Let's continue the Hockey Stick Open thread, as suggested by skip, under a new title.
A great place to pick it up is skip's most excellent response to a comment from crakar. He totally nailed all of crakar's various diversions and strawmen.
This thread is about how and why people choose their positions in the faux climate debate.
I would be prepared to bet all the tea in China that every study I produce that supports my views would be rejected by you in an attempt to support your own views of AGWIf you keep citing weak, partisan crap like Inhoffe and Singer (see below), you will probably get to keep your tea, especially since your demonstrated history is to cite things you clearly have not even read.
And of course you couldn't cover that bet, Cracker, which is why you make it so glibly. But that's ok; I'm American and drinking little tea is part of our legacy of rebellion against the Crown. You Commonwealth folks prize it more than we do.
Note: some of the following text has been copied from an article, an article which expresses my views on the IPCC.
From the very beginning, the IPCC was a political rather than scientific entity, with its leading scientists reflecting the positions of their governments or seeking to induce their governments to adopt the IPCC position. In particular, a small group of activists wrote the all-important Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for each of the four IPCC reports [McKitrick et al. 2007].You of course lifted this from one of Fred Singer's reports (he copied and pasted from one to the other so I don't know which.) The absurdity of this source is manifest. He cites the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine survey (let me know if you want to debate the validity of that joke), includes as a contributor Zbigniew Jaworowski (Lawrence Solomon's "ice core man", a quack who has been debunked into orbit), and your good mate Christopher Monckton. Not exactly an all star list of first rate intellects or scientific credentials. (I can't speak to the others, to be fair.) I am also aware that some claim that Singer's book, *Unstoppable Global Warming . . .*, has been shredded, but since I have not read either his book or these critiques I would have to take a wait-and-see approach to that. It might have been discussed on the "medieval warm period" thread. You tell me, Craker; I honestly don't know.
While we are often told about the thousands of scientists on whose work the Assessment reports are based, the vast majority of these scientists have no direct influence on the conclusions expressed by the IPCC.
False. Their *research* is the underpinning of the summaries.Those [reports] are produced by an inner core of scientists, and the SPMs are revised and agreed to, line-by-line, by representatives of member governments. This obviously is not how real scientific research is reviewed and published.
We've been through this. The IPCC report is not "research". It's a *research summary*, the essential conclusions of which are *agreed* to by an overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in climate science and many of whom contributed to the report. If you understand the process of collaboration and co-authorship you would understand that a small number of report writers is a *practicality*, not a cover-up.
The IPCC's FAR 1990 reported without much analysis claimed that temp changes were "broadly consistent" with GH models, it arrived at a climate sensitivity of 1.5 to 4.5C
The IPCC's SAR 1996, Its SPM contained the memorable conclusion, "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." The SAR was heavily criticized,Of course. Some people don't want to believe it.
point 2 was supposed to highlight the hypocrisy of Al Gore. We had a prime minister some years back that owned shares in a pig farm, this particular pig farm benefitted from a change in gov policy and the PM was forced to sell his shares or resign. If PM Rudd stood ready to earn squillions from CO2 taxes via personal interests he would be drummed out of office because he would have a conflict of interest. As Al Gore stands to earn squillions from the very threat that he warns us about, people may be excused for thinking he has an ulterior motive. As per point 1 Skip you can disagree if that is your want but it does mean you are right and I am wrong.
Narratives at full throttle: "One of 'your' guys is bad. This (somehow) proves I'm right." I don't actively agree or disagree. I am indifferent. If Al Gore snorts cocaine while listening to death metal and engaging in sexual congress with barnyard animals it *has no bearing on our disagreement*. This is a total red herring, Craker.
In regards to unintended consequences, if you believe wholeheartedly in the IPCC and its associated apocalyptic scenarios
I don't "believe" in them as certainties, Craker, and neither does the IPCC. They are prospective *threats*--possibilities, risks against which we should prudently hedge, especially since the supposed "costs" associated with said hedging are also associated with collateral benefits. I've said this again and again; you just ignore me (see below).
then maybe you will accept the case for drastic times calls for drastic measures, I on the other hand are not like you.
Set up a straw man and start torching, Craker. Translation of the above: "Now that I've established that you believe something ridiculous 'wholeheartedly', allow me to contrast my practical minded self with your silliness." Its extremely important for you to believe that I support cloud seeding (or that my position requires me to, were I only clever enough to see it), isn't it Craker? Keep that narrative cranking, baby. I've told you I really don't know enough about it (I've only read a couple of articles and they focused on the politics and philosophy of it) and that my proposals for acting on climate change are far simpler (tweak the incentives to reward reduced use and investment in alternatives--but this is for another thread.)
I have seen the results of poorly planned and thought out actions of well meaning scientific bodies (cane toads etc) I am sure you can share some examples from your country
[and so on about the folly of environmental tinkering].
Granted. But this is the same lame guilt-by-association. And you're off on a soliloquy launched by nothing but your repeated refusal to accept what I say at face value: *I'm not supporting proactive environmental manipulation.* In fact, I'm supporting the reverse.
To wit:
. . . [after listing off several examples of human's dicking up the environment through ill considered efforts at conscious manipulation] So we now have a ticking time bomb in our midst's, unintended consequences Skip.I agree that's both very possible and very bad. And *human carbon emissions* might *also* be one of those, Craker! The only difference between the human activity of raising the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and these failed experiments you mention is that our emissions were never intended for any environmental or other benefit. They were strictly for our convenience. If you can see the folly of unintended consequences for these other programs (which were localized), how is it that AGW--a potential worldwide phenomenon--escapes the same scrutiny for potential damage? Its because of narratives, Craker. You don't *want* to see it (my attribution).
3, Consensus, what is it? Well it is a group of people that agree with each other. Nothing more nothing less, if there is a consensus does this mean we automatically assume they are right? Of course not, science is not done by a show of hands is it. History is littered with incorrect consensus, so lets not confuse scientific fact with appeal to authority ok.
When you travel on aircraft, drive a car, live in a code-approved home, or accept modern medical care, you are taking your chances with a scientific, peer reviewed consensus. And that's what I'm doing, Craker, when I say we need to hedge against risk and act to prevent the potential long term damage of AGW. This is a recurring theme in my experience with debating deniers: Any element of uncertainty (which is unavoidable in science) is interpreted as an excuse for inaction. Your above logic amounts to, "We can't be sure AGW fears are founded [and I agree we can't, strictly speaking], so we should assume they are *not*. Fire up the Hummer."
Also you asked for quotes and I gave them, now you say they are no good. Toll says IPCC alarmism is preposterous and a small warming would be OK (less deaths in Germany etc).But this is no good now, now you change the rules,
Wrong. You were claiming that your link proved your outrageous claim that, ""one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics."
I showed simply that it does nothing of the sort. The ham-handed quote of Tol (who does *not* support Inhofe's position on the AGW position or how policy should handle it) was an example of this. It is you who has changed the goalposts, now changing your claim about the link to it contains experts "who all spoke poorly of the IPCC." (whatever exactly that means, and in any event its not the same thing, Craker. Beating me to the punch on the *accusation* of goal moving does not change the fact that it was you who sucked it in closer to yourself when I caught you red-handed "dogma propping" (more on this below.
you ridicule meteorologists in post # 77
Not with regards to meteorology, but I question their relative credibility in commenting on climate issues, yes.
but in post #42 you use them to prop up your own views.
