(why am I thinking about cocaine now?)
So recently two very prolific climate contrarian commenters picked up their toys and went home. Skip did a nice piece on that surprise event.
crakar was one of my most prolific commenters, contributing about 100 comments per month since last December. He always struck me as a congenial fellow but he was definately antagonistic to the science of global warming and contributed mainly misinformation and misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I am actually a bit sorry to see him go on a personal level even though his presence was on balance a negative contribution.
I think that crakar approached this issue somewhat like a game, where he had his chosen side and used whatever he could to defend it and whatever he could to attack the other side. The problem with this is that this is not a game, this is a globally unfolding event with serious and potentially tragic consequences for millions upon millions, if not all of humanity. It is that serious, which is why tolerance of his brand of wilful ignorance is not really an option despite his likely (and clearly thoughtless) sincerity.
I got flack from otherwise friendly followers of AFTIC for not banning him and perhaps I should have. I am still internally debating this question. As it happened, things worked out even better in the sense that his continuous regurgitation of fully debunked arguments have ceased and I did not have to use the nuclear option on him.
My feelings about Snowman are very different. In my opinion, it is very likely he was here on assignment. He openly acknowledged that his idea of the debate was political and not scientfic even while he tried to argue about the science. He wrote very eloquently, with a stylish flourish that was matched only but its complete detachment from reality. His first couple of days here, he tried being his own sockpuppet but when called on it silently ceased and did not try again. While I found crakar to be totally wrong but generally sincere, Snowman I would describe as sociopathic in his disregard for intellectual honesty.
To me, crakar represents a demographic that should be talked to. His "type", if I may, can possibly be reached and if not at least he can be effectively and publically refuted. Time consuming, I know! Snowman on the other hand is just here to kick sand in everyone's face all the while with a disingenuous smile. Him, I will not miss!
Environment
Education
Comments
Interesting theories about Crakar and Snow, Coby.
Obviously you knew their posted material better than I.
Not sure Snowman was a sociopath. I still would advance my pet "narrative about narratives". If he was just a hatchet man devoid of any morality or concern for the truth (as I suspect Lord Monckton might be) he would never have *admitted* that he saw the whole dispute in purely political terms. That he could just celebrate this feature of himself without shame suggests he did not fully grasp how utterly absurd it made him look. No self-respecting sociopath would have been so transparent.
Another thing I notice about these deniers is how nice they try to at least act. I'm starting to get a handle on why. I base some of this not just on my observations of Snowcrack but on my exchanges with "D. Nyer", a denier friend who wants to remain anonymous but who has given me permission to use his written debates with me for publication. He's kind of an archetypal Everycrank, leaning heavily on the the standard blogs and blather, typically repeating it for me or just linking it hoping to score points. But although he's caustic at times he's never mean.
He once rhetorically asked me:
Question: who loses more sleep of this issue? the so called deniers or the ..."enlightened?"
Question: who is happier with his fellow man? the so called deniers or the "enlightened?"
Question: who is enjoying a better quality of daily life.. the 'denier' or the sleep-deprived misanthrope? ;-)
(By the way, the little ";)" winky-smiley-face thing recurs in D. Nyer's statements *constantly*.)
D. actually thought this was a coherent argument: "My position makes me happy and friendly. Yours does not. I must be correct and you must be wrong."
These guys think we're misanthropes who want to reduce greenhouse emissions because its a pretext to make people miserable. They get this from somewhere; I'm not sure where. It might be the high overlap between Ayn Rand acolytes and denial. The Randies are keen to believe that those of us who don't see it their way suffer from congenital loathing of self and others. Our socialist escapades are somehow part of a project of psychic and moral genocide. Maybe all this friendliness is their way of showing us the love of a Skeptical Jesus--or something.
Crakar, I think, articulate as he was, just had a cog missing. I'll be the first to admit that I am an intellectual coward because I cannot stand to be wrong about anything. My acceptance of AGW as a credible threat is born as much from a chickenshit hesitancy to challenge a majority of scientific opinion as a socially responsible posture. I try to hold as few opinions as possible so as to minimize my chance of error.
