Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
A week ago I wrote
I predict that Avery will maintain that all the scientists are wrong about their own work and refuse to remove any names from the list.
And look what they wrote:
In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." ...
We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists. ...
Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to "save the world" from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.
Possibly because their work does not suggest that at all...
Hat tip: The International Journal of Inactivism.
Comments
Most scrumptious part of the whole press release:
Is there, I wonder, a short video showing an irony-meter's needle slamming into and wrapping itself several times around the peg, while springs and cogs leap from the case and smoke pours from the seams? Because I really need one right now.
Posted by: jre | May 5, 2008 4:17 PM
wow oh wow.
pdf still calls them "co-authors"
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21978.pdf
nobody willing look into legal options? most universities should have some legal advice for employees. and they should have an interest in protecting them from exactly this sort of nonsense!
Posted by: sod | May 5, 2008 5:07 PM
still shocked. the whole press release is one lie after the other. absolutely bizarrre stuff.
btw, noone around who can educate them on basic citation techniques?
i guess that i might have been slapped when my first paper at university had consisted of a list of weird claims and a citation list of 500 scientist who somehow agree with some of my claims, somewhee in their work...
Posted by: sod | May 5, 2008 5:21 PM
"btw, noone around who can educate them on basic citation techniques?"
Sod, probably no-one there with a basic grounding in science.
As I've noted before, anyone dumb enough to go into science for the money is probably too dumb to pass a tertiary science course.
As the Heartland Institute is blatantly in it for the money, I doubt they have many science grads working for them.
Posted by: Ian Gould | May 5, 2008 6:49 PM
If its any consolation, in all likeyhood the only people paying attention to the heartland institute these days are skeptical bloggers
Posted by: ChrisC | May 5, 2008 10:49 PM
ChrisC, actually the skeptical bloggers are avoiding this story like the plague. (Then again, that's shortly after many of them attended the "John Coleman's going to sue Al Gore!" conference in March...)
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 5, 2008 11:43 PM
sod:
For my part, I'm surprised that the mainstream media aren't covering this whole story at all. Is it because (as someone said) it doesn't involve missing white girls?
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 6, 2008 6:15 AM
Has anyone noticed how all of the new trolls who've popped up on Deltoid over the last week, like a fairy-ring of toadstools, won't touch this story with a barge-pole?
I wonder if it is because they don't want to scratch below the surface of their thinly guilded arguments, and risk thus doing so by addressing the substance and intent of many of these 500 authors' papers?
Or is it because they are aware of the severity of the disgraceful actions of the Heartland Institute, and do not want to admit to being part of a movement that employs these tactics?
Posted by: Bernard J. | May 6, 2008 6:25 AM
Bernard:
According to the attatched article, fairy rings used to appear around mid May.....but now do to Global warming, they are appearing around April 22nd, which fits right in with their appearance on this blog. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/17/nmushroom117.xml
Posted by: Betula | May 6, 2008 10:29 AM
And of course, that would be "attached", not "attatched".
Posted by: Betula | May 6, 2008 10:32 AM
Bernard J.,
I assume you aren't talking about me because when I found out that the Heartland Institute had listed the 500 scientists as "coauthors" I said it was "dishonest".
Of course anyone that thought a scientific paper could have 500 "coauthors" doesn't have too much on the ball anyway.
Still this kind of dishonest rhetorical tactic is to be condemned whether it is used by people that share your scientific opinions or not.
Posted by: Lance | May 6, 2008 10:36 AM
Of course anyone that thought a scientific paper could have 500 "coauthors" doesn't have too much on the ball anyway.
Lance, as always, you are 100% right.
papers with a few hundred (co)authors do NOT exist in the field of climate science. the IPCC reports are a myth!!!!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
Posted by: sod | May 6, 2008 11:44 AM
sod:
I won't call AR4 a "paper". It's a report, which is something different. (Though AR4 also happens to be extensively peer-reviewed.)
Then again, Avery didn't call his name list a "scientific paper" either (not that that changes the fact that it's a dishonest piece of crap).
= =
Good to see that Lance is speaking out against this blatant dishonesty! In the meantime though, the professional inactivist Jennifer Marohasy continues to avoid talking about it...
= =
Dang, why's this story not in the mainstream media already? There are 50 angry scientists, for Pete's sake!
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 6, 2008 12:27 PM
sod,
Do you have to be a prick even when people agree with you?