Wrong. I only pointed out the survey results for their field because in my experience deniers lean heavily on sources from that specialty. They are not mentioned to support *my* views, but only to show that on average they do *not* support yours. The 97 percent figure for climate scientists was the money finding.
I do find it hard to follow your train of thought sometimes Skip.
You would have a fun conversation with my wife.
I counted 28 IPCC employed scientists that spoke poorly of the IPCC, 10 from Never A Straight Answer and 4 from NOAA plus a host of other scientists etc who all spoke poorly of the IPCC. No, someone did not use the exact phrase "AGW is a crock of shit"
Nor had anyone who has studied climate science from that list " turn[ed] away from the AGW theory and declar[ed] themselves as [a] sceptic . . ."
you were looking for, granted but I believe my point is made.
The new or the old one?
By the way there is no such thing as a Climate scientist,
I think we're getting closer to the key issue here. Convince yourself of this and you can believe (or disbelieve) just about anything, I can imagine. Its like saying there are no "medical researchers", "aerospace engineers", "design engineers", or anything else where we have a vested interest in learning about the biological and physical worlds because, after all, all of them, like climate studies, "cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all."
Also you may have got a little confused (my fault) "Also i would like to add, this link as a demonstration to both you and Eric that the masses are made to accept the AGW propoganda, a statement which you have both have lambasted me for making.--Craker"
This was referenced to the link showing Antarctic sea ice. I wanted your thoughts as to why the masses are only told about melting ice and not freezing ice.
I confess not to understand the science of this at a technical level. However, a sophisticated understanding of AGW recognizes that its effects are non-linear. If increased precipitation from AGW causes increases in Antarctic ice, then that's the way it is. This is no more impressive than pointing out that some glaciers are increasing their ice mass, because you would not expect such glacial declines to be linear. But save this for another thread; I'm not your man on this issue, I admit. But your use of this as a silver bullet looks like blatant cherry picking of anything that comforts your narrative.
To finish off (did I cover everything Skip?)
See below.
So in summary, You believe in the IPCC conclusions.
Well, I think we should act on them, yes.
whereas I reject some aspects of it.
Which aspects do you not reject?
You believe in the computer model predictions out to 2100 whereas I reject it due to our lack of understanding of the climatic processes.
I am willing to act on those models to hedge against risk.
You believe and take refuge in the comfort of the consensus
We're homing in on the core of this narrative interpretation on which you appear to lean so heavily. I have repeatedly explained in a manner that continues to apparently confound you that I do *not* take comfort in the consensus. It seems very, very difficult, Craker, for you to conceive of someone being convinced of something for reasons other than they *want* it to be true. I have a fairly strong hunch as to why.
I will repeat my real "narrative" for you benefit:
"*Based on the results of a scientific process and its *overwhelming* consensus, we believe that AGW is real, and very possibly dangerous enough to merit actions that are socially and economically tolerable--and undeniably beneficial in other ways.*"
Only one of three things could be going on here, Craker:
(1) I'm lying about my narrative. I'm just *pretending* to be worried about long term AGW, and really the thought of AGW destruction and/or socialistic oppression to address it gives me a big, fat Woodrow, and this conditions me to ignore excellent evidence that it is wrong, or
(2) I'm telling the truth about myself but I'm *deceived*. I'm an automaton who just dumbly "accept[s] the AGW propaganda" and who "believe[s] [my] politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with [my] best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests . . ." Along with the other drones, I do this to the detriment of prosperity, freedom, etc., or
(3) I'm telling the truth about myself--AGW and deniers' apparent obstinacy about it is distressing to me, and thus I have *no reason* to block out information that would relieve me of this fear. As a result, when I reject the likes of Singer, Monckton, etc., it is because I think *they're full of shit*, Craker. I would *rather* believe them, but I can't. I have investigated the issue and I know the overwhelming reasons to fear AGW.
I understand that from halfway around the world you can't know for sure, of course, which of these is true. But what makes more sense? Have you done *anything* even approaching what I have done to give the denier side a fair chance? Have you done anything like read three books picked by the other side and explained in detail why they are wrong? (My 46 page essay is at your disposal.) My guess, Craker, is that you have not. My perception is that you troll the net looking for things that you think confirm what you hope is true, regardless of their credibility, as this recent Inhofe debacle shows. You're fishing for "proofs"--for confirmations of your narrative. I call the process "dogma propping": "Here's someone who says I'm right. Maybe I don't really know what it says, but it proves me right." And the by the way, this is in purist conformity to experiences I've had with other debates with deniers. The last guy once tried to send me a link with the *caveat* that he wasn't even endorsing it. It's a concession: "My proof is somewhere--maybe here; maybe not--I'm not saying either way. But read it just in case it proves me right."
Whereas I realize a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth.
Then, to put WAG's point another way: Give me an example of what means "something". A key problem you must confront at some point, Craker, is that AGW is either true and dangerous or its not. When deciding whether to act on it, what do we have to go on *other* than the scientific consensus? You've got to take your chances with something, and I'll throw my chips in with the IPCC. You prefer Monckton and Singer, and it looks like you prefer them simply because they say what you want to hear.
You believe your politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with your best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests whereas I reject this notion completely.
Straw man. You have every opportunity to ask me my opinion of the role of government and the potential pitfalls of engaging it (or not) to solve social/political/environmental problems, but you're not interested in that. You want to *tell* me what I think. Why? It looks like you need to believe what you wrote above because, again *it fits your narrative*.
You believe in the AGW theory and are not prepared to consider any other option regardless of the implications
I just considered another option: The possibility that your link to Ihofe's list was proof that, ""one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics." You were just blatantly fishing and hopoing at that point. Since you didn't deliver, yes, I am still stuck for now with my trust in the scientific consensus.
whereas I reject the theory of AGW based on a lack of evidence, if such evidence does comes to light then I will reconsider my position.
What evidence would that be for a bloke who says "a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth"? What would it take, Craker--a lunar billboard with a sign from God? An epiphany a la Homer Simpson? ("Spider pig . . . Spider pig . . . does whatever a spider pig does . . p. )Forty days of fasting and prayer? You tell us you're unimpressed with a consensus even as you tell us all you need is evidence. If it is true that climate studies "cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all," then as laymen we have to rely on secondhand sources in formulating our view. If not a consensus of them, then what? What would it take, Craker?
Skip you can break all this down into a simple Freudian exercise if you want but the above facts will not change for you. I on the other hand not constrained by preconceived beliefs have the ability to change my point of view.
Borderline hilarious. I repeat my questions from above.
The best example that immediately springs to mind is the missing hot spot, the mere fact that the hot spot does not exist clearly falsifies the theory of AGW, if the hot spot suddenly appeared for all to see then I would seriously consider the theory of AGW to be very robust and highly plausible.
I don't know what this issue is but if there's a thread on AFTIC point it out to me.
You and all of the dart throwers here do not care that the hotspot is missing, you yawn and wave your hand nonchalantly and then point to Arctic sea ice, sea level rise or show photos of polar bears.