But not Crakar. He had it in his head that AGW was false and he was going to take take this evangel to the heathen. He just somehow couldn't see it when he would get ripped. We all have to tell ourselves something, I guess. Somehow being shown to be utterly wrong just bounced off him.
You're going to see some of the same phenomena as I go through and dissect some of the comments from D. Nyer (aka "D. Nye The Non-Science Guy"). But more on that later.
Skip
Posted by: skip | October 31, 2009 5:50 AM
The climate debate has become heavily enclaved. Bitchiness is dominant and the idea of *changing minds* is often a sop to an obvious relish for smiting, despite the occasional hand-on-heart avowals of higher purpose. I've seen this happen all over the climate blogosphere and it saddens me. Take a big step back and look at the latest crakar threads. WTF? This site is meant to be about the science, isn't it? One poster's arguments and approach is 'deconstructed' in probably the longest set of serial posts on one subject ever on this blog.
I haven't burrowed into the comments here much lately. The decadence of pinning down the ilk of crakar and snowman for hours on end, weeks, months on end, while claiming to be trying to shift the balance of understanding towards a better world.... it's too specious to stomach.
Climate activists (like myself) are no longer doing good works on the net but whittling the enemy with knives sharpened on google. Surely no one here actually believes they will persuade anyone of anything by being antagonistic, no matter how well-corroborated or reasoned their attempt? The departure of crakar and snowman tells us all we need to know about the value of psychoanalysing the skpetics, however accurate the analysis. We need the patience of Job and a sense of inclusiveness, even with the most pitiful denialism if there's any chance of making headway. Otherwise it's all blowhard wankery: self-indulgence, not effective activism.
If I have misjudged the purpose of this blog, I apologise for my comments, but not for my concern.
Posted by: barry | October 31, 2009 8:58 PM
Barry: I see what you're saying and take your point BUT it's not only about influencing the denier him/herself. There is also the other lurkers who are perhaps still undecideds. They need to see the arguments laid out before them and if we just ignore the denialists they get a free go. I know there are disadvantages to arguing with them, but on balance I think it's helps the cause. Most of the "converted" are irretrievable; sea-level will be at their doorstep and the temperature 8 degrees hotter and the world starving and they'll still be questioning "the science". For them it's about politics, not truth or science. But they're out there proselytising all the time and we need to counter that.
Best
Greg
Posted by: greg | November 1, 2009 12:20 AM
Btw, anyone know what's going on with the Argo ocean temp readings? I see deniers saying something about that? What's going on?
Posted by: greg | November 1, 2009 12:23 AM
Barry: I see what you're saying and take your point BUT it's not only about influencing the denier him/herself. There is also the other lurkers who are perhaps still undecideds. They need to see the arguments laid out before them and if we just ignore the denialists they get a free go.
Exactly. It was never about converting Crakar.
Skip
Posted by: skikp | November 1, 2009 3:29 AM
Can we continue with the task of answering crakar's assertions? So far, that's generated some useful tangents.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 1, 2009 6:00 AM
Greg, see here: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/10/how_to_talk_to_crakar_3.php
If you go to Ari Jokimaki's blog there's links to more recent studies.
Posted by: Dappledwater | November 1, 2009 10:43 AM
Hi all,
Well, I must say I'm sorry to see Craker and Snowman go.
I believe Craker is right when he says you will all just be able to pat yourselves on the back without he and Snowman.
As everybody's best pal Mr Monbiot says:
"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it."
I am certainly not able to give rebuttals of anywhere near the calibre of those two.
I will continue to "lurk" around here if that's ok though.
By the way, I have read this blog extensively, and I cannot for the life of me, work out WHY the two would tell lies.
I sincerely cannot figure out any motive for disagreeing with AGW other than (like me) a desire for the facts, AND both sides of the argument.
Could the more abusive posters please give me a reasoned argument as to WHY?
I am not connected to "big oil", "big business", or "big anything", and I don't think Craker and Snowman are either.
I have maintained since I began posting here that the entire, repeat entire AGW debate is political.
