22]

Technically "man made global warming" is a provisional hypotenuse. Not a theory.

[ubrew12]

Technically, a 'hypotenuse' is the square-root of the sum of the squares of the two sides of a right triangle. According to Pythagorus' Theory. Oh, oh. Another theory...

[aburr]

If there is nothing wrong, why is there such a pattern of strange things around the Manbearpig believer studies? New Zealand studies are under scrutiny for falsification of data, NASA has been ducking reqests for information for a couple of years- the behavior of those involved is not at all what would be expected from scientists.

What a leftist crock, nothing but yet another weasely way for the international socialist types to get more money and control. Anyone who has been through a university is familiar with the rabidly left wing bias in academia which values ideological conformity far more then the exchange of ideas.

If you bunny huggers are so convinced you are right, why don't you make your states models for this and demonstrate for everyone else? Start in some Liberal state like Massachusetts or Kalifornia, and show the validity of your theory WITHOUT bankrupting everyone who thinks your a flock of moonbats.

But you won't becasue what is really behind this is money, power, and control not science. I've seen this posted elsewhere and don't know the source, but it illustrates that this is political belief and not science.

Relativity- theory
Evolution- theory
Quantum physics- theory
Manmade climate change- proven science that cannot be questioned by ANYONE, and anyone who does is stupid.

[lmartink]

The scientists discuss process that are basically forever.

Politicians think in terms of election cycles -- 2, 4, 8 or 10 years -- and maybe 30-40s year if they are completely 100% corrupt.

[troutfishyman]

by luadda22 December 5, 2009 5:03 PM EST
I quit reading this article by Harry Fuller when I got to "DDT is dangerous to man and birds", and looked up his agenda. His is against population growth and states "that everybody should have an ever-ascending quality of life" is a myth and is against "electricity and modern life". He is for "all the negligible creatures who can't vote or wield a credit card". He likes birds over people. This man is an A #1 liberal wacko.


Instead of attacking the author, try stating why he is wrong, or where you disagree. ad hominem attacks are pathetic.

PS
Try researching DDT. It a probable human carcinogen, and thins the shells of birds. The bald eagle made a dramatic comeback after it was banned. The author was absolutely correct in his statement.

[luadda22]

trout, you are the one that needs to do the research, and are just flat a** wrong. Was Rachel Carson your mama? Once the author states erroneous information you can not place any credence in his other points. Again he is just another environmental wacko.

Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 -- 25 years before widespread use of DDT. After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census. No significant correlation between DDE residues and shell thickness was reported in a large series of bald eagle eggs. Thickness of eggshells from Florida, Maine and Wisconsin was found to not be correlated with DDT residues. Every bald eagle found dead in the U.S., between 1961-1977 (266 birds) was analyzed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists who reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues. And I can post all of the citations on these and 95 more studies.

As far as a human carcinogen;

"No correlation at the population level can be demonstrated between exposures to DDT and the incidence of cancer at any site. It is concluded that DDT has had no significant impact on human cancer patterns and is unlikely to be an important carcinogen for man at previous exposure levels, within the statistical limitations of the data".

[IARC Sci Publ 1985;(65):107-17]

Now you prove me wrong on Harry!

[ubrew12]

Rachel Carson was right, given the science of her time. I think the verdict on DDT is the old one: 'too much of a good thing is a bad thing.'

Now, what does that remind me of? (CO2)

[luadda22]

I quit reading this article by Harry Fuller when I got to "DDT is dangerous to man and birds", and looked up his agenda. His is against population growth and states "that everybody should have an ever-ascending quality of life" is a myth and is against "electricity and modern life". He is for "all the negligible creatures who can't vote or wield a credit card". He likes birds over people. This man is an A #1 liberal wacko.

[nearl451]

At last a sensible article on hesitance to the ALWAYS imperfect, but enlightening practise of science.

Niels Bohr had to die before the scientific community would advance the model of an atom.

Newton's is a perfect idiot from a Universe or speed of light perspective.

However, both vastly bought understanding and prediction to what was previously unknown.

There are going to be politically motivated pushes for and against the man-adds-to-global warming hypothesis. Eventually, the data wins.

[Sloughfoot]

Niels Bohr - presented with a Nobel Prize in Physics in the 20s didn't die until the 60s receive all kinds of alocades for his work throughout his life. But it is kind of like this flap about climate change - The pros are so convinced that this is a God given mandate that they advance that any voice of opposition should be equated with evil and any dessention with in the field of climatology whould be censored or aligned with the evil power and industry that propels this Nation.

Eventually the data will win - if it is not censored. Science has brought much of this skepticism upon itself and their recent manipulations of climate data has not gone un-noticed.