You reject studies that do not conform to your beliefs not by any scientific measure but by simply labeling the author as a nutjob and a liar, thus shielding your belief system from the real world because that's where you feel most comfortable.
Or in your case, if the document does not support your claim.
Yes, it is a screen full, for sure, but well constructed and thorough.
Crakar, you said you were working on a response, post it here.
While we are waiting for crakar to respond to skip's actual arguments, how about we deal one at a time with his 5 diversionary tactics? I will schedule five threads over the next five days so we can focus on each point, please stay strictly on topic.
Point 1: the geological record and the past 70 years.
Point 2: the models only have 16 parameters, it's not enough and they are failing.
Point 3: the Argo ocean temperature product shows cooling oceans
I know they were just offered as a fallback dodge of Skip's uncomfortable dissection, and he has been answered on them all numerous other places here, but lurkers should not see them go ignored.
Brain & Behavior
Environment
Comments
Clever title, Coby.
Nicely done.
If I'd known you and WAG were going to distribute this with such vigor I would have written it more formally and less like two chaps just sniping at each other, but be that as it may . . .
Have at, Crakar.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 21, 2009 1:10 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media
Great article in the *Atlantic* that I read a couple of weeks ago, folks. Up front: Global warming is not a topic, but it strikes me as thematically consistent with the idea of narratives and why we believe what we believe--and how we go about believing it. the author is critical of the anti-intellectual nature of American media/political discourse, where loudmouth TV commentators are looking to score PR points for their "side" instead of actively attempting to understand, and then defend, the truth.
Reading some of the denier posts here reminded me of this. Snowman: Yours in particular are a stunning microcosm of this trend. You seem to instinctively think that as long as you keep posting--no matter how absurdly--and never admit when you're wrong, now matter how obviously you are, that in a sense you're still somehow "right"--or at least in the game.
Its as fascinating as it is disturbing.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 21, 2009 3:51 PM
Skip - The thing that strikes me most forcibly in this entire debate is the fact that qualities such as scepticism, suspicion of orthodoxy and a distaste for the bandwagon mentality would in any other area of enquiry be considered virtues. But somehow in the looking-glass world of climate alarmists these characteristics have become reprehensible.
Conversely, an enthusiasm for contemptuous attacks on those who have a different point of view has become - not a sign of a weak argument - but a thoroughly admirable trait.
The point is not original, of course, and others have made it before me. Nevertheless, it is the single most remarkable aspect of this whole issue.
Look back through the posts over recent weeks. Read the language employed by your AGW pals. Ask yourself if these are the attitudes of sensible people. Consider whether these denunciations and sneers would lead a reasonable and impartial person to conclude that their case is sound.
Let me anticipate your reply. You will say that deniers have been told times without number that they are wrong and you are right - yet they simply will not listen. But Skip, this is always the refuge of the of the intolerant dogmatist.
The very word denier captures the essence of the AGW classes. Is possible to conceive of a single other area of scientific debate where one side would employ such an arrogantly condescending term?
Let me try to think of an illustration. String theory comes to mind. As you may know if you have followed the topic, this is an aspect of theoretical physics that in recent years has given rise to passionate arguments. However, it is beyond imagining that string theory advocates would call their opponents deniers.
What is it about AGW proponents that leads them to act this way? This, I suppose, is a question for future analysts when the AGW craze of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century has come to be seen for what it is: another moment of madness to be added to the long list of mass popular delusions.
Posted by: Snowman | October 21, 2009 4:50 PM
Oh, and by the way, Skip, I read the article in The Atlantic. As I am not an American, I really don't have a view on the suitability of this lady for the Supreme Court. However, while the article was undoubtedly interesting, it did, it seemed to me, dodge the main point.
The fact that these clips were dug up by political opponents as part of a PR campaign seems to me to neither here nor there. That is always how politics has worked. Surely this is less important than whether or not these bits of film accurately represent her opinions on crucial matters. And if they do, shouldn't American voters be entitled to see them?
Posted by: Snowman | October 21, 2009 5:07 PM
Bull. We don't consider it a virtue to argue that the world is flat, that the moon landing didn't happen because going there would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to argue that observed characteristics of a particular gas must be wrong because the consequences make one unhappy, etc.
*reasoned* skepticism and suspicion of orthodoxy is traditional in science. Dishonest blathering is not.
Posted by: dhogaza | October 21, 2009 5:33 PM
Seconding what dhogaza said on your first point,
is where you, Snowman, take off to the realm of your warped imagination.Posted by: laolaolao | October 21, 2009 5:54 PM
DOH!GAZA!
Why do you continually mention the "flat earth" argument?
Please, oh please come up with another way to say that?
As usual you have only quoted one section of snowman's post. Why do you do that?
He wrote a lot more than just that. Instead of just throwing another poor strawman in, why not come back with a reasoned argument on each point?
I think I can read english fairly well, and in all honesty, I cannot see where snowman is blathering dishonestly.
Could you please clarify it for me?
(I'd prefer it not be abusive, thanks)
Posted by: Michael | October 21, 2009 8:59 PM
Michael and Snow:
The fact is Dhogaza beat me to the flat-earth argument. I'd love to elaborate but my wife insists I comfort her while she recovers from watching *Sixth Sense*.
I don't see dead people, but the idea that they "see only what they want to see" seems somehow resonant right now.
Take care, gents.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 21, 2009 9:27 PM
Michael,
dhogaza's point is highly valid. We simply (and rightly) don't value clinging to ideas that have been VERY CLEARLY debunked. You seem to miss the point that it matters not one whit whether YOU in particular have understood that it has been debunked. It is enough that those smart people working in a particular field understand when an idea has been effectively invalidated and quietly shift their investigations to more relevant lines of inquiry. So be it if the masses take a couple of decades to catch up.
Posted by: Matt Bennett | October 21, 2009 10:02 PM
What about suspicion of orthodoxy and distaste for the bandwagon mentality that we evolved? Or that HIV causes aids? Snowman is tossing word salad -- I hope you do not believe scientific consensus and social norms have the same ontology? Because almost all the hostility to global warming can be attributed to politically and economically conservative dispositions and organizations, which are orthodox by their nature. The thing that strikes me forcibly is how casually and without any self awareness denialists will arrogate the positive attributes of science for themselves while at the same time projecting their deficits onto scientists. For example, they are skeptical of research -- unless it was self-published by the Astroturf Institute for the Retention of Material Privilege, by an accountant who’s never done a lick of field work in his life. The mountain of evidence that coheres around global warming vs. a few grasping factoids it doesn’t means warmists inhabit a looking glass world, not heterodox rebel bloggers united against carbon taxes. It's laughable.
Posted by: ali baba | October 21, 2009 10:30 PM
Ali,
Now i am not picking on you but whilst you may be correct on some level when us rejecters of the AGW theory dispute research that does not fit our views, i for one can attest that the believers do exactly the same thing and not only that they take it to another level.
I have stated previously that i would change my views if the evidence changed and one example i gave was the missing hot spot. The hot spot is THE central plank, THE corner stone, THE very foundation of which the AGW theory is built upon and after 21 years of searching it is nowhere to be found. Thus the AGW theory has been falsified, or one would think. The fact that this vital piece of evidence is missing to the believers is simply dismissed as a minor annoyance.
