A week ago I wrote
I predict that Avery will maintain that all the scientists are wrong about their own work and refuse to remove any names from the list.
And look what they wrote:
In response to the complaints, The Heartland Institute has changed the headlines that its PR department had chosen for some of the documents related to the lists, from "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" to "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." ...
We plan to make no further changes to the articles or to the lists. ...
Many of the complaining scientists have crossed the line between scientific research and policy advocacy. They lend their credibility to politicians and advocacy groups who call for higher taxes and more government regulations to "save the world" from catastrophic warming ... and not coincidentally, to fund more climate research. They are embarrassed -- as they should be -- to see their names in a list of scientists whose peer-reviewed published work suggests the modern warming might be due to a natural 1,500-year climate cycle.
Possibly because their work does not suggest that at all...
Hat tip: The International Journal of Inactivism.
Most scrumptious part of the whole press release:
Is there, I wonder, a short video showing an irony-meter's needle slamming into and wrapping itself several times around the peg, while springs and cogs leap from the case and smoke pours from the seams? Because I really need one right now.
wow oh wow.
pdf still calls them "co-authors"
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21978.pdf
nobody willing look into legal options?
most universities should have some legal advice for employees. and they should have an interest in protecting them from exactly this sort of nonsense!
still shocked. the whole press release is one lie after the other. absolutely bizarrre stuff.
btw, noone around who can educate them on basic citation techniques?
i guess that i might have been slapped when my first paper at university had consisted of a list of weird claims and a citation list of 500 scientist who somehow agree with some of my claims, somewhee in their work...
"btw, noone around who can educate them on basic citation techniques?"
Sod, probably no-one there with a basic grounding in science.
As I've noted before, anyone dumb enough to go into science for the money is probably too dumb to pass a tertiary science course.
As the Heartland Institute is blatantly in it for the money, I doubt they have many science grads working for them.
If its any consolation, in all likeyhood the only people paying attention to the heartland institute these days are skeptical bloggers
ChrisC, actually the skeptical bloggers are avoiding this story like the plague. (Then again, that's shortly after many of them attended the "John Coleman's going to sue Al Gore!" conference in March...)
sod:
For my part, I'm surprised that the mainstream media aren't covering this whole story at all. Is it because (as someone said) it doesn't involve missing white girls?
Has anyone noticed how all of the new trolls who've popped up on Deltoid over the last week, like a fairy-ring of toadstools, won't touch this story with a barge-pole?
I wonder if it is because they don't want to scratch below the surface of their thinly guilded arguments, and risk thus doing so by addressing the substance and intent of many of these 500 authors' papers?
Or is it because they are aware of the severity of the disgraceful actions of the Heartland Institute, and do not want to admit to being part of a movement that employs these tactics?
Bernard:
According to the attatched article, fairy rings used to appear around mid May.....but now do to Global warming, they are appearing around April 22nd, which fits right in with their appearance on this blog.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2007/04/…
And of course, that would be "attached", not "attatched".
Bernard J.,
I assume you aren't talking about me because when I found out that the Heartland Institute had listed the 500 scientists as "coauthors" I said it was "dishonest".
Of course anyone that thought a scientific paper could have 500 "coauthors" doesn't have too much on the ball anyway.
Still this kind of dishonest rhetorical tactic is to be condemned whether it is used by people that share your scientific opinions or not.
Of course anyone that thought a scientific paper could have 500 "coauthors" doesn't have too much on the ball anyway.
Lance, as always, you are 100% right.
papers with a few hundred (co)authors do NOT exist in the field of climate science. the IPCC reports are a myth!!!!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
sod:
I won't call AR4 a "paper". It's a report, which is something different. (Though AR4 also happens to be extensively peer-reviewed.)
Then again, Avery didn't call his name list a "scientific paper" either (not that that changes the fact that it's a dishonest piece of crap).
= =
Good to see that Lance is speaking out against this blatant dishonesty! In the meantime though, the professional inactivist Jennifer Marohasy continues to avoid talking about it...
= =
Dang, why's this story not in the mainstream media already? There are 50 angry scientists, for Pete's sake!
sod,
Do you have to be a prick even when people agree with you?
Lance, good to see you to have at least some limit to your devil-advocacy.
You might have your good motivations about "stirring shit", but a lot of that is really very very counterproductive.
Being a strong independent thinker includes going with the popular opinion times, simply because it happens to be true.
Ian Gould - I don't think the Heartland Institute is "in it for the money" - they're in it to promote a specific political perspective which is favored by people WITH money, who happily pay them in order to advance it. But they're not pure mercenaries, at all - they're ideologues. Ideology first. The big bucks is just what allows them to broadcast their ideology far and wide (compared to fly-speck environmental groups with only a fraction of the reach and influence).
saurabh,
I agree with you entirely, except I suspect their ideology is, at core, a mercenary ideology.
mz,
I always try to go with the "truth" whether it is the "popular opinion" or not. Scientific opinions may vary but using dishonest language should always be opposed even when the language is used to support an opinion with which you agree.
The Heartland Institute is a right wing advocacy organization. Just as Environmental Defense and The Sierra Club are left wing advocacy organizations.
There is nothing wrong per se with advocacy unless you start lying to promote your cause. I used to contribute to The Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Federation until I noticed that they were stretching the truth for their causes.
I have never contributed to the Heartland Institute, or any other right wing organization. I have popped under $100 bucks total into the "tip jar" at ClimateAudit and a lesser amount at CO2Science.
(File under confessions of a denialist.)
Do you have to be a prick even when people agree with you?
sorry, enternal servant of truth over here. can t drop the facts, even when you re pretending to be reasonable.
to put this carefully:
your mild critisism of this heartland article won t melt the ice.
facts:
there indeed are papers, supporting man made global warming, that had hundreds of climate scientists contributing to them.
you might want to take a look at those IPCC reports, someday.
your average "sceptical" paper was written by an emeritus, awoken from some slumber in tobacco business, from some far related field and published in a none peer reviewed paper like E&E
couldn t there be a reason, why they are inventing those co authors?
wouldn t this cast doubt on other heartland activities? recent confrerences, for example?
and all those who go there?
Lance will denounce them all. i can feel it!
completely off topic and just for a laugh:
(most of) you guys are seriously blessed, by your inability to read german.
those of us who can, have to suffer enternal pain by reading a denialist german blog called "oekologismus".
but for once the site provided good entertainment.
a recent post discussed the nature article on PDO shift. the article gets everything wrong. so far, business as usual.
a commenter (planck) accuses the author of not having read the original article.
the author, showing that he din t even look at the authors of the paper and getting slightly confused, bases his defends on two scientists from IFM Geomar, being Emmy-Noether Fellow and Noel Keenlyside
http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=966
(several errors in the original post ahve been corrected, but thecomments currently still document the exchange...)
The Australian's war on science continues:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23655529-11949,00.ht…
Lance at #11.
No, and perhaps to the surprise of some of the others here, I wasn't including you in that description.
Although I may disagree with many of your interpretations, I have also seen you concede points in the past, and I understand you to be 'better' those of whom I spoke.
And anyway, you've been here for aeons - certainly more than a week!
sod:
Give him some time, sod.
= =
What's up with the new CAPTCHAs on DeSmogBlog anyway? Now I can't comment there because of them -- I get thrown back to the comment form every time even if I type in the letters correctly. Mysteriously, it seems other people are able to post there successfully. (I use Firefox.)
Impending Wikipedia edit war alert!1 Some schmuck tried to edit the "Heartland 500" section which I added to the "Global warming controversy" article, by replacing my quote-unquote "out-of-context" quote from the 5 May press release with an out-of-galaxy quote from an earlier press release.
1 if you're into this stuff
Lance, I must take issue with you on a point you made. You said: "The Heartland Institute is a right wing advocacy organization. Just as Environmental Defense and The Sierra Club are left wing advocacy organizations".
There's a big difference between these organizations. M$N$Y. Funding. The budgets of environmental NGOs pale in comparison with the right wing think tanks, who very often receive huge stipends from corporations. Environmental NGOs most often depend on membership fees.
Another differnece is in influence. Think tanks and PR firms have much more influence on policy makers than environmental NGOs ever will. They are able to produce and disseminate (dis) information on a scale hitherto unrivaled by most so-called left wing NGOs because of their hyperinflated (= bottomless) public relations budgets.