Posted by: Lance | May 6, 2008 12:43 PM
Lance, good to see you to have at least some limit to your devil-advocacy.
You might have your good motivations about "stirring shit", but a lot of that is really very very counterproductive.
Being a strong independent thinker includes going with the popular opinion times, simply because it happens to be true.
Posted by: mz | May 6, 2008 1:13 PM
Ian Gould - I don't think the Heartland Institute is "in it for the money" - they're in it to promote a specific political perspective which is favored by people WITH money, who happily pay them in order to advance it. But they're not pure mercenaries, at all - they're ideologues. Ideology first. The big bucks is just what allows them to broadcast their ideology far and wide (compared to fly-speck environmental groups with only a fraction of the reach and influence).
Posted by: saurabh | May 6, 2008 1:17 PM
saurabh,
I agree with you entirely, except I suspect their ideology is, at core, a mercenary ideology.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 6, 2008 1:32 PM
mz,
I always try to go with the "truth" whether it is the "popular opinion" or not. Scientific opinions may vary but using dishonest language should always be opposed even when the language is used to support an opinion with which you agree.
The Heartland Institute is a right wing advocacy organization. Just as Environmental Defense and The Sierra Club are left wing advocacy organizations.
There is nothing wrong per se with advocacy unless you start lying to promote your cause. I used to contribute to The Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Federation until I noticed that they were stretching the truth for their causes.
I have never contributed to the Heartland Institute, or any other right wing organization. I have popped under $100 bucks total into the "tip jar" at ClimateAudit and a lesser amount at CO2Science.
(File under confessions of a denialist.)
Posted by: Lance | May 6, 2008 3:12 PM
Do you have to be a prick even when people agree with you?
sorry, enternal servant of truth over here. can t drop the facts, even when you re pretending to be reasonable.
to put this carefully: your mild critisism of this heartland article won t melt the ice.
facts:
there indeed are papers, supporting man made global warming, that had hundreds of climate scientists contributing to them. you might want to take a look at those IPCC reports, someday.
your average "sceptical" paper was written by an emeritus, awoken from some slumber in tobacco business, from some far related field and published in a none peer reviewed paper like E&E
couldn t there be a reason, why they are inventing those co authors?
wouldn t this cast doubt on other heartland activities? recent confrerences, for example?
and all those who go there?
Lance will denounce them all. i can feel it!
Posted by: sod | May 6, 2008 5:08 PM
completely off topic and just for a laugh:
(most of) you guys are seriously blessed, by your inability to read german.
those of us who can, have to suffer enternal pain by reading a denialist german blog called "oekologismus".
but for once the site provided good entertainment.
a recent post discussed the nature article on PDO shift. the article gets everything wrong. so far, business as usual.
a commenter (planck) accuses the author of not having read the original article.
the author, showing that he din t even look at the authors of the paper and getting slightly confused, bases his defends on two scientists from IFM Geomar, being Emmy-Noether Fellow and Noel Keenlyside
http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=966
(several errors in the original post ahve been corrected, but thecomments currently still document the exchange...)
Posted by: sod | May 6, 2008 5:23 PM
The Australian's war on science continues: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23655529-11949,00.html
Posted by: George Darroch | May 6, 2008 10:17 PM
Lance at #11.
No, and perhaps to the surprise of some of the others here, I wasn't including you in that description.
Although I may disagree with many of your interpretations, I have also seen you concede points in the past, and I understand you to be 'better' those of whom I spoke.
And anyway, you've been here for aeons - certainly more than a week!
Posted by: Bernard J. | May 6, 2008 10:39 PM
sod:
Give him some time, sod.
= =
What's up with the new CAPTCHAs on DeSmogBlog anyway? Now I can't comment there because of them -- I get thrown back to the comment form every time even if I type in the letters correctly. Mysteriously, it seems other people are able to post there successfully. (I use Firefox.)
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 12:06 AM
Impending Wikipedia edit war alert!1 Some schmuck tried to edit the "Heartland 500" section which I added to the "Global warming controversy" article, by replacing my quote-unquote "out-of-context" quote from the 5 May press release with an out-of-galaxy quote from an earlier press release.
1 if you're into this stuff
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 12:51 AM
Lance, I must take issue with you on a point you made. You said: "The Heartland Institute is a right wing advocacy organization. Just as Environmental Defense and The Sierra Club are left wing advocacy organizations".
