Person Who is Never Wrong Does Not Know Basic Logic or Science

"Who's never wrong about anything" is the way the London Telegraph describes James Delingpole, who recently wrote one of the most inane, and manipulative posts, ever to have graced the online pages of a major "news" source.

Here is Delingpole's assertion, as he shows why climate gate, is the "scientific scandal" of the modern era.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

So what is the evidence of these "private doubts?"

First, let's consider what is meant by "warming up;" nanmely, is climate change real. Now let's look at his "evidence" from one of the hacked emails:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Did the person who is "never wrong about anything" ever take a science class in high school or college? Did he pass it? Of is it just that his ideological bent has annilihated his ability to exercise basic scientific understanding or rudimentary logic when it comes to what is clearly an ideological issue to him (just read his popular post, linked to twice above.)

Sadly, that seems to be what is happening, in America (and apparently in our little puppy England) as we continue our march toward becoming more and more ill informed, as we become more and more ideologically driven.

Consider the paragraph that is cited as his "evidence." It claims a disappointment with the ability of a model to predict something, and has almost nothing to do with the underlying isssue of warming.

Some scientist is bummed because he can't accurately model exactly what is happening in the climate, and that's a relevant portion of what he requotes as the "scientific scandal of the modern era"?

This is what happens when the debate no longer revolves around what is going on, and what is the most sensible thing (if anything) to do about it, but between those who are essentially interested in understanding science when dealing with the physical world (which is what defines science), and those who are so driven by their "wants" "beliefs" "desires" and preconceived notions of the way that things should be, or that they want them to be, that their ability to spin (thus convincing themselves at the same time as others) increases commensurate with their precipitiously decreasing ability to objectively reason.

The rest of his examples are also similarly misplaced or well overblown.  And even if by "trick" and "hide" these scientists did not mean what most scientists normally mean (rounding out errors) and meant what non scientist mean by these things, so what. It's about as consequential to the underlying issue of climate change as........ [you fill in your own analogy; ours was too ribald to permit the printing thereof].

In other words, irrelevant. Because it's not their data that drives this. It's not their estimations that drive this.  Without any of it, the entire basic underlying science is the same. The physics never changes.  The known fact of net emissions increases in GHC and how much those are, never changes. The fact that heat trapping gases do drive climate, never changes.  And even the observable data, the only non essential part of this equation (although it has tended to corroborate early predictions decades ago) doesn't change; that is,data produced by some of the most reputable organizations on the planet, including NASA and the NOAA, and not some scientist at climate center East Anglia.
And the London Telegraph publishes his tripe, and perpetuates and promotes such idiocy.

Hopefully Delingpole lives in a big house near the sea, where he plans on staying a long, long time.

"Belief" in "Science"

A post earlier today noted some of the science on climate change, and the far right ideologically driven dogma of popular (fake instant credibility building)"law professor" sites such as Intapundit and Althouse.

Conveniently, Althouse writes yesterday:  "I'm having a really hard time believing scientists lately."

Perhaps tipping her hand, Althouse then immediately asserts, as if to put the (rare) objective reader at ease, and further show the (common) subjective reader how "balanced" and "rational" she is, that "I'm a thorough believer in science."

This is an interesting statement. Science is the study and understanding of the physical world around us. In other words, lacking any other dimensional construct, objective reality. So Althouse has to assert that she is a "believer" in this, as if it's a choice? As in one can choose not to "believe" in "science," aka, observable learnings of our physical world. Give her extra credit for being, in her words, a "believer" in this.

Of course, driven by ideological dogma (which sometimes conflicts with science -- or objective, non partian physical reality) and with sources like this (also written by lawyers) -- which she cites in this same piece regarding her "skepticism rubbed raw" by climategate -- it is easy for Althouse to be "skeptical of scientists" as opposed to being skeptical of questionable motives and scientific data, for valid, non political objective reason. That is, a source which mangles the facts through grandiose omission, and comission.

Yes, just read powerline; the aerosol affect of SO2 largely offsets the heat trapping propensities of drastically increasing greenhouse gas concentrations!! (Decades -- or less -- from now, these same ideologically driven groups are going to be saying the same thing that was said on Iraq "no one knew nor could have contemplated how complex the Iraq dynamic was going to be," and be completely oblivious to the fact that they repeatedly fought non partisan objective scientific reality tooth and nail.)

Actually, if we all just turn our air conditioning up a little more, this may offset most of the negative effects of climate change too! Note that such a seemingly moronic statement is only slighly more inane than the claim in the grotesquely negligent piece of abject trash "Superfreakonomics" that solar panels, because they are "black," don't help because they don't absorb much of the energy of the sun and the rest is "reradiated as heat."

Yes, just read powerline. The basic long standing scientific fact that greenhouse gases trap heat (and in almost exclusive concentrations are the main reason why the surface of venus is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit) may not be a myth after all, but S02 particulates block sunlight and so cause cooling! You see, science is such a beautiful thing; if one consumes twenty seven Big Macs a day, but takes a sip of ice water, one will lose weight or remain relatively constant, since Big Macs put on calories, but the body must burn calories in order to bring the ice water up to temperature!

You see how easy science is? Natural SO2 pollution, you dopes. It offsets atmospheric heat trapping gases! Powerline is just grand. And what a grasp of science it has. Just like Althouse.