Delusionists

But I think that many of these people simply are contrarians. I think that Roger Pielke Jr. is a case in point. He's a guy who loves to magnify minor issues at the expense of the majority of the information.

I also think that many of the skeptics started out as simple contrarians, but as the evidence grew, they weren't as nimble as RP Jr. to make sure that they kept their nonsense skipping along just inside the shadow of honest discourse. So today, many of them are simply skeptics.

But if we want to label all of them idiots, that's fine. They certainly take up too much time in the media.

I think 'delusionists' might make it into the media in 18+ months, whereas I think it is too easy for the lazy-*ss media to play stenographer to the few who would harrumph over 'denialist'in the em-ess-em.

Delusionists also captures a certain mental pretzeling that goes on...hmmm...

Hmmmm...

Best,

D

Tim

Where would Chris Landsea fit into this grouping?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_ge…

Pielke and Lindzen are contrarians by temperament, I think, and so are some proportion of the rank-and-file. But the vast majority are just orthodox rightwingers.

I think the appropriate terms are "skeptic" and "credulist". Which one are you?

http://www.scottsdalecc.edu/ricker/pests/ST_definition.html

Ah so we no longer have Flat Earthers, we have heliocentricism skeptics.

Evolution skeptics not creationists.

Holocaust skeptics not Holocaust denialists.

As the old saying goes, it's good to have an open mind - but not so open your brains fall out.

Sorry JQ. You are full of it! And if you ask me what it is you are full of, well you know. Summarised, BS.

When it comes to delusion Quiggin is certainly in the vanquard along with Rudd and the rest of the ALP today over the shocking possibility that carbon trading/taxes might well make nuclear power profitable here - like the ALP's Garrett he has never grasped that at present only nuclear can replace coal for clean base load power. The precautionary principle also suggests that a known technology that provides 80% of electricity in France and 20% in UK is likely to have a head start on Rudd's billions for uncosted and as yet non-existent technology for clean coal, a prime delusion if ever there was one.

"only nuclear can replace coal for clean base load power."

Hydro, natural gas, geothermal.

What was that about delusion, Tim?

While you're sputtering over your response, why don't you take a look at the retail price of electricity in France and Australia?

Let's all thank Tim C for bringing to our attention Labor's shameful and ill-conceived clean coal plan - which stands in bold contrast with Beloved Leader John Howard's far-sighted and visionary clean coal plan.

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2007/media_Release2333.cfm

jc, it appears that Landsea is much like Pielke--a sort of second tier researcher who has benefitted from the Republican control of Congress and the media's need for balance.

Is it any wonder that Landsea was the Republican party fave on the issue of climate change/hurricanes?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/19/noaa/

Is it any wonder that Roger is the Republican's go-to guy on the "politicization of science?"
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html

And is it any wonder that Pielke and Landsea published in that skeptic journal "Energy and Environment?"
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/knob/re…

In regards to Landsea:

(1) It is strange that he makes a big deal about Trenberth being mentioned as being a lead author on the IPCC report...and basically demanding that the IPCC disassociate themselves from his comments because of this. After all, Richard Lindzen is often mentioned as being a lead author on the IPCC report (see here) and I don't see Landsea asking the IPCC to disassociate themselves from any of his unsupportable statements.

(2) The two years since Trenberth made his statement have seen a dramatic change in the views on hurricanes and global warming. While Trenberth's statements may seemed a bit out-of-the-mainstream at the time, they have subsequently been supported by several peer-reviewed studies. (I think Trenberth published one himself.) While this area of the effect of warming on hurricanes remains unsettled, I don't think Landsea's claims of Trenberth's statements being unsupported hold water today.

So, I don't know what you want to call Landsea...but I think his quitting of the IPCC looks pretty childish in retrospect.

Joel: I would say that your analysis of Landsea is spot on. I seem to recall that when Trenberth made his statement he was drawing on data that he used in one of the papers he subsequently published.

I would call Pielke a frivolist, given his petty equivocation of Rep. Waxman's Congressional hearing with Phillip Cooney's edits.

Most of thse people are NOT delusional. They know exactly what they are doing.

Not only that, the "objection" to denialist is as phony as can be.

The people objecting are the denialists themselves and it's not really an objection as much as it is an effort to discredit those using the term.

The denialists claim (without any evidence whatsoever) that the term denialist as applied to those who deny AGW was somehow intended to evoke visions of holocaust deniers.

This is utter nonsense and I refuse to stop using a term that perfectly describes what these people are doing simply because some dishonest right wing dirtbag is trying to discredit the term.

I would think that Pielke is turning into more and more of a Republican party hack. Everyone made a big deal about the American Enterprise Institute offering money for scientists to write for them, but nobody made a big deal over Pielke Jr. writing for Regulation, which pays its writers a couple of thousand dollars.

And then there's the continued "invitations" from Republicans that Pielke keeps getting to come and speak to Congress.

