The Times Online has posted a list of science blogs of various sorts, which I was inclined to endorse since they did include me, and also some blogs I hadn't seen before — I am enchanted by 2d goggles, and want to spend the rest of the day reading the archives — but then I got to the end of the list and … Anthony Watts? Crank weatherman and climate change denialist? That's an anti-science blog, sorry. Now I'm a little embarrassed to be on it.
I note that the commenters on that site are similarly dismayed at the lack of discrimination in their final choice.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's a great post at NeuroDojo on the Heffernan business this weekend, and what the take-away ought to be:
Yeah, let's criticize that she didn't get past the first impression of science blogs. We should expect Heffernan to look before leaping - she writes for the Times, after all, which still…
A lot of Twitter energy was soaked up Friday afternoon by a half stupid article by Virginia Heffernan at the New York Times. Sparked by Sodamageddon, she takes a look at ScienceBlogs for the first time, and doesn't like what she sees:
Hammering away at an ideology, substituting stridency for…
I know, right?
Anthony Watts, of the science-denialist Whats Up with That blog, has got his shorts in a knot because of a post I wrote indicating that he is a boob. He is upset because in a screen shot of him talking about a totally absurd pseudo-scientific claim that should have been rejected out…
In which we look at the end of the Steelypips era and the launch of ScienceBlogs.
------------
Before the Great Upgrade derailed things completely for a month, I was working on a recap of this blog's history, and had gotten up through the end of 2005, which marked the end of my time as an…
Not sure what's worse on that list, Watts or the Intersection !
At least that awful Blastula blog didn't make the list.
Oh, wait.....
Intersection can be on this kind of list: it's wrong, and I disagree with it, but Mooney isn't anti-science. Watts is simply a lying denialist.
I was pleased to notice nominations for TetZoo in the comments, a far finer candidate than Watts.
Watt's blog is number 2 on the top science blogs at Wikio. Which is where a lot of people go to find science blogs.
http://www.wikio.com/blogs/top/sciences
Unfortunatly, it seems the way that they rank blogs is just by cross linking.
"How are these rankings compiled?
The position of a blog in the Wikio ranking depends on the number and weight of the incoming links from other blogs. Our algorithm accords a greater value to links from blogs placed higher up in the ranking.
A blog linking another blog is only counted once a month i.e. if blog A links to blog B 10 times in a given month, it is only counted as having linked to that blog once that month. The weight of any link decreases over time. Also, if a blog always links to the same blog, the weight of these links is decreased.
Only links found in RSS feeds are counted. Blogrolls are not taken into account.
Our rankings are updated on a monthly basis and also include Top Blogs for several categories: Technology, Politics, etc. New categories will be added on a regular basis."
"One of the more entertainingly sceptic blogs..."
I hate when people misuse the term "skeptic/sceptic". A skeptic is one who questions a position that is contrary to the evidence. For instance, I am skeptical of creationism, of a 6000 year old earth, and a global flood. They are all positions that are in contrast with the evidence, and lack any supporting evidence.
A denialist, however, is exactly the opposite of a skeptic. A denialist is one who takes a position in contrast to the evidence. Antivaxers, 911 "truthers", and IDists. They all deny any evidence which is in conflict with their pet belief.
Deepsix @#5: Weren't the sceptics a school that denied that humans could ever achieve anything worthy of the name "knowledge"? The usage meaning "sensible empiricist" always seems as odd as the one meaning "nutbar denialist" to me.
Perhaps when used in the philosophical sense, where the "truth" is unknowable. I'm referring to skepticism in its modern usage.
@5 Interesting definition. More concisely: a denialist is someone who is not skeptical about the same things as me.
Vote for http://www.tompainesghost.com for the top 100!
@8 No, that's not what I'm saying at all. A skeptic generally accepts conclusions which are based on supporting evidence. And, questions (is skeptical of) those positions in which there is no supporting evidence, or the evidence is contrary to the position, or both.
This is opposite of a denialist. Which is one who rejects (denies) evidence if it is contrary to their held position.
This seems like a simple concept to me.
