The Intelligent Design of MBH98

The play by Rolin Jones “The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow” is a tale of science fueled by post-adolescent angst with a brilliant young woman who excels at rocket science but can’t leave her bedroom. Driven by a real life quest to find her biological mother, she pilfers parts from her government rocket project and builds a replica of herself, named Jenny Chow to meet her real birth mother in China, by proxy.

<img src="http://www.yale.edu/opa/v33.n7/story7.jpg"

The publicity photo for “The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow,” an award-winning play by recent School of Drama graduate Rolin Jones.

Jenny’s robot is contemporary version of the Simulacrum, that creation of device for a purpose in a parody of reality. Such appears to be the case of the ‘hockey stick graph’ — a reconstruction of Millennial global temperatures based on tree-ring and other proxies by MBH98. The graph, showing temperatures relatively stable throughout the middle ages and recent times, and shooting upward suddenly last century has been an iconic feature of the IPCC 2001 report on climate change, and countless government reports, slide shows, powerpoints and papers since its invention.

Now, the report of the National Academy of Sciences on ‘Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years‘ relates an overselling — an irrational exuberance — for the reconstruction by the IPCC in the summary for policy-makers.

The graph has become the Simulacra envisioned by Baudrillard.

  • stage 1: the model is created in resemblance of the original reality
  • stage 2: the model is reproduced by others with no reference to the original reality
  • stage 3: models becomes the reality

Some excerpts from the NAS briefing:

“Greater variability in past climate may mean temperature is more sensitive to GHGs or be ameliorated. It could be either.”

“We are in the warmest period of the last 400 years.”

“We do agree with the substance of the finding (of MBH98). There is a disagreement with how sure we are about the period before 1600AD.”

“The MBH98 study underestimated those uncertainties (of the Medieval period).”

“While the conclusion is plausible, we don’t know if its true that individual years like 1998 were the warmest in the millennium.”

That the shape of recent warming is incorrect is not the subject of criticism of MBH98. The issue is the representation of past variability, that MBH98 illustrated as very small, relative to the present day.

The magnitude of past climate is important to the present. As Hegerl et.al. has showed, greater past variability entails more partitioning of present variation to solar origins, and less to GHGs, resulting in lower estimates of sensitivity to CO2. Clearly the report has less confidence in the Mann theory of less overall variability. Similarly, the statement that we can only confidently conclude that current temperature is the warmest in 400 years, is a remarkable pullback from exaggerated claims that temperatures now are the warmest in 1000, 10,000 or million years as have been made.

The paradigm that Medieval warm period is ‘murky’ or incoherent that the report is promulgating was strongly challenged at the end, numerous papers from numerous proxies cited, each showing extremely high results for warming in the supposedly ‘murky’ MWP. The only arguments in defense offered by the panel was that the MWP did not seem to be spatially or temporally coherent across the globe, and from the statistician Bloomfield, that it is OK for uncertainty to increase with additional information. The reporter noted that with the millions of dollars being spent on climate change that a report should come out saying that confidence in temperatures during that period is decreasing, not increasing, is a somewhat unsatisfactory outcome.

The size and extent of warming is crucial to biodiversity as it is an measure of extent of variation that present biodiversity has been exposed to and survived.

Models like the hockey stick graph have an appearance of clarity, but are really like Simulacra with an hallucinatory resemblance to the real. This is dangerous. Under scrutiny only the obvious and uncontested parts survive (the warming of the last 400 years) and the important part, past temperatures relative to the present day, become ‘murky’.

How do we deal with a world where reality is indistinguishable from illusion? We perform experiments.

  • stage 1: attempt to replicate the result exactly, to see if this at least stable.
  • stage 2: think of a test that tells us if it is real.
  • stage 3: carry out that test.

The test are showing extremely high results for warming in the supposedly ‘murky’ MWP. One of the many flow-ons of this may be the sensitivity to variations in solar intensity in models must be reparametrized. Another flow-on is greater tolerance of biodiversity to climatic variation than is currently believed.

As with every Frankenstein story, however, the MBH98 Simulacrum experience takes on a life of its own and things don’t turn out exactly as planned. Control can only go so far before it devolves into chaos. To quote a line in “The Intelligent Design of Jenny Chow”:

After a major setback, Jenny Chow intones “I’m confused”; Jennifer retorts, “That’s because I made you. And you’re only going to get more confused.”