There's a big difference between these organizations. M$N$Y. Funding. The budgets of environmental NGOs pale in comparison with the right wing think tanks, who very often receive huge stipends from corporations. Environmental NGOs most often depend on membership fees.
Another differnece is in influence. Think tanks and PR firms have much more influence on policy makers than environmental NGOs ever will. They are able to produce and disseminate (dis) information on a scale hitherto unrivaled by most so-called left wing NGOs because of their hyperinflated (= bottomless) public relations budgets.
Another point is that many environmental NGOs have been co-opted by polluting industries who are promting a policy of deregulation and the evisceration of public control in the pursuit of prinate profit. This 'good cop, bad cop' strategy means that some corporations donate a certain amount to environmental NGOs and ten times as much to astroturf groups and organizations who are actively working to reduce or eliminate regulations. Given that many environmental NGOs are strapped for cash, this effectively renders them mute. It has also been a very successful strategy in diverting criticism away from corporate behavior by these same NGOs. Another co-option strategy is that some environmental NGOs have even appointed directors that actually work for anti-environmental PR firms.
Therefore, to be brutally honest, I can't imagine how anyone can compare these two types of advocacy groups and keep a straight face (you apparently can). Its like comparing a flea and an elephant in terms of biomass.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | May 7, 2008 8:15 AM
Hi Jeff,
There is a big difference in the funding of the Heartland Institute and the two environmental organizations I mentioned, The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, but it is just the opposite of what you stated.
The Sierra Club boasts a budget over $100 million and Environmental Defense a budget of over $50 million while the Heartland Institute comes in somewhere under $5 million.
As far as influence is concerned that is somewhat harder to gauge but I would argue that those two big environmental concerns also win that game as well.
Also there is no need to make statements like "straight face" to impugn my honesty. I read these figures off of mainstream websites like the USA Today website and SourceWatch, a left leaning "watch dog".
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 11:45 AM
In what ways do the Sierra Club and the WWF misrepresent facts and science?
What about the NRDC? Are they a bunch of left-jihadist liars too? In what ways?
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 12:31 PM
Lance makes another funny.
He says SC and EDF are left-wing, when, in fact, they are among the most moderate, business-friendly and non-partisan of environmental advocacy groups.
See? It's a joke.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 7, 2008 12:43 PM
(By the way, I mentioned the NRDC because -- according to Steve "Fred Mbogo" Milloy anyway -- it has some relationship with the USCAP lobbyists campaigning for the Lieberman-Warner Act.)
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 12:52 PM
No surprise that folks that lean left would see the The Sierra Club and Envronmental Defense as politically neutral.
C'mon guys try to show some objectivity.
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 1:46 PM
bi,
You asked, "In what ways do the Sierra Club and the WWF misrepresent facts and science?"
A 30 second random search of the internet turned up this tid bit "Global Warming is real. The urgency of the global warming problem can no longer be denied. It could be a matter of life and death for our children and grandchildren."
These were the opening sentences of a piece they distributed nationally called "The No Sweat Guide to Stopping Global Warming." Do you suppose that using the classic demagogue technique of the threat of the death of "our children and grandchildren" is not misrepresenting the facts a bit?
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 2:23 PM
Lance,
As to environmental conservation politics, no, not neutral.
As to left/right, democratic egalitarian/oligarchic elite politics, more to the right.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 7, 2008 2:26 PM
Lance,
A threat: "I'm gonna kill your grandkids".
A warning: "If you let your grandkids play in traffic, they might get killed."
Can you say 'straw man', Lance? You are misrepresenting the argument that you say is misrepresenting the facts.
Ironic, ain't it?
It's a wonder you know how to breathe.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 7, 2008 2:36 PM
Lance believes that science has a left-wing bias, therefore any NGO accurately portraying the scientific consensus must itself be left-wing.
This is not a misrepresentation of science.
This is not a misrepresentation of science.
Nor is this.
If, of course, you accept science, which Lance, despite his holy whining, does not.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 7, 2008 4:15 PM
Left and right have nebulous political meanings. That said the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense favor large government enforced actions that would greatly affect the everyday lives of almost everyone on the planet. That certainly takes them out of the range of actions that would be considered libertarian.
The Sierra Club piece I quoted is the worst kind of appeal to emotion and is not consistent with any scientific information relating to climate change. That is not a straw man argument.
Excuse me my cell phone alarm is reminding me of something. Oh yes, breath in, breath out.
