Dan, no, feel the joy, please, heh, don't let me rain on your parade. A pithy silence is of course generally best when one is talking to someone frantically trying to spin webs that let them believe what they want, while pretending to be reasoning beings, when it comes to serious people who actually want to either stop it, or at least understand it, that would be an interesting discussion, that's why I read realclimate.org, of course, rather than this thread, for example, when I want to see what's going on in recent developments. Also always fun for debunking the latest nonsense that is spewed back by pseudoresearchers and bloggers. But I'm definitely interested in the big picture, it certainly doesn't get much bigger than this when it comes to humanity and its ways of breaking things that were working well.
Roger C, I'm trying to drum up some new memberships for bpl, if you post a response, it will ruin that plan, can't you feel the tension, that querying mind asking, man, saving that $25 really worth not being able to respond, here, now, in small bite sized chunks, with careful treatments of each quote, or misquote, or misunderstood quote, following?!? This could tip the balance!! Let them memberships flow in like fine wines at a good dinner.
Jerry, yes, except even more so, since this issue is even bigger. But yes, the trail for that type of corporate pseudo-science is easy to track, and the practitioners are held in far more contempt, intellectually speaking, among serious scientists than most people realize, which I believe was one of the sub texts around those leaked emails. If I cared, I'd track certain 'critics' over time and watch how they uncritically repeated that pseudoscience year in and year out, pretending that no pattern exists in that behavior, but really, it's the behavior that's interesting, and that behavior is the actual thing we have to get around to make some headway against these issues, if we can. Exxon funding their people embedded in Stanford was particularly disgusting, so they could then pretend that the research was actually coming out of Stanford. Too bad that was exposed as the fraud it was, that was a good one.
Now, all you have to do is go back, and find the people who were jumping on that bandwagon and repeating that pseudoscience, and you get a pretty good idea, but it's just not worth the time, to be honest, it's boring, predictable, and, sadly, totally pointless, since people don't make decisions based on words in general, they do it for other reasons, some of which I alluded to above. Even brain science has finally started figuring that fact out, even though it's been known and understood for thousands of years among those who thought about it, easy to spot, just a bit of observation and pattern detection.
The actual debate, now that's interesting, and so are the people doing the actual research, in that world, of course, none of this nonsense exists, they know exactly what's going on because they are in it. My favorite was a book by a woman who traveled North and interviewed various climate scientists, and the locals, there it was so totally unambiguous that it really helps put a light on the people frantically trying to cover the story, or minimize it, or whatever it is they do, for whatever reasons. Personally I don't care, they aren't part of the solution, nor will they ever be part of it, but they have always been with us, and I assume that behavior had some actual function in tribes way back in the day, or it wouldn't be so common.
Rog, if you want to debate, feel free to join the good folks over at realclimate, they are pretty good at it, and sort of like doing it, though of course the level there is very high, so you have to be careful.