I'd like to get some feedback from y'all on the up-coming "left-wing-love-in" in Copenhagen, and it's true agenda, of establishing a World Government, and the prospect of all the Western countries OWING a Carbon/Emissions Debt to un-developed countries.
I have included this link, which comes straight from the horses mouth.
See if you can read it. (it's not easy)
As it's a pdf document, it's easy to do a "find next" search for the word DEBT.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
As AGW believers, is this what you are working towards? Is a World Government what you desire?
Perhaps you genuinely believe that this is the best way for us to go.
I most certainly do not.
I look forward to reasoned replies. (I'd rather not be called names, or see any "ad hominem strawmen".)
Posted by: Michael | November 1, 2009 5:42 PM
Imagine for a moment that this was our goal.
Would gravity stop working the moment you learn this? Would CO2 stop being a greenhouse gas?
Now go reflect on how silly your question is.
Posted by: dhogaza | November 1, 2009 5:52 PM
And improve your reading comprehension skills if you believe this is what's up.
Are you living in a world-wide dictatorship in which your government has ceded its sovereignty because of the existence of the World Bank or International Trade Commission?
Posted by: dhogaza | November 1, 2009 5:54 PM
Michael shows his true colours:
Are you really that stupid that you cannot see that the opposite of facts are lies? There are not two sides, there are scientifically proven facts and the lies, distortions, cherry picks and misinformation of the deniers.
You are an arrogant anti-science ignoramus. I haven't a clue why you adopt your position and what's more I don't care. All I care about is that arrogant ignoramuses like you do not get your way and cause untold harm to future generations.
There, I have been abusive but you people deserve it.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | November 1, 2009 6:15 PM
I am certainly not able to give rebuttals of anywhere near the calibre of those two.
Hey Michael: you probably meant this as a backhanded compliment to SnowCrack but it looks like an unintended self-criticism in disguise.
So, given what you said, please enlighten us with an example of a Snowman or Crakar rebuttal that you thought to be particularly impressive—you know, the kind so impressive that you felt yourself unworthy of its substance. I am genuinely interested.
I have read this blog extensively, and I cannot for the life of me, work out WHY the two would tell lies.
If you believe it and say it, its not a lie—even if its false. This is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Crak and Snow, in my view were/are not “liars” as such; they just believed bullshit to begin with.
I sincerely cannot figure out any motive for disagreeing with AGW other than (like me) a desire for the facts, AND both sides of the argument.
Then you should be amenable to a lively debate on the subject! How joyful. Here’s a start: Which of the “common answers to deniers” points on this blog are wrong? Please tell! After all, Michael, you “have” (in your words), “a desire for the facts, AND both sides of the argument,” correct? This zeal should certainly animate your ready critique of Coby et al. Please proceed. (I’m waiting . . . . )
Could the more abusive posters please give me a reasoned argument as to WHY?
I am not connected to "big oil", "big business", or "big anything", and I don't think Craker and Snowman are either.
One word, my friend: “Narratives”.
I have maintained since I began posting here that the entire, repeat entire AGW debate is political.
Your key failing.
I'd like to get some feedback from y'all on the up-coming "left-wing-love-in" in Copenhagen, and it's true agenda, of establishing a World Government, and the prospect of all the Western countries OWING a Carbon/Emissions Debt to un-developed countries.
Your contention is so absurd I want to give you a chance to retract out of self respect. Do you stand by this statement above, Michael? If you gracefully duck out now I will not pursue the matter. What in fact do you think your cited blog proves?
As AGW believers, is this what you are working towards? Is a World Government what you desire?
Perhaps you genuinely believe that this is the best way for us to go.
I most certainly do not..
Yes. I see. And I appreciate your stalwart support for freedom . . . anyway, Michael: Have you and I had a good talk yet about the idea of “narratives”? (Yes, I know, I know . . . but shut up you assholes . . . )
I look forward to reasoned replies.
We will see how long that lasts.
(I'd rather not be called names, or see any "ad hominem strawmen".)
I’m trying to think how this collision of fallacies is possible. You actually have me thinking . . . .
