Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I see that Tim Blair has decided to quote mine me. As part of my analysis of Cockburn's crankery I made the following statement.
Below the fold I'll summarize Cockburn's arguments and how they use the denialist tactics, George Monbiot's responses (including his amazing crank-fu!) and discuss why in the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right....
It's important to remember both the left and the right have anti-scientific tendencies, the left's just tend to be less religious, less world-threatening and more woo-based. My brother recently told me about moving to California, "they don't believe in Jesus here, just bullshit" in reference to the woo-based beliefs of large portions of the population. The risk of unscientific tendencies is when people with potential to become cranks see a scientific theory as a threat to some overvalued idea they hold dear. Sometimes the over-valued idea isn't even a bad quality, it can be compassion - but taken to an extreme. If the left starts to see global warming policy as a money-grab by the elites, expect to see more left wing crankery and climate denial based on conspiratorial beliefs about carbon markets.
I suspect this is what has happened to Alexander Cockburn, a lefty who has gone over the deep end, on what appears to be suspicions of a conspiracy to further defraud and hurt poor countries using global warming science.
Basically, I was saying that the origins of anti-scientific arguments are based on certain overvalued ideas that the left has as well as the right. Neither is completely free of unscientific movements. How does Tim Blair read my statements?
That this means there is no consensus on global warming science!
CONSENSUS LESS CONSENSYMark Hoofnagle predicts:
In the future we may start seeing global warming denialism from the left as well as the right.But ... but ... the debate is over! And it's been over for 15 years, according to Al the Colder:
I actually can't figure out exactly what his reasoning was here. Does it mean that left wing crankery somehow disproves science? That Alexander Cockburn, a political writer, disagreeing with global warming science is proof of no consensus? This is classic crank logic here though. A single sentence out of context proves they're right! There is no consensus! If any left-wingers think something stupid the science is untrue!
Sadly, he doesn't allow comments without registering (and he isn't registering anyone new). Basically, they all sit around in a circle-jerk making fun of my last name (I'm being persecuted!) and acting like it's some great coup that Tim Blair could take half of a sentence out of an essay saying something completely different, and warp it into something absurd.
What a moron.
**Update** Blair has suggested that I'm made unhappy by the attention I've gotten from his blog and the Blairites. Quite the opposite. The thing about running a blog on denialists and cranks is that you're going to be attacked. I'm mostly amused when it happens. And besides, the Blairites don't troll like others have - the 9/11 truthers come to mind. If anything they're very polite, if a little touchy. I don't mind having them around at all and am not so afraid of trolling (or just dissent) that I create a gated community of people who agree with me.
Comments
You know what I think? I think that anyone who demands consensus as their criterion for truth is automatically a crank, and anyone who points to a lack of consensus as something meaningful is a crackpot.
I have to say, Tim, you have some loose screws.
Posted by: Dustin | June 7, 2007 7:11 PM
I actually can't figure out exactly what his reasoning was here.
You appear to be starting with the false assumption that there was any reasoning there at all.
Speaking as an Australian Tim Blair is an embarrassment.
His blog is an example of the sort of group-think process that is indicative of cranks. He seems to encourage the stupid chatter that goes on there.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 7, 2007 9:38 PM
Seems Blair is relying on his readers not actually reading the article he linked to. I'd think even an idiot could read that post and see your comment doesn't have anything to do with the consensus.
I think the "logic" was that you used to word "left", and since in the mind of a partisan hack all issues boil down to what-the-left-says vs. what-the-right-says, Blair interpreted your comment as saying that both the left and the right, both as a whole (instead of at the fringes as you implied), were going to reject global warming, and hence that means global warming is not true. The quote-mine, taken out of context, sounds like you're saying the left collectively will reject evolution--I'm sure that's what the shithead was going for.
And since his readers aren't going to read what you actually wrote, that's what they'll believe.
Posted by: Wes | June 7, 2007 11:22 PM
Just what science is being denied by AGW denialists?
Do you believe in GCM projections, for example?
If Blair and I decide GCMs are bogus -- which they are, no doubt about it -- than why shouldn't we deny their significance?
All you have done is to take the word 'heresy' and replace it with 'denialism.'
Blair calls you out, very mildly too, on your little Charlottesville Inquistion, and you react like -- well, like a holy inquisitor.
Posted by: Harry Eagar | June 7, 2007 11:28 PM
As an Australian myself, I would say I find Chris Noble a profound embarrassment when he expresses his odd views on overseas forums.
Posted by: bob | June 7, 2007 11:37 PM
Mark, you are simply missing the point. You take yourself very, very seriously - and no doubt the issues at stake are serious, both economically and environmentally. Blair, on the other hand, is just a joker. Everything he writes is basically a joke - but usually one with a certain wry observation or kernel of truth in it.
It is a totally different kind of writing to the kind of psuedo-scholarly discourse (or is it really an "Inquisition", as Harry would have it?) going on here. It's a bit like you getting upset watching a roadrunner cartoon: "That doesn't make sense - that coyote would be dead by now" kind of thing. Your "quote mine" was little more than a handle for a new joke to rest on. Most of Tim Blair's readers don't give a damn what you think or believe.
Contrary, to Wes' assertion, the link is there for readers to follow as they wish. I think that you should be glad to get this kind of exposure from a very popular Australian blog - assuming that your objective really is to reach out and persuade. I have had a good look around and there is some very interesting material here.
