James Taylor:"Meltdown Of Global Warmists Reveals Their True Priorities" a closer look

Mr. Taylor at Forbes has written another one of his regular melodramatic broadsides against climatologists, folks he refers to as "warmists" - refusing to recognize or admit that it's the science supported by Earth observations that are driving the climatological community's conclusions.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

"The Meltdown Of Global Warmists Reveals Their True Priorities" 

OP/ED | 3/28/2013 @ 3:32PM | Forbes  

By James Taylor - Forbes.com 

Taylor says:  "Prominent global warming activist Michael Mann threw down the gauntlet against evangelical Christians this week, calling a distinguished climate scientist and well-known Christian an “evolution denier” while refusing to participate with him in a global warming debate. In the wake of Mann’s unprovoked attack, prominent ‘evangelical’ global warming activists, who target evangelical Christians by claiming to also be evangelicals, declined to stand up for the Christian scientist against Mann’s ugly and unprovoked assault. 

"Fox News Channel apparently invited Mann to appear on the air and debate climate scientist Roy Spencer on the topic of global warming.  

"Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, is one of the most knowledgeable climate scientists in the world." 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  In truth Roy Spencer is an extreme outlier who has whittled away at his own voracity within the serious scientific community.  A man who openly believes the Bible is 100% inerrant and that he has intimate personal knowledge of God's Word and Will.  Furthermore, he has become a soft spoken spokesman for climate notions that are rationally indefensible.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says: "Spencer’s scientific research leads him to be skeptical of the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis. He is also well-known among climate scientists for being an evangelical Christian."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  There are a variety of issues Mr Taylor would rather you not know or think about - regarding why Spencer is not the exemplar scientist implied.

But, it takes some serious curiosity and good-faith homework to understand.  Here's a good starting place with much information and many links to authoritative scientific sources:  SkepticalScience.com

http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Roy+Spencer&x=18&y=12

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says:  "Mann declined Fox News Channel’s invitation to debate Spencer. Not content to be a gracious invitee, Mann took to his Twitter account to pour out venom at Fox News Channel, Roy Spencer, and Spencer’s religious beliefs. “No, @FoxNews, I’m not interested in ‘debating’ #climatechange and #evolution denier Roy Spencer on your ‘news’ network,” wrote Mann."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  Just as Mr Taylor fancies himself a rational observer, he fancies FOXnews an objective fair honest outlet, when in actually it's a political player in Rupert Murdoch's news empire with a long history of being more entertainment and political manipulation than fact based news:

Fewer People Than Ever Trust Fox News 

Brett LoGiurato | Feb. 6, 2013, 

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-poll-trust-hits-record-low-2013-2 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Republicans Still Trust Fox News: Conservatives, Not So Much
By Christopher Zara | February 07 2013 | 2:59 PM

"For anyone who thinks Fox News Channel's “fair and balanced” claim is malarkey, you’re not alone."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says: "Within the global warming debate, it is well understood that calling a global warming skeptic a “denier” is a deliberate attempt to demean and disrespect him or her on a personal level." 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CC:  No!  Actually "denier" is a descriptive term used to describe people who have one directional skepticism and those who refuse to look at what they don't want to know about.  People such as our Mr Taylor who approaches the global warming discussion like a political debate to win whatever it takes rather than a learning experience society needs to catch up on.  His article is another text book example of that.

The science and the Earth's geophysical evidence is unequivocal: 

KEY INDICATORS 

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators 

~ ~ ~ 

EVIDENCE 

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence 

~ ~ ~ 

CAUSES    

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says:  "Global warming skeptics were universally labeled “skeptics” until a handful of particularly aggressive warmists began drawing asserted links between global warming skeptics and “holocaust deniers.” "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  No!  Actually as the scientific evidence and understanding has increased rational skepticism has become more and more untenable.  Folks who deny the basic scientific understanding such as Dr. Spencer and our Mr. Taylor have earned the title "denialist" because they deny reality - and this waving of the "holocaust denier red-flag" is merely another transparent appeal to emotion over thinking; another attempt to misdirect attention from what we really need to be learning about.