Sounds like climate history is going to get a bit more confusing too.

Resources:

52 Comments

  1. Steve Sadlov June 22, 2006 5:23 pm

    The Hockey Stick paradigm was starting to become a manifestation of uniformitarianism of climate, against which “Man the virus” has set forth a disruption. Any time a certain past stability is assumed, then, a given variation in the present might result in incorrect overreaction. Imagine I run a factory and use what I believe to to statistical process control to run my business. Unfortunately, the data I used to determing my control and specification limits were wrong, and they depicted the Cpk as being substantially higher than it really is. As a result, I overreact and shut down the line. Consider this analogy vis a vis the Hockey Stick.

  2. Steve Sadlov June 22, 2006 5:23 pm

    The Hockey Stick paradigm was starting to become a manifestation of uniformitarianism of climate, against which “Man the virus” has set forth a disruption. Any time a certain past stability is assumed, then, a given variation in the present might result in incorrect overreaction. Imagine I run a factory and use what I believe to to statistical process control to run my business. Unfortunately, the data I used to determing my control and specification limits were wrong, and they depicted the Cpk as being substantially higher than it really is. As a result, I overreact and shut down the line. Consider this analogy vis a vis the Hockey Stick.

  3. Dano June 22, 2006 5:38 pm

    Fascinatingly instructive entry, David.

    This blog entry uses the three-part template found so commonly in the right-wing framing of constructed narratives: you begin with an anecdote to engage emotion in the reader, then insert your framed message (here, around the totem) with well-chosen phrases. Lastly, you conclude with a return to the emotive framing device to wrap in the inserted messages with your emotive engagement.

    I like it that you have to use the standard template to deliver your message.

    Best,

    D

  4. Dano June 22, 2006 5:38 pm

    Fascinatingly instructive entry, David.

    This blog entry uses the three-part template found so commonly in the right-wing framing of constructed narratives: you begin with an anecdote to engage emotion in the reader, then insert your framed message (here, around the totem) with well-chosen phrases. Lastly, you conclude with a return to the emotive framing device to wrap in the inserted messages with your emotive engagement.

    I like it that you have to use the standard template to deliver your message.

    Best,

    D

  5. admin June 22, 2006 6:34 pm

    All texts are constructed narratives and all texts are attempts at tyrannizing the reader into belief in their integrity, validity, point of view etc. All use devices to attempt and tempt the reader into reading it. It doesn’t matter if they are left wing or right wing. Even the most flat, boring scientific argument is attempting to tyrannize the reader, perhaps with proof by exhaustion, or appeal to authority. I try to make things a bit fun and entertaining so more people will read them, that’s all.

    I also try to be right. Challenging the exaggerated confidence in the basis of global warming claims has been a consistent feature of my recent work. It’s not because I am don’t believe in global warming but because I am pissed at the tyranny of people who do believe in it. Von Storch stated that results showing greater variability of past climate were impossible to publish after MBH98 (see Peer-censorship and Scientific Fraud). The NAS report appears to vindicate all we have been saying about the exaggerated confidence of the warmers. Exaggerated claims, like monsters run amok, have a way of backfiring in science and creating a lot of collateral damage. Cooler non-uniformitarian heads will eventually prevail.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  6. admin June 22, 2006 6:34 pm

    All texts are constructed narratives and all texts are attempts at tyrannizing the reader into belief in their integrity, validity, point of view etc. All use devices to attempt and tempt the reader into reading it. It doesn’t matter if they are left wing or right wing. Even the most flat, boring scientific argument is attempting to tyrannize the reader, perhaps with proof by exhaustion, or appeal to authority. I try to make things a bit fun and entertaining so more people will read them, that’s all.

    I also try to be right. Challenging the exaggerated confidence in the basis of global warming claims has been a consistent feature of my recent work. It’s not because I am don’t believe in global warming but because I am pissed at the tyranny of people who do believe in it. Von Storch stated that results showing greater variability of past climate were impossible to publish after MBH98 (see Peer-censorship and Scientific Fraud). The NAS report appears to vindicate all we have been saying about the exaggerated confidence of the warmers. Exaggerated claims, like monsters run amok, have a way of backfiring in science and creating a lot of collateral damage. Cooler non-uniformitarian heads will eventually prevail.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  7. TCO June 22, 2006 7:34 pm

    Steve doesn’t do that.