I'm not very impressed by your (non)explanation of the idea of "overlap" in your article on the role of water vapour, though. It's pretty clear that you haven't got a handle on this issue. The compounding and modifications to overall greenhouse effect among component gasses is mostly due to actual physical interactions between the molecules, not to the mere fact that there is some overlap between the EMR wavelengths absorbed. I would suggest re-acquainting yourself (or should there be a "re" in that word at all?)with some basic quantum mechanics. You could start by asking yourself the question - how "finely tuned" does the wavelength of a infrared photon have to be to be absorbed by an isolated molecule of X?
Posted by: Bob Bunnett | June 8, 2007 12:30 AM
'elp, 'elp, I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!
Posted by: Cain | June 8, 2007 1:37 AM
Hi, I'm a regular at Tim Blair's "circle jerk." I'd like to make a couple of comments on your reaction to his reaction to your reaction to denialism.
First, regarding your inability to register: time was, anyone could register. Very popular blogs such as timblair.net often end up closing the gates, due to trolls and people intent on abusing the free registration to derail the forum. Still, you have your own blog, so feel free to respond on it (as you have done).
Second, despite his sarcastic, often flippant style, Blair can make some cutting, and incisive, observations. His attack on global warming is multi-pronged. He consistently draws attention to ludicrous, and overblown rhetoric about global warming. Prior to reading Blair's blog, I was taking a lot of this nonsense at face value (for example attributing Katrina, or any weather abberation, to global warming - I don't see people like you hosing down such misinformation, leaving the field wide open for Blair).
Furthermore, he has drawn attention to scientific sceptics, and their arguments. I had not actually read these arguments in any detail prior to becoming a Blair reader.
I have to say I am persuaded that the case is not airtight.
(I have a science PhD if that means anything to you).
There are real "denialist" arguments out there that require more than just a dismissive wave of the hand.
The strongest one is this: all the strong evidence for catastrophic global warming (ice core, hockey stick) is now questionable.
I think you've been blindsided by someone who has better rhetorical and PR skills than you. I agree that has nothing to do with the merit of the arguments. But it so happens that I also think he has a stronger case than you give credit for.
Posted by: Daddy Dave | June 8, 2007 1:55 AM
Bob's post on missing the point kinda made my head explode. Maybe he was just being ironic.
I do agree to some extent though, Mark. You should be super psyched that the wrong kind of people will get the wrong kind of idea about what you wrote! Lord knows it worked for Ken Jennings.
Posted by: Brian | June 8, 2007 2:04 AM
"There are real "denialist" arguments out there that require more than just a dismissive wave of the hand.
The strongest one is this: all the strong evidence for catastrophic global warming (ice core, hockey stick) is now questionable."
Can someone tell me why denialists always assume that simply restating their original claims in tantamount of an argument? Dave, no one here is impressed by unsupported assertion and self-congratulatory wanking. Tell exactly why you think that this evidence is "questionable". Your bringing up the hockey stick is a good indication you have little to nothing more than the standard denialist canards at your disposal.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 2:05 AM
Because repeating your own beliefs just feels better than learning. It's like how eating a cheeseburger feels better than eating a salad. Most people know how to be healthy, but they usually don't make that choice. Similarly, indoctrinated denialists know how to learn and understand, but usually don't make that choice.
This will drive all of us insane FOREVER. You can't reason with it, and I think Mark and Chris set a great precedent for refusing to. Expose the tactics and expose the lies, let the denialists expose themselves.
Posted by: Brian | June 8, 2007 2:16 AM
....due to trolls and people intent on abusing the free registration to derail the forum.
How could anyone derail a forum thread that was off the rails to begin with?
I've read the particular thread on Blair's blog and I can't find a single intelligent comment.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 8, 2007 2:16 AM
I've read the particular thread on Blair's blog and I can't find a single intelligent comment.
Most of it - on that particular thread- is idle chit-chat that has nothing to do with you or your blog.
In terms of on-topic chat, however, there was a link to a "denialist" editorial that came out today, discussion of the effect of methane, discussion of well-known inconsistencies in the warming theory, such as in the ice core data, and how warming advocates account for it, and some mockery of Al Gore. Pretty light, I'll admit, but that crowd has discussed all this stuff endelessly before, and is kind of bored with re-hashing it on every new thread.
I don't condone making fun of people's names. That was wrong, and I'm not making excuses for it.
On a totally different note, I'd really like to know: how much "skeptical" stuff have you read on global warming? Have you actually read, for example, "The skeptical environmentalist" by Lomborg, or essays by Lindzen or Crichton? Did you watch the Intelligence Squared debate? Have you read criticisms of the fact-spinning in "An Inconvenient Truth?"
If not, I would be very interested to know if your current view could survive such exposure. Mine didn't.
Posted by: Daddy Dave | June 8, 2007 2:49 AM
"The compounding and modifications to overall greenhouse effect among component gasses is mostly due to actual physical interactions between the molecules, not to the mere fact that there is some overlap between the EMR wavelengths absorbed."
You would have done well to link to the actual article, but I presume you mean this one from RealClimate. I'd like to know where in that post you're seeing a claim even remotely to the effect of what you describe here.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 2:51 AM
Well, at least Mark isn't insisting that all of us heretics are in the pay of Big Oil.
However, the idea that AGW has been settled, making heretics of all us skeptics, is not a true statement.
There are a few flies in the IPCC ointment. We could begin with the fact -- and it is a fact -- that there is no global surface temperature observation earlier than the 21st c. All claims that the globe is warming are uncertain by (at least) the uncertainty of the global surface temperature at any point time than 2000.
Therefore, all claims about the rate of warming are unicorns.
I could go on, but I'll limit myself to one more: Show me the theory that explains the action of cloud formation in the overall feedback system that keeps climate stable.
Heresy-hunting is never a pretty thing to watch.