Now one has to question as to why? Why would this not bother you? How can you continue to believe in a theory that has been falsified. Can you please explain why this is Ali as i am at a loss.
Thanks in advance
Crakar
Posted by: crakar14 | October 21, 2009 11:33 PM
Google has found the missing hot spot here, here, and here, among other places.
Posted by: ali baba | October 22, 2009 12:37 AM
I have stated previously that i would change my views if the evidence changed and one example i gave was the missing hot spot. The hot spot is THE central plank, THE corner stone, THE very foundation of which the AGW theory is built upon and after 21 years of searching it is nowhere to be found.
Crak:
I came to this blog late. Please explain in your own words what you think this "hot spot" issue means.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 22, 2009 12:41 AM
Good news, Google found the hot spot.
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/skepticsdenialists-part-2-hotspots-and-repetition/
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/
Posted by: ali baba | October 22, 2009 12:42 AM
Skip,
Tomorrow's "crakar" post is about the hotspot.
Crakar, I hope you will explain exactly how you came to the conclusion that this obscure feature of modeled climate is so central, but on that thread please.
Posted by: coby | October 22, 2009 3:46 AM
Wow,
It's too bad we have to use words to describe concepts, because it's just so easy to invest a word with extra meaning and then argue about the word itself rather than the concept. Who cares whether you're called an AGW skeptic, denier, or rejecter? Any proposals for how we get all the world to agree on one correct title for each side so this can officially become a non-issue? How much breath should we waste on this?
Either way, simply replace the word "consensus" with the word "bandwagon" and you have jumped from "believer" (or at least "realist") to "denialist."
"Consensus," in the scientific sense, is arrived at through myriad independent studies, following many lines of reasoning and logic and discovery. It is arrived at by people who I'm sure would love to make the one single discovery that debunks a massive theory like AGW, but whose careers are built upon accuracy and correctness — people who could go from legitimate scientist to crazy quack if they were found to have falsified their work. Consensus is not something people pull out of thin air, but rather a realization that all the available evidence, gathered and tested by many people over a long period of time, supports a certain theory.
So to refer to a broad scientific consensus as a "bandwagon" is ludicrous. The socio-political result may be (or at least resemble) a bandwagon, but that's as close as it gets.
I think Skip really gets to the heart of it when he points out that deniers ask for evidence but are unilaterally unwilling to consider the enormous and varied body of work that already exists as evidence; and if this work by experts, from which a consensus opinion can be drawn, isn't evidence, what is? Who can provide evidence if not a whole bunch of experts?
And I enjoyed Skip's comparison (although potentially a can-o-worms in this arena) to other elements of our lives. Yes, every time you take prescription medication or fly Jet Blue you are "subscribing" to scientific consensus. Scientists can't prove that this medication won't kill you or that your plane won't drop out of the sky, but many experts have made careful observations and tested those theories from many angles over a long period of time and arrived at the same conclusions. Voila: consensus. Sorry that potentially catastrophic man-made climate change isn't as fun as pills and flying.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 22, 2009 12:32 PM
Crakar: I pasted this from the old hockey stick thread.
You need to get your eyes checked out, or sleep more. those two posts do not contradict each other. In one i say the consensus is a very small group of IPCC scientists
This might be your reddest herring to date. You never actually said that (our dispute was in the context of the Donbar et al study in which I pointed at that 97 percent of climate specialists agree with the AGW "orthodoxy" as Snowman might so ineptly put it), but for the sake of argument let's assume you *did*.
You would still be utterly *wrong* and utterly at odds with science. To say that you’re only disagreeing with a consensus [that] is a very small group of IPCC scientists is like saying, "I'm only disagreeing with a *few* of the people who say the Earth is round.” (My homage to dhogaza, who’s been posting with relative civility lately.) If 15 astronomers wrote a summary document in which the crucial conclusion was, “We’re certain the Earth is round,” and you tried to argue that they were just hijacking the process for some political end (as flat-earthers do), you’re not just contending with *them*, Craker. You’re taking on an *overwhelming* body of evidence and scientific *consensus*. The overwhelming scientific consensus *agrees* with the IPCC. Just because not every single scientist physically wrote a line on the document does mean you’re only arguing against the few dozen that wrote the summary.
So back we go to the as-yet unanswered question:
[Pasted from by thread-starting post:]
*What evidence would that be for a bloke who says "a consensus means nothing when searching for scientific truth"? What would it take, Craker--a lunar billboard with a sign from God? An epiphany a la Homer Simpson? ("Spider pig . . . Spider pig . . . does whatever a spider pig does . . p. )Forty days of fasting and prayer? You tell us you're unimpressed with a consensus even as you tell us all you need is evidence. If it is true that climate studies "cover many fields and there is not one person in the world that could profess to be a master of them all," then as laymen we have to rely on secondhand sources in formulating our view. If not a consensus of them, then what? What would it take, Craker?*
You’ve already thrown all your chips on the “hotspot” question. Since I know nothing of the issue I will watch this with interest, and give you the benefit of the doubt by following your arguments and posts, but I have to admit, Crakar: Your track record suggests that this will just be one more bullshit dead end.
and the second i say the IPCC have ignored many other (34) studies per residence time which only goes to show they have ignored what you might call a consensus.
You have been routed on this inane point about “residence time”, and according to others with a longer history with this blog, its not the first time. Show some pride, man. I suspect, Crakar, you are an attorney (ITC involvement, articulate writer, well-educated [in matters not pertaining to science]) and you instinctively regard this is a litigation contest, where the idea is to get as many barbs in as you can and swiftly leave topics that hurt your case or where your weakness has been exposed for the purpose of swaying a jury or arbiter and get the “win” even if your side is wrong. You don’t find facts and use them to prove a point, but accumulate “points” to try to sell a—lo and behold—“narrative”, right or wrong.
But Craker, you have been *demolished* on this residence time issue. I was actually interested when you posted all those cites (“Wow!, I thought, maybe Crak’s onto something keen here!”) until I realized the stunt you were trying to pull: pretending that the consensus on residence time of *individual* CO2 molecules is a dirty little secret the IPCC is desperately trying to hide when in fact it’s a mundane aspect of climate science. Have some self respect, for godsake. You might get away with something like that in a courtroom where all you have to do is convince 12 half-wits that OJ is innocent, but you’ll never pull that shit off here (especially with sharks like dhogaza lurking in the water) , so why even try?
I will again repeat another of your unanswered questions from an earlier post from “hockey stick”:
*I would also like to ask you a rhetorical question, Crak: Regarding the authors of the peer reviewed studies [about residence time] that you just listed, whom you've implied the rest of us would call "liars and nut jobs" because you mistakenly think we'd be threatened by their findings--what to you think *their* views on the *general* AGW hypothesis are? Do you think they would be more likely to agree with the IPCC--or with you?*
(I would also qualify this to “the ones who are still alive”, because many of those blokes published decades ago and are not around to give us their opinion of AGW or any other subject.)
Snow:
Oh, and by the way, Skip, I read the article . . .
There’s a first time for everything.
As I am not an American, I really don't have a view on the suitability of this lady for the Supreme Court. However, while the article was undoubtedly interesting, it did, it seemed to me, dodge the main point.