Another point is that many environmental NGOs have been co-opted by polluting industries who are promting a policy of deregulation and the evisceration of public control in the pursuit of prinate profit. This 'good cop, bad cop' strategy means that some corporations donate a certain amount to environmental NGOs and ten times as much to astroturf groups and organizations who are actively working to reduce or eliminate regulations. Given that many environmental NGOs are strapped for cash, this effectively renders them mute. It has also been a very successful strategy in diverting criticism away from corporate behavior by these same NGOs. Another co-option strategy is that some environmental NGOs have even appointed directors that actually work for anti-environmental PR firms.
Therefore, to be brutally honest, I can't imagine how anyone can compare these two types of advocacy groups and keep a straight face (you apparently can). Its like comparing a flea and an elephant in terms of biomass.
Hi Jeff,
There is a big difference in the funding of the Heartland Institute and the two environmental organizations I mentioned, The Sierra Club and Environmental Defense, but it is just the opposite of what you stated.
The Sierra Club boasts a budget over $100 million and Environmental Defense a budget of over $50 million while the Heartland Institute comes in somewhere under $5 million.
As far as influence is concerned that is somewhat harder to gauge but I would argue that those two big environmental concerns also win that game as well.
Also there is no need to make statements like "straight face" to impugn my honesty. I read these figures off of mainstream websites like the USA Today website and SourceWatch, a left leaning "watch dog".
In what ways do the Sierra Club and the WWF misrepresent facts and science?
What about the NRDC? Are they a bunch of left-jihadist liars too? In what ways?
Lance makes another funny.
He says SC and EDF are left-wing, when, in fact, they are among the most moderate, business-friendly and non-partisan of environmental advocacy groups.
See? It's a joke.
(By the way, I mentioned the NRDC because -- according to Steve "Fred Mbogo" Milloy anyway -- it has some relationship with the USCAP lobbyists campaigning for the Lieberman-Warner Act.)
No surprise that folks that lean left would see the The Sierra Club and Envronmental Defense as politically neutral.
C'mon guys try to show some objectivity.
bi,
You asked, "In what ways do the Sierra Club and the WWF misrepresent facts and science?"
A 30 second random search of the internet turned up this tid bit "Global Warming is real. The urgency of the global warming problem can no longer be denied. It could be a matter of life and death for our children and grandchildren."
These were the opening sentences of a piece they distributed nationally called "The No Sweat Guide to Stopping Global Warming." Do you suppose that using the classic demagogue technique of the threat of the death of "our children and grandchildren" is not misrepresenting the facts a bit?
Lance,
As to environmental conservation politics, no, not neutral.
As to left/right, democratic egalitarian/oligarchic elite politics, more to the right.
Lance,
A threat: "I'm gonna kill your grandkids".
A warning: "If you let your grandkids play in traffic, they might get killed."
Can you say 'straw man', Lance? You are misrepresenting the argument that you say is misrepresenting the facts.
Ironic, ain't it?
It's a wonder you know how to breathe.
Lance believes that *science* has a left-wing bias, therefore any NGO accurately portraying the scientific consensus must itself be left-wing.
This is not a misrepresentation of science.
This is not a misrepresentation of science.
Nor is this.
If, of course, you accept science, which Lance, despite his holy whining, does not.
Left and right have nebulous political meanings. That said the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense favor large government enforced actions that would greatly affect the everyday lives of almost everyone on the planet. That certainly takes them out of the range of actions that would be considered libertarian.
The Sierra Club piece I quoted is the worst kind of appeal to emotion and is not consistent with any scientific information relating to climate change. That is not a straw man argument.
Excuse me my cell phone alarm is reminding me of something. Oh yes, breath in, breath out.
The Sierra Club piece I quoted is the worst kind of appeal to emotion and is not consistent with any scientific information relating to climate change.
i would say that "bad appeals to emotion" are really, really, really far from faking a list of scientists.
if you disagree with that statement, please provide scientific sources that contradict it.
good luck contradicting "It could be a matter of life and death for our children and grandchildren.""
Let's get some terminology straight.
"Left" and "Right" are not stances on social issues, but rather economics. The extreme Left is a collectivist economy akin to socialism (but not necessarily communism; I'll get to that in a moment) and the extreme Right is a total laissez-faire neo-liberalist economy (but not necessarily freer people).
It's easy to see why this isn't social-issues sensitive by comparing folks like Gandhi and Stalin -- both in favor of collective economics, but vastly differing on the role of the state in the social scheme. Similarly, both Nelson Mandela and Milton Friedman favor small amounts of government influence on social freedoms, but differ vastly on the role of the state in economics. If there are only two categories here (Left and Right), who's sharing a side with Stalin? This is indicative of a false dilemma.
It therefore follows that there are two axes at work here: One between Left and Right economics, and the other between an Authoritarian government and a Libertarian one on social issues (i.e. is the state, or the individuals within it, more important?). Stalin (and in fact most of communism) is textbook Left/Authoritarian, while Gandhi and socialist/progressive democracies like the Netherlands and Sweden are Left/Libertarian to assorted degrees. Friedman and Ayn Rand are both Right/Libertarian (arguably an anarchic position if both are taken to the extreme), while Right/Authoritarian describes George Bush rather well. (Yes, the Republican party -- with its views on legislation on personal choice, freedom of information, and similar legislated morality decisions -- amounts to Authoritarian, even as it advocates for a free market.)
It's easy to see that a "Left" position doesn't say anything on political freedoms, merely economic ones. "Big government" falls under economic Left but, as Sweden and the Netherlands illustrate, doesn't necessarily bring Authoritarianism with it. Just because a group's arguing for government economic action (economic Left) doesn't mean it's arguing for an extreme position. (Case in point, the Democratic Party in the US is still on the Right overall, just slightly Left of the Republicans.) Nor does it mean that the group seeks to impinge on your political or social freedoms.
Quite often, all it means is something along the lines of "here is a problem that cannot be solved by the economic actions of a few individuals. It requires group action to solve this." Or, alternatively, it's a reminder of the Tragedy of the Commons, which is one of the two major traps that a pure laissez-faire economy falls into but a slightly regulated (not necessarily extreme Left either!) economy avoids (the other problem, self-destruction through monopolies, is better-known through anti-trust legislation -- something that I'm sure even Lance can agree is a good thing). No statement on social liberties made whatsoever.
This is, with a segue back on topic, a good way to characterize the Sierra Club and Environmental Defense Fund. They're not advocating anything extreme, nor are they advocating anything on the government's role in your socio-political liberties. Unless you're an extreme hardline uncompromising libertarian (economic Right), which has problems of its own (see link), you'll see this as moderate.
Compare to the inactivist side, where the logic goes varying distances along a path like this:
1) It's not happening, therefore we shouldn't regulate.
2) It might be happening, but it's not our fault, so we shouldn't regulate.
3) It might be our fault, but it's a good thing, so we shouldn't regulate.
4) It might be a bad thing, but it's unstoppable, so we shouldn't regulate.
Note how the conclusion never changed even as the information supposedly leading to that conclusion changed dramatically. (If you've been following Tim's coverage of John Lott, this may sound familiar.)
Lance accuses the Sierra club of baseless appeals to emotion (and therefore shoddy logic) while defending people whose entire modus operandi appears to be fallacious (of both the appeal to consequence *and* the very same appeal to emotion -- namely, fear that any regulation inevitably leads to communism, which I showed above is itself fallacious), even before we get into specifics such as the Heartland 500's openly fraudulent claims and unapologetic personal libels.
One wonders: Where is the reasoning in that?
(...-Summer Glau)
sod, the list isn't the problem, it is claiming that the scientists are "coauthors" that makes it indefensible. Had they stated that it was their opinion that various points in papers by the following authors coroborated their statements about climate change it would have been a different story.
So if the RNC sent out a national mailer that said stopping the election of democrats to congress "could be a matter of life and death to our children and grandchildren" you would be cool with it?
What do you mean 'if'?
Brian D,
Thanks for the unsolicited (not to mention longwinded)polysci primer. Your simplistic diatribe breaks down rather dramatically when you state,"It's easy to see that a 'Left' position doesn't say anything on political freedoms, merely economic ones."
By this logic if a communist government assigns you to hard labor and rewards you with only a daily meal of gruel and a bunk in a shack that you share with twenty other blissful members of the proletariat you have complete "political" and "social" freedom since only your "economic" choices have been limited.
This is only the first problem with your self-inconsistent little treatise.
Then you make a statement that I defend "...people whose entire modus operandi appears to be fallacious (of both the appeal to consequence and the very same appeal to emotion -- namely, fear that any regulation inevitably leads to communism..." Who are these "people" and exactly when have I "defended" them?
