All Revolutions are Doomed…Especially the one currently in fashion!
The Tea Partiers and the Russian Bolsheviks have more in common than they would be comfortable with, namely working to hurl their country towards disaster. by Russell G. Davis
(centrist)
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Revolution can be healthy for a society, but all too often those around the leadership usurp it and catastrophe is the result. Once victory is won, the tone changes and the people doing work organizing and sometimes fighting are forgotten.
History provides ample examples of this. In recent memory, George W. Bush's promise of "Compassionate Conservatism" lasted only until his selection of Vice President. The result of this "Revolution" (yes there were people using that word to describe his 2000 Primary campaign) was dead Iraqi civilians dead heroic soldiers, an avoidable terrorist incident on 9/11 which was then exploited by the most corrupt parts of our system, and the Treasury looted by white collar crooks. A similar monster,Vladimir Ulyanov stoked the fires of Revolution against the Tsarist regime of Nicolas II only to do an about face after the Bolshevik's won and insist that what he called "Left Wing Communism" was an infantile disorder in 1920 when he was secure in his power. [link edited for length]
Indeed, few of the peasants victimized by King Louis XVI could have seen how the people they supported would go on to victimize them once they had secured power.Monsters like Marat and Robespierre don't tell people in advance that they are going to be worse rulers than the current King. And they also don't tell people that their incompetence sets the stage for a brutal military dictator to take over.
I've already devoted an entire column to what became of the Hope, Unity, Change mantra of 2008 and precisely where it went wrong.
The Who had it exactly right-"And the men who stirred us on, sit in judgement of our wrongs. They decide that the shotgun sings the song." That song, Won't Get Fooled Again" made #1 in a 2006 National Review article regarding the most conservative Rock songs. [link edited for length].
I think the other songs are a stretch to call conservative, but agree with the conservative sentiment in this song. But what's going on with Tea Partys today is not conservatism. Most conservatives are genuinely good honest people. The proper label for the Tea Party is Reactionary.
A good measurement of broad general concepts is defining the opposites. Words and their definitions are important. As proof, look at how the term "Fascist" has become an insult as opposed to a description of the marriage between state and industry in a Totalitarian society. Most people recently use the term "Socialist" to describe what they don't like about the current administration while ignoring his substantial Corporate backers. Orwell was right in his criticism of the denigration of language.
The opposite of liberal is not conservative, contrary to popular opinion. Liberal has its root word as liberty. As a matter of fact, the Liberal party of Australia is the name for the conservative party. The American demonization of the word has always been ludicrous! The opposite of Liberal is Totalitarian. Likewise the opposite of Conservative is not Liberal. Conservatives generally believe that what's in place should be used (If it ain't broke don't fix it) and revolutions are not desirable. The opposite of Conservative is Radical.
The opposite of a Reactionary is a Progressive. Glen Beck has described Progressives as a "cancer" and that pretty much proves the point. Not that it's true. As a matter of fact, the resort to an Ad Hominem or Straw Man argument is an admition of the weakness of one's position.
And what happened the last time Reactionaries seized power in this country? I mentioned just a few incidents at the start of this column " dead Iraqi civilians dead heroic soldiers, an avoidable terrorist incident on 9/11 which was then exploited by the most corrupt parts of our system, and the Treasury looted by white collar crooks." We can expect more of the same if Reactionaries get their way. The last time I remember Reactionaries being this active, workers in a Federal Building in Oklahoma City paid with their lives. And a few months ago, didn't we just see some loser fly his plane into as IRS building?
I see this playing out one of four ways. Either the next Tim McVeigh is somewhere out there listening to Rush Limbaugh and going to Tea Party rallies or the next Marat/Robespirre/Lenin is somewhere out there listening to Rush Limbaugh and going to Tea Party rallies. This could lead to another Oklahoma City massacre or the beginnings of a full scale armed revolt. Or both. Or it could just run its course and end with a whimper not a bang.
I don't see Palin or Bachman as leaders capable of any of that. I don't think either one of them is the Tea Party Robespierre. Nor is Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, or Malkin. They might apologize for a betrayal of principles once victory is achieved, but they aren't actually smart enough to do the organizing. But their involvement is not the genuinely scary part.