Posted by: HarryEagar | June 8, 2007 2:52 AM
You name it they deny it. It's like 9/11 truth. Some admit planes hit the buildings, some don't. Some think it was an inside job, some think it was explosives. It's too varied to characterize.
AGW denialists will alternately deny global warming is even happening, that temperature can be accurately recorded - see Lindzen in the National Post, to admitting there is warming but that humans have anything to do with it - see anyone who promotes the idiotic "Mars is warming too" BS or it's all the sun. This question is hard to answer because every denialist is off on their own topic, all inconsistent with one another - and none caring to be consistent with one another.
Why yes. I think they're doing quite well if you don't delete the projections you don't like as Patrick Michaels did.
Your evidence is? Oh wait, I know, they don't predict the weather blah blah blah.
That's all you have done. I describe denialism in very specific terms that are available for all to see. Briefly, it's the use of rhetorical tactics to deny sound science, specifically using the tactics of alleging conspiracy theories, cherry-picking data, using fake experts, moving goalposts, and illogical arguments to advance an agenda. If you aren't using these tactics, you're not a denialist in my view. Based on Blair's use of half of one of my sentences out of context to say something I didn't mean (as well as his long history of being a retard) I think I'm safe in calling him a denialist.
Persecution! You poor baby.
That wry kernel of truth that is twisting my words to say something I didn't intend?
I have a degree in physics. It allows me to know that your statement is grossly absurd. Quantum effects have nothing to do with AGW, unless Planck's constant has recently increased by several million-fold in magnitude. Nice try.
Not very. You have no idea what you're talking about. Charming really, the first appeal to quantum mechanics I've seen outside of alternative medicine/Deepak Chopra woo.
As do I, but I do it without quote-mining and twisting others words.
I have a post going about this live tomorrow around 9AM, I wrote it yesterday if that makes you feel better.
Actually no, unless you listen to absurd Inhofe/Wegmen BS. The National Academy of Sciences has reaffirmed and certified the hockey stick and Mann's work. The ice core proxy data is also solid except among denialists.
Blindsided? By half of a sentence of mine taken out of context? Wow. I must be 99.9% blind already to be blindsided by that pathetic attack.
Ahem, Tyler, I know you've seen the HOWTO.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 3:00 AM
On a totally different note, I'd really like to know: how much "skeptical" stuff have you read on global warming? Have you actually read, for example, "The skeptical environmentalist" by Lomborg, or essays by Lindzen or Crichton? Did you watch the Intelligence Squared debate? Have you read criticisms of the fact-spinning in "An Inconvenient Truth?"
Oh please, are you really trying to assert that the vast majority of climate researchers who accept the consensus on global warming have simply failed to read the criticisms from hacks like Crichton? That doesn't even justify a serious response.
There are a few flies in the IPCC ointment. We could begin with the fact -- and it is a fact -- that there is no global surface temperature observation earlier than the 21st c. All claims that the globe is warming are uncertain by (at least) the uncertainty of the global surface temperature at any point time than 2000.
Therefore, all claims about the rate of warming are unicorns.
Holy fucking non-sequitor, Batman! This is a false claim too, since global surface temperature has been measured in the decades preceding the turn of the century. And of course the handwaving away of paleoclimate reconstructions is unsupported.
Denialists sure are funny.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 3:01 AM
this doesn't even justify a serious response
I'll take that as a no.
btw interesting to single out the non-scientist (easiest one to ridicule), while pretending I didn't even ask about anyone else.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2007 3:08 AM
"Ahem, Tyler, I know you've seen the HOWTO."
Okay, yeah. Sorry for my failure to attribute the observation to you. :(
But still, I find myself wondering how some people get the impression that such a thing forms a coherent argument. It just doesn't go together, like a broken rubick's cube.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 3:09 AM
"I'll take that as a no."
You'd be wrong, and incredibly presumptuous. I have read the TSE and slogged through Crichton's awful, self-congratulatory book. What part of something being such a silly trifle and not deserving of serious consideration do you not understand, tool?
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 3:12 AM
the handwaving away of paleoclimate reconstructions is unsupported
Who would want to wave it away? Ice core data shows that warming comes first, followed by increases in carbon dioxide, not the other way around.
The warming camp is still clinging to the early (but now widely accepted as incorrect) interpretations of the data, when it was thought that the CO2 preceded the temperature change.
Posted by: Daddy Dave | June 8, 2007 3:15 AM
I've read all of it. Lindzen, Lomborg, Crichton, if you're convinced by what they've written you have no critical reading skills.
For instance, take Michael Crichton, his famous "Aliens cause global warming speech" nicely destroyed by Reasic is a total and complete joke. One giant appeal to the Galileo gambit, it doesn't even deserve the attention Reasic gives to it.
Lindzen? I've covered him too.
Lomborg I haven't bothered with yet, I've only had about a month or so on this blog, but I'll do something soon. But why should I have to do it? Everyone else has torn his crap apart before. Lambert has an example of his cherry picking, or Island of Doubt's coverage, or how about his spreading the DDT ban myth? The guy is a crank. I'm unimpressed.
If you guys really want to know what denialism is all about, and want to see that it isn't just name-calling as you allege without reading anything about the blog, then spend some time here. We have defined criteria, which denialists have to meet. It's not just people we disagree with, they have to meet certain criteria.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 3:16 AM
Oh please. Not this again. It's the exact opposite of disproof. Learn the difference between feedback and forcing, please.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 3:20 AM
If you guys really want to know what denialism is all about, and want to see that it isn't just name-calling as you allege without reading anything about the blog, then spend some time here. We have defined criteria, which denialists have to meet. It's not just people we disagree with, they have to meet certain criteria
I've been civil, I've been reasonable, I've engaged in a pretty coherent debate, really, as debates like this go. I'm not even wedded to denialism. I've just read some persuasive stuff and are currently persuaded.