Wow, are you seriously disagreeing that antivaxers, 911 "truthers" and IDists take positions in contrast to the evidence? All three groups, or just one?
Samwise, is that in response to me or someone else? Because I am saying that those groups DO take positions contrary to the evidence.
@10: Surely a more valid definition is that a denialist is one who ignores or dismisses evidence contradictory to their opinion, whereas a skeptic is one who acknowledges the evidence, but questions its validity?
Or put another way, a denialist is one who asserts that the opposite is true, whereas a skeptic is one who withholds assent pending further proof.
Chris has made a lot of unfair generalizations, and dispensed a great deal of bad advice on how to communicate science, but he is by no stretch of the imagination anti-science. Chris, for the most part, accepts evidence, trusts experts insofar as they use scientific methods, and is skeptical of claims which rely on logical fallacies.
Watts, on the other hand, credulously accepts mutually contradictory claims from various anti-science kooks, promotes gross distortions of what climate scientists have said, and in general has engaged in a great deal of anti-science behavior.
Weren't the Skeptics the bad guys in "The Dark Crystal?"
+4 respect points.
@ 13, I agree with you for the most part. I think once one gather's sufficient evidence, you can draw conclusions based on it. That doesn't mean you stop the search. An evidence based person should always evaluate and consider any new evidence, and adjust conclusions accordingly.
But, this isn't what denialists do. They maintain their conclusions regardless of the evidence.
@15, for a kids movie, The Dark Crystal sure seemed scary at the time. But no kids movie was more scary than Watership Down. My mom thought that would be a great movie to take young kids to. You know, having bunnies and all. Evil, evil bunnies.
I'm annoyed by the misuse of "skeptic" as well. the rule of thumb I always use is: asking a question is skeptical behaviour. Asking a question, getting an answer, then asking the same question again and again and again until you get an answer that you like is denialist.
Skepticism raises legitimate questions with regard to the generally accepted position on a topic and can by its nature clarify our understanding and advance our knowledge. Denialism has no such agenda. Denialists may ask the same questions but they aren't listening for answers, they are simply listening for their cue to repeat the same question.
@17 Now that is a more robust distinction that I can get behind. You should, as you said, always evaluate and consider new evidence. You know if you read through Watts' blog posts there are quite a few stretcher's, a fine collection of meteological red herrings, some irrelevant posts on public perceptions about the validity of climate science and exactly one hit. Rohling's paper on the Holocene does provide some contradictory evidence to the current consensus. It is an interesting anomaly. It is the sort of thing which can be used to distinguish the amount of global warming that is anthropogenic versus normal variations. You know what they say about stopped clocks. Military ones are right once a day.
Ulp... thought I had it in a nutshell but the commenter immediately preceding me apparently had smaller nuts. Hmm. That was meant to be a compliment on his brevity, soul of wit and all that, but it didn't come off as intended.
http://2dgoggles.com won my heart at first sight, and has only improved with each installment.
Peter G. A Skeptic is one who goes out of his way to see the evidence him/herself.
A denialist is one who simply refuses to acknowledge the evidence--"micro"Watts is clearly a denialist. Good lord, this is a site where they actually have debates about whether CO2 falls as snow in Antartica!
The one good thing about Watts-up-'is-arse is that it tends to serve as an asylum for the more virulent wingnut climate denialists.
Incidentally, what's the correct term for the third group in opposition to conventional climate change policy? I'm talking about the ones who are neither skeptics nor denialists when it comes to the science, but who argue that the solutions on offer (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, etc) are more damaging than the problem?
Clueless ?
Peter G., Despite the "creative" take on this Rohling's work at CO2Science, I fail to see that it is a significant challenge to the consensus theory of climate. Rohling himself has said that the work is not relevant for consideration of the current warming epoch.
Something Arbitrary asks: "Incidentally, what's the correct term for the third group in opposition to conventional climate change policy? I'm talking about the ones who are neither skeptics nor denialists when it comes to the science, but who argue that the solutions on offer (carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, etc) are more damaging than the problem?"