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 4:19 PM
The Sierra Club piece I quoted is the worst kind of appeal to emotion and is not consistent with any scientific information relating to climate change.
i would say that "bad appeals to emotion" are really, really, really far from faking a list of scientists.
if you disagree with that statement, please provide scientific sources that contradict it.
good luck contradicting "It could be a matter of life and death for our children and grandchildren.""
Posted by: sod | May 7, 2008 4:30 PM
Let's get some terminology straight.
"Left" and "Right" are not stances on social issues, but rather economics. The extreme Left is a collectivist economy akin to socialism (but not necessarily communism; I'll get to that in a moment) and the extreme Right is a total laissez-faire neo-liberalist economy (but not necessarily freer people).
It's easy to see why this isn't social-issues sensitive by comparing folks like Gandhi and Stalin -- both in favor of collective economics, but vastly differing on the role of the state in the social scheme. Similarly, both Nelson Mandela and Milton Friedman favor small amounts of government influence on social freedoms, but differ vastly on the role of the state in economics. If there are only two categories here (Left and Right), who's sharing a side with Stalin? This is indicative of a false dilemma.
It therefore follows that there are two axes at work here: One between Left and Right economics, and the other between an Authoritarian government and a Libertarian one on social issues (i.e. is the state, or the individuals within it, more important?). Stalin (and in fact most of communism) is textbook Left/Authoritarian, while Gandhi and socialist/progressive democracies like the Netherlands and Sweden are Left/Libertarian to assorted degrees. Friedman and Ayn Rand are both Right/Libertarian (arguably an anarchic position if both are taken to the extreme), while Right/Authoritarian describes George Bush rather well. (Yes, the Republican party -- with its views on legislation on personal choice, freedom of information, and similar legislated morality decisions -- amounts to Authoritarian, even as it advocates for a free market.)
It's easy to see that a "Left" position doesn't say anything on political freedoms, merely economic ones. "Big government" falls under economic Left but, as Sweden and the Netherlands illustrate, doesn't necessarily bring Authoritarianism with it. Just because a group's arguing for government economic action (economic Left) doesn't mean it's arguing for an extreme position. (Case in point, the Democratic Party in the US is still on the Right overall, just slightly Left of the Republicans.) Nor does it mean that the group seeks to impinge on your political or social freedoms.
Quite often, all it means is something along the lines of "here is a problem that cannot be solved by the economic actions of a few individuals. It requires group action to solve this." Or, alternatively, it's a reminder of the Tragedy of the Commons, which is one of the two major traps that a pure laissez-faire economy falls into but a slightly regulated (not necessarily extreme Left either!) economy avoids (the other problem, self-destruction through monopolies, is better-known through anti-trust legislation -- something that I'm sure even Lance can agree is a good thing). No statement on social liberties made whatsoever.
This is, with a segue back on topic, a good way to characterize the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund. They're not advocating anything extreme, nor are they advocating anything on the government's role in your socio-political liberties. Unless you're an extreme hardline uncompromising libertarian (economic Right), which has problems of its own (see link), you'll see this as moderate.
Compare to the inactivist side, where the logic goes varying distances along a path like this: 1) It's not happening, therefore we shouldn't regulate. 2) It might be happening, but it's not our fault, so we shouldn't regulate. 3) It might be our fault, but it's a good thing, so we shouldn't regulate. 4) It might be a bad thing, but it's unstoppable, so we shouldn't regulate.
Note how the conclusion never changed even as the information supposedly leading to that conclusion changed dramatically. (If you've been following Tim's coverage of John Lott, this may sound familiar.)
Lance accuses the Sierra club of baseless appeals to emotion (and therefore shoddy logic) while defending people whose entire modus operandi appears to be fallacious (of both the appeal to consequence and the very same appeal to emotion -- namely, fear that any regulation inevitably leads to communism, which I showed above is itself fallacious), even before we get into specifics such as the Heartland 500's openly fraudulent claims and unapologetic personal libels.
One wonders: Where is the reasoning in that?
(...-Summer Glau)
Posted by: Brian D | May 7, 2008 5:06 PM
sod, the list isn't the problem, it is claiming that the scientists are "coauthors" that makes it indefensible. Had they stated that it was their opinion that various points in papers by the following authors coroborated their statements about climate change it would have been a different story.
So if the RNC sent out a national mailer that said stopping the election of democrats to congress "could be a matter of life and death to our children and grandchildren" you would be cool with it?