The scary part is the way social conservatives often embrace End Times mythology. Add nukes into the mix of a potential revolution in this country and potentially put them into the hands of people who believe nonsense and are easily manipulated and you have a prescription for disaster. Add a second prescription with Global Warming/Evolution deniers and if this Reactionary Revolution is set to lead all of us to catastrophe if it actually can get any real traction.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Russell G. Davis only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Russell G. Davis is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
"Reactionaries"? The only people who used that term in my youth were the funky guys in their little Maoist Red Guard caps. Is there a chance you accidently marked the wrong choices on your Nolan Chart quiz? I am sorry, but this article reads like typical socialist, perhaps even Marxist, nonsense. There is nothing "centrist" in this article. Coming from a family defined in large part by political leanings myself, no one so hopefully predicts doom and gloom coming from the right without looking at it from the far left. Someone genuinely in the center would be able to see both sides with some agreement with each and some reservations about each.
Your article is a very strong condemnation of the what you perceive as part of the conservative movement, spiced with a lot of pure and simple name-calling. It is a hallmark of the far left to label the far right as "evil", just as it is the hallmark of the far right to label the far left as mentally deficient or mentally defective. The left loves to insult the right by using what it perceives as righty values, namely rigid concepts of "good" and "evil". Since the left likes to extoll their mental superiority, naturally, righties want to insult them by suggesting they are not as smart as they think. Folks genuinely in the middle tend to take both camps to task and this article simple does not. So, "centrist", it cannot be.
The reality is that the "Tea Party" movement trends toward a Libertarian viewpoint, with conservative leanings. And although they are federating this week, they want to not either become a political party or align themselves with either major party. They want to move both parties toward smaller government and appear to want to support the law of the land, so predictions of their impending violence have little credibility. The inaccurate and unfair name-calling in this article may impress those on the far-left, but not real centrists. Such a love for labeling is not evidence of being a centrist. It just is not.
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2010-04-11 09:51:33
The best and most accurate thought expressed is "people who believe nonsense and are easily manipulated" which I strongly believe correctly describes the overwhelming majority of people on the right. Our nation has an awful lot of truly dumb, uninformed people that are attracted to simplistic idiots that say the most incorrect things. We need a revolution to overturn the two-party plutocracy, but the tea party people are mostly Republicans, just like most progressives are just Democrats rather than true revolutionaries.
Lew Cypher (is that a pun ala deNiro\'s character in Angel Heart?)
I don\'t give a rat\'s ass about where the nolan chart dumps me or constrains of a particular category or whether or not I get a thunbs up.
I just calls \'em as I sees \'em.
The word \"Reactionary\" is appropriate because decent conservatives, whom I say in the article are genuinely good and honest people, deserve to be separated from pinheads who spit on Congressmen while calling them names. The concept of \"All Revolutions are Doomed\" is actually a conservative concept. I did link to the National Review in this article.
As far as hating left wing communists, I provided the link to Lenin\'s work to show that he too hated left wing communists (after his takeover was complete.) The Tea Party does have something in common with Lenin. How does it feel to be compared to Lenin? Tea Party has been deserving that one for a long time. And I\'ve seen nothing-NOTHING- so far to show me that similar treachery won\'t happen to the Tea Party if their takeover is ever complete.
I devoted an entire article to where Obama betrayed his followers-
It was called \"If Obama is a Socialist then the Pope is a Muslim.\"
Saying that I\'m ignoring him is a false statement from you! I\\m used to a double standard from Tea Partiers, but you\\\'re asserting something that is not true (again expected from the Tea Party) and which I referenced in this article.The innacurate and unfair namecalling has been coming from the Tea Party since its inception (a man with the massive Corporate backing of Obama being called a socialist being just one, but I dealt with that in another article).Crying over something like the rhetoric in my article is the kind of behavior one expects from a schoolyard bully who picks on smaller children but cries when he gets bruised in a fight.
Predictions of impending violence have little credibilty? I saw a sign two weeks ago from a protester saying \"If Brown can\\t fix it maybe a Browning can \" with a picture of a gun. And in this article, I did mention the loser who flew a plane into an IRS building. We had the guy who threatened Pelosi and the wound up crying like a little bitch when he was hauled into court.
But if my rhetoric is too much I\'ll make a deal-
I\'ll try being nicer if the Tea Party tries to be smarter.
And Joel H-thanks for the post. Lew Cypher certainly proved your point about \"an awful lot of truly dumb, uninformed people that are attracted to simplistic idiots that say the most incorrect things\"
Over-reliance on vulgarity and insult are not hallmarks of great intellectual advancement. Accusation is only proof at witch trials and to other less than impartial jurists and similar extremists. But leaping to conclusions while labeling any thoughtful inquiry on the other side as a "rush to judgment" are both hallmarks of extremism, not "centrism".