Oh, I don't know, how about ideologically blinkered reality denialists?
Works for me.
Clueless is pithier!
No, not clueless. The questions about how to deal with the expected results are valid in two ways. First, is there any reasonable expectation that the proposed changes will resolve the problem? If not -- and the climate models aren't as promising on this as we would like -- why not, and, second, what other alternatives do we have?
It may be that we would be better off letting carbon dioxide increse in the atmosphere and direct resources to mitigation. I realize that there many reasons, including finding new places for a billion people to live, to consider this an impossible task, but is there any reason to think that we will be able to restore the status quo ante? That does not mean that it is not sensible to attempt to limit carbon dioxide emissions as an attempt to limit emissions at reasonable costs while mostly spending money on mitigation of the effects.
25, 27: Wasn't there a thread the other day about how conservatives see liberals as intolerably condescending and dismissive? Can't think why, with quality contributions like yours.
True a_ray@26 and I did not say Watts is not a denialist. On the contrary most of his posts would be easy to punch holes in. Nor did I say that Rohling's work is a significant challenge to the consensus nor that it was intended to be. The Holocene does represent an analogous situation to our present state and Rohling's work does give some interesting insight into non anthropogenic climate change. My point would be more general. I don't think it wise to throw the baby out with the bath water. I was unclear. My comment was not intended to support Watts but to point out if someone does produce any real supportable evidence that requires some refinement of the consensus scientific integrity demands that it be given a fair hearing and the authors not automatically lumped with denialists. That is bad for the science. Rohling should not have had to make any statement about the applicability of his work should he? That sort of thing betrays a defensiveness that I find troubling. Burdened as it is with public policy does that mean a responsible climate scientist need fear publishing data that doesn't quite fit the model?
Something Arbitrary:
I'd previously used the word "pseudoskeptic" for those who weren't really skeptical but had hijacked the term. However, it didn't cover the proper spectrum of behaviour.
There are several who argue similar points to the denialists, who speak at the same events sponsored by the same think tanks, but claim to accept the science (while seemingly also taking Reagan's 11th Commandment a little too seriously, since they always attack the IPCC as "alarmist" and never attack the loony deniers). The archetypal example here is Bjorn Lomborg, who is still taken seriously for some reason.
These people are activists in their own way - activists for the status quo, activists for inaction.
Thus, the term I use for these people is "inactivist".
Note that this is different from the folk who argue for action but suggest schemes like geoengineering in addition to carbon mitigation and climate adaptation - that's a legitimate difference in opinion. However, if they just argue for geoengineering with a status quo carbon economy (*cough*Superfreakonomics*cough), or if they continually call for "more research" (like they usually have been for decades), tough luck, they're inactivists.
The term also includes the denialists, although - unlike "denialist" or (the sadly misappropriated term) "skeptic" - it implies taking action towards a status quo policy outcome.
Oh, on that point about inactivists demonizing the IPCC as "alarmist"? It's sounding like trope at this point, but that's probably due to how the media reports it. (Graph courtesy of Michael Tobis, cleaned up a bit.) Anthony Watts lies somewhere on that left curve.
You know a_ray I have to be honest and say I don't think much of cap-and trade. It will require a much bigger bureaucracy to administer than a simple carbon tax. Furthermore it will be subject to political interference and will create regional political tensions that can only adversely affect a speedy implementation. A carbon tax is the way to go in my opinion. I wonder does that make me a demi-ideologically blinkered reality denialists?
32: Thanks. "Inactivist" is a pretty good term, though I think I'm going to need to differentiate it from those who think it's more cost-effective to adapt to climate change than to try to reverse it (henceforth "Adaptationists").
Don't be too hard on the Superfreakonomics guys; I'm sure they're as aware as anyone that it'd be foolish to rely solely on geoengineering. My reading of the book was that they were advocating "in addition to" rather than "instead of", but their style of writing lends itself to presenting things in isolation so that message got a bit lost. If they've made comments elsewhere that suggest the opposite I'm happy to be corrected.