  8. TCO June 22, 2006 7:34 pm

    Steve doesn’t do that.

  9. Dano June 22, 2006 7:52 pm

    That’s nicely done conflation in your linky above, David. I bet some folk fell for it.

    So you use conflation (false equivalency), emotive engagement, and phrases such as: tyrrany, overselling, and importance of opinion in scientific worth etc. to frame “your” views. As I said, fascinatingly instructive.

    BTW, a link to RP Jr’s site from your VS link has a few comments from me in there exploring this ‘overselling’ of your totem a bit more in detail (ctrl + F ‘astroturf energy’).

    Best,

    D

  10. Dano June 22, 2006 7:52 pm

    That’s nicely done conflation in your linky above, David. I bet some folk fell for it.

    So you use conflation (false equivalency), emotive engagement, and phrases such as: tyrrany, overselling, and importance of opinion in scientific worth etc. to frame “your” views. As I said, fascinatingly instructive.

    BTW, a link to RP Jr’s site from your VS link has a few comments from me in there exploring this ‘overselling’ of your totem a bit more in detail (ctrl + F ‘astroturf energy’).

    Best,

    D

  11. admin June 22, 2006 8:35 pm

    Well without this ‘tyrrany’, which I used as a literary reference rather than emotive intent as I thought you might appreciate it given your use of the phrase ‘constructive narrative’ — without this the field would be closer to the truth and perhaps not getting push-back it is. I really don’t know what emotion you are talking about. Certaintly not fear that most pro-warmers use. I think it is dangerous to believe in models too much — to exagerate confidence in them — and place greater faith in evidence. The main emotion is amusement and perhaps some mild mocking. The main token I see is the token I see at the end of all those papers is the one that goes … My work is important because of the AGW.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  12. admin June 22, 2006 8:35 pm

    Well without this ‘tyrrany’, which I used as a literary reference rather than emotive intent as I thought you might appreciate it given your use of the phrase ‘constructive narrative’ — without this the field would be closer to the truth and perhaps not getting push-back it is. I really don’t know what emotion you are talking about. Certaintly not fear that most pro-warmers use. I think it is dangerous to believe in models too much — to exagerate confidence in them — and place greater faith in evidence. The main emotion is amusement and perhaps some mild mocking. The main token I see is the token I see at the end of all those papers is the one that goes … My work is important because of the AGW.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  13. Lubos Motl June 22, 2006 9:32 pm
  14. Lubos Motl June 22, 2006 9:32 pm
  15. Dano June 22, 2006 9:51 pm

    I’m more interested, David, in the standard essay construction you chose to use, the constructed narrative you believe and purvey, the totem you use, and your false equivalencies than the specific phrases you use to frame “your” “argument”. In that order. Although your choice of phraseology is useful.

    (I said David used ‘tyranny, overselling’ etc to frame, not to elicit emotion, in case anyone is confused by the argumentation)

    Best,

    D

  16. Dano June 22, 2006 9:51 pm

    I’m more interested, David, in the standard essay construction you chose to use, the constructed narrative you believe and purvey, the totem you use, and your false equivalencies than the specific phrases you use to frame “your” “argument”. In that order. Although your choice of phraseology is useful.

    (I said David used ‘tyranny, overselling’ etc to frame, not to elicit emotion, in case anyone is confused by the argumentation)

    Best,

    D

  17. admin June 22, 2006 11:26 pm

    Dano, I glad you find it useful and interesting as I do too. A would like to know though if by ‘constructed narrative’ you are using it as a euphemism for untruth, rather than the more usual meaning from literary criticism, and if by ‘false equivalence’ you mean things like equating the hockey stick graph research to a Broadway production. You seem to throw out a lot words that appear pejorative then act all coy about them as if they were neutral.

    Steve McIntyre would probably say there are too many flourishes. I am aware adding color upsets some (TCO) but not sure exactly why. I am always open to constructive suggestions to improve my writing, but it’s a blog not an article. I am competing with stories about whether Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake are over or not.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  18. admin June 22, 2006 11:26 pm

    Dano, I glad you find it useful and interesting as I do too. A would like to know though if by ‘constructed narrative’ you are using it as a euphemism for untruth, rather than the more usual meaning from literary criticism, and if by ‘false equivalence’ you mean things like equating the hockey stick graph research to a Broadway production. You seem to throw out a lot words that appear pejorative then act all coy about them as if they were neutral.