I still wonder what the odds are of getting a perfect bull's eye on the Nolan Chart quiz on the very first try. That perfect of a center mark, looks pre-planned, almost as if someone took the quiz as many time as needed to perfectly fit the star on the bull's eye. In other words, it does not look "grassroots" but rather more like "astroturf". Just a thought.
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-12 12:35:57
Good grief. Another political shaman reading relevance into chicken entrails.
For someone who pre-emptively disqualifies ad hominem and straw-mannery, you dive headfirst into a great big pool of hasty generalization, not to mention hypocrisy. I can't imagine a more amusing academic diversion than to read one person saying both this:
...the resort to an Ad Hominem or Straw Man argument is an admition of the weakness of one's position
and this:
Crying over something like the rhetoric in my article is the kind of behavior one expects from a schoolyard bully who picks on smaller children but cries when he gets bruised in a fight
Now, I grant you, that is Dennis Miller-type egghead humor, but man, it sure had me rolling. The irony is classic.
Enough on style points and the lack of; who cares if you call names and break your own rules. Some of the most interesting reads are witty and insulting substance-filled dialogues.  Substance is the crucial element.
Most people recently use the term "Socialist" to describe what they don't like about the current administration while ignoring his substantial Corporate backers
"Corporate backers" are irrelevant. And what's more, you claim to know it. You understand that both people and institutions were fooled by popular revolutions; are you denying that institutions cannot be fooled by popular "mere" politicians? Or are the only people capable of being "fooled again" in the US the conservative "good honest" mopes while anyone or any institution which supports a liberal are above being duped?
Why then did so many of them claim to have been "misled" on the war you [still, to this day] can't seem to grasp? How can anyone claim to be politically savvy when they get fooled by "other" politicians?
The opposite of liberal is not conservative, contrary to popular opinion
It is in current American political philosophy. But again, if you're going for the pedantic, dusty, academic Dennis Miller punchline, then you can posit whatever you need to set up the joke. I was under the impression, however, that you wished to be taken seriously.
In that regard, the rest of your pedantries are more/less useless as well. Totalitarian is linguistically and [currently] politically the opposite of libertarian, and if you believe libertarians are "democrats who don't like taxes" then you're one of the pinheads you - and Orwell - rail against.
Language mutates, constantly. I'd suggest the reason that the name for the Liberal Party in Oz is 'conservative' because they've gotten their policies enacted and now want them to remain - as conservatives do; the Liberals in the US are among the most conservative people you can find. "Don't change welfare; don't change bussing; don't change civil rights quotas; don't change..."
"Don't change" is the conservative mantra. And replacing "don't change" with "Hope and Change®" is as orwellian a bastardization as you can name. It's even more offensive than "Homeland Security" was to being "secure in person, papers, houses and effects".
While clues aren't for sale in Wal*Mart, you can pick them up easily enough just by keeping your eyes open and paying attention; there's no excuse for what I've read here. It's high schoolish in analytical vitality.
The scary part is the way social conservatives often embrace End Times mythology
Every ideology has its eschatology. Every.
I find it bizarre [I know, a target-rich commodity, here] that you decry "social conservatism" [i.e., the actual, outright Religious Right] for theirs and the old wives tale of their "global warming denial" when Global Warming is, in fact, the liberal eco-logue's own eschatologic terminus.
You may have spent so much of your time and volume in denouncing christian evangelicals to take note: but all the major christian evangelicals have embraced Global Warming as one of the "mysterious ways in which god moves". They're on board. Pat Robertson [reportedly] prays for a solution for it from time to time.
It's the fiscal conservative, the libertarians, the moderates, the non-ideologues [or, rather, the non-easily-defined-ideologues] who do not buy into it. Y'know, the ones with college degrees and who know enough to suspect a Marat in the cupboard when "scientists" start updating Pascal's Wager for a new audience.
It seems that Tea Partiers aren't the only ones who should strive to become smarter.
real quick-L.C, one man's vulgarity and and insult is another man's Freedom of Speech. And the Nolan Chart bull's eye was not aimed for, nor cared about. I'd be saying the same thing if I landed somewhere else on this cheesy lillte chart.
R.W-My reponse to the critique of "harshness" in my rhetoric is somehow Ad Hominem or Straw Man?!? I used a metaphor. That's not the same thing.