There's a difference between (1) Denying the AGW science; (2) Disliking the suggested approaches to the problems but not necessarily denying AGW; and (3) Denying AGW because of disliking the suggested approaches to the problems.
The 1st group generally don't know what they are talking about (both figuratively and literally). These people are irritating, and if in a position of power or influence, can be very damaging.
The 2nd group is potentially valuable if constructively engaged: They could suggest better measures, or point out possible tweaks to the suggested measures which are useful, or so on.
It's the 3rd group which vastly irritates me: They are conflating possibly sensible objections to proposed ideas with the very reason the ideas are being proposed in the first place. It's like saying that you don't think 1 = 0.999999… and therefore all of biology is bunk. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. To-date I've found it impossible to hold a sensible conversation with people in this group.
(The above is perhaps a bit over-generalised, and offered without evidence.)
Something arbitrary,
I do not think that it is at all condescending to hold in contempt those who reject known science because they to not like its policy implications. The science is entirely separate from what we do about the implied threat.
If you do not like cap and trade or carbon taxes, great! Figure out an alternative strategy for risk avoidance or mitigation. However, the known science should be the starting point, and it must address all the threats.
Nature does not care about your ideology or your economic system. To reject known science because of your ideology is a fatal flaw--both for civilization and for your ideology.
I really should have googled "adaptationism" before I suggested it as a term. Now PZ is going to smite me with Biologist Wrath™ for stealing a term already in use in his field. Any other suggestions?
They also lied about "global cooling."
Peter G.,
Whether one uses a carbon tax or cap and trade is irrelevant as long as the result is that fossil fuels reflect the costs of environmental damage they do.
The problem with cap and trade is ensuring that carbon credits are real. The problem with a tax is that politically powerful elites can buy the government and get the tax reduced so they can externalize their costs. Personally, I think a cap and trade scheme by its international and market nature would reward innovation better and be more difficult to corrupt, but I am not wedded to the idea. What matters is doing something NOW.
36: Yeah, except I was specifically asking about people who don't reject known science, but do question whether the policies are the best way of addressing the problem. So your contempt is badly misdirected, and I've got to assume that it's automatic and reflexive rather than reasoned. Be better.
A_Ray,
I prefer carbon tax for two reasons: (1) It's simpler and (2) the revenue can be directed to decreasing emissions of carbon dioxide. For me, the ideal carbon tax would be paid by the producers of all carbon fuels and would increase annually. The money from the tax would go 60% to improve energy efficiency in low/moderate income households and 40% to industrial efficiency improvements. I guess I would start it at a rate equivalent to $.40/gallon and increase by $.30/gallon annually until the target was met.
Cap and trade ends up with current polluters fighting over how much pollution they have the right to emit, hoping to get more than they need so they can sell their excess. It isn't nearly as good a market force as a carbon tax, though it still beats trying to figure out how to impose hard limits on everyone.
Something Arbitrary,
If one accepts the consensus theory of Earth's climate, then it is simply not possible to contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat.
Risk mitigation (which is my day job) then demands that we must bound the adverse consequences we would face if the threat were realized. If we cannot estimate an upper bound with high confidence, then the only viable strategy is risk avoidance.
That is where we are right now with climate change. There remain a lot of uncertainties with respect to potential threats--and none of them are favorable to the course of inaction.
The likely costs of avoiding dangerous warming are estimated to be a few percent of global economic activity--and what is more, most of these expenditures would be needed in any case to address threats due to Peak Oil.
Indeed, it is arguable that the concerted effort needed to develop technology to address climate change could result in a better economy in the next century. Personally, I find inactivism hard to justify from any reasonable risk perspective, but it is not as contemptible a position as outright denialism.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space@ "The problem with cap and trade is ensuring that carbon credits are real". You wrote the truth there without a doubt. I can think of no market with so much potential for fraud than carbon offsets. The measurement of carbon not released into the environment? Golly! I will remark parenthetically that the Catholic Church did a land office business selling dispensations for future sins not yet committed and the production costs were limited to parchment and ink.