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 5:10 PM
What do you mean 'if'?
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 7, 2008 5:34 PM
Brian D,
Thanks for the unsolicited (not to mention longwinded)polysci primer. Your simplistic diatribe breaks down rather dramatically when you state,"It's easy to see that a 'Left' position doesn't say anything on political freedoms, merely economic ones."
By this logic if a communist government assigns you to hard labor and rewards you with only a daily meal of gruel and a bunk in a shack that you share with twenty other blissful members of the proletariat you have complete "political" and "social" freedom since only your "economic" choices have been limited.
This is only the first problem with your self-inconsistent little treatise.
Then you make a statement that I defend "...people whose entire modus operandi appears to be fallacious (of both the appeal to consequence and the very same appeal to emotion -- namely, fear that any regulation inevitably leads to communism..." Who are these "people" and exactly when have I "defended" them?
Posted by: Lance | May 7, 2008 5:38 PM
Those that lie, misrepresent and obfuscate in order to inculcate the belief that AGW represents no possible danger. You are one, idiot.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 7, 2008 6:12 PM
"ChrisC, actually the skeptical bloggers are avoiding this story like the plague. (Then again, that's shortly after many of them attended the "John Coleman's going to sue Al Gore!" conference in March...)"
Sorry, not the good old NZ Climate Science Coalition (sic), they believe it is fine.
Posted by: Tushara Kodikara | May 7, 2008 6:36 PM
Plenty of conservatives think libertarians are looneys, which is why libertarians like Ron Paul are largely ignored by them. Being non-libertarian isn't the same as being "left".
And, of course, essentially all of the US's conservation and environmental law was passed under Nixon's leadership, and he was hardly "leftist". The delusional association of common sense environmental regulation with "leftism" is almost uniquely American and even here, it's a recent phenomena.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 7, 2008 9:08 PM
leftists and their damned large government enforced stance against murder. now if i want to murder somebody, i have to go to a properly conservative state.
Posted by: z | May 7, 2008 9:40 PM
Unfortunately, you can't even go to Texas, they execute damned near everyone.
Except white people, that is.
Hmmm, so I guess I don't know if you can go there or not, do I? :)
Posted by: dhogaza | May 7, 2008 9:48 PM
Tushara Kodikara:
I suppose that's just because the story's finally received mainstream media coverage? (By the way: Woohoo!)
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 7, 2008 10:59 PM
Anyway, the NZCSC web site is still not talking about the list...
Posted by: bi -- Intl. J. Inact. | May 8, 2008 1:04 AM
Lance, the points you made were and are mute. The question is, which advocacy organizations have a greater influence over public policy? The EDF, Sierra Club or any number of far-right think tanks? The answer is that it isn't even close. This you just do not address. Many of the civilian planners in the current Bush administration have had day jobs in the American Enterprise Institute; many of them see these corporate-funded think tanks as a revolving door when they leave office.
If I were you I would compare the amount of money spent lobbying members of Congress by environmental NGOs and big business, much of the latter slickly done through the think tank route. Seriously, check out the stats. The numbers paint a stark picture of those who really pull the purse strings and who influence - read dictate - policy. The ratio is not even close. Furthermore, then go on to look at the even vaster sums spent on direct political fundraising, electoral contributions etc. and where it comes from. The picture gets even worse, more distorted and obfuscated by reality.
The thing is, Lance, that your concern over the influence of the left on public policy, if indeed this is what you are suggesting, is misguided. The truth is that the American public are miles to the left of any of their recently elected governments. But the voices of the majority do not matter. The system is set up to serve those with concentrated wealth and power. The public are seen as a 'threat', hence why the government so often uses all forms of mendacious propaganda (known with the euphensism of 'public diplomacy') to sell quite often horrific policies. The problem is that 'political reality' is in fact based on processes that best serve those with this power and privilege.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | May 8, 2008 6:19 AM
Oh, if only Lance's points could be "mute"!
Posted by: George | May 8, 2008 8:05 AM
Lance posts:
Droughts kill people, Lance, and so do violent weather events, and 100 million people in Asia depend on glacier melt for their fresh water. 30,000 people died in the recent European heat wave. Is it your contention that none of the dead were children, or will be children?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | May 8, 2008 8:05 AM
BPL,
You know quite well that the empirical link between anthropogenic climate change and the things you have listed is tendentious.