"ChrisC, actually the skeptical bloggers are avoiding this story like the plague. (Then again, that's shortly after many of them attended the "John Coleman's going to sue Al Gore!" conference in March...)"
Sorry, not the good old NZ Climate Science Coalition (sic), they believe it is fine.
Plenty of conservatives think libertarians are looneys, which is why libertarians like Ron Paul are largely ignored by them. Being non-libertarian isn't the same as being "left".
And, of course, essentially all of the US's conservation and environmental law was passed under Nixon's leadership, and he was hardly "leftist". The delusional association of common sense environmental regulation with "leftism" is almost uniquely American and even here, it's a recent phenomena.
leftists and their damned large government enforced stance against murder. now if i want to murder somebody, i have to go to a properly conservative state.
Unfortunately, you can't even go to Texas, they execute damned near everyone.
Except white people, that is.
Hmmm, so I guess I don't know if you can go there or not, do I? :)
Tushara Kodikara:
I suppose that's just because the story's finally received mainstream media coverage? (By the way: Woohoo!)
Anyway, the NZCSC web site is still not talking about the list...
Lance, the points you made were and are mute. The question is, which advocacy organizations have a greater influence over public policy? The EDF, Sierra Club or any number of far-right think tanks? The answer is that it isn't even close. This you just do not address. Many of the civilian planners in the current Bush administration have had day jobs in the American Enterprise Institute; many of them see these corporate-funded think tanks as a revolving door when they leave office.
If I were you I would compare the amount of money spent lobbying members of Congress by environmental NGOs and big business, much of the latter slickly done through the think tank route. Seriously, check out the stats. The numbers paint a stark picture of those who really pull the purse strings and who influence - read dictate - policy. The ratio is not even close. Furthermore, then go on to look at the even vaster sums spent on direct political fundraising, electoral contributions etc. and where it comes from. The picture gets even worse, more distorted and obfuscated by reality.
The thing is, Lance, that your concern over the influence of the left on public policy, if indeed this is what you are suggesting, is misguided. The truth is that the American public are miles to the left of any of their recently elected governments. But the voices of the majority do not matter. The system is set up to serve those with concentrated wealth and power. The public are seen as a 'threat', hence why the government so often uses all forms of mendacious propaganda (known with the euphensism of 'public diplomacy') to sell quite often horrific policies. The problem is that 'political reality' is in fact based on processes that best serve those with this power and privilege.
Oh, if only Lance's points could be "mute"!
Lance posts:
Droughts kill people, Lance, and so do violent weather events, and 100 million people in Asia depend on glacier melt for their fresh water. 30,000 people died in the recent European heat wave. Is it your contention that none of the dead were children, or will be children?
BPL,
You know quite well that the empirical link between anthropogenic climate change and the things you have listed is tendentious.
Sending out fund raising letters that start off by telling you that your children and grandchildren face death if you don't take action is sleazy and you damn well know it.
Look, I'm trying to be reasonable here to try and begin a dialogue that doesn't consist of the usual antagonistic flaming, but if you are going to defend the worst kind of demagogic tactics as legitimate we are not going to make much progress.
I would like to see an open and honest discussion of the topics related to climate change that didn't consist of name calling and moral posturing. So far I have been called an idiot, given a political science lecture, blamed for white people killing blacks in Texas and now for killing children in Europe and Asia.
How about we actually discuss the topic of this thread which was dishonest claims made in the public relations battle over climate change. I actually agree with Tim's main point that the Heartland Institute is out of line and should be condemned, as I have done, for this stunt. I was just making the point that they are hardly alone in using dishonest tactics.
If you are going to act like one side of the debate is peopled by humanitarian purists armed with indisputable scientific evidence that we must take immediate world wide action to avoid Armageddon and the other by heartless, money grubbing "flat earth" cretins intent on the destruction of the planet and the death of all future generations of children I don't suppose we have much to talk about.
sod, the list isn't the problem, it is claiming that the scientists are "coauthors" that makes it indefensible. Had they stated that it was their opinion that various points in papers by the following authors coroborated their statements about climate change it would have been a different story.
ahm, no.
that they call them "coauthors" is not THE problem.
it is just THE BIGGEST problem.
the first minor problem with te article is, that their list of points (apart from pont 2 which is trivial) is UTTER NONSENSE!
so the claim that "non-sceptic" (lol) scientists support thzem with their work is complete bogus.
if you dare to bring up any quotes (links would be best) i am rather assure that i ll be able to take them apart.
Lance,
A doubling of atmospheric CO2, held constant, will eventually warm the planet by as much as 6C above natural variability.
The evidence for this is indisputable.
It would be unethical not to be concerned by the real life-threatening consequences.
"A doubling of atmospheric CO2, held constant, will eventually warm the planet by as much as 6C above natural variability.
The evidence for this is indisputable."
"...by as much as..." is not a very scientifically robust phrase.
The evidence for this upper bound is highly disputable.
I'm afraid your history of dishonesty is too extensive here for you to expect people to suddenly treat you as though you're interested in an objective discussion.
And your recent post that makes it clear that you equate conservatism with libertarianism doesn't help. Your political views inform your "objectivity" towards the science than your supposed education in physics.
Lance,
There is no dispute that this is near the upper bound. The eventual equilibrium temperature may be somewhat less, but not much. Do you propose a higher upper bound? On what evidence?
Lance, in addition to passing on my last comment (which discusses the relative influence of left versus right wing advocacy groups on public policy), you give the perfect impression of someone fitting the metaphor of fiddling while Rome burns.
There's reams of scientific evidence showing that every natural system on Earth is in decline. No exceptions. There's reams of evidence showing that humans - predominantly those of us living in ecological debtor nations (e.g. the developed world) - are living off a one-time inheritance of natural capital. There's reams of evidence showing that deep rich agricultural soils, fossil age groundwater supplies, and the working parts of our global ecological life support systems, biodiversity(made up of genetically distinct populations and species) are being depleted (used up) far faster than they are being replenished. A number of anthropogenic-induced stresses on natural systems are responsible, of which climate change is but one factor, albeit an important one. As I have said a million times before, the concern is how much humans can continue to simplify nature until these systems are unable to support us. There are plenty of worrying signs that we are approaching the tipping point, if you bothered to look.
Your arguments appear to suggest that humans are exempt from any natural laws, and that our species should continue on its current self-destructive path until it is apparently too late to do anything about it. I've dealt with this kind of approach innumerable times in my scientific career, but the same arguments as yours keep cropping up. I would like to ask you this: given that you apparently do not read the empirical literature on the effects of humans on natural systems (checking out any issues of peer-reviewed journals like Ecology Letters, Ecology, Ecological Monographs, Global Change Biology, Nature, Science, Journal of Animal Ecology, Oikos, Oecologia and many others would be a start), just how much do you really think humans have affected the health and functioning of natural systems. Care to hazard a guess?
"There is no dispute that this is near the upper bound. The eventual equilibrium temperature may be somewhat less, but not much."
These assertions are just that, assertions. Also you divert discussion from the lower bound which may be totally insignificant in comparison to natural variability. Recent data from the Argos ocean monitoring project show that the oceans have not been warming as predicted by climate models that assume Co2 climate sensitivities of the range that you have suggested.
Jeff, I haven't "passed" on your statement that right wing think tanks have a greater influence on public policy I just haven't addressed it yet. Also you continue to use inferences and tones that don't have any place in a discussion between well intentioned parties seeking a rational and respectful dialogue.
Perhaps a rational and respectful dialogue is not your intention?
You make the point that "A number of anthropogenic-induced stresses on natural systems are responsible, of which climate change is but one factor, albeit an important one."
I have agreed, many times, with your larger point that humans have made changes to the individual ecosystems in which they live that have put stresses on these systems. I defer to your much deeper and better informed knowledge of these ecosystems.
While we have differences of political opinion about how to deal with these problems our main point of contention is on the evidence for, and rational response to, anthropogenic climate change in general and the role of carbon dioxide in particular.
That you choose an antagonistic approach to our discussions suggests to me that either you really have no interest in working towards the larger issues upon which we agree or that your true goal is to advance your political viewpoints.
If this is not the case then I suggest a more congenial tone and less moralizing insults.
Except they're not making this claim ... they're open about the fact that the problem might be with their instrumentation, since their results conflict with measured expansion of the oceans.
But little caveats of this sort are ignored by lying denialists like yourself.
If you weren't such a liar, perhaps people would treat you with respect?