Sadly, I do not see a viable strategy that will stop a single barrel of oil from being pumped out of the ground. Either a carbon tax or cap and trade might reduce coal consumption and encourage a switch to natural gas energy production of energy which would help somewhat. Worse still the financial risks of pursuing a nuclear generating option and NIMBY will take that off the table for most of North America.
Free Lunch@41 A slight correction. Except for taxes on income corporations do not pay taxes. They collect many on behalf of government but those taxes are ultimately passed on to the end consumer. These taxes will be payed by us. That is as it should be.
@42: Sigh.
All I was asking for was a term to describe that viewpoint. In response you have given me a glib insult directed at a different group entirely, followed by an obviously unoriginal criticism of a straw man of a viewpoint I never gave you reason to suspect I hold.
Yup, it must be a debate on the internet.
Many rabid deniers--whether of AGW or vaccines--proceed from the premise that everything, including science, is political. You say that fossil fuels threaten the climate? The green lobby must have bought you off. You think MMR vaccine is safe? You are in the pocket of Big Pharma.
Now, these are ludicrous arguments. Apart from anything else, the "green lobby" could never possibly outspend the oil industry, and Big Pharma makes very little money off its vaccine business compared to, say, Lipitor. But we are dealing here with people who fundamentally don't accept the possibility of objective, or disinterested, knowledge. To them, every piece of information depends for its truth on who benefits if it is true. It's the appeal to authority, carried to the point of absurdity.
Last paragraph is bang on InfraredEyes. I think I may be starting to sound a little contrarian today but science is political to some degree. Every single one. They are human endeavors so it is unavoidable but anyone who's ever worked within any given science faculty will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Another blog that I thought shouldn't have been on the science blog list is Jack of Kent. It's an interesting blog, one which I visit and comment on regularly. It's just not a science blog. Even Jack of Kent admits that in the comments to the Times Online piece.
Yeah, I agree that science is political to some degree. For example my career in alternative (hydrocarbon) fuels came to a screeching halt when Reagan defeated Carter. But the statement that human activity is contributing significantly to global warming, is not a political statement in itself. It is a statement about reality that can be tested empirically. I don't think the true AGW denier actually accepts that.
And may I just say that I don't think Al Gore helps matters at all when he insists that global warming is a Huge Moral Issue!! No doubt there are aspects of climate change policy that have moral dimensions, but personally I think we're better served by treating this as a practical problem requiring practical measures.
Personally Infraredeyes I was thinking of my time as a graduate student when an in house succession fight for the position of Dean put me on the wrong side. When the dust cleared and it was time to allocate research budgets that side was the wrong place to be. You know what they say; all politics is local.
I concur with your last paragraph as well. This isn't a moral issue so much as a giant scientific and technical problem.
Peter G. says, "I can think of no market with so much potential for fraud than carbon offsets. The measurement of carbon not released into the environment?"
Oh, come on, people trade in quantities this abstract every day. By comparison a derivatives trade is string theory! Yes, the market and the activities must be tightly regulated, and yes, the value must ultimately be based on an idealized energy-consumption, but there is no reason such a scheme could not work.
What is more, we have an example of such a system working quite well and decreasing acid rain as we speak.
It is certainly possible to do it badly. It is possible to mess up a carbon tax as well--particularly when a carbon tax would have to be imposed with consistency GLOBALLY, and would require a complex series of tariff quotas and sanctions to prevent a race to the bottom.
I also agree on petroleum--I just think it is stupid to burn it! There is no better feedstock for organic chemistry and we have depleted it in a century of waste!
Something Arbitrary,
You came on here asserting, based on zero evidence, that measures to deal with climate change would be worse than its consequences.
I called you on the fact that this is an irresponsible position given that the risk of climate change remains unbounded.
You claim to accept the science. You present no evidence that the consequences will be mild. You claim you don't like the consequences of proposed mitigation schemes and yet you propose NOTHING!
Look, we are in a climate today where climate scientists are facing lawsuits, harassment, abusive investigations from legislators and even death threats. I'm afraid that has made me a bit less charitable toward libertarian twats.
@52: You're embarrassing yourself, mate. Please in future read what I've said before responding.