    Steve McIntyre would probably say there are too many flourishes. I am aware adding color upsets some (TCO) but not sure exactly why. I am always open to constructive suggestions to improve my writing, but it’s a blog not an article. I am competing with stories about whether Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake are over or not.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  19. TCO June 23, 2006 12:48 am

    I don’t mind the lead-in. I didn’t like the earlier JohnA post. He doesn’t understand stuff and overstates things.

    DanO, it’s completely common to have aenecdotes or human interest in an introduction. Look at RC with the post about THANK YOU FOR EMITTING referencing the pop movie. Better yet, just look at any essay.

  20. TCO June 23, 2006 12:48 am

    I don’t mind the lead-in. I didn’t like the earlier JohnA post. He doesn’t understand stuff and overstates things.

    DanO, it’s completely common to have aenecdotes or human interest in an introduction. Look at RC with the post about THANK YOU FOR EMITTING referencing the pop movie. Better yet, just look at any essay.

  21. Dano June 23, 2006 1:14 am

    I would like to know though if by ‘constructed narrative’ you are using it as a euphemism for untruth, rather than the more usual meaning from literary criticism

    David, a constructed narrative may contain elements of truth, making it compelling. But I use it in the literary sense – what is the narrative purveyed in your piece, for example – not who made it or where did it come from, but simply what is it? For we all know the Heritage-type origins of these things.

    and if by ‘false equivalence’ you mean things like equating the hockey stick graph research to a Broadway production.

    Come now. You can do better. Let’s find concrete examples of where we equate two unrelated things to one another to make our point, like, oh, gosh: Hwang Woo-suk and MBH. That is: maybe if we mention a known bad thing in the same essay as something folks wish real hard was bad, maybe those folks will believe it’s true.

    You seem to throw out a lot words that appear pejorative then act all coy about them as if they were neutral.

    Come now. You can do better. Coy. Really. Pejorative. I’m just pointing out your essay construction. And my intent is clear: I’m calling your essays for what they are, and contextualizing them by highlighting elements you use in their construction. If you want to call trying to highlight them objectively by the term ‘neutral’, well that’s your narrative.

    Steve McIntyre would probably say there are too many flourishes. I am aware adding color upsets some (TCO) but not sure exactly why. I am always open to constructive suggestions to improve my writing, but it’s a blog not an article.

    Nice humanization. What small amount I’ve read of your writing is fine, if formulaic, but I’m just deconstructing it in a particular way here to highlight what I consider to be the narrative intent. If you’re gonna read other writing to improve your own persuasive essays, stay away from TownHall, TNR or TCS and aim higher.

    But I guess it all depends on audience. But I must say: at least there’s no cheer squad over here, which affects audience, so perhaps your stuff has a better chance of being read.

    Best,

    D

  22. Dano June 23, 2006 1:14 am

    I would like to know though if by ‘constructed narrative’ you are using it as a euphemism for untruth, rather than the more usual meaning from literary criticism

    David, a constructed narrative may contain elements of truth, making it compelling. But I use it in the literary sense – what is the narrative purveyed in your piece, for example – not who made it or where did it come from, but simply what is it? For we all know the Heritage-type origins of these things.

    and if by ‘false equivalence’ you mean things like equating the hockey stick graph research to a Broadway production.

    Come now. You can do better. Let’s find concrete examples of where we equate two unrelated things to one another to make our point, like, oh, gosh: Hwang Woo-suk and MBH. That is: maybe if we mention a known bad thing in the same essay as something folks wish real hard was bad, maybe those folks will believe it’s true.

    You seem to throw out a lot words that appear pejorative then act all coy about them as if they were neutral.

    Come now. You can do better. Coy. Really. Pejorative. I’m just pointing out your essay construction. And my intent is clear: I’m calling your essays for what they are, and contextualizing them by highlighting elements you use in their construction. If you want to call trying to highlight them objectively by the term ‘neutral’, well that’s your narrative.

    Steve McIntyre would probably say there are too many flourishes. I am aware adding color upsets some (TCO) but not sure exactly why. I am always open to constructive suggestions to improve my writing, but it’s a blog not an article.

