Wood Romances

Opinion polls appear to be all the rage among contrarians. These polls appear to be attempts to undermine the fact that over 99% of the recent scientific literature agrees with AGW, and 100% of scientific agencies globally that have taken a stance on AGW agree with AGW. In fact, as best as I can count, only about a half dozen credentialed climate scientists still working in the field globally disagree with AGW (11 if you count living, inactive scientists). Since the evidence is overwhelming in favor of AGW and the consensus on AGW is so strong, political activists need to resort to opinion polls to generate the perception that there are a significant number of scientists that disagree with AGW. And of course to get large numbers of signatories, you have to make the requirements to sign very low. This I believe explains the existence of the so-called Oregon Petition and the Petition Project . Qualifications of Signatories to the Petition The Oregon Petition was begun in the wake of t...

You often hear contrarians repeating mantras about there being "no consensus in science" or that "science is never settled," two related claims that I take to be nearly synonymous. Many examples could be given, but I'll offer a few (with links to the source so you can check up on me): "There is no consensus science. Consensus is group-think and is very dangerous in science. During the Little Ice Age, there was a consensus that witches caused bad weather, and so climate justice resulted in witch killings."  ( John Shewchuk ) "There is no consensus in science … science is about facts" ( John Coleman ) "Science is never settled." ( Matthew Wielicki ) "The minute you hear the science is settled, you know something is wrong. Science is never settled." ( Richard Lindzen ) It's common enough that sometimes you see it dressed up in pretty memes, like this one with a quote from Michael Crichton. I haven't decided yet if i...

About 20 years ago, I remember participating in a meeting where participants were actively debating a proposition. The moderator was enforcing parliamentary procedure, and speeches for and against the proposition were heard in turn - one speech for, then one speech against. This being the first meeting I had been in following this kind of procedure, I began to think that the room was evenly divided between the two positions. I was strongly in favor of it, and I was disheartened to see so much opposition to it. But when the vote was finally taken, I was more surprised by the results. The proposition passed by an extraordinarily large margin. In fact, it appeared that those speaking against the proposition made up almost all the people that voted against it, and the vast majority of the people in the room were like me. Most of us had essentially made up our minds, and we had no intention of making any speeches; we were just waiting for the debate to be over so we could vote.  My impr...