Of course, any mention of this freaks Pielke out since he's trying to sell himself to the media as an "honest broker."

Hi all

Yawn, yawn
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Yet more science on sciencblogs, not.

Why do people of the left have to call people names bc they have an opposite view? God help us if I was in Stalin's Russia comrade.

RegardsPeter

"Why do people of the left have to call people names bc they have an opposite view?"

Wake up, due and smell the coffee.

It's not simply that those who deny AGW have an opposite view. It's that they are dishonest and have been spreading misinformation funded primarily by Exxon-Mobil and the right wing think tanks for over ten years now.

I used to give the denialists the benefit of the doubt. But as the evidence has mounted, so has the level of their denial. Each time one of their arguments has been relegated to the trash heap, they have emerged with a brand new one. First it was that global warming had not been proven. Then when that argument was no longer tenable, they dragged out the global warming may be real, but we don't know how much of it is due to humans. Now that IPCC has made that argument untanable with their latest (90% probability) report, the denialists are saying that doing something (anything) will cost far too much.

The "parade of arguments" has more than a little in common with what Bush and CO have given us on Iraq. First it was WMD. Then when none were found, it changed to Democracy for Iraqis. Then when that became untenable (a joke, really), the rationale for the Iraq war morphed into "we did it to make the US and world safe from terrorism" . Then the CIA said that Iraq has been a breeding ground for terrorists and that the Iraq war has led to an increase of terrorism throughout the world and the argument is now "We can't leave because Iraq will fall into civil war if we do." (which they have already fallen into, by the way).

If these people had been honest, they would have stuck with one argument from the beginning. the fact that their argument morphs into something entirely different every time they are proven wrong (not just wrong but dead wrong) is an indication that they are simply dishonest.

And incidentally, name calling is hardly confined to the left. Listen to right wing talk radio some time (not that I need to tell you that or anything).

"If these people had been honest, they would have stuck with one argument from the beginning. the fact that their argument morphs into something entirely different every time they are proven wrong (not just wrong but dead wrong) is an indication that they are simply dishonest."

Isn't it odd too that so far as I know there isn't a single individual in skeptic camp who thinks that the costs of serious GHG mitigation are likely to be low. (In contrast, in the mainstream camp, there's a wide range of views about the likely cost.)

I used to go to Prometheus often. I found it useful in understanding some of the policy debate around AGW in the US e.g. the hurricane debate

I stopped about 6 months ago because I detected a definite trend where the good Dr would hold to account those he considered where misusing information/science to advocate for action to address AGW, but did not put the same effort into those holding to account those that were misusing information/science to advocate not taking any action.

For one who expounds the importance of being an 'Honest broker' I found this inconsistent and as a result I no longer value his opinion.

Calling others delusionists or skeptics does not advance the case for action on AGW, it only polarizes the debate. And to a sizeable minority of the public, it makes too ardent AGW advocates look deranged.

Offending big chunks of the public, who you absolutely need to have on side to enact meaningful public policy, will not help.

Lastly, if the public does come around to accepting legislated hard caps on emissions, posters will have to accept increased use of nuclear power; and that is a certainty.

"Lastly, if the public does come around to accepting legislated hard caps on emissions, posters will have to accept increased use of nuclear power; and that is a certainty."

There are very few certainly in life.

As a recovering economist my attitude is "tax 'em all and let God sort it out."

Tax carbon emissions (or require mandatory tradeable permits) and let the market work out the cheapest way to reduce emissions.

If it's nuclear so be it, but here in Australia the economic case for nuclear remains highly dubious.

"And to a sizeable minority of the public, it makes too ardent AGW advocates look deranged."

In your dreams, Paul G.

What is actually happening is just the opposite: due to the efforts of people like Al Gore (who you would undoubtedly categorize as a "too ardent AGW advocate" (what eloquent language), the public is waking up to the deceptions of the denialists.

Hard-core delusionists like Bolt and the Lavoisier Group are not "a sizeable minority" in Australia. A recent survey indicates they amount to around 6 per cent of the population.. What's needed is to make clear to ordinary people who may be inclined to give Milloy. Singer, Bolt, et al some credence that they are in fact paid hacks and shills, with an admixture of ideologues and cranks.

Polling Data

Thinking about climate change, do you personally think climate change and its effect on Australia, is a major problem, a minor problem, or not a problem?

Major problem

76%

Minor problem

17%

Not a problem

6%

Uncommitted

2%

I think "scientists" is a good one.

"scientists" are those scientists that do not use the scientific method.

Hi all

Do you really think the results from the poll are really that genuine. After all, nearly all of the people polled would have had a major overdose of media spin based on fear and the bullshit from 'Convenient Lies' from big AL. A real loaded question based on the bias in the media.

The average punter would think: 'all I hear is that GW is a real concern, hence I will say it is a major problem. So, the result is rather wrong, based on the fear the we are told every day by the media.