The fact that these clips were dug up by political opponents as part of a PR campaign seems to me to neither here nor there. That is always how politics has worked.
Missing the point—and the relevance to our dispute--of course. Those “clips” were cherry picked to *score points for a partisan cause*. They were used to *distort*, not inform—just like Crakar trying to sneak past us this inanity about the residence time of CO2. The fact that you see nothing wrong with this illustrates—yet again—that you see this not as a dispute about science but, in your own words, “first and foremost, a political debate.”
From your earlier post from “hockey stick” about the behavior of those who rip you and Crak:
Let me anticipate your reply. You will say that deniers have been told times without number that they are wrong and you are right - yet they simply will not listen.
No, Snow. You and Crak have been *shown* times without number that you are wrong. (This is not to justify the “pond scum” and similar appellations but just to explain where the frustration comes from.) Your glib cheering of Crakar’s preposterous “residence time” claim is just one example where you jumped on Crakar’s sinking ship based on nothing but preference and delusional hope.
But Skip, this is always the refuge of the of the intolerant dogmatist.
No, Snow, *this* is the refuge of the intolerant dogmatist:
You know that nothing you say will convince Crakar or me . . .
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 22, 2009 12:51 PM
I think Skip really gets to the heart of it when he points out that deniers ask for evidence but are unilaterally unwilling to consider the enormous and varied body of work that already exists as evidence; and if this work by experts, from which a consensus opinion can be drawn, isn't evidence, what is? Who can provide evidence if not a whole bunch of experts?
Posted by: kilo aldırıcı | October 22, 2009 12:56 PM
Hey Coby:
I'm not trying to take over your blog so sorry I keep making suggestions. But the problem of individuals hogging bandwidth by repeating the same tired claims even after getting routed needs to be addressed somehow. I don't know the blog's history but some of the veterans are saying that Crakar has barked up this "residence time" tree before and been smashed, and only defaulted to it when he wanted to avoid points from my initial post on this thread.
Along with the "Snow Report", where we can start tracking every time Snowman repeats one of his debunked claims as part of this bizarre project of trying to assert his way to "victory", I propose one dedicated to Crakar:
"The NutCrakar Suite"
The idea is that you track the number of times particular "high rate offenders" keep repeating themselves on certain topics, now matter how wrong they are, on separate links devoted just to them.
Skeptical posters new to the blog would still be encouraged to post challenges because that's genuine dialogue, but for the recidivists there would be this public, electronic pillory.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 22, 2009 1:10 PM
Speaking of contrarians....Roger Pielke Jr., to be exact....Lambert is throwing a Pielke Pity Party over at Deltoid.
Posted by: Thom | October 22, 2009 2:59 PM
It's a bit rich Skip bothering his head about taking up bandwidth when he seems incapable of writing less than a novel-length post on any topic. Skip, you need a firm editor.
Posted by: Snowman | October 22, 2009 3:42 PM
I'm *detailed.*
(Was that short enough?)
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 22, 2009 4:35 PM
Coby et al,
Maybe i am not being clear in post 11, the purpose of the post was to try and understand the fundemental differences in the way some percieve evidence etc. I wanted Ali and anyone else to describe why they beleive in something when there are possible flaws, hot spot being one of a few examples. I was not interested in debating the technical issues just as to why this possible flaw is overlooked.
Even after a bit of confusion i got my answer, we know sat and radio sonde data cant find the hotspot warming at thrice the rate of the surface but apparently believer friendly sites have found it. So thankyou to all those that responded.
To Skip,
I read your long and exhuastive narrative about me and you are right i did not bother to respond in the end quite simply because it was completely and utterly wrong. Now dont get upset but how could you know. You dont know me, we have never met, we have never conversed apart from throwing darts at each other here so how could you be able to accurately write a narrative about me? Unless of course you are some sort of psychic and even then i doubt you could even come close.
Now it is one thing for the administrator of this site to quote me in a "How to" thread which by the way i dont mind him doing after all it is his site, but it is another for someone like yourself a suedo psychic insomniac to start putting restrictions on the people you dont like. Have i ever suggested you keep your posts to within 10,000 words? Have i ever said that your phsycho mumbo jumbo babblings of the human mind are a complete and utter crock of shit? No of course not but i suppose thats the difference between me and you isnt it.
If it wasnt for myself, snowman and to a lesser extent Michael all you lot would be doing is sitting around patting each other on the back waiting for the rapture.
So i will leave you know Skip to your mumbo jumbo and navel gazing as i am long past tired of conversing with people of your ilk.
Good luck Michael and Snowman, if you want to converse again maybe Coby can give you my email address.
Cheers and good luck to you all
Crakar14
Posted by: crakar14 | October 22, 2009 4:42 PM
crackhead said:
Anyone who has even the most basic of a science education will see that it has got nothing to do with perception and everything to do with honesty.
The deniers only have a position against AGW because they consistently lie, distort data, cherry pick, misinterpret data and other dishonest actions.
Why do you lot persist in your dishonest ways?
Posted by: Ian Forrester | October 22, 2009 4:51 PM
I hope Crakar is serious about leaving. I've only followed this thing for a day and I'm already exhausted by his ability to cram dozens of scientific inaccuracies, irrelevant topics, misleading arguments, and errors of grammar and logic into a matter of only a few hundred words.
One of the worst: calling Skip's well-organized and detailed explanations of science "mumbo jumbo." Skip proves himself to be very well-spoken, a great arguer, and very fair. He willingly concedes points where he knows he lacks information or is just wrong. He gives the benefit of the doubt when something is untested.
Not once have I come across a fervent denialist about which I can say the same. Frustrating, to say the least.
Coby, however you choose to handle folks like Crakar, keep up the good work and the attempt to remain civil.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 22, 2009 5:41 PM
I hope Crakar is serious about leaving.
I confess I am not.
Snowman might be right about one thing: he and Crakar might be completely unreachable. That's sad because my guess is they are both fine guys in a different context.
However, even if *they* cannot be convinced, their presence on this blog serves a crucial purpose--for the audience of people such as yourself. I *want* these issues debated--rationally, honestly, and with as much civility as possible in a situation where both sides see so much threat from the other.
Crakar:
I want to emphasize what I said in my first post to you way back when. It is *not* personal. If my harsh critiques came off as such it was not my intention. (I know how difficult it is sometimes to separate argument from the arguer. That's the tricky business of disagreement.) But don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I welcome your contributions, but simply reserve the right to speak my honest perceptions of them.
Best,
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 22, 2009 9:33 PM
You know Skip, you have more than once hinted that if we were all to meet in real life we would get along just fine, and I believe you are right. We'd have a beer or two, talk about life, football (sorry Skip, soccer to you) and anything else that came to mind. As long as we avoided One Particular Topic everything would be just dandy.
But, with some reluctance, I have decided to join Crakar and ride off into the sunset. I guess I feel that we are just going around in circles (my fault as much as anyone's) and there is little more to be said.
So, goodbye Skip. It's been good knowing you, even in this slightly strange virtual world.
Best wishes (genuinely).
Snowman
Posted by: Snowman | October 23, 2009 1:51 AM
I shall miss the pitter-patter of little feet.