Sending out fund raising letters that start off by telling you that your children and grandchildren face death if you don't take action is sleazy and you damn well know it.
Look, I'm trying to be reasonable here to try and begin a dialogue that doesn't consist of the usual antagonistic flaming, but if you are going to defend the worst kind of demagogic tactics as legitimate we are not going to make much progress.
I would like to see an open and honest discussion of the topics related to climate change that didn't consist of name calling and moral posturing. So far I have been called an idiot, given a political science lecture, blamed for white people killing blacks in Texas and now for killing children in Europe and Asia.
How about we actually discuss the topic of this thread which was dishonest claims made in the public relations battle over climate change. I actually agree with Tim's main point that the Heartland Institute is out of line and should be condemned, as I have done, for this stunt. I was just making the point that they are hardly alone in using dishonest tactics.
If you are going to act like one side of the debate is peopled by humanitarian purists armed with indisputable scientific evidence that we must take immediate world wide action to avoid Armageddon and the other by heartless, money grubbing "flat earth" cretins intent on the destruction of the planet and the death of all future generations of children I don't suppose we have much to talk about.
Posted by: Lance | May 8, 2008 9:21 AM
sod, the list isn't the problem, it is claiming that the scientists are "coauthors" that makes it indefensible. Had they stated that it was their opinion that various points in papers by the following authors coroborated their statements about climate change it would have been a different story.
ahm, no.
that they call them "coauthors" is not THE problem. it is just THE BIGGEST problem.
the first minor problem with te article is, that their list of points (apart from pont 2 which is trivial) is UTTER NONSENSE!
so the claim that "non-sceptic" (lol) scientists support thzem with their work is complete bogus.
if you dare to bring up any quotes (links would be best) i am rather assure that i ll be able to take them apart.
Posted by: sod | May 8, 2008 10:18 AM
Lance,
A doubling of atmospheric CO2, held constant, will eventually warm the planet by as much as 6C above natural variability.
The evidence for this is indisputable.
It would be unethical not to be concerned by the real life-threatening consequences.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 8, 2008 10:37 AM
"A doubling of atmospheric CO2, held constant, will eventually warm the planet by as much as 6C above natural variability.
The evidence for this is indisputable."
"...by as much as..." is not a very scientifically robust phrase.
The evidence for this upper bound is highly disputable.
Posted by: Lance | May 8, 2008 10:54 AM
I'm afraid your history of dishonesty is too extensive here for you to expect people to suddenly treat you as though you're interested in an objective discussion.
And your recent post that makes it clear that you equate conservatism with libertarianism doesn't help. Your political views inform your "objectivity" towards the science than your supposed education in physics.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 8, 2008 11:09 AM
Lance,
There is no dispute that this is near the upper bound. The eventual equilibrium temperature may be somewhat less, but not much. Do you propose a higher upper bound? On what evidence?
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 8, 2008 11:32 AM
Lance, in addition to passing on my last comment (which discusses the relative influence of left versus right wing advocacy groups on public policy), you give the perfect impression of someone fitting the metaphor of fiddling while Rome burns.
There's reams of scientific evidence showing that every natural system on Earth is in decline. No exceptions. There's reams of evidence showing that humans - predominantly those of us living in ecological debtor nations (e.g. the developed world) - are living off a one-time inheritance of natural capital. There's reams of evidence showing that deep rich agricultural soils, fossil age groundwater supplies, and the working parts of our global ecological life support systems, biodiversity(made up of genetically distinct populations and species) are being depleted (used up) far faster than they are being replenished. A number of anthropogenic-induced stresses on natural systems are responsible, of which climate change is but one factor, albeit an important one. As I have said a million times before, the concern is how much humans can continue to simplify nature until these systems are unable to support us. There are plenty of worrying signs that we are approaching the tipping point, if you bothered to look.
Your arguments appear to suggest that humans are exempt from any natural laws, and that our species should continue on its current self-destructive path until it is apparently too late to do anything about it. I've dealt with this kind of approach innumerable times in my scientific career, but the same arguments as yours keep cropping up. I would like to ask you this: given that you apparently do not read the empirical literature on the effects of humans on natural systems (checking out any issues of peer-reviewed journals like Ecology Letters, Ecology, Ecological Monographs, Global Change Biology, Nature, Science, Journal of Animal Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia and many others would be a start), just how much do you really think humans have affected the health and functioning of natural systems. Care to hazard a guess?