Regards from a cold summer in New zealand
Peter Bickle

"After all, nearly all of the people polled would have had a major overdose of media spin based on fear and the bullshit from 'Convenient Lies' from big AL."

So what you are saying is that no poll is ever accurate (or, as you put it, "really that genuine") -- at least no poll that indicates something conservatives disagree with -- because people are always influenced by the (damned) liberal (Fox) media.

Don't be silly, JB, it's only the polls which come up with results Peter doesn't like that are obviously wrong.

Don't be silly, JB, it's only the polls which come up with results Peter doesn't like that are obviously wrong.

"Why do people of the left have to call people names bc they have an opposite view?"

What you mean to say is 'Why do people have to call other people names because they have an opposite view'. I'm positive you don't mean to imply that all (or even the majority) of name calling is don't by left wing people.

1.John Quiggin has his own claims to be judged The Most Deluded, not only in regard to his self-estimation, but also on an issue as simple as the well attested urban heat island effect (UHI). He admits now that it exists, but claims that it is of no consequence because when global surface temperature series are adjusted by removing urban temperatures, a rising trend remains. What he cannot seem to grasp is that the same trend evident from rural weather stations when applied to urban areas necessarily applies to a higher base temperature, and so reaches the IPCC "targets" for 2100 much sooner than rural areas will.
2.That means that the world's cities will suffer sooner and more severely from many of the claimed negative effects of global warming, even though life expectancy and all other social indicators tend to be higher - and exposure to diseases like malaria tends to be lower - in urban than in rural areas.
3.Quiggin also misses the rather stark policy implications of higher levels of warming in urban areas. As these are due not to CO2 but to the heat generated by economic activity of all kinds, including computers and air conditioners, that heat will not be affected by cuts in CO2 emissions arising from switching to carbon-free power sources, whether nuclear or solar etc. That after all is why Greens like Quiggin do not countenance replacing coal by nuclear, as knowing that neither can be substituted by solar etc for base load, their real motivation is to return us to green contemplation in an energy-free Arcadia.
4.Quiggin is additionally deluded when he asserts that the rural and urban warming trends are the same. Studies both in England and Australia show that in fact urban areas are warming faster than the "global" (actually rural temperatures that exclude the urban), for example, the Hadley Centre's Parker & Horton (August 2004) show that Oxford's temperature series eventually had to be excluded from its series for central England, as the adjustment needed INCREASED from minus 0.1-0.2 degrees F from 1960 to 1973, to minus 0.2C for 1974-2003.
5.Similarly a recent Australian study of temperature trends in three small Victorian towns and Melbourne related the maximum UHI effect at the centre of a town over grass to population via a regression equation. The urban-rural temperature difference was found to increase with increasing population via the equation. (Urban heat island features of southeast Australian towns, Torok, Simon J., Morris, Christopher J.G., Skinner, C., Plummer, N. 2001 , Australian Meteorological Magazine. Vol. 50, no. 1, March 2001. pp. 1-13).
6.So sadly, drastic cuts in GHG emissions are not going to have much if any impact on our warming cities, which now account for more than half of the world's population, but those cuts will very likely, by cooling the countryside, reverse the remarkable gains in agricultural productivity since 1970 that are at least partly due to rural warming (especially in the northern hemisphere).
7.Thus Quiggin's hero Nicholas Stern is also a great delusionist, not least because while a true believer in the greenhouse effect on climate, he goes to great lengths to claim that either (1) there is no greenhouse effect on agricultural yields, or (2) if there is, it has already reached its limits. So why do the Dutch still build greenhouses on such a vast scale?

Good to see that my last post on this thread secured tacit acceptance. Meantime over at the John Quiggin blog, where I have been serially abused, libelled,and defamed AFTER being banned from responding to his open invitation to contribute(merely for saying that JQ has no great track record in econometrics, so much for JQ's quintessential Aussie fairgo now that I am not allowed to respond), I am currently being pilloried by JQ and his scared sycophant Majorajam for my letter in the Financial Times last year ridiculing the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
The EU's brilliant scheme now has emission permits available at 1 Euro per tonne, somewhat below Stern's social cost of carbon at anything from 80 to 300 per tonne (he's a little variable in his use of CO2 or carbon). Moreover spending one Euro on a Coke or Tonic (as an old colonial I am a slave to g&t) may well remove more CO2, in the form of carbonic acid) than the ETS, both per unit and in aggregate! That is because 600 ml of Coke zero here costs about 2 Euro and, apart from the bottle which is mostly embodied CO2, contains mostly carbonated water, i.e. carbonic acid which = H2O plus CO2. My Schweppes Tonic is also more than 90% carbonic acid. So abolish ETS, drink more rum & coke and gin & tonic, and save the planet!

Tim C, ignoring you is not "tacit acceptance".

Tim L: Yes it is, as clearly you have no answer to either of my last submissions to your trollopy blog.

Shorter Tim C: Chicken, Mcfly?