Thanks for the invite: I would have stuck around, but gratuitously calling me a tool has done it for me, I'm afraid.
That's really poisoned this whole experience, this site for me, and I'm not interested in what you've got to say, if you can't be civil and treat me with at least a modicum of respect. Enjoy hanging around with people who agree with you. I'll go back to doing the same.
Posted by: Daddy Dave | June 8, 2007 3:26 AM
From chaos theory to AGW in a decade, what's the next fashion?
How long have you been 'doing Science', Tyler?
Posted by: mega | June 8, 2007 3:49 AM
Agree with your basic sentiments, Daddy Dave. Mark was fairly rude in his response to me (but then again, I had some digs at him in my original post) but so far I have escaped "tool" status!
Tyler, yes that was the correct article. It doesn't provide any kind of explanation of the non-linearity of the combined effects of various mixes of greenhouse gasses but seems to say that it is due to the overlap of spectral lines for tyhe component gasses. This certainly complicates attributing the absorbtion of IR radiation to particular gasses by measuring the overrall degree of absorbtion, but it is not a causative mechanism for the phenomenon itself. To find that, you have to look at the physical interaction between molecules and how that affects their capacity to absorb IR radiation. The key is that a molecule of a particular gas doesn't have to just interact with its own kind in a combined mix.
Mark, are you starting to follow me now? Your post above was made in wounded dog mode - lashing out at all and sundry and, in the case of my post, you were not thinking clearly about what I had said or (worse) you have no idea of what I am actually saying, despite your Physics degree. Are you seriously trying to say that the absorbtion of IR photons by gas molecules has nothing to do with quantum mechanical concepts? The breadth of spectral absorbtion lines is a critical factor in determining the degree to which a mixture of gasses can absorb IR radiation, and the physical interactions between molecules are a key determinant of the former. Just so you get it clear, I am telling you how you can improve your article on water vapour because at the moment your "explanation" of the mechanism of this non-linearity in mixing GH gasses is BS. I am not saying that AGW is BS because Deepak Chopra (never read the man, myself) told me so. You do have a basic understanding of the interation between EMR and the vibration and rotation modes of molecules, right? If so, just spend a second or two thinking before you snap next time.
Posted by: Bob Bunnett | June 8, 2007 4:31 AM
If you seriously think that the lags between warming and CO2 in the paleoclimate record provide an argument against the AGW hypothesis, then you clearly don't know what coherent debate is.
If I prove that chickens always come from eggs, I haven't proven that eggs can't come from chickens. Causation is not exclusively uni-directional.
Posted by: Dunc | June 8, 2007 6:32 AM
*ahem*
Daddy Dave, Bob Bunnett: please check names on posts. Neither Hoofnagle ever called you a "tool".
If you get upset at insults from other posters, rather than the site host, then perhaps you should try appealing to the site hosts to set rules or guidelines about it...but don't blame them for it.
Or is this just an excuse to leave because hanging around with people who think you talk nonsense is discomfiting?
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 8, 2007 7:21 AM
Hey, Hoofnagles! Another Blairite here. Interested in your comment about the National Academy of Sciences. Strangely they don't seem quite as gung-ho and with-the-program as you! From their report 'Climate and Science' (available on their website):
'Measurements show that temperatures at the Earth�s surface
rose by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (about 0.6
degrees Celsius) during the 20th century. This warming
has intensified in the past 20 years. Greenhouse
gases are accumulating in the Earth�s atmosphere. The
current scientific consensus is that this is causing surface
air temperatures to rise, although how much of
experienced rise is from human activities is unknown.
Using physical principles, mathematical models predict
the warming will probably continue even if greenhouse
gas emissions remain unchanged.
Uncertainties remain because of natural variability
inherent in the climate over long periods of time.
Wow! That's convincing! No room for debate there! Or this, from 'Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks':
This report highlights broad guidance on the key avenues of research that need to be pursued to better understand climate feedbacks and is intended to call attention to those areas where additional focus might be productive in the near term. The key finding of this report is that an enhanced research effort is needed to better observe, understand, and model key climate feedback processes.
Omigod! George Monbiot! You were right! Buy me a second hand Renault! Buy me a frisbee! We're all gonna die!
Actually, what I gleaned from my perusal of the National Academies site is that the careful and (dare I say it) skeptical tenor of their reports is much closer to Chrichton and Lindzen than to you. Cheers
Posted by: JonathanH | June 8, 2007 8:10 AM
Your Category is "Cranks". Your first paragraph refers to "denialism". And you claim to be a scientist - or on the verge (MD/PhD Candidate). Mind you I have known quite a few people who have continuing claims to be PhD candidates without ever getting within cooee of ever achieving the end result. I had a couple myself years ago.
I hope you achieve your doctorate, but if you do, you will never amount to anything scientifically if you view anyone with opposing views as "cranks" and "deniers". Please retain some healthy scepticism of ideas both within your field and external.
I am not a climate scientist (although I do have a PhD in Theoretical Physics), but I have read enough to believe that the debate is not over and a lot of the arguments on both sides really don't prove anything at all. And in the end, what we are talking about here is basing our future on nothing more than the predictions of models - mathematical models based largely on second order mixed integral-differential equations of conservation and continuity that Boltzmann and Gauss would still be comfortable with. But I suppose the beauty of climate science (as opposed to meteorology) is that you can make earnest predictions today that not even your grand-children will be alive to verify. Look up Freeman Dyson for his thoughts on these models.