Lance,
The indisputable fact is a doubling of CO2 will force the terrestrial climate by ~6.3W/m^2.
Quibbling over sensitivity is not going to change that fact. An empirical extrapolation of the warming, so far, gives an instantaneous response of ~1.7K for doubling CO2. The short term equilibrium (over 30-70 years) as the natural variability in the thermocline mixing in the upper oceans catches up is most likely to add another degree. Long range equilibrium as the deep oceans gradually warm up, even more. Exactly how much and how soon is uncertain, but the sign is not in dispute.
The flattening of ocean temperatures in the last few years suggested by the Argos data is perfectly consistent with the kind of natural variability that arises from ocean dynamics. The multi-decadal variability of ocean/atmosphere coupled dynamics is only a few tenths of a degree. It is not evidence against AGW. Natural variability and AGW are not in an antagonistic duel for supremacy. The former is the baseline upon which the latter accumulates.
Lance...
You forgot to mention in your comment at #51 that Luminous was surpised "you know how to breath"
Your problem is that you are reasonable.....your like an Independent being called a right wing neo-con religious fanatic because you didn't tow the line on America being an oppressive,imperialistic,racist global scourge....
If you think using words and phrases like cataclysmic, catastrophies,cannibalism,wreaking havoc,millions displaced,famines,death of your children and grandchildren etc, is over the top......then your a flat earth believing, Holocaust denying,non-caring,idiot with no vision.
I'm not sure exactly what it is you can personally do to change the course of the coming imminent doom, but perhaps if you were to confess your carbon sins and except death and destruction as the only consequence....you will be forgiven.
And then this.....
Jeff Harvey said to you...."The truth is that the American public are miles to the left of any of their recently elected governments.But the voices of the majority do not matter."
Umm.....didn't the public elect the elected governments?
Not directly, no, it was the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that gave Bush the 2000 victory over Gore.
Betula,
Lance is reasonable only in tone. A meaning that has no relation to actual reasoned thinking.
Same as you are funny only as the term relates to odor.
As for election by the public. Yes, we can choose between Tweedle~de~dum and Tweedle~de~dee, after they've both been vetted by the oligarchic corporate elite.
Ain't democracy wunnerful?
> What's up with the new CAPTCHAs on DeSmogBlog
> ... -- I get thrown back to the comment form
> every time even if I type in the letters
> correctly. ... Firefox.
I use Firefox too. And it took _five_ tries to get my typing of a CAPTCHA accepted yesterday.
Dunno what's up.
dhogaza said...
"Not directly, no, it was the electoral vote, not the popular vote, that gave Bush the 2000 victory over Gore."
Strange, I thought Jeff Harvey said "recently elected governments".....that would be the popular vote that put Bush in office in 2004.
That would also be the same popular vote that put the Democrats in Congress in 2006.....and then gave them the lowest approval rating since.....well, approval ratings started.
In addition.... if your going to use the "not directly" argument, I could easily apply that to Clintons victory in 1992. Were you complaining about the popular vote then?
http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav
"Same as you are funny only as the term relates to odor"
It is my understanding that those nasty, annoying pests known as Mosquitos can home in on human scent (C02 and Octenal) up to 100 feet.
I didn't complain, I stated a fact.
If I wanted to complain, I'd discuss Florida ...
A panel of experts reaches a consensus and you would complain about that?
Betula,
Are you saying mosquitoes won't land on you?
Republican Supreme Court Justices? Experts? You are funny.
Betula.
In spite of weeks of attempted education by many here, you remain fixated on the hysteria and hyperbole associated with AGW, without seeming to be able to assimilate the fact that it stems in large part from the ignorance of the media and the uneducated section of the lay public. Where scientists use emotive terms, it is only in the context of available evidence pointing to consequences that are a risk on the balance of probabilities.
Ask the folk in New Orleans, in Burma, or even in Europe in August 2003 what Nature can throw at us...
I'm sure that they wouldn't see hyperbole in any advance warnings of the magnitude of the events that hit them.
The scientific predictions that arise from the models and from empirical evidence do have some serious possible consequences. However your fixation with hyperbole is as unbalanced as the hyperboles are themselves. You are losing the forest for the trees.
Oh, and what of the hyperbole coming from the denialist camp with respect to impending ice-age, the grinding halt of photosynthesis if we do not pump out as much CO2 as we are able to, or the Horrible Left Wing Conspiracy of Evil Mad Climate Scientists? For that matter, where is your criticism of the hyperbole that I was taught at Sunday School and church about how I would burn in Hell for all Eternity if I didn't find the One True God, or that if we actually address the issues that lead to CO2 increase we will Bankrupt the Economy, with No Chance that there might actually be many positive spinnings-off that would in fact provide a net economic benefit?
I have to ask - is your fundamental tenet that there is no anthropogenic climate change simply because there is hyperbole accompanying the reporting of such in the public domain?
I would have some sympathy for your soap-boxing if you made a case using real evidence, but your case so far seems to evaporate everytime someone here shines a torch upon it.
Or maybe you just don't have a case to begin with...
Lance, I am sorry if my tone is heavy. But its just that you make statements that are rather sweeping in their scope but ignore the finer details. F'rinstance, my point about who has more influence on policy makers - left wing NGOs or conservative think tanks? The answer is patently obvious, or at least should be.
The Betula weighs in with, "Umm.....didn't the public elect the elected governments?". Betula, again you make a broad remark lacking much in funadamental detai. Look at the two main parties in the US elections. Frankly, how much difference is there between them in terms of real policies? It should be obvious why there isn't much difference between them at all (hence little choice for the average US voter). First, US elections have been co-opted by powerful, well financed interests. If you don't have the dough, the won't stand a chance of winning. Huge amounts of money flow into both parties from the corporate sector, ensuring that policies will reflect their interests preferentially. Why else would this sector invest so much in these elections? Because they want to feel like they are participating in real democracy? It should again be obvious that they are ensuring that their interests are given priority. Neither candidate from either party is going to bite the hand that feeds them. Because of this, the 2004 presidential election, like most that preceded it over the past 50 years, was fought mostly on the grounds of personality. When Kerry said that public health care was 'not an issue' because it did not have 'political support', what was he talking about? Poll after poll shows that 80% or more of the US public want a fully funded public health care system. What Kerry meant by 'political support' was that the pharmaceutical companies, the private health care companies etc. were opposed. Because of this, it isn't 'politically possible'. It wouldn't matter if 98% of the US public supported public health care for all; it won't happen if certain powerful interests are opposed.
I have to agree with Gore Vidal when he says there is one party in the US: the 'Property Party', with two right wings: Democrat and Republican.
Bernard...
As usual, you make valid common sense points without reverting to calling someone a denialist twit....though you did say the "denialist camp".
If you look at my comment at #62, you will see I compare being reasonable on this issue to that of being an Independent in politics.
Your fixation with my "unbalanced" hyperbole fixation is understandable......but consider the site we are discussing this on.
I don't believe there is an "impending ice age" or that "photosynthesis will stop" or climate scientists are "evil" or that someone will go to hell because they don't follow lockstep to a certain religion........but who on this site is saying that? And they certainly aren't teaching that in our local schools.
Instead, they are teaching our kids that all the Polar Bears are dying because daddy, who is an arborist...cut down a tree.
And while were at it, isn't it interesting, that someone who studied Forestry and dedicated their life to the care of trees can be considered a "Tree Killer" for removing a hazardous or perhaps diseased or declining tree, while the average, uninformed student or homeowner who sees the tree as the only hope for Polar Bears is a "Tree Hugger"
As for you Sunday school comment...if you again look at #62 , I mock the religious aspect of this whole issue.
It seems some on this site are more concerned with proving themselves right, no matter how exteme their views....and then resort to name calling when confronted with their own views.
Finally, it seems very easy for you to inject New Orleans and Burma into this.....are you insinuating AGW to be the cause? Where is the "real evidence".
Or are you saying these things that happened may happen in the future due to AGW.....even though they happened now.
Betula,
AGW is happening now. It's not some fanciful futurist hypothesis thought up in some PR boardroom. Drought, flood, crop loss, habitat loss, extreme weather events are increasing. AGW doesn't 'cause' these things, it exacerbates them. If it isn't stopped it will make arborists obsolete.
We are all out of control planet trashing monkeys. Get over your precious self.