Of course, the same thing occurs with liberals. It occurred with Obama when the election was over and he brought over Emanuel as his chief of staff. I devoted an entire column to it. I've already compared thier relationship to Theoden and Wormtongue. Why is it a prerequesite to repeat what I''ve already said elsewhere on the subject? Criticism of Obama right now is cheap and easy to come by. Some of it's even valid. It's 2010 not 2008. The Revolution waiting to be betrayed has switched from Left to Right.
Conventional Wisdom aka American Political Philosophy is frequently dead wrong. From Anti-Abolionists on, there has been broad political support for bad ideas where even the entire concept has been off. Liberal and Libertarian share a root word. The Liberal belief is one of Free Thought, Free Exchange of Ideas and Free Markets. They differ with Libertarian mainly in which school of economics they prefer.
When it comes to Von Mises theories and Climate Change deniers, I have looked for valid evidence proving the thesis and found the evidence wanting. I'm not bound to pretend I respect something I don't. I know in advance I'm going to step on some toes if I don't pretend to respect it. I see Climate Change deniers and Evolution deniers as cut from the same cloth. And I say so.
Is me pretending otherwise valid Freedom of Speech? Maybe. But it's still going along with something I don't believe.
And I don't listen to Pat Robertson or Dennis Miller nor care what they have to say!
Here is a Breitbart report that appears to fit this situation very well: "Foes of tea party movement to infiltrate rallies". Why not claim to be a centrist and then use that assumed identity to blast the Tea Party Movement? Check it out at [Breitbart]
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-13 08:43:03
My reponse to the critique of "harshness" in my rhetoric is somehow Ad Hominem or Straw Man?!?
Are you slow? It is pot-kettling. It is irony. It is hypocrisy. "You can't, but I can!"
If you think hypocrisy is a metaphore, then you need to 'splain how.
Why is it a prerequesite to repeat what I''ve already said elsewhere on the subject?
Never said - or suggested - it was. You can criticize whomever, whenever and where ever. But the existence of your criticism of 'Left' does not automatically make your criticism of 'Right' or 'Center' valid. Your criticisms, here and now, are largely invalid.
How can you not be getting that? What sort of rationalistic silliness makes you believe that because you criticized Barama 6 months ago that you've gained the street cred to criticize his opponents in grossly inaccurate ways - and that it all deserves a pass?
Liberal and Libertarian share a root word
Big deal; so do mortuary and mortgage. Trying to read too much into that will lead you into the same intellectual dead-ends that you're heading into with your liberal/libertarian shinola.
'Splain to me, Lucy, how liberals' penchants for Free Markets jibes with commandeering the health care field? the banks? the automakers?
Are you willing to piously pontificate on how conservatives are really conservationists because they share a root word? and how they both live in a conservatory? Or do you just pull this anti-intellectual pecker when it suits your purposes?
When it comes to Von Mises theories and Climate Change deniers, I have looked for valid evidence proving the thesis and found the evidence wanting
...so you know nothing about the Scientific Method, you're saying.
It is not skeptics who have to have evidence. It is proponents who have to answer the claims of the skeptics. The process by which Anthropogenic Global Warming has been pushed into the textbooks violates virtually every scientific principle laid down since Archimedes. It wouldn't pass muster in a 7th grade science fair.
I'm not bound to pretend I respect something I don't.
No, you aren't. That's true. But if you wish to be taken seriously, then strict accuracy ought to guide your disrespect, not the willful self-deception you admit to here:
I see Climate Change deniers and Evolution deniers as cut from the same cloth
Ever do a Venn Diagram? Most of A is B, but most of B is not A...?
Figure out how to apply it.
it's still going along with something I don't believe.
 Here's the thing, in case you don't know - and apparently you don't: Science is not something you "believe". It is, irrespective of your belief in it. IF manmade global warming is real, then there would be unambiguous proof of it, that didn't rely on the three major research agencies cooking books and finessing the mechanisms of publishing. Not to mention outright deceipt and deception.
If you are resorting to "belief", then you are admitting that the science is not there at present, and that you have, in short, a religious acceptance of the notion.
If global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.)
Then…
Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report. The statement was issued by:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:
BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
Eighteen CEOs of Canada\'s largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.
Have the environazis seized the reigns of industrial power, in addition to infiltrating the U.N., the science academies of every developed nation, and the top research institutes of North America? That just doesn\'t seem very likely.
Â
Sorry, Ross. The evidence is massive. YOU are the one who is clinging to belief like a imam in Saudi Arabia not Russell!
Posted By: Ross Williams
Date: 2010-04-26 09:39:47
Sorry, Ross. The evidence is massive
Actually, no it's not.