Posted by: Whale Spinor | June 8, 2007 8:43 AM
JonathanH,
To distort a quote from Inigo Montoya in "The Princess Bride", the statements you quote from the NAS report:
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Read it again. Notice it says warming will continue if "greenhouse gas emissions remain unchanged". That means, if we keep dumping CO2 in the air at current rates, warming will continue. "Uncertainties remain" is science speak for "we don't know the magnitude of the effect yet". Don't look to the NAS for bold declarative statements. Look to them for accurate statements couched in probabilities.
Posted by: factician | June 8, 2007 9:28 AM
As I've explained repeatedly to the new folks, cranks and denialists are not simply people that disagree with me (thanks factition). I've linked repeatedly to the pages that describe what cranks are, and what denialism is. It's actually pretty scientific. It is the specific use of conspiracy theories, cherry-picked data, fake experts, moving goalposts and logical fallacies to argue against people that have things like data and science on their side. Recognizing these tactics being used in debates is the way you tell the difference between BS and real science.
As far as the national academy, I was referring to their certification of the Mann paper, which has been routinely attacked as "debunked" because of a report put together under the auspices of a famous American crank Senator - Inhofe. Read about the Hockey Stick, or see what the national academies said about Mann in 2006. Hockey stick isn't debunked. That's a myth. For anyone interested here is the National Academies site containing their publications on global warming. They're pretty solidly behind AGW science. Not sure where you found that exact paragraph but especially the more recent reports are supporting the IPCC.
And wounded dog? What? Lashing out? The way I understand it you're saying that QM makes it unlikely that carbon gas will act as a greenhouse agent? That it doesn't absorb sunlight and warm the atmosphere - is this correct? That's how I read your comment and that is clearly wrong.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 9:46 AM
I have a degree in physics. It allows me to know that your statement is grossly absurd. Quantum effects have nothing to do with AGW, unless Planck's constant has recently increased by several million-fold in magnitude. Nice try.
Convection can certainly be handled in a macroscopic manner, but absorption and scattering of radiation? These underpin climate models and if they don't have anything to do with Quantum Mechanics then I'm L Ron Hubbard.
You appear to be a stove-piped "physicist". Broaden your horizons
Posted by: Anonymous | June 8, 2007 10:00 AM
Hey Luna_the_cat (good name),
It's not me who has the reading difficulties. If you look carefully at what I have said you will see that I am not particularly upset about anything anybody has said about me. I merely pointed out that Mark had made some snide (but civil) comments about my post - but I even conceded that I had "started it" by having some digs at him first.
I have simply made two main points - one was about the nature of Tim Blair's blog (which I think Mark was taking too seriously) and the other was about a specific deficiency in his "explanation" of a particular phenomenon, namely the inherent limitations of trying to identify the "pure" contribution of a single component in a mixture of greenhouse gasses. On that second issue, I started off the snide stakes but, lets face it, Mark's "explanation" of this specific phenomenon is pretty crappy. Generally a pretty good article, though, and many of the comments are interesting.
At no point have I said that I doubt the basic thesis of AGW - if any participant here thought otherwise, that is merely an assumption on their part. For the record, I am something of a sceptic in that I detest much of the hysteical alarmism that has coloured the public debate, but I have no doubt that the issue of greenhouse gas emissions needs to be addressed by the world as a whole over coming years.
Posted by: Bob Bunnett | June 8, 2007 10:06 AM
Mark, your last comment turned up while I was writing mine. Yes, you did misread me. Carbon dioxide is a substantial greenhouse gas with a longish atmospheric lifetime and is responsible for a significant proportion of the overall global greenhouse effect. My point is that none of the component greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere acts in isolation to the other gasses that it is continually bumping up against. The reason this is so is because the physical interactions between molecules enhance their capacity to absorb IR radiation, not because the spectral lines of individual gasses overlap, which is what your article seems to imply (although you don't really deal with the basis for this phenomenon at all).
Posted by: Bob Bunnett | June 8, 2007 10:17 AM
Mark,
I think you meant to put a "not" in here:
As I've explained repeatedly to the new folks, cranks and denialists are simply people that disagree with me.
Posted by: factician | June 8, 2007 10:39 AM
I think you meant to put a "not" in here
Ok, let's here it for the "not" then. But what's this about the million-fold increase in Planck's constant? Presumably a superior and cutting riposte from someone who knows about these things to someone who doesn't. Sorry, it's pathetic and I feel embarrassed to think a physicist would even write it. The value of Planck's constant guarantees the stability of the atom. Why is it that value? Who knows - the anthropic principle might explain it, but is an easy out. Maybe string theory. But if it was any different we wouldn't exist and wouldn't have to worry about AGW.
That might be a good thing, but then again, the world has numerous religions, why not another one?
Posted by: Whale Spinor | June 8, 2007 11:07 AM
here = hear
Physicists can't spell, I can't even spell whale properly
Posted by: Whale Spinor | June 8, 2007 11:11 AM
I actually must apologize for that statement Whale - after Bob's reply I see I misread what he said.
I thought it was some appeal to quantum mechanics - something you see a lot when writing a blog about skepticism, where people try to handwave away knowledge with references to quantum mechanics since in their mind it makes anything possible. The reference to Planck's is about how people don't understand that quantum effects are really not applicable on even a macromolecular scale, a flaw of reasoning you see with many common cranks here in the states.