Finally, it seems very easy for you to inject New Orleans and Burma into this.....are you insinuating AGW to be the cause? Where is the "real evidence".
a typical useless betula comment.
it is (so far) impossible to show that a certain storm was caused by AGW.
the mechanism simply is a different one.
the main connection is simple:
warmer water has a strengthening effect on storms.
this is a fact. (they aren t called "tropical cyclones without a reason..)
this means an increase in storm number, strorm strength and "range" of storms. the effect is not massive in numbers. we are speaking about some percent, no doubling, tripling etc so far. (as it is simply linked to water temperature increase)
it is quite unclear when we will even be able to notice the changes in a tiny number, like storms making landfall.
and actually in certain regions the change may change the paths of storms or their effects (wind sheer is an interesting thing when discussing this topic)
we know very little about this.
and there even is a possible positive effect of huge storms: they can deliver massive rain to places, that can t get it by any other mean.
but human vulnerability is increasing. more people and wealth are placed into dnagerous positions every day, and Katrina did demonstrate how inadequate the protective measures are, even in a highly developted country.
the effect on storms is real and well established. ignoring it, is placing a high bet on a small chance.
spinning it into the "you can t proof that AGW caused this storm" claim is a pretty dangerous (and clueless) thing to do.
Betula:
Why are you bringing this up here? What does it have to do with lies from the Heartland Institute? Are you trying to suggest that possibly unjustified behaviour in some schools is justification for the Heartland Institute to lie?
Sod.....
You stated....."it is (so far) impossible to show that a certain storm was caused by AGW"
Right you are.....
You then stated...."the effect on storms is real and well established. ignoring it, is placing a high bet on a small chance. spinning it into the "you can t proof that AGW caused this storm" claim is a pretty dangerous (and clueless) thing to do."
I simply used a technique I learned on this site, by the likes of you (see comment #80 at Survey: Climate Scientists....) that if your going to assume something, back it up with scientific fact....perhaps a journal, that these storms were undeniably caused by AGW (or not).
Does this mean that I don't realize human activity can have an effect on the environment? Does this mean (as Humorless Beauty said) that Arborists will be obsolete?
What would you like me to do sod?
Apparently i'm being "dangerous" and "clueless" for not realizing that these storms may or might be indicative of a possible bigger storm, caused by possible factors that may increase the intensity of some storms, perhaps resulting in a possible worse scenario depending on my thoughts and actions in relation to my daily activities as a denialist twit.
Lance posts:
I don't know any such damned thing. Global warming is a big, serious problem, and if we don't do anything about it a hell of a lot of people are going to die. That's the fact, Jack. Deal with it.
luminous posts:
While I appreciate what you're trying to do here, I think you've mistaken the coefficient of the radiative forcing equation for the extra radiative forcing from doubling carbon dioxide. The old equation was RF = 6.3 ln (C / Co),
which would give 4.4 Watts/square meter, since ln 2 is about 0.69. The equation the IPCC uses now (Myrhe et al. 1998) is 5.35 ln (C / Co), which yields 3.7 W/m^2.
Chris...
I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing, the same as I disagree with what some schools are doing....
As you are well aware,these posts often stray off topic while using a point to make another point.
However,if someone is going to lump everyone who doesn't agree with them into part of a "movement" that employs Heartands "tactics" as in #8, then it is fair game point out other "tactics" being used.
Oops! My bad.
Betula,
I can't see you as anything but just another concern troll. We should be nice and accept your lame sophomoric sarcasm as good natured humor, and believe your don't worry, be happy clown act is a rational response to a serious problem. It is this ostrich-like head-in-the-sand attitude that makes you a denialist, not any disagreement with scientific observation.
You apparently aren't disagreeing with anything, just being disagreeable. Arguing from credulity. A fool's game.
Get real.
LB...
"It is this ostrich-like head-in-the-sand attitude that makes you a denialist, not any disagreement with scientific observation."
No, actually what makes me a denialist is your imagination. And the disagreement you say I don't have is somewhere in the same vortex.
I wonder.....do you think you will be able to live out the rest of your life without finding a way to link the cause of every major weather event to AGW?
This is a serious question.
Regardless of what happens from here on out.....if the climate trend is cooling, or warming or stays constant, is it possible (in your mind) that any major weather event (of which there will be many)will not be the result of AGW in some way?
If your answer is "yes"........how do you know?
If your answer is "no".....how do you know?
Apparently, your a very wise person who doesn't know.
I simply used a technique I learned on this site, by the likes of you (see comment #80 at Survey: Climate Scientists....) that if your going to assume something, back it up with scientific fact....perhaps a journal, that these storms were undeniably caused by AGW (or not).
open google scholar search. type 'warm water tropical cyclone'
and you will find 19000 sources.
denial of this connection makes you a denialist.
Apparently i'm being "dangerous" and "clueless" for not realizing that these storms may or might be indicative of a possible bigger storm, caused by possible factors that may increase the intensity of some storms, perhaps resulting in a possible worse scenario depending on my thoughts and actions in relation to my daily activities as a denialist twit.
the connection simply isn t vague, as you try to pretend. do some reading.
again: your biggest fault is the assumption, that you are samrt. you aren t.
Sod......
1.I searched google and found several journals on tropical cyclones such as "The maximum Potential Intensity of Tropical Cyclones". I couldn't find any stating the cyclone in Burma was caused by AGW (or not).
2.I assume I am samrt?
obviously not smart enough to understand, that noone here is interested in your strawmans.
so you find a scientific article that claims that AGW caused the storm in Burma, and THEN i will find one, that proofs the connection.
happy search!
------------------
ps: i don t know how many of you are following the arctic sea ice. it looks like sea ice area just "caught up" with last year...
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Just keep posting the stupid, dude. Good for grins, if nothing else.
I asked for real evidence showing that the Burma storm was caused by AGW.
Sod said...
"it is (so far) impossible to show that a certain storm was caused by AGW."
And then sod said....
"open google scholar search. type 'warm water tropical cyclone'
and you will find 19000 sources."
So sod said....
"so you find a scientific article that claims that AGW caused the storm in Burma, and THEN i will find one, that proofs the connection"
Sod is now asking me my own original question......which means he is awaiting his own reply.
straw man: falsely characterizing one's opponent's argument as one that is easily refuted, i.e., "Alarmists claim major weather events are caused by AGW."
Stupid squared. Minimally risible. More on the pathetic side.
LB.....
Actually, that's exactly what they are claiming. If AGW is increasing the intensity of storms, and they become major weather events, then AGW has caused the major weather event.
Now all we need, is the scientific source that AGW caused the Burma storm, which was a major weather event.
For a second there, I thought you were going to go 2 comments in a row without an insult.
Imagine my disappointment.
You clearly feel more comfortable with strawmen than with probability theory and statistics.
As I said above, keep posting the stupid, it's entertaining.
Betula:
i.e. a "two wrongs make a right" approach. Maybe it would have been better just to say:
Sod is now asking me my own original question......which means he is awaiting his own reply.
no, i don t.
your original claim was this:
I simply used a technique I learned on this site, by the likes of you (see comment #80 at Survey: Climate Scientists....) that if your going to assume something, back it up with scientific fact....perhaps a journal, that these storms were undeniably caused by AGW (or not).
before he makes an attempt to show, that the connection is "undeniable" a scientist needs to form the hyphothesis, that AGW caused the storm.
you find scientists that propose that hyphothesis, i take care of the "proofs".
If AGW is increasing the intensity of storms, and they become major weather events, then AGW has caused the major weather event.
now IF you wouldn t post this nonsense, ....
so you have a scientific source that claims that AGW made a "major weather event" (lol!) out of the storm Nargis?
when you add 3 additional red balls to a box that contained one red and one white ball, then it wasn t the CAUSE of me drawing a red one afterwards. instead it simply increased the probability of this event.
dghoza.....
It's all for you my friend.....don't lose the remote.
Chris O'Neill.....
You said it would have been better if I didn't use...... "a "two wrongs make a right" approach".
Since you are the official voice of reason and straw boss of the approaches,I need your advice....
Which is the best approach to use in my response to you.....
A. I apologize, I didn't mean to use an example to make a point.
B. Is it that my comments were wrong or the approach was wrong?
C. If you agree that the two comments were wrong ie: Trolls are part of a movement that employs bad tactics (#8)...and....teachers are telling kids Polar Bears are dying because someone cut down a tree (#76), then we have a complete agreement.
D. I appreciate your steadfast laser-like interest in my style, but perhaps you should stick to the topic of this post......as you said in #76.... "Why are you bringing this up here? What does it have to do with lies from the Heartland Institute?"
