James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science journalist based in western North Carolina, where he tries to put degrees in marine biology and journalism to good use.
I've got a post up at my other blog, where I write about climate change for the Weather Channel's Forecast Earth site, that briefly discusses James Hansen's new paper on appropriate targets for CO2 levels. I still intend to write something more consequential here, but in the meantime, I thought I'd draw ScienceBlogs readers' attention to the reaction at the TWC blog. Here's a selection:
After we are done manipulating global carbon dioxide plant food levels to within a couple parts per million of sheer evolutionary perfection, then we'll get to work on that thermostat-wired-over-to-the-sun thingy. Of course it will have energy saver mode for those days when we are on the moon for vacation. Professahhhh | November 12, 2008And those are the relatively polite ones. Sometimes I get a friendly note of support, but not on this one.This was all tongue in cheek - right? Right? roflmao
Roy the Rofler | November 12, 2008dude stop embarrassing yourself by citing hansen and giss. are you a masochist?
Anonymous | November 12, 200875 ppm is nothing. With the proper green recipes and eco-decorations, we should be able handle that no problem. don'tcha think James?
Read my comment | November 12, 2008Oh golly, if only he would revise those numbers again - he might be given a Nobel Prize. lol Or actually ten Nobel prizes, one for each of the keystone-cop authors. Did Hansen actually write anything past his signiture? I suspect he is just being used as a brand name. Or, do you suppose he paid to join this paper, so he could salvage his wrecked reputation and stop being the laughingstock of anyone who seriously researches this topic? It probably is very emotionally draining to be the whipping boy of every fact checker out there. I bet he did pay to buy into this paper -to try and gain back some credibility.
Willie | November 12, 2008You wrote - "Whatever you think of Hansen, you can't dismiss that fact that his nine co-authors are respectable scientists from respectably institutions, including: The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA)." hahahahahah OOPS. They did it AGAIN!!!!! hahahaha
Britney Spears | November 12, 2008James is saving the planet by continously recycling the same old garbage.
NoKoolAid4Me | November 11, 2008
Now, I admit that I write such posts knowing full well that the regular readership includes a fair number of people who have nothing better to do than attack anyone who agrees with the AGW hypothesis. Indeed, I keep hammering away with the science in hopes that other, silent types, will make better use of the information, and maybe a few of the persistent pseudo-skeptics might actually begin to doubt their own convictions. What I don't get is the vitriol that accompanies so much of the climate change pseudo-skepticism.
It's one thing to be ill-informed and childish. It's another to be so full of bile you have to be careful to ensure your drool doesn't dissolve your keyboard. Most of the libelous commentary is aimed at James Hansen, who is called a liar, a hack and a charlatan, among other things. What I want to know is, where does this vitriol come from? I can understand it in field that generate conflict between faith and science (evolution) or medicine (parents of autistic children looking for someone to blame). But climate change? What gives?
Environment
Comments
"What I want to know is, where does this vitriol come from? I can understand it in field that generate conflict between faith and science (evolution) or medicine (parents of autistic children looking for someone to blame). But climate change? What gives?"
They believe that the scientists who accept global warming are part of a leftist/environmentalist conspiracy to destroy the market economies of America and the West.
Posted by: Ericb | November 13, 2008 1:43 PM
I just submitted this there:
"James do you deny that temperatures have been falling over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have increased?"
First, it is bad statistics to select your start year on the basis that it is an outlier. Second, I calculated the regression and yes, it is still positive. The fact that 1998 was exceptionally high causes an optical illusion.
It is instructive that the other comments, without exception that I could see, all fling abuse but have no substance. Come on, guys! Science is not decided by who can hurl the worst insults. You need to tackle the arguments in the paper and show why it is wrong. Until you can do that, your invective counts for nothing.
(except I had a typo, now corrected)
Posted by: Richard Simons | November 13, 2008 1:57 PM
Look, the people who have time to sit around reading and commenting on blogs are generally not exactly the most productive members of society, if you know what I mean. Oh, wait, what time is it now?
Posted by: Moopheus | November 13, 2008 2:39 PM
Some of these guys get paid to populate the more popular blogs to keep the confusion going.
Posted by: paulm | November 13, 2008 2:59 PM
The couple blogs I read that are written by hard-core libertarians (and that brain-slug has a pretty good grip on the Republican party's amygdala as well) are just against anything that interferes with the free market. They really believe AGW is, more or less, a commie plot.
Posted by: george.wiman | November 13, 2008 10:47 PM
Paulm mentions an important point - there's a veritable army of paid, professional trolls out there.
However, there's a lot of pro-bono morons too...
Posted by: Dunc | November 14, 2008 5:12 AM
Hansen is a lightening rod for vitriol by virtue of his own often contentious and outlandish pronouncements, "death trains" etc.
Also to pretend that only skeptics indulge in abusive tactics is disingenuous in the extreme. Drop into Deltoid and mention that you have doubts about AGW theory and see what Dano, Dhogaza and the other regulars hurl at you. Make sure to wear your cup and keep the kiddies away from the monitor.
Also I notice that several posters make paranoid speculation about an “army” of paid “skeptical trolls” while simultaneously complaining that skeptics imagine a grand conspiracy of leftist anti-market agents supporting AGW. Is the irony of this observation lost on you?