I saw that reference and thought it was something else. I misread, so my statement, of course made no sense. Sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 12:02 PM
"My point is that none of the component greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere acts in isolation to the other gasses that it is continually bumping up against."
I didn't see that in the article, my reading of it indicated that it's main thesis was that water vapor isn't generally a climate forcing because of it's low-residency time in the troposphere as compared to other GHG's. I don't see where the RC authors fail to acknowledge that component gases interact to produce the greenhouse effect.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | June 8, 2007 12:29 PM
MarkH reckons Lomborg's a crank and then links to Lambert's DDT rubbish. Ironic.
Posted by: J F Beck | June 8, 2007 12:29 PM
So Blair makes fun of ridiculous statements, such as that warming will lead to an increase in tropical diseases like malaria. Well, such statements are ridiculous. I live in Hawaii, and we don't have malaria (except for birds). It isn't because it's too cold here.
How is making fun of ridiculous statements 'denialism'? Isn't that 'realism'?
I am far more of a skeptic than Blair, who does not, so far as I've seen, claim that the earth hasn't warmed at all.
I suspect it may have. But only a fool would say 'the earth has warmed 0.6 degree C. in the past century' as if that is a meaningful statement.
First, we do not know the global surface temperature in 1907 to within an accuracy of 0.1 degree, because it was not observed. (The same is true of 1997, by the way.)
Even if our proxies for 1907 are not too far off, it is mystical nonsense to treat 1907 as a meaningful date.
For it to be meaningful of anything, we would also have to know the global surface temperature in 1807 to within a tenth of a degree, because it is not forbidden by observation to suspect that global surface temperatures fell from 1807 to 1907. (There's even physical evidence to believe they did.)
If the 1807 temperature was even a little cooler than 1907, then the unicorns of accelerated global warming become even more imaginary.
You don't need a degree in physics to figure this out. You do need analytical skills and some 6th-grade math.
I don't know how Blair figured out AGW is dubious. Apparently, he worked like a real journalist, read what its advocates were saying, looked around and found that reality did not match and started jeering.
And you have only Ossas of speculation heaped on Pelicons of estimations, and you expect us to accept your projections without demur because you have a degree in physics? Please, Mr. Physicist, explain to me the role of cloud formation in feedback loops affected by minute changes in atmospheric gas concentrations.
Posted by: Harry Eagar | June 8, 2007 12:31 PM
Re: Hawaii
I'd say something about the vast majority of malaria deaths occurring in Africa, but that's just silly. Clearly high temperatures CREATE malaria, and wouldn't just make it worse in areas that already have it.
Posted by: Brian | June 8, 2007 12:51 PM
I actually never, hopefully, appealed to my physics background as a reason to listen to me (its been 6 years or so since I studied physics in any meaningful way). What I do expect people to do is not to dismiss an entire field of science, and dismiss expert opinions because they think they've figured out some critical flaw (and then never investigate whether it's been addressed).
You know, the people that study this stuff aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, they have thought of these problems, and answers to most of the questions I've seen here could be obtained from spending a little time on Realclimate, reading the main articles, and the comments too - sometimes the location of the most informative aspects of their articles as they are very good about addressing such questions.
I would never appeal to my expertise on the subject, because I'm a molecular biologist these days, and haven't thought about Lagrangians and eigenstates for almost a decade.
What I do argue at this site, is that the people who supposedly have debunked global warming science, have done so about as thoroughly as those who claim to have debunked evolution, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that the holocaust didn't exist, or that the moon landing didn't happen. That is, they're using the same BS methods again and again.
In order to "debunk" climate science its skeptics have used all the same techniques as the creationists denying evolution or any of the other denialists. Just look at Cockburn's article (the thing that started this mess)! He alleges conspiracies of scientists who are just grant-guzzling fools, that the data can't be true because of a 4-year period in the 30s (classic cherry pick), he quote mines a paper about modeling, cites as his experts Pat Michaels (who essentially lied in front of congress about climate models) and some guy he met on a boat! Moving goalposts, logical fallacies etc., they're all there.
What I'm pointing out, is that if the skeptics want to be called skeptics, and not denialists, they shouldn't be using the same tactics as the flat earthers and creationists. There are legit skeptics who do so, but Cockburn is not such a skeptic. He's a crank, he uses the classic denialist arguments.
As far as Blair, he's using the alarmists (and some who are not) to dismiss the science as a whole, and that's not reasonable either. I hate the stupid alarmist crap from the Independent as much as anyone - they're total crackpots! I don't want those jerks writing about the environment. I swear they're trying to bring down science from the inside. But the facts are that there is substantial good evidence for this, the IPCC reports are real scientific documents and not evidence of a 21st century illuminati, and you can't argue your way out of the implications of this science through quote-mining and only emphasizing the alarmist crackpots. His other writing on science is just as snarky and ill-informed, I realize you guys think he's a witty genius or something, but I'm with Lambert on this one. Blair is clueless on science.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 1:06 PM
Your an idiot!
Feel debunked?
Posted by: brb | June 8, 2007 1:08 PM
Wow, Mark, and here I figured your first big kook-rush would come from the creationists, not the AGW deniers. Not so surprising in retrospect, I guess, since the Uncommon Descent bottom-feeders are pretty terrified of wading into Scienceblog waters.
Citing Crichton as an authority? That tells me pretty much all I need to know about them.
(And DDT cranks to boot! Hilarious.)
Posted by: minimalist | June 8, 2007 1:08 PM
Bob Bunnett: Sorry, my statement was really more directly aimed at "Daddy Dave" rather than you -- he seemed to be responding to Mark as if it were Mark who had called him a tool. You seemed supportive of his being miffed and I kind of got the impression that you also thought that it was Mark who called him that.