The Discovery of Global Warming 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm  

This is mounted on the Website of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics. Discovery of Global Warming site created by Spencer Weart with initial support from the American Institute of Physics, the National Science Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The statements on this site represent the views of the author and are not positions endorsed by the American Institute of Physics. Two of the Institute's Member Societies have taken positions on climate change; see the American Physical Society's statement and the American Geophysical Union's statement.Copyright © 2003-2013 Spencer Weart and the American Institute of Physics.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

CC: Then Mr. Taylor takes issue with Dr. Mann saying:

“Getting on a debate stage signals that, while you might disagree, you respect the position of your opponent.”

I want to consider Mr. Taylor's complaint in more detail - please mind you, I don't know Dr. Mann and am speaking for myself:

A constructive debate demands a level playing field, a landscape of trust and respect.  Along with mutually agreeable guidelines of behavior and evidence.  

Scientific consensus skeptics have shown repeatedly that fidelity to the truth and mutual respect along with some introspection and self-skepticism are totally absent from their own world views.  

Furthermore, they love drama and demonizing, {as repeatedly proven by Mr. Taylor's own extreme, almost paranoid, Forbes articles.  Same sorts of tactics used by Spencer, Watts, McIntyre and other climate science deniers}.

Scientists aren't into any of that stuff - 

ignore real facts, avoid questions, attack with misdirection, 

You're done - times up!!!  

BS and salesmanship and deceptive wordsmithing is NOT their style.  They don't have the time - life is too short!  If you don't have any integrity and base honesty they don't have the time or interest.

That, and more, is plenty enough reason for serious scientists to stay away from FOX/Watts/Spencer/LordMonckton style mud fighting... er "debates"  wink, wink.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Or to be more blunt it's like this: 

That question coming from the likes of Dr. Spencer, or FOX, or Mr. Taylor here, is akin to asking:  

"Why won't I participate in a friendly sparring match with you?"   Even though I know you're wearing brass knuckles, like fighting dirty, hate my guts and want to kill me.               You figure it out.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Am I exaggerating?

Let's consider the 1999 Mann et al paper, the one denialists want to destroy Mann's career over:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann_99.html
Title: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations"  

see: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/03/news-flash-anthony-watts-claims-all.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says: "The timing of Mann’s gratuitous attack on “evolution denier” Spencer is particularly inconvenient for global warming activists targeting evangelical Christians. Global warming activists have made a concerted effort of late to intensify their targeting of evangelicals." 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  Only a committed political operative such a Mr. Taylor can contrive Mann's couple of sentences, (to an invitation he did not ask for - from a hostile outfit, FOX network, who make a practice of misrepresenting science.) - into such a transparently phony attack.  

What Mann said was a simple statement of fact.  If you can't even wrap your head around evolution, you got no business talking science - or suggesting climate policy... and one shouldn't be surprised a serious scientist doesn't want to "debate" with one.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says: "Expecting self-professed ‘evangelical’ warmists to stand up for Spencer after the Christian scientist was gratuitously attacked by their warmist colleagues, I reached out to more than a dozen self-professed evangelicals who signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative’s “Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action.” To my surprise, not a single one would stand up for Spencer against Mann’s attack."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  Here is a text book example of "One Directional Skepticism"  Mr. Taylor is surprised that no one jumped to Dr. Roy Spencer's defense.  But, never asks if that lack of support might reflect an objective truth, namely that perhaps Dr. Spencer really is a fringe-extremist within the scientific community, who has lost the trust of his colleagues - by his own efforts.

To be blunt: Why not consider that it could be Dr. Spencer's own fault, think on it awhile.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

{...}Taylor says: " All of this leads one to wonder just how sincere self-professed ‘evangelical’ global warming activists are in their assertion of commonality with the evangelicals they target with their global warming activism. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  Here again not a shred of introspection, always the other's fault and the always convenient conspiracy machinations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Taylor says: " Rational people can have different points of view on each of these issues, but these identity-defining positions by ‘evangelical’ warmists do not appear to be in keeping with most American evangelicals.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC:  Mr. Taylor is getting all muddled here... are we talking about climate scientists and their science, or are we talking about struggles within and between religious communities?

In the end, Mr. Taylor's intention with this article is to once again distract from the real important issues, namely learning about what society is doing to it's life supporting atmosphere.  Shame on him.

As for "rational people" you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts... and that unfortunately is something Mr. Taylor consistently fabricates.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~