Bishop Epiphany

Words fail me.

I believe I am having an epiphany.

Here’s what our neutral Bishop says of Deming:

Deming had recently created a temperature reconstruction for the last 150 years, based on boreholes in North America. In his study, he concluded that North America had warmed somewhat in the period since 1850, but had little to say bebond that. This was good, solid science but not the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Contrast this with thy Wiki’s page on Deming:

In a 1995 paper published in the academic journal Science, Deming reviewed published analyses of borehole temperature data in North America and concluded “the magnitude of the observed warning…is still within the range of estimated natural variability…a cause and effect relationship between anthropogenic activities and climatic warming cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.”

Contrasting these two quotes leads to these questions:

Q1. Is D95 a review or a reconstruction?

Q2. What is D95′s exact conclusion?

The second question is interesting, because of what our neutral Bishop’s transition:

[W]ith a storyline of rising temperatures published is such a prestigious publication, he also attracted the notice of some of the most influential people in the global warming industry, who thought who saw in Deming a valuable new recruit to the cause.

This is what Deming basically says in his Chrichton essay, not for from when he says being interested in the truth, only but the truth. Or something like that.

But look at this other anecdote:

The week the article appeared, I came into my office one morning to find a voicemail message from a reporter for National Public Radio. [Then Deming fantasizes.] But all of my fantasies were immediately dispelled. The reporter focused in on the last sentence in the Science paper. He asked me, did I really mean to say that? Did I really intend to imply that the warming in North America may have been due to natural variability? Without hesitation, I said “yes”. He replied, “Well then, I guess we have no story. That’s not what people are interested in. People are only interested if the warming is due to human activities. Goodbye.” And he hung up on me. It was my first realization that the media intentionally filter the information the public receives.

I believe there is a tension in that storyline.

The climate industry approaches Deming because of his study. A journalist approaches Deming to confirm that he does not believe in AGW. It seems that the climate industry is being schooled where a journalist is not, don’t you think?


So here comes the story of my conversion, to echo Keith’s new theme.

Until this last week, I thought Deming was exactly the guy portrayed by our good Bishop. But now, reading that tension in the storyline, I was not so sure. That’s why this morning I took a look at thy Wiki’s page for Deming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming

Here is a quote from an op-ed he wrote in 1994, a year before the climate industry tried to subdue him:

[T]he Second Amendment safeguards an individual right; the militia consists of people who have a right to keep and bear arms.

So Deming seems to have other scientific interests than Galileo and Paracelsus. In any case, his pursuit of the truth seems to lead him in a debate over gun control in The Oklahoma Daily, where he says:

I just want to point out that Kletter’s ‘easy access’ to a vagina enables her to ‘quickly and easily’ have sex with ‘as many random people’ as she wants. Her possession of an unregistered vagina also equips her to work as a prostitute and spread venereal diseases. Let’s hope Kletter is as responsible with her equipment as most gun owners are with theirs.

This sounds like an anatomically correct claim. The correctness of that claim in other fields is left as an exercise to the reader.

There are many scientific contributions from Deming in his Wiki entry.

So here comes my epiphany. I really thought we had finally found a noble scientist solely interested in the truth. Our good Bishop’s storyline made me conclude that. But now, considering some missing evidence, I am not sure anymore.

The correctness of our neutral Bishop storyline cannot be demonstrated unambiguously at the present time.

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)