Every word I've written is visible on this page, and you'll find not a single assertion in amongst 'em. Only a question followed by responses to your misdirected contempt.
Since I never asserted that position, I can't see how you can claim to have called me on it.
Where do I make that claim? (In point of fact I do of course accept the science, but unless you're psychic I'm not sure how you could have known that.
Is it not traditional to only offer evidence in support of claims that one has actually made?
Do I? Show me where.
That's the first correct thing you've said so far. I have indeed proposed nothing, though I don't know why that angers you.
Sir, you are remarkable and I salute you. Despite the total absence of any expression of political ideology or opinion, you have been able to draw conclusions about both my political philosophy and my personal character. Well done!
Ladies and gents, I present a_ray_in_dilbert_space: A man so desperate to pick a fight to defend his beliefs that he'll keep on swinging even when there's no one actually opposing him. Terrific entertainment.
I'm hopeful that my blog will show up on the list, even though it's a fairly new blog.
It is "Scientific Words of the Week" and you can find it at: http://ScientificWords.wordpress.com
(There's no agenda, and certainly no anti-science bias.)
Alright, SA, then state your fucking position! Oh, I know. You don't have one. You're just here trolling.
Ah, but you do leave a little trail of droppings, such as
Evidence is evidence, Sparky. You either accept it and try to explain it unless you feel it is flawed.
SA:
True you did not have the courage to identify this position as your own, but then why did you bring it up? Regardless, the position you refer to is invalid because it is based on improper risk assessment.
SA:
Gee, given your lack of any valid argument or point, I don't see why you should not be dismissed, do you? Hell, you won't even say whether you accept the science.
You aren't giving me a lot to work with here, Sport. But then, I suppose it's because you have so little to offer.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space @51 "Oh, come on, people trade in quantities this abstract every day". They sure do. How's that been working out by the way? Ever run a business? I do. Keeping track of physical inventory is difficult enough and the accounting rules can be quite complex. Keeping track of what you didn't produce is a nightmare. Now if you think about carbon offsets will have to certified by somebody and I'll tell you now, it isn't going to be Greenpeace. If the markets get really large it's going to be some outfit like Standard and Poor's or Moody's. How did you like their handling of securitized mortgages. Count on it, there won't be sufficient oversite to keep offsets honest and there will be gigantic pressures from various interests from carbon generators to marketers to inflate the value of these things.
In reference to the above discussion of skeptic and denialist, I have a related question about global warming proponents and their behaviour.
Scientific evidence points to airplane emissions as one of the worst ways that the planet is being polluted by CO2 emissions, yet vocal proponents of climate change continue to fly willy-nilly to places like Europe and Australia. What is that kind of disconnect called?
Does Something Arbitrary have a past history of arguing against serious action on AGW? S/he was literally asking for a word or phrase and a number of folks here have taken it like if we'd heard someone say "There's this friend of mine — not me of course…"
Also, SA happened to note that, indeed, certain terms above were insulting towards people who have, and I cannot emphasize this enough or else be tarred myself, stupid, incorrect beliefs. SA is saying (I think), please stop contributing to the image of the condescending liberal, it only hurts. (And now I'm saying to myself, Lenoxuss, please stop condescending to SA, people can fight their own fights.)
Ahh, terminology… I personally — not what everyone needs to do, just me personally — do my best to stick to the words groups use for themselves, except where it stretches to a breaking point. For example, an embryo is technically alive, so I'm willing to use the term "pro-life" in addition to "anti-abortion". But anti-vaxers will never accept a vaccine as safe, so I won't call them "pro-safe-vaccine". And when I'm in a grumpy mood, I'm happy to say "pro-preventable-illness". (And in a really grumpy mood regarding the former, "pro-coathanger". So yeah, the latter end of my commonwealth forgets the beginning I'm a fucking hypocrite.)
With the various strains of AGW… opposition, it can be tricky to find a politically neutral term. And sometimes that's the term you're looking for, like if you're trying to write a news story or edit Wikipedia.