Ah, Yes! How about this:
“Dhogaza is a God-hating atheist and a servant of the DEVIL! Therefore we can dismiss anything he says as false because the devil is a liar! Since Dhogaza claims the AGW hypothesis is true, and since the devil is a liar, we can conclude that AGW is false.”
Maybe it does not capture the straw man dynamic perfectly but its close.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 1, 2009 9:52 PM
Micheal:
crakar and Snowman offered nothing new, so your take on this as most others things you comment on is wildly off base. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but really you are very wrong on such basic points and you never demonstrate that you have learned anything. As for your impression of the debate, if it is political for you that is entirely because that is how you chose to approach it. Since it is actually a scientific topic, this approach tends to rub people the wrong way.
come on, be honest. Two sentences after saying this you revealed your own motive, you think this is all a conspiracy to impose a World Goverment on you. Anyone capable of really believing that has no grasp of reality and therefore is clearly incapable of having a worthwhile opinon on a complex scientific topic.
That is not to say that world wide conspiracies are impossible or that there are groups trying to influence/control world economics and governments, but it is not greenpeace and the NAS. That is actually quite amusing to think about...
Posted by: coby | November 1, 2009 10:08 PM
Did you guys read the document?
If you didn't, why didn't you? Have you got a good reason?
(I expect this to be quoted, accompanied by some glib or abusive remark)
How can you both so blindly trust the information that is produced by, or vetted by the IPCC?
I have faithfully clicked on most of the links you both have provided since I found this blog, and virtually invariably, the info you jump to comes from the same sources as if it's gospel truth!
I find it mindboggling that you simply refuse to listen to ANY source that might disagree, and you are immediately abusive.
You claim to be scientists, but you are not terribly scientific if someone disagrees with you.
Ian Forrester, please explain to me and every other reader, exactly why you think I deserve your abuse.
Dhogaza,what the hell has gravity got to do with it? (other than being another strawman)
I'm sorry, but I thought I would not need to specifically state that I DO NOT BELIEVE CO2 IS CAUSING WARMING.
I BELIEVE THE IPCC IS A POLITICAL ORGANISATION AND NOT A SCIENTIFIC ORGANISATION. (to clarify further, I DO NOT believe that the "scientific" information that comes from the IPCC is the scientific truth!)
Is this clear??
By the way, I DO believe the earth's climate is changing! I DO believe the temperatures, sea levels, deserts, rainforests, glaciers etc, rise and fall, expand and recede continually.
I DO NOT believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing it!
Is this clear??
I realise that all I'll get in response to this post is personal attacks and abuse.
I'll still visit this blog every now and then to see what's happening, but otherwise, I'll leave you to continue to swap agreeable fairytales.
So, Auf Wiedersehen and abysinia!
Posted by: Michael | November 1, 2009 10:46 PM
To any lurkers:
I swear, as Whatever God There Might Be is my witness: As far as I know Michael is *not*--repeat--*not* an AGW plant to make our "side" looks smart and the denier "side" look dumb.
Did you guys read the document?
If you didn't, why didn't you? Have you got a good reason?
I confess: not the whole thing, no. Now, Michael, I will ask you *exactly* the same question, and repeat *my earlier* question:
(1) Did *you* read it?
(2) What exactly, do you think this document proves? You've hinted earlier but I want to give you ample rope by which to hang yourself.
Speak boldly, man.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 1, 2009 11:02 PM
Greg,
There is also the other lurkers who are perhaps still undecideds. They need to see the arguments laid out before them and if we just ignore the denialists they get a free go.
I'm talking about the way we go about it. It would appear we believe these lurking 'undecideds' will overlook or even enjoy the vitriol, smugness, sarcasm and abuse heaped on skeptics, while absorbing the bits of pertinent substance.
Discussions peppered with clever (and not-so-artful) snark play well to the converted, but is a dubious methodology for the undecided lurkers we are trying to enlighten, IMO. There's a fair chance that fence-sitters, of various degrees of enthusiasm and staying-power, may come away with the idea that we activists are cultish, given to irrational outbursts, and just plain rude - especially if they came via skeptical websites. For many, that will be the message, not the science, and they'll leave fast. We can high-horse about how its just the science that matters and that the denialists are given to rhetoric, but if we indulge in the scrum, foregoing the principle, how does this garner confidence from visitors?