Anyway, please let me know which way to go with this, your input vital.....
sod.....
I like your ball analogy.
It does give the topic some perspective, however, your ratios may be a little off.
Your using a "4 to 1" ratio.
I was thinking more in the line of filling an Olympic sized swimming pool with many different colored marbles..... each color being equally represented.
Now if you add 3 additional red marbles, the probability of blindly drawing a red one out of the pool has increased.
I think scientists are still working on the ratio.
Betula:
Just say:
without all the dissembling verbiage beforehand.
The goal posts move yet again.
Chris....
Re-read post #80......I said something like this...
"I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing"
What I should have said is....
"I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing"
But if it makes you feel better, I'll say...
"I disagree with what the Heartland Institute is doing"
Now maybe you can try to take your own advice and stay on topic and perhaps get over me.... I mean yourself.
By the way, I disagree with what you are doing as well.
Chris.
Ah yes, the proverbial "The goal posts move yet again" routine.
http://www.geocities.com/aaronbcaldwell/ptpoint.wav
I was thinking more in the line of filling an Olympic sized swimming pool with many different colored marbles..... each color being equally represented. Now if you add 3 additional red marbles, the probability of blindly drawing a red one out of the pool has increased.
now see, we are back to your lack in being smart again.
i was obviously giving an EXAMPLE. i chose those numbers on PURPOSE. i was saying: EVEN the increase by 300% would NOT justify to call it the "cause" of the result of a single draw.
the right way to speak about it is: the increase makes it more likely that a red ball... or the increase in red balls is the CAUSE of an increased number of red draws..
your version doesn t make any sense at all. what would multiple colors mean, when we are discussing a binary situation? (storms caused by AGW or not..)
a good guess for the number can be derived from a look at the sea temperature increase. it wasn t like adding 3 marbles to an enormous pool...
Betula,
If you have a point, it is at the tippy top of your tiny head.
I can imagine your disappointment.
sod...
I think we are talking semantics here.
I know, as you stated, it's impossible to prove a storm was caused by AGW.....that's why I posed the question....because it can't be proved. I was trying to make a point (see #103).
You stated in #75 the following....."warmer water has a strengthening effect on storms." "this means an increase in storm number, strorm strength and "range" of storms"
An increase in storm number and strength, due to warming water, which may be the result of AGW.
So here we are....we can say there is a "probability" that storms will increase due to AGW, yet, when the storm hits, we can't say for sure whether AGW was really the cause....so we say the storm was a possible consequence of AGW....or as Bernard said at #71..."evidence pointing to consequences that are a risk on the balance of probabilities."
It seems to me like all the bases are covered.....we can't say it did, we can't say it didn't but we can say it probably might have.
Isn't that your red ball/AGW analogy? An increase in AGW, increases the probability that AGW is the cause, but not enough to justify it IS the cause?
My analogy was more in line with using all the variables, all the natural forcings (different colored marbles) and increasing the C02 in the scenario (red marble) How much of the warming was actually caused by the additional C02? How much did the probability increase because of that C02? How much did the probability change by adding a few red marbles to millions of different colored marbles?
I think it is irresponsible to say a cyclone like Nargis is a consequence associated with AGW......yet not have any way to prove it.
Isn't that your red ball/AGW analogy? An increase in AGW, increases the probability that AGW is the cause, but not enough to justify it IS the cause?
ahm yes, but that is just a technical point. the REAL ISSUE is, that people do NOT say that AGW CAUSED this storm.
instead they say:
AGW increases the probability that this storms happen.
so all you need to do still, is to find a SINGLE CREDIBLE SOURCE, that claimed that AGW CAUSED this storm.
My analogy was more in line with using all the variables, all the natural forcings (different colored marbles) and increasing the C02 in the scenario (red marble) How much of the warming was actually caused by the additional C02? How much did the probability increase because of that C02? How much did the probability change by adding a few red marbles to millions of different colored marbles?
this is total nonsense of course again. because CO2 is not relevant in this case.
to check whether this storm was "caused" by man made global warming you would only look at man made increases of temperature (be it Co2, other gases or water vapor feedback) or non-man made increases.
you mixed it all up with atmosphere composition, methinks..
I think it is irresponsible to say a cyclone like Nargis is a consequence associated with AGW......yet not have any way to prove it.
you still don t get it, do you?
1. the statement "Nargis was caused by AGW" is (most likely) FALSE.
2. the statement "AGW increases the probability that storms like Nargis happen" is TRUE.
now all you need is someone who even makes that claim number 1!
Look at it this way - bad weather increases the probability that traffic accidents will occur.
But you can't point to every single accident that occurred during bad weather and say "the weather caused this".
Betula,
Re-read post #98......I said something like this...
The point is, it's too late for you to avoid being dissembling on this thread because you've already done it. The advice was for future reference.
Betula:
"Moving goalposts" refers to trolls such as yourself misunderstanding a point for a long time and then when they finally get some understanding of it they bring up yet another misunderstanding.
sod and Ian.....
Your points are made and understood.
There is still something about the way it's presented that bothers me....by presented I think i'm talking mostly about the main stream.
The thing that comes to mind is an interview I remember a few years back with Chris Wallace and Howard Dean (since this is a site about science and politics)
They were discussing 911 and Dean stated the most interesting theory he had heard was that Bush was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. He then went on to say it was just a theory and couldn't be proved.
Wallace asked him why he would bring that up if it was just a theory? Dean went on to say he didn't believe it, but it would be nice to know.
The real reason Dean was saying this is because he knows that by throwing it out there, even though it's a theory, it will eventually be taken as fact by many people.
Anyway, in a recent interview, Al Gore, while dicussing Nargis, stated..."we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming." He then, to his credit, went on to say...."any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming"
So he's sort of hinting (like Dean).... that it's possible, but the saying (like Dean) it can't be proven.
Is this then eventually taken as fact by many people?
Chris.
Thanks for the definition of "Moving goalposts"....it must have been a misunderstanding.
Other than that,do you have anything to say other than to comment on how it is you would like me to say something?
Perhaps you should type my resonponses for me, that way, I can read what I said and think about what your next reply might be to yourself.
Err, Betula, that's not exactly what happened in the interview with Gore -- [the audio was doctored](http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/05/09/right-wing-gore-cyclone/).
Betula,
You are parroting right-wing lies
That makes you credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid.
And by the by, the Bush Administration was warned before 9/11. In the famous words of Condi Rice, "nothing actionable."
Among other things, Betula conflates the common english meaning of "theory" with the scientific use of the word, which as nearly everyone here knows is far different.
So, Betula, do you?
Since we can often assign a specific cause to a traffic accident, I think perhaps the tobacco analogy is better (especially since paid tobacco-health denialists have frequently morphed into paid climate science denialism).
So, Betula, we know that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. However, there are multiple causes of lung cancer, so at this point we can't, with 100% confidence, point to a lung cancer victim and say "aha! she's a smoker! that caused her cancer".
In your world, though, our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of lung cancer "proves" that scientific theory regarding how cigarette smoking causes cancer must be wrong.
Tim.
I just read your link. That's pretty incredible and rather sad if it's true, and right now I don't have any reason to believe it isn't.
To me, it raises many questions....who doctored the tape? Is there an undoctored audio available somewhere? Why, when I do a google search, is this site "The Wonk Room", the only one reporting this? I checked NPR's site and didn't see anything on it......does anybody have more information.
What I find more annoying is the guy on Fox twisting the words while talking to Dr. Gray. I realize many on this site probably don't like him, but I went to CSU and he is well respected.
Anyway, I already had dinner, so perhaps I'll have crow for breakfast.
LB.
If it makes you feel better....you are my favorite.
Here you call someone..."credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid."..because they dare to get their news from more than one source.
I happen to be an Independent who is fairly disgusted, as are most Americans, with both sides.
If you think the "right wing" are the only ones distorting information, then you are choosing to get all your information from one side.
The truth is, it takes some digging to find the truth, and even then there is plenty of room for doubt.......but because I doubt, I am a denialist twit.
This is my issue with the far left...they seem very intolerant.....where would I ever get that idea?
And by the way, you should take the "Bush was warned" issue up with Howard Dean.....after bringing it up, he said doesn't believe it....DENIER!
dhogaza.
"In your world, though, our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of lung cancer "proves" that scientific theory regarding how cigarette smoking causes cancer must be wrong."
So you think in my world...
Our inability to definitely assign a cause in all cases of storms "proves" that scientific theory regarding how AGW causes storms must be wrong.