Support is massive. Evidence is circumstantial and otherwise thin.
There are three major "global warming" research centers: NASA East Anglia the outfit in Colorado - ACR? I forget.
NASA, and it director James Hansen, has been caught dozens of times falsifying data. Oh, oh, right. Sure. "Mistakes". You forget to carry the one once it's a mistake. Twice it's sloppy. A dozen times, yer up to something.
Hansen now has a whole passel of Hansen-watchers who use their off-time to follow the guy around and correct his work. He's had engineers quit because they were told they could only find data to corroborate the hypothesis.
East Anglia has it's own issues. ...as you know, or as you are dishonestly trying to ignore. And I'm not talking about squirrelly words to describe things. Destruction of data; admissions to corrupting the peer review process so that ONLY those whose papers you cite above can get published.
The guy in charge of it - Jones? - has admitted that their data shows no non-trivial warming since '95 and that they hid it under shenanigans. Now gone, of course, because they "didn't have the storage space to keep all that data".Â
...so "global warming" ran from 1980 to 1995.
And then, of course, there's Stephen Schneider, one-time head of the third outfit in Colorado, who admitted in a well-known and reputable scientific journal that his job as a scientist is to bilk the public for his personal peace of mind:
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
This guy was a key writer of many IPCC reports.
If you want to suggest that human activities are altering the environment, then you won't find an argument here; if you want to claim that - as many have - the "science is all settled", then you will.
Science does not rely on Pascal's Wagers to justify itself.
Â
Wow, you like an article and want to comment ...
Helena, if you liked this essay, then you're little more than a lynch mobber.
 "Climategate" attacks on scientists are "unfounded."Â
In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the Earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
REALITY: Scientists have reaffirmed that warming is occurring and say the evidence is overwhelming. In response to the repeated attacks on global warming science, prominent scientists from around the world have come forward to reaffirm the wide consensus that man-made warming is occurring, and say the criticism has little bearing on the overwhelming amount of evidence. Among them are:
29 prominent scientists in the U.S.: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming." In a December 4, 2009, letter to Congress, 29 prominent scientists, including 11 members of the National Academy of Sciences, stated: "The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming."
1,700 scientists in the United Kingdom: Global warming "is due primarily to human activities." More than 1,700 scientists from the United Kingdom signed a statement responding "to the ongoing questioning of core climate science and methods." The statement said: "We, members of the UK science community, have the utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."
American Association for the Advancement of Science: "[S]cientific evidence" shows "that global climate change [is] caused by human activities." On December 4, 2009, the American Association for the Advancement of Science stated that it "has reaffirmed the position of its Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations, who concluded based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway, and it is a growing threat to society." The statement also said that "the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change."
Union of Concerned Scientists: "[T]he IPCC's conclusions remain indisputable," and "nothing" in "stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving" climate change. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stated that despite "minor errors" in the IPCC's 2007 report, "Overall, the IPCC's conclusions remain indisputable: Climate change is happening now and human activity is causing it. Nations around the world will have to adapt to at least some climate change, including sea level rise, changes in precipitation, disruptions to agriculture, and species extinctions." In response to the CRU emails, UCS said that the "email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming."
New York Times, Associated Press: Scientists say IPCC errors were "minor" and do not change consensus. The Timesreported that the IPCC, "in reviewing complaints about possible errors in its report, has so far found that one was justified and another was 'baseless.' The general consensus among mainstream scientists is that the errors are in any case minor and do not undermine the report's conclusions." Similarly, the AP reported, "Scientists say the problems are minor and have nothing to do with the major conclusions about man-made global warming and how it will harm people and ecosystems."
RealClimate.org: "[P]ublic perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm." The staff at RealClimate.org -- which is comprised of working climate scientists -- wrote in response to the media distortions of the IPCC report: "Overall then, the IPCC assessment reports reflect the state of scientific knowledge very well. There have been a few isolated errors, and these have been acknowledged and corrected. What is seriously amiss is something else: the public perception of the IPCC, and of climate science in general, has been massively distorted by the recent media storm. All of these various 'gates' -- Climategate, Amazongate, Seagate, Africagate, etc., do not represent scandals of the IPCC or of climate science. Rather, they are the embarrassing battle-cries of a media scandal, in which a few journalists have misled the public with grossly overblown or entirely fabricated pseudogates, and many others have naively and willingly followed along without seeing through the scam."
And nice Ad Hominems vs Hansen and Schneider!Does Science rely on those to justify itself?