I had an interesting experience at greenfyre's a little while ago (where I explored this theme a little). I took a different view on the Monbiot/Plimer affair and the treatment I got was astonishing! I was unknown there, and they were pretty much convinced I was a meddlesome denialist, despite my protests otherwise - I was even told to go join my 'friends' at WUWT. I'd already noticed that things had become involuted on the various climate blogs; this was the clincher for me. The other posters will have their own, valid takes, but if the culture amongst them wasn't so hard-bitten and suspicious to begin with, I would have been forgiven my oppositon, I'm sure, and we could have explored my concerns together. But how would a doubtful fence-sitter fare if they treated someone who was aligned with them like that? So went the narrative in my head. :-)
I find the science highly interesting. I also find the psychological or ideological conceits of alleged skeptics interesting, and I want to unlace them - much as Skip has been doing quite persuasively. And this is part of the purpose of this site, I guess; to 'expose' the denialist mind or some such. But if the higher purpose is to persuade, by force of reason, that the mainstream view of climate change is robust, then I would put my trust in the science, leery of emphasising personalities too much.
I've noticed that a social culture can come to dominate an intellecual one at science blogs, after some time. Reckon that's happening here? I'm rather fond of Coby's blog, having been a lurker and occasional poster since illconsideredblogspot, which I visited early on the endless road to understanding.
Again, if I'm off-base, I apologise. Do others do as I do and come back to the question, "what do I hope to achieve here?" Or is that too prim or austere or something, and a barrel of snark and rowdy in the comments section is actually a good thing?
Oh, sometimes I want to reach through the screen and shake sense into, or honesty out of, the ideologically bound and the intellectually dishonest. I know how frustrating things can be. That's when I know not to post immediately. I suffer lapses, crowding the substance with bile and superciliousness. When I review later, I do so as if I'm a neutral reader, and usually realize I've beggared my purpose.
Posted by: barry | November 2, 2009 2:11 AM
Good morning, fellas. (Had to get up early to turn of the slow cooker . . . making veggie chili.)
Hey Barry your points are well taken. Just remember that some of the more vicious abusers on this site have had to deal with stunningly frustrating tactics from the likes of SnowCrack and so forth over the past couple of years and eventually people just snap.
Right before his departure Crakar pulled one of his more remarkable diversionary tactics and I have to admit it pissed me off. I didn't give him quite a Dhogazian tongue lashing but I can see how I could be driven to it if he had pulled that type of thing on me again and again and again.
And remember: At some point there really is no nice way to disagree. Observe the posts by Michael above. Pure repetition of secondhand narratives and blatant "dogma propping" with the link to the UN document.
I mean, maybe he really did read it, and maybe the report of the Framework Convention on Climate Change really is a confession by the UN to a plan for One World Government; I guess I have to remain technically open to anything since I did not read all 181 pages . . . but come on. Even if the UN really was trying to create the New World Order do you think they'd announce it so stupidly?
So far it looks just like everything else I've seen from deniers. They cite and blog things they don't read/understand to give their arguments a patina of credibility, and when they're called on it, they fade away into the nether regions of the blogosphere. I seriously doubt, for example, that Michael is going to stick around long to defend his crazy claims about the FCCC report. He will most likely ignore my questions and then resurface in a few months having erased any memory of his silly postings here. Or maybe not--I should try to remain open to anything. Who knows: maybe Michael will point out a sinister passage in the report that makes me want to stock up on my shotgun shells--and veggie chili.
So in the end, Barry, while I appreciate your concern for and advocacy of polite debate, at some point someone needs to call bullshit by its name. There is no nice way to do that in the end.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 2, 2009 5:13 AM
"I find it mindboggling that you simply refuse to listen to ANY source that might disagree, and you are immediately abusive."
On the contrary, I think a huge amount of time is spent on sources that disagree, such as they are. That's much of the reason this website even exists. I do think some here are needlessly abusive, and they should try to temper that, but that can be hard to suppress after debunking the same baseless idea for the millionth time.