I thought AGW didn't cause storms?
Damn! I was just starting to come around, now you got me all confused again.
Betula,
Lessee.
You hear a contrived story from right-wing sources and you eat it up with a spoon. No doubt. No skepticism at all.
But multiple cross corroborated scientific evidence you doubt. No informed reason given. You just doubt.
Independent? That's what all the ditto-heads say. Adrift in loonyland.
Betula, the original audio is available from NPR. You can check for yourself that they rearranged Gore's words. The person responsible is likely to be Jeff Poor. I doubt that BMI will discipline him for this, since he's just doing his job.
"Here you call someone..."credulous, gullible, malinformed. And stupid."..because they dare to get their news from more than one source."
Actually in this case, you accepted the news from one highly suspect source - the Drudge Report.
I'm also interested how you know other posters here only get their news from one source.
I watch Fox News every day, literally.
Anyway, in a recent interview, Al Gore, while dicussing Nargis, stated..."we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming." He then, to his credit, went on to say...."any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming"
So he's sort of hinting (like Dean).... that it's possible, but the saying (like Dean) it can't be proven.
what he said is 100% correct. he does NOT say that it is possible but that it can t be proven.
instead he says that current storms show the AGW effect and that a single storm can t be linked to AGW this far.
he is just telling the TRUTH, not trying to maim it, like you!
Ian..
"Actually in this case, you accepted the news from one highly suspect source - the Drudge Report."
First of all, I didn't get it from Drudge, secondly, at the time of writing, I did not know of any other source disputing it....I have never visited "Wonk Room".
"I'm also interested how you know other posters here only get their news from one source."
I never said anything like that......now your acting like Doocy on Fox news, or perhaps your doctoring what I said....
My original transcipt reads....
"If you think the "right wing" are the only ones distorting information, then you are choosing to get all your information from one side."
You are reading what you want to hear.
Tim.
Thanks. A straight forward response. And your civility is appreciated.....I feel like Chesty Puller at the Chosin Reservoir.
If you didn't get it directly from the Drudge Report you got it from a source which probably got it from the Drudge Report.
Before I go posting ANY story on a blog I check the source.
The mere fact that this came from Drudge should have made you skeptical and cautious given his track record.
LB.
"But multiple cross corroborated scientific evidence you doubt. No informed reason given. You just doubt."
Do you even know what it is that I doubt?
Please tell.
Ian...
Before you go posting any story on a blog you check the source....excellent lesson there.
But perhaps before you lecture people on a blog about what they know.... you should read what they said....excellent lesson there as well.
BPL,
"I don't know any such damned thing."
Then you are quite poorly informed about the literature on the subject. The "severe weather" claim you make is very much in dispute in the literature with even Emmanuel's recent work leaning towards no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod). Likewise the drought claims.
Without those two scare tactics what exactly is going to kill my "children and grandchildren", sea level rise? Only if you plan to tie them down on a beach for fifty years.
"Global warming is a big, serious problem, and if we don't do anything about it a hell of a lot of people are going to die. That's the fact, Jack. Deal with it."
Here's a fact (Jack). India and China are now out producing the US in CO2 emissions. To achieve the reductions in CO2 that would be necessary to avoid a doubling by the end of the century (assuming that natural elements of the carbon cycle don't compensate) would require an over all reduction of CO2 greater than 80% of current emissions.
Just how do you propose to do that?
"The equation the IPCC uses now (Myrhe (sic) et al. 1998) is 5.35 ln (C / Co), which yields 3.7 W/m^2."
Also perhaps you can show me a first principles derivation of your extra 3.7 W/m^2 "equation". Myhre et al. 1998 merely adjusts the previously conjured number down due to aerosols in a failed attempt to bring it more in line with observations.
Betula,
As far as I can tell from your vague and inconsistent rambling, you haven't a clue as to what constitutes rational doubt. You seem to think that the bounded uncertainty in extrapolating future climate somehow justifies an irrational belief that AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems for the human race. Uncertainty cuts both ways. It could just as likely be far worse than the scientifically conservative projections of the IPCC.
Then you are quite poorly informed about the literature on the subject. The "severe weather" claim you make is very much in dispute in the literature with even Emmanuel's recent work leaning towards no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod). Likewise the drought claims.
nice one. pay attention lance.
now i ve been waiting for the Emanuel paper to show up for quite a while.
Betula obviously is talking, without having some basic knowledge on the subject. (beyond having heard that Al Gore once said something...)
you of course are equally uninformed. (read some news about in on a cheap right wing blog?)
if you had taken a SINGLE look at the paper, you would have noticed the ABSTRACT:
A new technique for deriving hurricane climatologies from global data, applied to climate
models, indicates that global warming should reduce the global frequency of hurricanes,
though their intensity may increase in some locations.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/hurr_risk.pdf
the paper makes some interesting reading.
but in short, the lance post above is a rather typical example of denialist nonsense.
misquoting a SINGLE scientific source witghout reading it. (based on some despised models, that he would never accept if he wouldn t like the results)
a part about china does it. we can t stop it anyway. (admitting a CO2 effect), just to be followed by a part questioning the CO2 forcing.
a model in denialism!
Bulb.
"You seem to think that the bounded uncertainty in extrapolating future climate somehow justifies an irrational belief that AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems for the human race."
Umm.....No.
I have never stated AGW cannot possibly cause any significant problems......anything can happen.
My doubt is the with the tone of urgency in conjunction with worst case scenario predictions that could lead to rash decision making policies and result in unintended consequences.
In addition, phrases like "the debate is over", "flat earther" and "holocaust denier" create doubt in my mind about the objectivity of the matter.
I also tend to doubt people that use ad hominem attacks as a way to communicate with someone who doesn't agree with them......
Let me see, so far you have personally have called me a fool, a strawman, stupid squared, pathetic, I smell, I have a pointy head, I'm credulous, gullible, malinformed, stupid again, a ditto head and I'm in looneyland.
Don't get me wrong, I like your style, it tells me a lot about you.....only, I don't think your going to win anybody over.
For you the debate isn't over....it never started.
You forgot to say "in the atlantic", because the modeling work also shows an increase in the pacific, which matches the analysis of observed storms in the pacific which he's published in the past.
At least if it's the same paper I skimmed a month or so ago.
Is there any particular reason why Lance quotes the part of Emmauel's work which supports his "global warming is bullshit" position, while ignoring the rest?
Can anyone here think of a reason as to why Lance would do that?
sod,
Emmanuel's comments that "...intensity may increase in some areas..." were just weakly stated cover for the fact that this "study", using of course climate models that were trying to prognosticate the tropical storm activity of the next two centuries, shows little or no reason to worry.
Here is a quote from the Houston Chronicle
"While his results don't rule out the possibility that global warming has contributed to the recent increase in activity in the Atlantic, they suggest that other factors -- possibly in addition to global warming -- are likely to have been substantial contributors to the observed increase in activity," his coauthor Vecchi said.
In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise.
For example, with Atlantic hurricanes, two of the seven model simulations Emanuel ran suggested that the overall intensity of storms would decline. Five models suggested a modest increase.
"The take-home message is that we've got a lot of work to do," Emanuel said. "There's still a lot of uncertainty in this problem. The bulk of the evidence is that hurricane power will go up, but in some places it will go down."
Emmanuel was on the more and stronger hurricane side of the debate and now he has backed off the more and is equivocating on the stronger claim.
My use of the word "leaning" was perhaps poorly chosen since he has changed direction but is still leaning towards the likelihood of slightly stronger storms if less of them.
The important thing to take from his remarks is the part about "a great deal of uncertainty", thus substantiating my claim that there is no empirically compelling evidence to claim that our "children and grandchildren" face "death" from climate change based on BPL's appeal to the threat from stronger storms.
Betula,
So you just want people to be nice to you when you say stupid things? You're turned off by my insults? Get over it. If you don't like being called stupid, quit being stupid.
I'm encouraged to learn you don't doubt the reality of AGW and it's possible catastrophic effects. You could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying so, instead of insulting everyone's intelligence by making vague assertions and off-hand dismissals.
If your real concern is policy implementation, give us an idea of what kind of solutions you think will work. Don't just whine about your straw man mis-perceptions of the ideas of others.
Straw man arguments are a form of logical fallacy. I didn't call you a straw man. I called you on your phony arguments.
Nonethelees, you do bear a striking resemblance to Ray Bolger's character in "The Wizard of Oz".
If you only had a brain.