Posted by: ali baba | October 23, 2009 2:17 AM
WUWT's latest attempt to warp a study's findings to fit his narrative concerns a Canadian study on midges as temperature proxies in northern Canada. Amazing how he can misinterpret things so badly. I've attempted a debunking here:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/cold-logic-of-hockey-sticks.html
Have I got my facts straight?
Posted by: WAG | October 23, 2009 2:52 AM
Coby, there's a Turkish spambot here...
Posted by: Marco | October 23, 2009 3:49 AM
Final thoughts on the surprise departures of Crakar and Snowman:
I have to confess that with the big “hotspot” debate looming this caught me off guard.
It has often been said that most of us could clear half the room if we shared our genuine opinions; it looks like I managed to clear people from two hemispheres from a combined distance about 14,000 miles. (Is my breath that bad?) Coby, I honestly didn’t mean to be so repugnant so as to frighten away your contributors. I’ll stand down at your request.
To some it might seem like an undignified stomp on the head of two fellows trying to gracefully duck out of an uncomfortable situation, but in fact the last two posts by our late antagonists really do illustrate (I know, yawn) *narratives.” I don’t assume anyone cares, but for the benefit of anyone who still might, and the record, a couple of things need to be pointed out.
From Crakar:
Maybe i am not being clear in post 11, the purpose of the post was to try and understand the fundemental differences in the way some percieve evidence etc. I wanted Ali and anyone else to describe why they beleive in something when there are possible flaws, hot spot being one of a few examples. em>
There are so many incorrect implications in this statement. I cannot speak for Ali Baba, but most people who “believe” in AGW that I know do it in the manner that I do: It’s a credible threat. Its not that “flaws” are “overlooked”, but that they are understood as limits to our predictive precision *or* they are presumed to have been *looked over* carefully by scientists and deemed not flaws at all. The reason I believe the consensus despite not knowing the “hotspot” issue (for example), is that *every* time I have investigated one of these supposed “consensus busters” (phony lists of “deniers”, bogus claims of “rigged data”, prominent “skeptics” who turn out to not even question the fundamental AGW hypothesis) the same thing happens every time: *It turns out to be complete horseshit*, and the denier who directed me to the issue/argument had sent me off on a pointless goose chase.
I was not interested in debating the technical issues just as to why this possible flaw is overlooked.
Observe the strategy of avoidance. Assume the very thing in question (that us witless drones “overlook” the issue), but then retreat from having to defend the earlier insistence that
I have stated previously that i would change my views if the evidence changed and one example i gave was the missing hot spot. The hot spot is THE central plank, THE corner stone, THE very foundation of which the AGW theory is built upon and after 21 years of searching it is nowhere to be found.
It looks to me that poor Crakar originally thought he was going to strike like a panther with this hotspot deal, but at the very last moment realized he didn’t have the cards to go all in. (I will, in honor of Crakar, follow the thread and see what arguments such deniers as are still with us might make, but my guess is the beast dhogaza will soon feed.)
To Skip,
No terms of endearment, but I liked the personal attention.
I read your long and exhuastive narrative about me . . .
In the end I don’t think Crakar was terribly clear on what “narrative”, as I have been employing it, really means. He seems to use it at least somewhat as synonymous with “posting”, but for clarification, it refers to the internal storytelling mechanisms that all of us have and through which we filter our understanding of the world. We’re typically not even aware of them, which is exactly why must try our best to do so nonetheless. I sense the whole discussion was becoming very uncomfortable for Crakar (and Snowman.)
and you are right i did not bother to respond in the end quite simply because it was completely and utterly wrong.
goodbye cruel world
Now dont get upset but how could you know.
"Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do"
You dont know me, we have never met, we have never conversed apart from throwing darts at each other here so how could you be able to accurately write a narrative about me? Unless of course you are some sort of psychic and even then i doubt you could even come close.
"You want the truth . . . You can't *handle* the truth!"
Again, this (at least to me) looks a lot like a person in turmoil. Crakar has been called everything under the sun on this site: “fucking idiot”, “denier dirtbag”, “rotted pond scum”, and so forth. He has been stolid; typically responding with friendly deflection. But probing into possible narratives, and contrasting the ones he advertises through his statements with the likely ones that define AGW “believers” became too much—or so it seems to me; I too am subject to narratives, and must always guard against their possible deceptions as best I can manage.
And Crakar, when making this statement, had obviously forgotten the numerous times he attempted to “accurately write a narrative” about his antagonists. To wit:
You believe and take refuge in the comfort of the consensus . .
. .. you believe your politicians past and present will to the best of their ability make decisions with your best interests at heart regardless of their conflict of interests whereas I reject this notion . . . .
. . . you believe in the AGW theory and are not prepared to consider any other option regardless of the implications . . .
. . . you can break all this down into a simple Freudian exercise if you want but the above facts will not change for you. I on the other hand not constrained by preconceived beliefs have the ability to change my point of view . . .
. . . you and all of the dart throwers here do not care that the hotspot is missing, you yawn and wave your hand nonchalantly and then point to Arctic sea ice, sea level rise or show photos of polar bears . . .
. . you reject studies that do not conform to your beliefs not by any scientific measure but by simply labeling the author as a nutjob and a liar, thus shielding your belief system from the real world because that's where you feel most comfortable . . . .
There is no question that Crakar had his own “narratives about the narratives” when trying to understand us, and was not afraid to share them. It is also worth noting that none of these claims was justified by a reference to a direct quote—whether by me or any other of the AGW proponents who post here. But when Crakar was quoted *directly* as part of an effort to suggest/disentangle *his* narratives (see my intro essay for this thread), he was appalled that I would have the temerity to think I could “accurately write a narrative about [him].” Again, I too am subject to narratives and all the human failings of perception, but this looks a lot like someone getting hit very close to home—and feeling it.
Now it is one thing for the administrator of this site to quote me in a "How to" thread which by the way i dont mind him doing after all it is his site,
This is probably part of it, too. Crakar was not just outclassed, but outnumbered, and we’re all human. Its tough to lay your heart out and get lambasted daily. Dhogaza and Ian think he deserved it. Maybe; I still have a soft spot for the bloke. Of course I didn’t have to put up with Crakar’s shit for the last three years. Still I leave I’ll leave death and judgment to whatever God there is.
but it is another for someone like yourself a suedo psychic insomniac to start putting restrictions on the people you dont like. Have i ever suggested you keep your posts to within 10,000 words?
. . . If it wasnt for myself, snowman and to a lesser extent Michael all you lot would be doing is sitting around patting each other on the back waiting for the rapture.
Here Crakar attempts to construct himself as the martyr, a modern day James the Younger stoned to death by ungrateful AGW zealots for merely preaching the gospel of reasoned skepticism. I *never* proposed a restriction on Crakar—only that Coby begin a thread where his repeated fallacies be noted as such.
Have i ever said that your phsycho mumbo jumbo babblings of the human mind are a complete and utter crock of shit? No of course not but i suppose thats the difference between me and you isnt it.
"I'm such a nice guy I'm not even going to tell you how full of shit you are."
So i will leave you know Skip to your mumbo jumbo and navel gazing as i am long past tired of conversing with people of your ilk.
