Joseph A Olson, PE | 01 March 2012

Slayingtheskydragon.com
________________________________________________________________________________

Recently a fervent supporter of the ‘human Carbon Dioxide controls the climate hypothesis’ admitted to several potential criminal activities. Historically, human thought has been restricted to view everything as a “two sides to every story” false didactic. Often there are multiple sides to every story, but if there is money to be made by only two sides, then the full range of options is often not permitted.

A perfect example of this is the two faced, single party American political system. Locking debate into Republican-Democrat, or Conservative-Liberal leaves no room for wider alternatives, but provides the delusion of democracy, with no need of a ‘third’ party. The climate science debate is in fact a three sided debate, but with only two sides funded, you would be hard pressed to notice.

This well known, now confessed criminal Warmist supporter, obtained opposition documents that he felt would be very damaging and released them to his fellow Warmists. The greatest damage seems to be self inflicted as this advocate has been removed for board positions at the Pacific Institute, the National Center of Science Education and as Chairman of the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics. Sometimes advocacy becomes uncontrollable zealotry, a frequent occurrence in the eco-movement. Dr Michael McPhaden, President of AGU has posted the societies position on this man’s behavior at their website, which reads in part:

“In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of Earth’s changing climate.” Posted 27 Feb 2012

Dr McPhaden has an impressive resume in Oceanography and includes a Citation for Excellence in Refereeing. Objective refereeing should require a through examination of all of the opposing points of view. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has an online petition with over 31, 487 scientists, including 9,029 with PhD’s that disagree with Warmist orthodoxy. To label this legitimate dissent as unproductive ideological firestorm is not the expected treatment for scientific debate. More