"I DO NOT believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing it!"
That's an emotional and wholly unscientific statement, if there ever was one. Let me try my own version: "I DO NOT believe that a trace cell in our body - a few bacterial cells - can cause disease!"
Posted by: carrot eater | November 2, 2009 11:46 AM
LOL.
"D. Nyer" has tried the same argument with me:
. . . co2 is the smallest component (or among the smallest) of our atmosphere.
There are so many stunning things about arguments like this. Deniers eagerly absorb and regurgitate them as silver bullet arguments like AGW, never asking themselves the most obvious question: "Did no one ever think of this?"
Its apparent that D. Nyer and Michael rely on the same blogs for cherry picked arguments such as this.
For the record, my response was:
"AND ARSENIC WAS THE SMALLEST COMPONENT OF RASPUTIN’S SABATOGED WINE. WHAT DOES THIS PROVE?" [I was using all caps at that time for responding because of a snafu with the email.]
Basic same analogy as you, carrot. Thought you'd appreciate the show of solidarity.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 2, 2009 12:24 PM
. . . silver bullet arguments like AGW . . .
sorry. should read, "silver bullet arguments *against* AGW"
skip
Posted by: skip | November 2, 2009 12:25 PM
Coby, if you're certain about Snowman you might consider updating your post with his I.P. address, so it'll be easier to identify him elsewhere.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | November 2, 2009 12:30 PM
while I appreciate your concern for and advocacy of polite debate
Polite is a mode. I'm talking about being effective.
I have lived through the frustrations you describe and then some: the zombie canon rising from the denialist murk again and again in various attire, the ideological underpinnings unconvincingly masked with garish reasoning. Eventually you get off on the pain of butting your head against the wall and the satisfaction of always being right. The descent into obsession is veiled by the now-shallow narrative of the noble cause.
Some cli-sci blog luminary (can't remember who) made a post on effective discussion, and he likewise advised that posting one's frustration is counterproductive. He put this much better than I and was rightly heralded for his common sense. (Perhaps someone remembers who it was?)
"I DO NOT believe that a trace gas in the atmosphere is causing it!"
That's an emotional and wholly unscientific statement, if there ever was one. Let me try my own version: "I DO NOT believe that a trace cell in our body - a few bacterial cells - can cause disease!"
Heh. How many times I have retorted thus! Let me add that an increase measured in parts per billion of ozone depleting gases in the atmosphere made a dent in the ozone layer the size of Australia. This is orders of magnitude less than the increase of atmospheric CO2. From little things big things can come.
Posted by: barry | November 2, 2009 1:47 PM
skip: Glad to see we honed in on the same analogy.
barry: Forget the CFCs, as the deniers probably reject that chemistry, as well. But ozone itself is probably the best one: there's less ozone than CO2 up there, and yet its absorption properties are also important.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 2, 2009 2:20 PM
Forget the CFCs, as the deniers probably reject that chemistry, as well. But ozone itself is probably the best one: there's less ozone than CO2 up there, and yet its absorption properties are also important.
You think deniers will jive to the IR/absorptive properties of ozone more readily than the consequences of its depletion?
Some deniers focus on ozone depletion, all right. Because they think that answers the problem of the atmospheric signature of greenhouse warming - a cooling stratosphere.
'Course, we'd love Michael to have a chat with these deniers. Their positions are contradictory. But they never will, because the impetus for them is not curiosity, but the rationalization of a pre-ordered conclusion. Thus, Michael may take this (erroneous) tidbit I've mentioned and incorporate it into his canon, utterly mindless of the contradiction now in his general argument. Deniers prioritise opportunism over coherence.
A series of never-ending battles await. Patience is key if the war is to be won.
Posted by: barry | November 2, 2009 3:07 PM
"Because they think that answers the problem of the atmospheric signature of greenhouse warming - a cooling stratosphere."
That is very true. The few sceptics sophisticated enough to have an answer to stratospheric cooling do invoke the ozone hole (and in truth, that is certainly part of the story in the stratosphere). Though do these guys dispute there has been ozone depletion, or just that it was CFCs that did it?