(Anyway, I can understand not liking being called a "tool", but it was another poster who called him that, not a site host. I also note that on many of the ScienceBlogs, people who come in making outrageous or crankish claims, use the excuse of being insulted by other posters to disappear as soon as they are called on to support their statements with evidence. This may not have been Daddy Dave's intention, but it fell too close to the pattern.)
For my own position: I'm a computer scientist and biology student; I've worked for BP in the past, and am still a member of the AGU; I've done a lot of reading of the primary science lit on this issue, not because it is my field but simply out of interest and because, parked next to the North Sea as I am, it has a direct effect on my life; and it seems quite clear to me from the [hundreds of] papers I've read over the years that the observed behavior of the climate system over the past decades actually can't be explained without incorporating anthropogenic influence on greenhouse gas levels.
There is some debate in the primary literature over the extent of human influence as a forcing agent; from all that I have seen, this ranges from "just most of it" to "almost all of it". The problem is that this can change once certain boundary conditions have been reached, as "natural" positive feedbacks can kick in (such as CO2 sinks like oceans and peat bogs turning into CO2 sources as they warm) which will put the behavior of the system out of reach of our influence for hundreds of years, but not in a good way. There is a great deal of concern about that, because a significant number of geophysical scientists seem to think that we are riding the edge of those boundary conditions already.
The problem of communicating all this to the public is several-fold, as I see it.
1. The people which profit most from the status quo are understandably reluctant to lose profit; they therefore have real motivation to preserve the status quo, and moreover, they have the money and power to ensure that propaganda is spread to convince everyone else that this is a good idea. Many of the "skeptic scientists" and almost all of the "skeptic groups" receive considerable funding from ExxonMobil, specifically, as well as certain consortiums of power providers in the US who run primarily coal-burning plants. I do not consider this accidental.
2. People always have an easier job convincing people of what they want to believe, regardless of the truth of the matter; and it is always easier and a far happier thing to convince people that it is not necessary to change their lifestyles than to convince them that they do.
3. People in general are always interested in making a profit, off anything they can. This means that there ARE opportunists, honest and dishonest both, who are trying to get on top of the global warming issue in ways that will profit them. The general public regards this with justifiable suspicion, however, suspecting that there is a con behind it. Unfortunately, in this case it's kind of like deciding not to believe in quantum physics, because there are so many quackticioners and hucksters out there who market all kinds of unlikely products and claim that they work because of quantum physics.
4. The science itself is extremely complex; trying to make sure that the public has accurate information, enough to understand the problem AND understand how what they are told by propagandists and hucksters from either side of the issue is wrong, butts up hard against the large proportion of the population who is scientifically illiterate and not well schooled in spotting faulty logic and/or discredited arguments.
5. People like seeing themselves as independent skeptics, and so backlash against "consensus" as a matter of principle. The media perpetuates this in their frequent presentation of false "debate" and "balanced views" -- like the "debate" over evolution, or the "balanced view" that ID is a legitimate science. Refer back to problem 4.
The truth is, when this issue first came to my attention in 1995, my first thought was "Oh God, this is going to be another of those Alar-on-apples things." However, as my familiarity with the work and the science increased, I changed my mind, and the behavior of the people expressing "skepticism" visibly deteriorated to the kind of level and tactics of creationists as actual knowledge advanced, which simply annoys me. I am very well aware that there are still some large uncertainties; the thing that concerns me is that the uncertainties are largely in the arena of "how much", not "whether".
Glad you like my name, btw. >^_^
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 8, 2007 1:23 PM
I also apologise for my terrible, confused grammar. It's been a long week, and this happens when I get tired.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 8, 2007 1:28 PM
Even the IPCC's clatch of politicians didn't go so far as to say anthropogenic warming is a certainty; the best they could do was "90%" and even that caused a lot of scientists to resign in protest.
The pro-AGW people are just as unscientific as the anti-AGW people, if not more so. The null hypothesis does not bear the burden of proof.
Posted by: TallDave | June 8, 2007 1:34 PM
You know, the people that study this stuff aren't stupid. Quite the opposite, they have thought of these problems, and answers to most of the questions I've seen here could be obtained from spending a little time on Realclimate
RealClimate is a propaganda blog. It is funded by the environmental groups that have take explicitly political positions. If that is your idea of backup for your opinions, then I guess it would be unsurprising to find out that you believe that "polar bears are being driven from the planet" despite paleoclimate data that shows that it was warmer for thousands of years than it is today since, presumably, and I am presuming you are not a creationis, polar bears evolved some time prior to the holocene.
http://www.gfy.ku.dk/~kka/icecores_palaeoclimate.pdf
Have a look at figure 3
You might read the summary as well where you will find this nugget.
It is from the ice core perspective thus not
possible to attribute the warming of the past century solely to the influence of mankind. The climate changes recorded by meteorological observations since 1875 are not
unique in climate history. Taking into account that the period around 1875 appears to have been one of the coldest during the Holocene makes it even more difficult.
I am wondering. Do you think that this ice core data has been debunked somewhere?
There is this nugget from the caption of figure 3 as well.
The upper plot displays temperature variations over the past 8,000 yrs, whereas the lower plot is a zoom on the past 2,000 yrs. Similar temperature variations for the last 2,000 yrs have been reconstructed from Law Dome bore hole data from Antarctica.
Or do you believe that the Earth is warmer than it has been in a million years. Are you a "flat climater"? Because if you are, there is a lot of science that you have to throw out with the bathwater.
Hansen bases his conclusions about long term temperature history on one cherry-picked site. I will be happy to discuss this further if you want to call bullshit on the above assertion.