    Nice humanization. What small amount I’ve read of your writing is fine, if formulaic, but I’m just deconstructing it in a particular way here to highlight what I consider to be the narrative intent. If you’re gonna read other writing to improve your own persuasive essays, stay away from TownHall, TNR or TCS and aim higher.

    But I guess it all depends on audience. But I must say: at least there’s no cheer squad over here, which affects audience, so perhaps your stuff has a better chance of being read.

    Best,

    D

  23. admin June 23, 2006 1:45 am

    Dano, Thanks for clarifying. I never equated MBH with HWS and challenge you to show me where I did. MBH only came up very tangentially in the context of a statement by VS on peer-review, something Nature has seen fit to try to modify BTW which I take as a vindication. I am very aware that mud slinging is a danger of blogs and I talk about it here.

    Formulaic – OK, I don’t expect to win the Nobel prize for literature. Just popularize the issues and counter some of the BS out there. I will try to do better. Don’t know TNR and TCS. Perhaps you have some examples of writing you think I should emulate. Cheers

    TCO – thanks for responding. Steve mentioned excessive triumpalism and I agree it’s an unattractive feature in writing.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  24. admin June 23, 2006 1:45 am

    Dano, Thanks for clarifying. I never equated MBH with HWS and challenge you to show me where I did. MBH only came up very tangentially in the context of a statement by VS on peer-review, something Nature has seen fit to try to modify BTW which I take as a vindication. I am very aware that mud slinging is a danger of blogs and I talk about it here.

    Formulaic – OK, I don’t expect to win the Nobel prize for literature. Just popularize the issues and counter some of the BS out there. I will try to do better. Don’t know TNR and TCS. Perhaps you have some examples of writing you think I should emulate. Cheers

    TCO – thanks for responding. Steve mentioned excessive triumpalism and I agree it’s an unattractive feature in writing.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  25. John A June 23, 2006 1:14 pm

    Dano criticises Dave Stockwell for using

    …the three-part template found so commonly in the right-wing framing of constructed narratives: you begin with an anecdote to engage emotion in the reader, then insert your framed message (here, around the totem) with well-chosen phrases. Lastly, you conclude with a return to the emotive framing device to wrap in the inserted messages with your emotive engagement.

    and

    …in the standard essay construction you chose to use, the constructed narrative you believe and purvey, the totem you use, and your false equivalencies than the specific phrases you use to frame “your” “argument”. In that order. Although your choice of phraseology is useful.

    Dano, I suggest you check with your intellectual bank for it appears that your account is in severe deficit with foreclosure imminent.

  26. John A June 23, 2006 1:14 pm

    Dano criticises Dave Stockwell for using

    …the three-part template found so commonly in the right-wing framing of constructed narratives: you begin with an anecdote to engage emotion in the reader, then insert your framed message (here, around the totem) with well-chosen phrases. Lastly, you conclude with a return to the emotive framing device to wrap in the inserted messages with your emotive engagement.

    and

    …in the standard essay construction you chose to use, the constructed narrative you believe and purvey, the totem you use, and your false equivalencies than the specific phrases you use to frame “your” “argument”. In that order. Although your choice of phraseology is useful.

    Dano, I suggest you check with your intellectual bank for it appears that your account is in severe deficit with foreclosure imminent.

  27. Dano June 23, 2006 8:15 pm

    Thank you David,

    I never equated MBH with HWS and challenge you to show me where I did.

    Ah. Perhaps better would have been ‘trying to equate’. I’ll speak to my editor. Anyway,

    You didn’t use an = sign, but as in the title of this blog entry, you are trying to place two separate things in proximity to paint with the broad brush.

    Intelligent design (religion) -> the totem -> the ‘science as religion’ meme -> thus intelligent design is a religious construct/as is the totem/therefore the totem is false because it is “really like [a Simulacrum] with an hallucinatory resemblance to the real”.

    Perhaps you have some examples of writing you think I should emulate.

    Just don’t use denialist think-tank (Heritage, AEI, CEI [found on TNR & esp TCS]) models.

    —–

    Thanks widdle Johnny,

    Dano, I suggest you check with your intellectual bank for it appears that your account is in severe deficit with foreclosure imminent.
    Devastating, as always.