I am a trained scientist (physics) and I find the evidence for anything beyond very modest AGW to be weak in the extreme. I am not a “right wing extremist”, in fact I voted for Obama, nor am I paid to post my opinions.
Mr Hrynynshyn on the other hand is paid to write his extremist AGW views and attended Al Gore’s climate propaganda camp. This of course doesn’t bother the people that agree with him.
Posted by: Lance | November 14, 2008 9:59 AM
Lance, I'd really appreciate it if you would stick to the science, if you can.
Most months what I make from ScienceBlogs doesn't even pay my DSL bill. If I really wanted to make money from this gig, I wouldn't be agreeing with the scientific consensus, I'd be writing against it, because that would draw far more traffic to a ScienceBlogs blog.
Second, lots of people attended Gore's climate presentation training sessions, including Gore's primary science adviser Mike McCracken, who used to run the US government's climate change program, and PR agents from Walmart, a company with a business model that's fundamentally bad for the environment no matter how many CFLs it sells. But so what? That says nothing about the quality of our arguments one way or another.
I don't moderate comments here, because I value free speech too much. But there are days when I wish I had the time to read each comment and delete any that don't stick to dealing with the arguments at hand, rather than just casting aspersions on motives and character.
Posted by: James Hrynyshyn | November 14, 2008 11:11 AM
James,
I notice you didn't ask any of the pro-AGW posters to "stick to the science". The subject of this thread was the tone and content of the replies from "pseudo-skeptics".
It is ironic that you complain about insulting posts from people that don't share your views and respond with an insult.
Unlike you I didn't use any pejorative terms in my post. I simply addressed the subject of the post in a rational and respectful way. The fact that you aren't paid a great deal doesn't change the fact that you are paid to give your pro-AGW opinion.
That doesn't mean that you are in the "tank" for AGW related businesses and organizations but since other posters had made remarks about "skeptics" being paid to make blog posts it certainly was relevant to the discussion.
Also Al Gore's financial interests are clearly tied to the public's acceptance of catastrophic AGW. He is no less financially vested in AGW than "right wing" think tanks, like the Heartland Institute, are tied to an anti-AGW agenda. If anything his financial interests are more single issue dependent than those organizations.
As far as discussing the science neither the link to the Hansen paper in this thread or in the Forecast Earth blog seem to work, at least not for my browser.
I'm all for an honest and open dialogue free of ad hominem insults and based on credible science and practical policy considerations, but let's be honest about our motivations and try to give others the same courtesy.
Posted by: Lance | November 14, 2008 1:53 PM
James - you obviously don't read what you write. Or practice what you preach.
Posted by: JD | November 18, 2008 4:04 PM
Second, lots of people attended Gore's climate presentation training sessions, including Gore's primary science adviser Mike McCracken, who used to run the US government's climate change program, and PR agents from Walmart, a company with a business model that's fundamentally bad for the environment no matter how many CFLs it sells.
Posted by: elma kapsülü | November 19, 2008 7:16 AM
I think its funny that the URL is "scienceblogs". This drivel is the furthest thing from science. All you have here is biased opinion on selective 'political science', and some cut and pastes from hand-picked articles that support your shallow alarmist views.
Posted by: anon | November 19, 2008 10:56 AM
I've noticed one or two vitriolic trolls here, I pity James for having to deal with them.
Lance- if you were a trained physicist, one would imagine your posts on AGW would contain more science and less pretending. Furthermore, saying "I'm not a paid shill and I voted for Obama" doesn't in any way address the possibility or not of there being people paid to troll blogs and post anti-agw material.
Posted by: guthrie | November 20, 2008 4:36 PM
paranoia will destroy ya. paid trolls? hahahahahahaha
Posted by: Au Gratis | November 20, 2008 5:29 PM
Au Gratis, it's not paranoia. This behaviour has been seen before.
One example that comes to mind would be David Wojick, seen here providing what appears to be a reasonable skeptical response to Coby Beck's series on debunking pseudoskeptical talking points. You'll note Wojick responds to virtually every point -- until he's outed as a paid consultant for the electric (coal) power industry, whereupon he instantly vanishes. After his industry ties are revealed, Wojick doesn't even attempt to defend himself or redirect attention; he simply disappears. This behaviour is consistent with deliberately seeding pseudoskepticism rather than expressing one's views (as your typical commenter would probably defend himself or bat the claims aside; see what Lance does here, for example). More on Wojick can be found at SourceWatch.
Posted by: Brian D | November 20, 2008 6:52 PM
Paranoia already has destroyed you! I'm sure someone is really paying professionals to come and spar with the brilliant people here like Brian D and Guthrie on this two bit hack site about what names to call someone who doesn't drink Al Gore's kool aid. Maybe they have a thing against canucks.
Posted by: The Kinks | November 21, 2008 1:50 PM
James, the reason you bother to blog is because you have a biology degree. You memorized some facts about animals and plants and it made you feel good - and now you have no marketable job skills.
Posted by: Spiccoli | November 21, 2008 4:06 PM
I don't think you need to worry about your posts at the TWC site anymore. You're ALL FIRED. Good work there. It jibes right along with your resume of never lasting at any job you take for more than just a little while. C'ya.
Posted by: C Ya | November 25, 2008 5:21 PM