He also cites himself on matters of statistics when he is not a recognized expert in that field. In fact, he cites himself a lot. Einstein got away without citing prior work, Hansen is no Einstein.
Posted by: blairite | June 8, 2007 1:38 PM
Dumbest statement on the thread. But I suppose that's what you expect from someone who links back to an HIV/AIDS denialist like Esmay.
Posted by: MarkH | June 8, 2007 1:39 PM
"alleging conspiracy theories, cherry-picking data, using fake experts, moving goalposts, and illogical arguments to advance an agenda."
That sounds exactly like what Al Gore and many other AGW alarmists have been doing.
Posted by: TallDave | June 8, 2007 1:39 PM
MarkH,
Well, Duesenberg managed to get a cover story in SciAm, so he can't be a total crank. And there are serious problems in how AIDS is being diagnosed.
But it's easier to just call people names than debate them. That's what passes for "science" here, apparently.
Posted by: TallDave | June 8, 2007 1:41 PM
I love this quote I've read all of it.
Really?
Michael Crichten, who obtained a PHD from Harvard University is a "hack". He has a degree in medicine, a scientific discipline and heavily data driven where interpretation of study results is a primary skill. I know it doesn't match up to our host's PHD candidacy, but in some circles, but he is not Art Bell.
Posted by: blairite | June 8, 2007 1:49 PM
One more comment about RealClimate. They screen all posts and their commenting policy specificaly says that they will not allow posts that "muddy the water". How is that any different than a gated circle jerk? Oh, except that you agree with them.
Posted by: blairite | June 8, 2007 1:55 PM
Others have pointed out that I misattributed the senseless namecalling, when in fact it was merely another contributor here. So, okay, I'm back in, (Just skipping over anything by the nasty, foul-mouthed "Tyler").
First up, ice core data.
MarkH: Oh please. Not this again. It's the exact opposite of disproof. Learn the difference between feedback and forcing, please.
I know the difference.
My problem is this: If the warming lags the carbon dioxide, that's evidence for the AGW position (as per earlier interpretations). But if the carbon dioxide lags the warming, that's also evidence for the AGW position? No matter how the results come out, they can be spun to suit the theory.
Links presented above to articles "debunking" Crichton and Lindzen were unimpressive. All you've got on Lindzen is a cherry-picked quote from a radio interview.
Re Crichton's "aliens cause global warming", I agree that his second-hand smoking example wasn't strong, but the review doesn't really address Crichton's article (/speech) in the spirit that it was intended. It's an essay on how science is being corrupted by politicization, and the central message is (in my opinion) quite valid.
I agree with him entirely on SETI, by the way. SETI is pure indulgence of unsupported fantasies. The rest of your response article is overly skarky. For example, Crichton has some criticisms of the way the "Nuclear Winter" issue was deliberately politicised, and suggests that it was based on shaky modeling. Valid points for a critic to make. To suggest he should submit a scientific article himself on the matter if he feels so strongly is just facetious.
Posted by: Daddy Dave | June 8, 2007 1:59 PM
TallDave says: "Even the IPCC's clatch of politicians didn't go so far as to say anthropogenic warming is a certainty; the best they could do was "90%" and even that caused a lot of scientists to resign in protest."
...If you actually read what the IPCC scientists said about it, too, many spoke out in protest of the political influence because they felt that the politicians were forcing their conclusions to be watered down too much.
The IPCC scientists had in fact concluded that the anthropogenic "signature" is near definite; many protested at having this certainty eliminated in the summary statement, largely because of the refusal of the US and China to pass any statement which contained those certainties.
For further examples of political interference in climate science:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ucs-gap-report/
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1162
Only one person left because he felt that a threat from AGW was being exaggerated: Chris Landsea. This was specifically over the strength of the link being posited to increased hurricane activity.
...Oh, and blairite? Realclimate is the blog of a group of climate scientists. Their agenda is what it is because of what they study, not the other way around. And polar bears are the most recent bear species to have evolved, existing entirely within the current ice age. (http://www.geol.umd.edu/~candela/pbevol.html) Earth *is* warmer now than it has been at any point in time since polar bears first appeared, just; the problem is that the temperature is still rising. Try to fact check a little better, ok?
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 8, 2007 2:02 PM
Since you have read "it all", here is a paper on the divergence problem that came out this year. On the RealClimate propaganda blog, Mann attributes this to an artifact of "smoothing". This paper surveys all of the problems with surface temperature reconstruction.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/05/04/a-new-paper-on-the-differences-between-recent-proxy-temperature-and-in-situ-near-surface-air-temperatures/
Somehow "Smoothing" did not show up as one of the possible causes for the divergence problem.
Even Hansen is, to his credit, admitting that the surface data is crap.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1648
Yet your side keeps tooling along, as if the science were somehow "rock solid", despite acknowledged problems with the data. The satellite data has shown global temperature flat for the past five years. The surface temps disagree, but the surface temps are what alarmists use, because they are scarier. And the skeptics are the "unscientific" ones.
I could go on.
Posted by: blarite | June 8, 2007 2:04 PM
Note to Mark: I have a post stuck in your moderation queue, I guess I put in too many links.
Posted by: Luna_the_cat | June 8, 2007 2:04 PM
No, his research in cancer is interesting, although his interpretation of the results is characteristically black-and-white. Orac discussed it pretty thoroughly.
But he is a crank on HIV/AIDS, no doubt about it. The science is in and he still denies a link. And as I've said a hundred times now, it's not just name-calling. It's about methods.
Ahh, the classic "I'm rubber an