    Best,

    D

  28. Dano June 23, 2006 8:15 pm

    Thank you David,

    I never equated MBH with HWS and challenge you to show me where I did.

    Ah. Perhaps better would have been ‘trying to equate’. I’ll speak to my editor. Anyway,

    You didn’t use an = sign, but as in the title of this blog entry, you are trying to place two separate things in proximity to paint with the broad brush.

    Intelligent design (religion) -> the totem -> the ‘science as religion’ meme -> thus intelligent design is a religious construct/as is the totem/therefore the totem is false because it is “really like [a Simulacrum] with an hallucinatory resemblance to the real”.

    Perhaps you have some examples of writing you think I should emulate.

    Just don’t use denialist think-tank (Heritage, AEI, CEI [found on TNR & esp TCS]) models.

    —–

    Thanks widdle Johnny,

    Dano, I suggest you check with your intellectual bank for it appears that your account is in severe deficit with foreclosure imminent.

    Devastating, as always.

    Best,

    D

  29. Ed Snack June 24, 2006 6:27 am

    Ah, the estimable Danny boy. Dishonest to the last I see. Got any more scientists whose work you classify as unreliable you’d like to traduce my lad ? “Deconstructing Narrative intent”, ooh, cleverness incarnate strikes again. At least with you, we know your narrative intent, misdirection and distraction.

    As an aside, I wonder if you would ever consider analysing the writing style of Greenpeace, you should feel totally at home with their usual mix of hysteria, emotive language, and outright dishonesty.

  30. Ed Snack June 24, 2006 6:27 am

    Ah, the estimable Danny boy. Dishonest to the last I see. Got any more scientists whose work you classify as unreliable you’d like to traduce my lad ? “Deconstructing Narrative intent”, ooh, cleverness incarnate strikes again. At least with you, we know your narrative intent, misdirection and distraction.

    As an aside, I wonder if you would ever consider analysing the writing style of Greenpeace, you should feel totally at home with their usual mix of hysteria, emotive language, and outright dishonesty.

  31. admin June 24, 2006 2:29 pm

    the totem is false

    That the NAS found the totem flawed is a fact.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  32. admin June 24, 2006 2:29 pm

    the totem is false

    That the NAS found the totem flawed is a fact.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  33. Steve Sadlov June 29, 2006 10:12 pm

    Obviously, both the NAS report and this blog entry pressed one of Dano’s hot buttons. Dano and ilk remind me strongly of 20th century European, prolitariat manipulating procrustean dictators. Masters of ad hom, purveyors of fear. Speaking of fear, I’d like to share a fear I have. This faux “debate” (faux in that most of the actual conflict really comes from the Hockey Team and friends as they, instead of addressing legit points, go ad hom or otherwise fight) is MEANT to divide. It is MEANT to divide the scientific and technical community against itself. It is MEANT to move things from the realm of agnostic analysis, structured problem solving and real discource into the realm of science serving ideology. It is all about revolution. It is all about overturning the institutions. So, back to my fear. My fear is that there now exist, here in America, the seeds of a monstrosity that previously only the Old World has known. I remember when I was living in a Freshman dorm, I heard the most interesting statement from someone. We lived in a themed hall that was focussed on Environmentalism. While the majority were orthodox Gaia worshippers, there were a few odd men out. One such odd man, who was a principled conservative conservationists in the Theodore Roosevelt mold, said the following. He said that the rising tide of radical environmentalists at the time (early 80s) reminded him of a past rising tide. That past rising tide was a tide of “volk” – a tide of “volk” who wanted a simpler life, a reduced and “cleansed” population and a new sort of spiritualism that brought northern European shamanism back into the popular arena. Of course history does not precisely repeat. However …..