"I will fight no more forever."
This was almost painful to read. The spelling, the repetition of “mumbo jumbo” . . . was he drinking?
Did you guys ever see *Glenngary Glenn Ross*? When I read this I couldn’t help but think of Ricky Roma’s (Al Pacino’s) final comment to Ed Moss (Ed Harris) as the latter storms out of the office screaming:
Moss: “I’m going back to Milwaukee! Nothing’s accomplished here!”
Roma: “What’s this? Your fair well speech? Your fair well to the troops?”
Moss: “Oh, fuck you! Fuck the lot of you! Fuck you all!”
Roma: “Have a nice trip.”
I could burn in hell for this, I know. I shouldn’t ridicule the poor bloke, but I can't resist.
Good luck Michael and Snowman
"And I'll miss you too, Snow Man. But most of all you, Scarecrow."
Cheers and good luck to you all
Crakar14
A gracious bow out, to be sure.
And thus ends a legendary tenure.
One line from the abominable Snowman deserves mention.
But, with some reluctance, I have decided to join Crakar and ride off into the sunset.
And thus depriving us ingrates of the riches of his insights. Snowman will no longer cast his pearls before swine.
I am not aware that Snowman made any point that was not either (1) a secondhand distortion of something he did not read, or (2) a “hip, hip huzzah!” for Crakar. I think he leaves under duress, not reluctance.
Coby, I’m already starting to miss these guys in a perverse way. Any chance for a “Crakar/Snowman Memorial Thread”?
If my flippancy becomes too annoying please feel free to shoot me down and shut me up, but I can see a place in the future to develop a whole vocabulary and nomenclature specific to this blog inspired by these dearly departed. Dhogaza could go off and try to “win one for the Crakar”. When a denier makes some asinine argument about ice core data or some such nonsense we could say, “Whoa. Its Snowing pretty heavy.” The possibilities are endless.
Crakar and Snow: maybe we’ll meet in cyberspace again sometime. I wish you well, mates.
I don’t know who is still interested in this “narrative” thread but I’ll still drop in occasionally with novel material that I think is relevant to the matter and/or to contribute to whatever discussion there might be.
So until the rapture, I’ll just keep patting your back, Coby.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 23, 2009 4:38 AM
Oh, no, it's a public service. I think most of us stand in awe of your ability to drive crack and snow off.
Though I rather suspect they'll be back ...
Posted by: dhogaza | October 23, 2009 7:56 AM
It amazes me that certain people are still trying to attack the idea of a consensus on global warming. But since they are, I offer this brief clarification:
The difference between a political consensus and a scientific consensus is that in the latter the way we vote does nothing to determine the way things work.
Posted by: Chris Winter | October 23, 2009 11:28 AM
Skip, don't sweat it. Like you said, crakar stuck around through some pretty abusive verbiage so I am hardly going to hold you responsible if he decides to leave.
I may take up your idea of a "memorial" posting for crakar and Snow, because I have very different opinions of each of them and it is an interesting contrast.
People come and go as they please on blogs, who kows the real reason, and goodbye is rarely forever anyway : )
Posted by: coby | October 24, 2009 12:48 AM
Joe Romm has a good story from the AP, where they asked a bunch of statisticians to identify trends in the global temperature record, without telling the statisticians that the numbers they were looking at were global temperatures. They couldn't identify a cooling trend. In other words, if you ask someone who is "unbiased" by skeptics' criteria, the conclusion is the same. Here's Joe's story:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/26/global-cooling-myth-statisticians-caldeira-superfreakonomics/
and my take on it:
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/10/blind-support-for-global-warming.html
Posted by: WAG | October 27, 2009 7:36 PM
I'll check that out, WAG.
Also, don't forget to check out George Marshall's [not the US Army war hero--the Brit climate guy] website. The whole site is dedicated to the psychology of global warming denial. (Can you say, "narrative"? I knew you could.)
It looks like things have simmered down considerably since the departure of Crakar and Snow (RIP), but this blog still has a purpose--at least I think it does; I try to send my denier friends here. Hence my personal vested interest.
Crazy idea for the forum:
Although I hogged bandwidth with my few mammoth postings, I actually visit this site more as a reader than a contributor. I really respect the command of the lit many of you fellows have. I have learned a lot. Very enlightening for an artsy fartsy.
However, one thing that struck me is how fellows like Crack and Snow (and some of their cohorts) would *repeat* the same arguments/references/straw men again. And again. And again. And then a few more times for good measure.
It might not have been a conscious strategy of malice (sort of like throwing up a smokescreen), but simple forgetfulness or craziness. I don't claim to know. But if Coby's fine work is to be maximally effective, it needs to be *efficient*. Having to argue the same point over and over and over is certainly too much for Coby (who has to babysit us as well as his 7-month-old) and probably too much for even strong and learned contributors like dhogaza and the rest of you fine gents.
I went back and re-read some of the threads where some clown would just rehash some asinine misuse of a source or repeat a non-starter critique of AGW and I thought, "what if the site had links that were *shortcuts*"?" It would be the same basic concept as Coby has set it up but it would be source specific. The Latif article is an example. I fully confess here I did not totally follow the arguments (from the old "hockey stick" thread) when I challenged Crak on it but I did notice this: After a series of dhogazian thrashings Craker was quick to abandon the claim that the Latif paper was an example of a "teeth gritting" AGW believer reluctantly abandoning the "faith". (Even after I, not really getting the key points, bluffed Crakar as to his take on the outcome of the exchange, he remained silent on the issue.)
The quick and ready explanations of how particular *sources* or articles (not just general *arguments*) that deniers pounce on are wrong/misused would save folks like dappled water, dhogaza, ian, luminous beauty, WAG, and others a *huge* amount of time.
The individual links would be something analogous to Coby's current setup, but just more detailed.
The advantage?
When, for example, some fool cites James Inhofe's minority report as "proof" that "one by one self respecting scientists are turning away from the AGW theory and declaring themselves as sceptics," then rather than having to walk the nitwit through the whole thing yet again, they response can just be *linked* to a pre-prepared subsection of Coby's blog.
The way it works now is that you get linked to a *previous* dialogue, where someone like Luminous Beauty completely schooled (god . . . sorry . . . forgetting his posting name) but then you have to sift through it all to figure out why. This way it would all be pithy and prepped.
The disadvantage? Time. Someone would have to do the leg-work. But think of it this way: you folks have been doing legwork *all this time*. Next time you rip on some denier's posting, put it in a format where it could be easily linked and then you would *never have to do it again.*.
God I'm wordy. Snowman was probably right about that, too. I have plenty more to say but I'll wait to see what this prelude inspires first.
Cheers,
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 27, 2009 11:13 PM
Skip, you could probably earn a living chasing away deniers from climate science blogs. Keep at it!.
Posted by: Dappledwater | October 28, 2009 12:23 AM
Skip: I've argued for a similar approach on other fora, and may have attempted some of the legwork myself if a new project hadn't taken priority (work huh, who needs it?).
On reflection I'd advocate going one step further - in moderating comments that bring up debunked talking points, just append the link to the refutation(s) to the end of the comment itself.