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | May 8, 2008 11:40 AM
"There is no dispute that this is near the upper bound. The eventual equilibrium temperature may be somewhat less, but not much."
These assertions are just that, assertions. Also you divert discussion from the lower bound which may be totally insignificant in comparison to natural variability. Recent data from the Argos ocean monitoring project show that the oceans have not been warming as predicted by climate models that assume Co2 climate sensitivities of the range that you have suggested.
Jeff, I haven't "passed" on your statement that right wing think tanks have a greater influence on public policy I just haven't addressed it yet. Also you continue to use inferences and tones that don't have any place in a discussion between well intentioned parties seeking a rational and respectful dialogue.
Perhaps a rational and respectful dialogue is not your intention?
You make the point that "A number of anthropogenic-induced stresses on natural systems are responsible, of which climate change is but one factor, albeit an important one."
I have agreed, many times, with your larger point that humans have made changes to the individual ecosystems in which they live that have put stresses on these systems. I defer to your much deeper and better informed knowledge of these ecosystems.
While we have differences of political opinion about how to deal with these problems our main point of contention is on the evidence for, and rational response to, anthropogenic climate change in general and the role of carbon dioxide in particular.
That you choose an antagonistic approach to our discussions suggests to me that either you really have no interest in working towards the larger issues upon which we agree or that your true goal is to advance your political viewpoints.
If this is not the case then I suggest a more congenial tone and less moralizing insults.
Posted by: Lance | May 8, 2008 12:22 PM
Except they're not making this claim ... they're open about the fact that the problem might be with their instrumentation, since their results conflict with measured expansion of the oceans.
But little caveats of this sort are ignored by lying denialists like yourself.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 8, 2008 1:03 PM
If you weren't such a liar, perhaps people would treat you with respect?
Posted by: dhogaza | May 8, 2008 1:05 PM
Lance,
The indisputable fact is a doubling of CO2 will force the terrestrial climate by ~6.3W/m^2.
Quibbling over sensitivity is not going to change that fact. An empirical extrapolation of the warming, so far, gives an instantaneous response of ~1.7K for doubling CO2. The short term equilibrium (over 30-70 years) as the natural variability in the thermocline mixing in the upper oceans catches up is most likely to add another degree. Long range equilibrium as the deep oceans gradually warm up, even more. Exactly how much and how soon is uncertain, but the sign is not in dispute.
The flattening of ocean temperatures in the last few years suggested by the Argos data is perfectly consistent with the kind of natural variability that arises from ocean dynamics. The multi-decadal variability of ocean/atmosphere coupled dynamics is only a few tenths of a degree. It is not evidence against AGW. Natural variability and AGW are not in an antagonistic duel for supremacy. The former is the baseline upon which the latter accumulates.
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 8, 2008 1:27 PM
Lance...
You forgot to mention in your comment at #51 that Luminous was surpised "you know how to breath"
Your problem is that you are reasonable.....your like an Independent being called a right wing neo-con religious fanatic because you didn't tow the line on America being an oppressive,imperialistic,racist global scourge....
If you think using words and phrases like cataclysmic, catastrophies,cannibalism,wreaking havoc,millions displaced,famines,death of your children and grandchildren etc, is over the top......then your a flat earth believing, Holocaust denying,non-caring,idiot with no vision.
I'm not sure exactly what it is you can personally do to change the course of the coming imminent doom, but perhaps if you were to confess your carbon sins and except death and destruction as the only consequence....you will be forgiven.
And then this.....
Jeff Harvey said to you...."The truth is that the American public are miles to the left of any of their recently elected governments.But the voices of the majority do not matter."
Umm.....didn't the public elect the elected governments?
Posted by: Betula | May 8, 2008 1:48 PM
Not directly, no, it was the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that gave Bush the 2000 victory over Gore.
Posted by: dhogaza | May 8, 2008 1:52 PM
Betula,
Lance is reasonable only in tone. A meaning that has no relation to actual reasoned thinking.
Same as you are funny only as the term relates to odor.
As for election by the public. Yes, we can choose between Tweedle~de~dum and Tweedle~de~dee, after they've both been vetted by the oligarchic corporate elite.
Ain't democracy wunnerful?
Posted by: luminous beauty | May 8, 2008 1:59 PM
I use Firefox too. And it took five tries to get my typing of a CAPTCHA accepted yesterday. Dunno what's up.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 8, 2008 2:01 PM