  34. Steve Sadlov June 29, 2006 10:12 pm

    Obviously, both the NAS report and this blog entry pressed one of Dano’s hot buttons. Dano and ilk remind me strongly of 20th century European, prolitariat manipulating procrustean dictators. Masters of ad hom, purveyors of fear. Speaking of fear, I’d like to share a fear I have. This faux “debate” (faux in that most of the actual conflict really comes from the Hockey Team and friends as they, instead of addressing legit points, go ad hom or otherwise fight) is MEANT to divide. It is MEANT to divide the scientific and technical community against itself. It is MEANT to move things from the realm of agnostic analysis, structured problem solving and real discource into the realm of science serving ideology. It is all about revolution. It is all about overturning the institutions. So, back to my fear. My fear is that there now exist, here in America, the seeds of a monstrosity that previously only the Old World has known. I remember when I was living in a Freshman dorm, I heard the most interesting statement from someone. We lived in a themed hall that was focussed on Environmentalism. While the majority were orthodox Gaia worshippers, there were a few odd men out. One such odd man, who was a principled conservative conservationists in the Theodore Roosevelt mold, said the following. He said that the rising tide of radical environmentalists at the time (early 80s) reminded him of a past rising tide. That past rising tide was a tide of “volk” – a tide of “volk” who wanted a simpler life, a reduced and “cleansed” population and a new sort of spiritualism that brought northern European shamanism back into the popular arena. Of course history does not precisely repeat. However …..

  35. David Stockwell June 30, 2006 12:16 am

    I don’t know Dano or follow many blogs much.

    It is one of those delicious moments when you can say I told you so. If they had read M&Ms papers when they came out and followed the blog, it was a plain as day they were right, and the NAS report agreed. I don’t see much division though. AGW is more of a group think in my circles and I get dismissed as a curiosity for saying its exaggerated. AGW is the institution in ecology.

    http://landshape.org

  36. David Stockwell June 30, 2006 12:16 am

    I don’t know Dano or follow many blogs much.

    It is one of those delicious moments when you can say I told you so. If they had read M&Ms papers when they came out and followed the blog, it was a plain as day they were right, and the NAS report agreed. I don’t see much division though. AGW is more of a group think in my circles and I get dismissed as a curiosity for saying its exaggerated. AGW is the institution in ecology.

    http://landshape.org

  37. Steve Sadlov June 30, 2006 12:46 am

    According to the “Deep Ecology” notions I was fond of in my naive and reckless youth, Man, especially capitalist, industrial man, was to be considered a sort of virus infecting Gaia. It’s interesting yet frightening. When I first read “Ecotopia” I was quite taken with it and actually adopted that vision as my goal, a goal, happily, long since discarded. If you read the prequel, “Ecotopia Emerging” there are descriptions of mobs chasing down cars in San Francisco and attacking them and their drivers. The protagonists of the “Ecotopian Revolution” recruit people at Lawrence Livermore, steal warheads and use nuclear blackmail to accomplish their putsch. Having formed their utopian state they adopt a number of authoritarian attributes. Looking back at it all, I cringe. Sadly, some of my contemporaries from those days have probably not really changed.

  38. Steve Sadlov June 30, 2006 12:46 am

    According to the “Deep Ecology” notions I was fond of in my naive and reckless youth, Man, especially capitalist, industrial man, was to be considered a sort of virus infecting Gaia. It’s interesting yet frightening. When I first read “Ecotopia” I was quite taken with it and actually adopted that vision as my goal, a goal, happily, long since discarded. If you read the prequel, “Ecotopia Emerging” there are descriptions of mobs chasing down cars in San Francisco and attacking them and their drivers. The protagonists of the “Ecotopian Revolution” recruit people at Lawrence Livermore, steal warheads and use nuclear blackmail to accomplish their putsch. Having formed their utopian state they adopt a number of authoritarian attributes. Looking back at it all, I cringe. Sadly, some of my contemporaries from those days have probably not really changed.

  39. admin June 30, 2006 2:05 am

    I confess I went that way myself until I got real. Thankfully not everyone is the same. There are whole groups of society who wouldn’t know a Gaia if they drove one.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  40. admin June 30, 2006 2:05 am

    I confess I went that way myself until I got real. Thankfully not everyone is the same. There are whole groups of society who wouldn’t know a Gaia if they drove one.

    http://landshape.org/enm

  41. Steve Sadlov June 30, 2006 10:03 pm

    RE: #21. Or who wouldn’t know a Gaia if they ran over one while cruising down the interstate? LOL ….

  42. Steve Sadlov June 30, 2006 10:03 pm

    RE: #21. Or who wouldn’t know a Gaia if they ran over one while cruising down the interstate? LOL ….

  43. misty July 6, 2006 12:27 am

    This is very interesting site

  44. misty July 6, 2006 12:27 am

    This is very interesting site