My experience is that climate scepticism correlates well with CFC-ozone scepticism.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 2, 2009 3:24 PM
I obviously don't hang out here and when I stopped in, I was mildly surprised to see all the energy expended on crakar.
I thought we all knew the debate is long over and we are going to vote on a carbon bill in this country. The ship has left the dock, and the small percentage of people left behind aren't enough reason to turn the ship around.
We should be expending energy on discussing and acting on how to adapt and mitigate, rather than banging our heads against a wall trying to educate the few % who refuse to be educated.
Suspected paid or unpaid shills like snowman are a different story, however, and should be exposed. Exposing something we all know - that denial is a part of the human condition - is like saying the sky is blue.
My 2¢
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | November 2, 2009 5:16 PM
I would love some quality debating from quality skeptics to challenge currently held conventions.
Having seen many attempts at challenging the idea of Co2 causes temperature increase, I am now very confident in my beliefs that Co2 will cause a significant temperature increase.
However I haven't seen much attempt at challenging the idea that the consequences of this temperature rise will be really really bad. Well the occasional attempt to show that hurricane frequency isn't increasing (which I think is quite possible), and the occasional 'Co2 is fertiliser' or 'High Co2 warm periods in the past were tropical paradises'.
But what arguments are we missing out on because we can never get past the million and first iteration of 'its cooled in the last 8 years' or 'UHI makes it impossible to measure temperatures' or 'It snowed in X last week'.
For instance maybe in a warming world our clever intentors will come up with unexpected ways of increasing our crop yields and increasing productivity with new crops that can take advantage of higher co2, higher temps and less frequent but heavier rainfall. But how will we know unless the idea is debated? Maybe its just not an idea that can be meaningfully debated and we'll never know until someone figures out how to actually do it.
I do sometimes wonder whether climate change will no be the major disaster it is sometimes painted as, and whether we might be better off with a cautious response such as the compromise we seem likely to get targetting say 550. But we'll never know because the arguments against climate change are so idiotic that the only position with any credibility is 'we'd better get to 350 because otherwise all the polar bears will die and a mass extinction will surely mean us humans as well' (maybe a bit of a strawman but I hope you know what I'm getting at).
And we either over-react and do more damage to our economy than is warranted, or decide the whole things is hopeless and there is no point acting on climate and we under-react to the true threat.
I would dearly love to see some quality skpeticims as quality skepticism makes us wiser. However rubbish skepticism just wastes everyone's time and makes it very difficult to hear or recognise any quality skepticism.
Posted by: Michael hauber | November 3, 2009 6:12 PM
Michael hauber: I do agree that most of the noise has been regarding the physics, and relatively less of it on the impacts of climate change - which is what actually matters. Beyond the vague topics you mention, I've heard disputes over whether warming would affect certain diseases, like malaria.
I don't have a background in medicine, biology or agronomy, and I've been too lazy to read WGII or other literature, so I also wonder about these topics from a position of ignorance. But we won't learn about them via debate on blogs with cranks and sceptics; we'll learn about it by reading literature published by the wide array of people in those fields.
I wonder how optimistic biologists are regarding the potential to improve crop yields in changing environments via genetic modification. I suppose I should stop being lazy and actually read the literature.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 3, 2009 6:47 PM
carrot eater and Michael Hauber:
Getting plants to take the extra CO2 isn't really a problem, although there are some upper limits there (but probably not 450 ppmv). The big problem is that plants, like any living being, are build up from more than just C, H, and O atoms. They also need N, S, P, and a whole range of trace metals, etc. etc. In many places N, S, P, etc. are the limiting factors (and you can't create those by genetic engineering). Not necessarily for plant growth, but for its suitability as a food source. There's no gain in getting bigger plants with a lower nutritional value per weight. We, and animals, would have to eat more of those plants.
Posted by: Marco | November 3, 2009 10:55 PM
Michael & carrot eater (#27 & 28): For agriculture I'd suggest this issue of the Journal of Experimental Botany would be a good place to start: http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol60/issue10/ (unfortunately the full texts are paywalled but the abstracts are readable). There are some good review papers there & also an indication of what research is currently underway in that area.