Posted by: Chris S. | October 28, 2009 12:59 AM
Skip, that's a great idea. I will work on this over the next couple weeks. It's too big for one person, so I think the best way to do it will be to give people access to a Google document, let them write and edit the documents, and then have it posted in one place. An Internet 2.0 solution to refuting idiocy.
Also, i've been thinking about non-science ways of convincing skeptics - specifically, showing how the market proves the reality of global warming. the story of Munich Re's sponsorship of the $400 billion Desertec project (solar power in the Sahara) seems to be a good example - if global warming were really all about politics, why would the world's largest reinsurance company be investing billions to stop its effects?
http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-believe-in-global-warming-ask.html
Posted by: WAG | November 3, 2009 11:06 AM
WAG:
Yeah the trick is to get various contributors to specialize in their little niche.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 3, 2009 12:14 PM
Skip - one time posting for me. You are disingenuous. You claim to want rational debate on the topic but you encourage the pack mentality of verbally lynching those who do not wholeheartedly support your views.
You are about on a par with the Crikey Pure Poison web site in Australia, and half a step ahead of Real Climate which does not even post rational contrarian views (I know... been blocked 3 times by "climate expert" Gavin Schmidt).
I am looking for an even-handed rational site on which to debate the issue. I am politically left leaning (by Australian standards) and started as a fence-sitter on the AGW debate. Unfortunately for your lot, the more shrill nonsense I read pushing AGW down my throat and the more reasoned arguments I saw against the case, the more I found myself in the "skeptical" camp.
Unwittingly, this is what sites like Pure Poison, Real Climate and this one create... a divisive atmosphere which tends to drive debaters into the corners and eventually away to sites supporting their stance. There is no middle ground here, so back to WUWT for me (most rational site I have found to date). At least they debunk there with science and not ad hominem and strawman arguments.
Posted by: Bulldust | November 5, 2009 8:11 PM
Hey Balldust:
Welcome to the party.
Do me this one favor: document my ad hominem and strawman arguments and I will eat each word for word.
I'm not perfect, mate, but I try. Show me the error of my ways and I will try to be the better man.
Of course if this is just a one time posting I fear I may never know exactly of what you speak.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 5, 2009 10:08 PM
@bulldust:
WUWT is rational? No wonder your comments have been declined at RealClimate. Most likely they contained old claims that have long been debunked. The rationality and science of WUWT is "everybody can see on the photo's that the data from the temp stations is wrong, no matter what analysis of the data says!".
Posted by: Marco | November 6, 2009 4:26 AM
Again, not that I assume anyone is still interested but in case anyone is I will post the occasional comment based on my email exchanges with anonymous climate skeptic D. Nyer. The purpose of this occasional comment will be to use D as a skeptical Everyman against whom people can compare their own experiences. I see remarkable parallels with Crakar and Snowman that are worth our while, but I also welcome lurking deniers to explain how really I am missing the boat and have missed D. Nyer’s piercing insights *or* I am using him as a straw man (that is, he’s actually *different* from most deniers). My comments on him are a point of departure, not the end of the journey.
Context for this post:
I once in exasperation asked D. Nyer the following question (paraphrasing): “What am I supposed to assume every time you ignore a direct question?”
His response was to—get this—ignore the question (!) and then try for the quick back-at-ya, calling me the master of the redirect and avoidance. He did not then, nor ever has he, offered any examples to back up this accusation. This is classic D., by the way. He has an amazing capacity to simply render assertions willy-nilly and then conveniently forget that he makes them, but more on this later. (Reminiscent of Michael or Balldust attempting a hit-and-run raid in which an accusation or weak reference is dropped like a hot potato and then followed by a quick retreat?)
In any event, I kept pressing on this. He had been pretty aggressive in his attempts to make the denier case as he understood it and I had of course been going after him with a number of questions for which I have, by the way, never received clear answers from self-espoused skeptics:
How do you get from scientific uncertainty (which is unavoidable), to the assumption that AGW is therefore not a problem?
How do you come to the conclusion that the relative costs of action on AGW are prohibitive when compared to inaction—which has tremendous costs unrelated to the climate issue?
Here’s what happened next; On 8/29 he assured me as follows:
I will assemble my "defense" with the scientific studies and whatnot that contrives to keep me assured that man made co2 is not something to design our future society around, or even to be concerned about in the slightest, let alone a matter of urgent action today. It will take some time.
Observe the dead giveaway that there is not even an attempt at objectivity. He “knew” what he would find ( . . . what contrives to keep me assured . . . ) before he even began supposedly *looking*. It is hauntingly parallel to Snowman, who would declare the whole thing a “political” struggle without even realizing how preposterous it made him look in the context of a scientific disagreement. Observe also the blind spot revealed by man made co2 is not something to design our future society around, even though that is *exactly* what mankind is doing (just not in the sense D. Nyer meant) by not acting on climate change.
A month later on 9/29 he stated:
i will wait the stated 2 to 3 weeks before addressing again.) all the best! :-)
And then on 9/30 he iterated:
some degree of [your questions] i believe i answered, . . . This, incidentally, is utterly false. He made one abysmal attempt at answering a series of my questions in which he simply ignored their points and defaulted to his blog talking points, but this is another story.
. . . some i considered rhetorical, and some..just no answer for yet.... :-)* . . . the necessary attention for more than just flippant responses is not available for a couple weeks yet.
[*there are a few of these blinky-winkies in every email, as I said before]
And of course still nothing after eight weeks and counting . . . .
The moral of the story: D. Nyer stuck his neck out on this issue in a very clumsy and cavalier way. Now he realizes the arguments for AGW are a serious matter--*not* the amusing side bar he’s been taught to ridicule. Truly examining the facts constitutes a colossal threat to his *narrative* interpretation of the world in which AGW proponents are risible religious zealots and his “side” the practical realists. He has been offered a fair chance to defend the views he originally advanced with such aggression, but that type of fair exchange has started to frighten him.
So he just avoids it. He promises a scathing response that of course will never come. This way he can pretend (1) the answers to the hard-hitting questions exist, and (2) he’s just the man to provide them, and thus is “right”, even though he will never actually address the points, and thus will never actually have to come up with those answers (the investigation of which might show him to in fact be *wrong*). He will just stall, even as he affirms to himself the fiction that he will tear me to shreds in a couple weeks yet. In this manner the narrative can be kept on life support indefinitely, and at no mental cost. Remember the kids on the playground who assured you they could kick your ass but wouldn’t because they’d “get in trouble” with their mom?
None of this is to suggest D. Nyer is a bad guy—quite the opposite. It shows the potency of a dearly held narrative interpretation of the world and how it affects human behavior under threat/duress even among the well-intended.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 10, 2009 3:03 AM
In comment #36, Skip suggested a central repository of misrepresented studies organized by the study itself rather than the argument - so any time the study is cited by skeptics, there's an easy place to go. I think this is a good candidate for an inaugural entry:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? (on WUWT: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/)
I've emailed the author with a link to a Google Document he can edit (waiting to hear back). Anyone have suggestions for other sources to contribute? Likely expertise would be in the carbon cycle and carbon sinks (soil, ocean, land use, etc.)
Posted by: WAG | November 11, 2009 7:18 AM
WAG:
Good start. Lets see what Coby says when he gets back.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 12, 2009 11:16 AM