Emmanuel's comments that "...intensity may increase in some areas..." were just weakly stated cover for the fact that this "study", using of course climate models that were trying to prognosticate the tropical storm activity of the next two centuries, shows little or no reason to worry.
i quoted the TWO LINE ABSTRACT of the paper. it contains the MOST IMPORTANT results.
before making any wild claims about the paper, why not for a start *shock* READ it?
Here is a quote from the Houston Chronicle
lance showing off, how typical a denialist he really is. i quote the apper, he quotes a newspaper report ABOUT the paper.
My use of the word "leaning" was perhaps poorly chosen since he has changed direction but is still leaning towards the likelihood of slightly stronger storms if less of them.
NO! the problem was NOT with the word leaning. you claimed he predicts "no increase in tropical storm strength (Pay attention sod)" when in deed he predicts AN increase in tropical storm strength! (pay attention lance!!!)
again, reading a paper BEFOREmaking claims about it, is sound advice...
The important thing to take from his remarks is the part about "a great deal of uncertainty", thus substantiating my claim that there is no empirically compelling evidence to claim that our "children and grandchildren" face "death" from climate change based on BPL's appeal to the threat from stronger storms.
now if you, with your profound knowledge on tropical storms assure us, that a 60% increase in storm strength will not harm anyone, i will rest comfortable tonight.
Now, now sod, I said I used a poor choice of words and conceded that Emmanuel's work points to the possibility that "some" areas "may" see increases and some may see decreases in intensity. The point of my previous remarks, that there is not yet credible evidence to link AGW with increased storm strength, is not damaged by this concession.
I used The Houston Chronicle piece because it quotes Emmanuel and his coauthor Vecchi directly on their study.
Perhaps you can site evidence for your remark about a "60% increase in storm intensity".
Now, now sod, I said I used a poor choice of words and conceded that Emmanuel's work points to the possibility that "some" areas "may" see increases and some may see decreases in intensity.
you did not chose your words poorly. you were flat out WRONG!
The point of my previous remarks, that there is not yet credible evidence to link AGW with increased storm strength, is not damaged by this concession.
the complete opposit of this is the truth, of course. the vast majority of scientific literature DOES make that link.
there are a few papers that somewhat caution on it.
I used The Houston Chronicle piece because it quotes Emmanuel and his coauthor Vecchi directly on their study.
this is getting BIZARRE!
Vecchi is NOT the coauthor of the Emanuel paper.
the paper you are talking about is Vecchi/Soden.
actually the Emanuel paper is the REBUTTAL of their paper.
ps: if you had read the paper even as far as the coauthory, you wouldn t constantly get his name wrong either(Emanuel)!
Perhaps you can site evidence for your remark about a "60% increase in storm intensity".
you re simply adamant in your denial to read the paper, aren t you?
here again the title:
HURRICANES AND GLOBAL
WARMING
Results from Downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations
BY KERRY EMANUEL, RAGOTH SUNDARARAJAN, AND JOHN WILLIAMS
"Vecchi is NOT the coauthor of the Emanuel paper."
Oops you are right. His paper was of course a different paper in Nature.
I was tripped up by this sentence in the article "That paper's co-author, Gabriel Vecchi...."
Which of course referred to Vecchi, G.A. and B.J. Soden. 2007. Effect of remote sea surface temperature change on tropical cyclone potential intensity. Nature, 450, 1066-1071.
That study showed that although SST's had increased over the latter part of the 20th century that PI in most tropical storm basins had not. It also made the point that vertical wind shear that is theorized to increase with higher SST's could be expected to inhibit cyclogenic stormformation.
If you had read the article to which I referred you would have seen that there was nothing "bizarre" about my mistake. That said it was a mistake and I thank you for pointing it out (if a bit rudely). The matter of my misspelling his name is just petty on your part.
I am aware of the name of the article and have read its abstract and many descriptions of the contents, including the article from the Houston Chronicle that I referenced.
Perhaps you can reference a site where I can read it without subscribing to the Bulletin of The AMS.
There are at least three factors relevant to the impact of tropical cyclones - frequency, strength and duration.
Even if the frequency and average strength of cyclones doesn't increase, if cyclones last longer the risk that they'll hit inhabited areas increases.
The principal limit on the duration of cyclones is that as they move away from the equator, they hit colder water which stops the convection driving their winds.
Warmer ocean temperatures imply longer duration cyclones and more damage even if the other two factors are unaffected.
Very creative Ian, if what you say is true we could expect that over the last century tropical cyclones would have been observed making landfall farther from the equator.
The only problem is that there is no evidence that this has occurred.
That study showed that although SST's had increased over the latter part of the 20th century that PI in most tropical storm basins had not. It also made the point that vertical wind shear that is theorized to increase with higher SST's could be expected to inhibit cyclogenic stormformation.
whcih is quite the opposite of what the Emanuel paper says. let us see: you claim that the Emanual paper predicts no increase in strength, when actually it does the opposite. then you mix it up with another paper, that again says exactly the opposite of the Emanuel paper.
pretty shocking record, isn t it?
If you had read the article to which I referred you would have seen that there was nothing "bizarre" about my mistake. That said it was a mistake and I thank you for pointing it out (if a bit rudely).
might sound funny, but i did of course read the article.
even CA was slightly sceptical about it.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2994
Perhaps you can reference a site where I can read it without subscribing to the Bulletin of The AMS.ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/hurr_risk.pdf
"The only problem is that there is no evidence that this has occurred.'
Have you looked for any or are you simply speaking ex cathedra?
Becoming increasingly irrational, Lance posts:
Yeah, Lance, it wasn't derived, it was "conjured."
Grow up.
Betula is having a lot of trouble understanding the point. Just to spell it out for it, saying
does not necessarily mean:
Saying:
leaves open the possibility that that you agree with the Heartland Institute's tactics. Getting the statement:
was like getting blood out of a stone.
BTW, I may have spoken too soon when I said:
You still seemed to misunderstand the point about cyclone risk later on.
Lance proves that human ignorance has no limit.
Unsatisfied, he endeavors to expand the limit.
sod,
Your link is to a two year old article not the one in this March's Bulletin of the AMS.
BPL,
I used the word conjured for a specific reason. There is no derivation from first principles for what you refer to as an "equation".
Ian,
Hurricanes have sporadically hit as far north as New England over the last two centuries. Especially severe hurricanes (probably cat 4 or 5) hit in 1815 and 1938. There is no evidence, which I am aware of, that tropical storms have been progressing farther from the tropics.
"Have you looked for any or are you simply speaking ex cathedra?"
You are the one that made the claim therefore it is incumbent upon you not me to back it up.
I suspect you are speaking ex posterium.
Lance,
[link](ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/Emanuel_etal_2008.pdf)
Enjoy!
Thanks for trying LB, but for some reason the wordpress software (or whatever they use here) leaves out the underscores between Emanual, etal and 2008.
I worked my way up the file path and found it.
Thanks again.
Chris.
Getting blood out of a stone?
You first chimed in at #76...in my first response to you at #80 I said I disagree with Heartland....we are now in the 140's.
Without tearing apart every aspect of the rest your comment, mainly because I don't feel like playing fetch anymore, I'll just keep it simple...
Obviously I struck a nerve.
You really need to get over it or seek counseling.
sod, .... Your link is to a two year old article not the one in this March's Bulletin of the AMS.
sorry, copy pasted the wrong link when i had both windows open. similar format. sorry. and available from the same source...
the paper was available via link from the CA page (that i linked above) as well.
Betula:
The point was, you went through the dissembling of saying:
and other dissembling and then my question before saying:
We are now in the 150's.
Obviously I struck a nerve.
You really need to get over it or seek counseling.
BTW, regarding: "Or is it because they are aware of the severity of the disgraceful actions of the Heartland Institute, and do not want to admit to being part of a movement that employs these tactics?"
That pretty much sounds like you, does it not?
Chris.
Sounds like you...does it not?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071002213433.htm
Betula:
Quoting from sciencedaily.com. That pretty much sounds like Betula, does it not?
Chris O'Neill:
But... but Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too!
If Clinton did it too, then it must be OK, or at least it's not so bad, right?
I mean... Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! Clinton did it too! The Left did it too! The greenies did it too! The warmists did it too! Yeah, I'm accusing them of doing something without proving that they did it. But that's what the greenies do too! They did it too! They did it too!
If they did it too, then it's OK! They did it too! They did it too! They did it too!
Bi...
Are you saying Luminous Beauty is really Hillary Clinton?
That pretty much sounds like Betula, does it not?