global warming and academic faddism

Global Warming and Academic Faddism

November 25th, 2009 | By: Orson Buggeigh

Tags:

Leave a comment
| Trackback

A short teaser. More later, when I have more time. There are several good posts and threads of comments on Man Made Global Warming (AGW for the PC) on the Volokh Conspiracy. Ilya Somin’s recent post, yesterday,entitled “‘Climategate’ and the Social Validation of Knowledge” is worth looking at. some of the posts are well reasoned explanations in layman’s terms of what the scientific method is, and how it works, and why that shows the problems in treating the UN’s reports on Climate Change as scientific. Political tracts? Yes, absolutely. Good, sound science? Not really. The big problem is, much of the demand to redirect billions of dollars and radically re-order the world economy is based on something closer to a religious conviction than something that qualifies as science. Somin’s discussion of social validation is helpful here.

What seems to be evident to me, is that the group of climatologists positing Man made Global Warming (MMGW) is a pattern of behavior which seems to be common to fundamentalist ‘true believers’ in other academic ventures. I am thinking of:

Michael Bellesiles. Dr. Bellesiles fudged his research and quoted out of context to argue that firearms were uncommon in the United States before the Civil War. His award winning book, Arming America, was seen as a strong tool for legal and political purposes to enact stronger gun control laws in the US. A man with an MA in history, and a libertarian law professor started the work of proving Bellesile was guilty of academic misconduct; he resigned before Emory could fire him. His book has been shown to be a work of fiction, not history.

Ward Churchill. Holding only an MA in graphic arts, Churchill was hired to a tenure track position in Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado (CU) on the basis of being a militant Indian scholar. It is worth noting that the REAL Indian scholar at the CU, Vine Deloria, never spoke up to defend Mr. Churchill’s work. Churchill claimed the US Army intentionally passed out smallpox infected blankets to do in the Mandan tribe. This turned out ot be one of many cases where Churchill fabricated, distorted, and misused historical data. He also was accused of plagiarism, including forging another artist’s work. The university investigated, and fired him. His suit seems to be going nowhere.

Michael Nifong and the Duke 88. A claim of a white on black rape at a sports team party soon proved to be dubious at best. Not to worry, the leading academics at the south’s leading private university rushed to claim that the athletes were racist rapists. “Due process? Rule of Law? We don’t need no steenkin’ due process!” seemed to be the order of the day as professors of literature, racial and gender studies and history rushed to sign a document accusing the athletes of rape, and call for expulsion if not imprisonment without an impartial trial. Finally, the legal team for the defendants proved the rape story was a fraud, a frame up by an unstable person trying to avoid arrest, aided and abetted by a corrupt DA seeking re-election in a majority minority community.

So what we see in the three listed cases are academics rushing to support the so called progressive political agenda, and trampling on any sort of educated person’s understanding of honest impartial research and open records to allow scholars with alternative viewpoints to fairly and accurately check the work.

If the academic community wants to drop all pretense of objective scholarship, then it is time to ask a simple question: Why are we allowing the public purse to fund something which is, in all senses, a religion? if people want to worship at the altar of Progressiveism, that’s fine. just don’t ask me to pay for your religious worship with public funds. we don’t do it for the Catholics, or Baptists, or Jews or Moslems. Separation of Church and State should certainly apply to the religion being practiced by Phil Jones and the folks at the Climate Research Unit.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine


  1. Orson Buggeigh

    November 25th, 2009 at 16:49

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #1

    A quick follow up and minor corrective thought. Since the UK has a state church (The Church of England), perhaps the new faith of Progressiveism will be a a sect of the C of E. Dr. Joens should see the Bishop of Canterbury regarding this. Then maybe the Progressive AGW folks can get their recognition as a church.

    In the USA, however, I expect the worshipers to have to pay their own way. None of my tax dollars to AGW worshipers, please.


  2. Doomed

    November 28th, 2009 at 18:45

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #2

    Lets look at the WSJ analysis of what has been going on and been revealed by these emails.

    “”Mr. Mann of the hockey stick fame…noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal “Climate Research” published a paper not to Mr. Mann’s liking, that “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!”

    What to do…what to do….As Mr. Mann suggests in another email….”Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.” In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

    No matter the spin they put on this. They are liars. Deceivers and perpetrators of a massive world wide hoax of proportions that will be discussed a 1000 years from now.

    The press failing to cover this only puts the exclamation mark on the fact they are LIARS, DECEIVERS and accomplices to the most massive hoax ever to be attempted.

    The three ring circus continues with Barak Obama marching to Stockholm. His head lowered. Blinders on. Earmuffs firmly in place. Committing the USA to job loss of massive proportions to APPEASE his 25 percent far left, loony toons base.

    Is this an impeachable offense?


  3. Doomed

    November 28th, 2009 at 18:54

    Reply |
    Quote |
    #3

    Of course you knew that the Obama administration had to have someone involved in this Climategate fiasco. It screams……..RADICALISM!!!!

    Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

    So in other words the bully pulpit of Obama extends to his Czars as well. They dont need experience…..

    They just need to have a JUDGEMENT.

    Experience is not important….JUDGEMENT is. But heaven forbid someone like Glen BECK would actually investigate these people and unearth their rather dubious past associations. Thats too much for our Complicit MSM who no longer cares about truth.

    At least now we have a few other press organizations looking into the crap that this administration if trying to pass off as sugar coated candy.

    The Obama administration folks no longer passes the smell test.




NOTE: PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to basic standards of civility and topicality.

We reserve the right to edit or delete comments which are in our judgment egregiously and
gratuitously uncivil. We also reserve the right to delete all comments which are off-topic,
including those that grossly distort the topic of the post or serve merely as vehicles for
spamming.

Complaints or concerns about deleted or edited comments should be sent by email only. Complaints
posted as comments will be deleted.

Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate the comments policy may be banned.