Posted by: Chris S. | November 4, 2009 2:03 AM
Chris S: Thank you. Review articles are the best place to start reading on an unfamiliar field. Paywall not a problem here.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 4, 2009 8:09 AM
I know what you mean, Michael and Carrot. Just how bad will AGW really be? Could we work through/with it?
There was a really neat Nova special on PBS (a repeat, I think but I'd never seen it). It was part I in a trilogy about how humans evolved. One main insight was that the conventional wisdom--that we evolved into bipeds with big brains to transition out of trees into the complex world of the savanna--is really being challenged. Now some scholars are saying the big brain was the response to a *dynamic* environment with big temperature and precipitation swings over the courses of a thousand years or less. The smart ones could respond to change, and passed on their genes for creativity and flexibility. Could we (or really our kids and their kids) manage the same trick in the face of AGW?
No doubt some will. But the other side of the this evolutionary coin is that some did *not* make it. For me, the whole point of taking long term precaution against AGW is to *avoid* the cruel efficiency of Darwinism.
Besides, we have numerous *other* reasons--strategic, economic, ethical--to reduce our greenhouse emissions. There are short term "costs" of reduction but its a long run win for everyone except fossil fuel vendors if we act.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 4, 2009 11:52 AM
skip: On the time scales we're looking at, and the climate shifts we're talking about, it isn't human evolution I'm thinking about. Man himself will physically be fine; it's the other life forms I'm worried about - the things we eat, the things they eat, the insects that attack our crops, and so on. We can hopefully genetically engineer some drought- or flood-resistant crops where they're needed (something we need to do even without climate change), but the impacts on other life forms and the resulting impacts on us, if any, seem difficult to predict.
Chris S: thanks again for the link. Nice review articles.
Posted by: carrot eater | November 4, 2009 8:23 PM
I figured I'd weigh in on the crakar/Snowman issue since I spent some time trying to talk to them. I'm glad you didn't ban them. I'm not a huge fan of banning. I don't mind in-line removal of dross, though, and I think it should be applied evenly.
Anyways, dealing with crakar was like playing whack-a-mole with no prize at the end. He had a few issues that couldn't be dealt with by way of actual science. They were always going to come back. Forever. I personally don't think there was any way to ever sway him, because I think he was just a contrarian and nothing but.
Snowman was pure poison; a politician. He should have been banned before crakar. His comments were content-free, unless you count pure rhetoric and insinuation. I stopped talking to him when I realized that any valid point I made would be danced around with claims that my style of communication was strange and incomprehensible.
Posted by: pough | November 4, 2009 9:44 PM
Australia's National News website, Climate Change Special Coverage Feature.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/04/2732928.htm
It's late, I've had a number of red wines....
I thought this article was an "interesting case in point", especially for this thread.
Posted by: anon | November 5, 2009 4:58 AM
Oh, God . . . just what we need.
It might result in positive behavioral changes but I can *feel* the denialsphere's spin on this.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 5, 2009 7:30 AM
Some of my favorite denier arguments simplified to their core with a few retorts:
Small things can't possibly harm big things - obviously these people have never gotten sick from a virus or bacteria, nor known anyone else to have gotten sick (or even die) from a virus or bacteria.
If some is good, more is better - since this is the case, I recommend all deniers start taking IVs of iron. Humans need iron to live, ergo we should inject as much as possible into our bodies.
If something happened one way once, it can't happen another way now - Henceforth all forest fires can rightly be attributed to natural causes, as it is impossible that a man with a match and tinder could have started it. Only nature can do that. Also, all murderers shall be set free, as humans have previously died of natural causes.
Posted by: James | November 13, 2009 1:04 PM
James, yup, I've used the bacteria and murder analogies quite a few times. But the information either, goes in the deniers brain and falls out again, or doesn't get absorbed in the first place. Strange that.
Posted by: Dappledwater | November 13, 2009 5:57 PM
But they are still excellent analogies.
Skip
Posted by: skip | November 13, 2009 10:40 PM