We also need a term for people who claim that the risks of anthropogenic climate change are unbounded. (I have heard people claim that it will cause the extinction of humanity. I haven't (yet) heard anybody claim that it will cause the extinction of all life on Earth.)
--Viadd
"Another blog that I thought shouldn't have been on the science blog list is Jack of Kent. It's an interesting blog, one which I visit and comment on regularly. It's just not a science blog. Even Jack of Kent admits that in the comments to the Times Online piece."
Absolutely, especially when Ben Goldacre's blog is not there.
I suppose it may constitute evidence that us Arts and Humanities nerds are the coming force ;-)
SA,
How about "conservatives" ?
Whether they deny the existence of the problem, or deny the effectiveness of the policies to deal with the problem, they are all prefectly happy with the status quo and would rather see nothing changed.
That's what conservatism is about.
tt | February 9, 2010 10:57 PM:
A coal power plant with 200 MWe capacity emits about 1,341,000 metric tons of CO2 every year(0). That is equivalent to 4,967,000 kilometers (3,086,000 miles) of long distance air travel(1). If an activist's airline travel makes a 1% contribution to closing(2) a single 200 MWe coal power plant 1 year early, any amount of air travel less than 49,670 km (30,860 miles) is a net reduction in CO2 emissions.
Stephen H. Schneider, in his book Science as a Contact Sport, answered that question as follows:
(pages 162-163, Chapter 5: The Battle Heats Up and So Does The World, section The Contentious Kyoto Protocol.)
Schneider, in other words, is hoping his 100,000 miles of airline travel per year makes at least a 1% contribution to closing at least 600 MWe worth of coal power plants 1 year earlier than they would have otherwise closed, each year. He can't easily know that is actually happening, but it is certainly possible.
(0) The combustion of coal for electricity emits 1.02 metric tons (2249 lb) CO2 per MWh of electric energy produced (here.). If a coal power plant runs at 75% of capacity (typical), for a year, that's 6706 metric tons CO2 per MW of capacity, per year. A an average coal power plant has a capacity of about 200 MWe (megawatts of electricity), so that's 1341000 metric tons CO2 per power plant per year.
(1) Long distance airline travel emits about 270 grams CO2 per person per kilometer, after applying a multiplier of 1.9 to account for the fact that CO2 emitted in the stratosphere has higher impact. (here.)
(2) Here, "closing", means the power plant no longer emits CO2, and is replaced by CO2-free energy.
That's not a view that has significant political influence. They're like the modern sophisticated liberal theologians; their views might be amusing to debunk, but they don't matter.
"unbounded" could mean it destroys the entire fucking galaxy. While it is highly unlikely that unchecked global warming will cause the extinction of humanity, to equate such a projection with the "claim that the risks of anthropogenic climate change are unbounded" is thoroughly stupid.
@58: Thanks lenoxuss, that's almost exactly what I'm saying, and I don't take your contribution as condescension since I'd gone to bed and wasn't on hand to defend myself.
Back to @55: Why are you still arguing? If it's because you're embarrassed to have been caught in a bad assumption, there are more mature ways to deal with that than getting angry. All I did was ask a simple question.
My position is that I'm a debate nerd. I think (and your comments confirm) that debates turn into arguments when people make bad assumptions. I've not been on Pharyngula long, and so far my only contributions have been intended to clarify agreed-upon definitions and highlight bad assumptions and logical fallacies. The reason I do this is that I've watched the American right fall into the hands of theocrats and culture warriors - people who reflexively respond to any perceived dissent with scorn and anger - and I'd like it if the left didn't fall into that same trap. But if you're a representative example, it may already be too late.
@61: Your term is valid, but I think it's a little too generalised and comes loaded with too many connotations to be an appropriate term in context. I was looking for something a little more specific, so "climate inactivists" works for me.
OK, SA, I am willing to admit that I came down harder on you than was warranted. I apologize for that. The thing you should understand is that climate science right now is the front line of anti-science activism. Michael Mann, despite being exonerated of charges of misconduct by a Penn State review, now faces a NSF inquisition (not inquiry) instigated by James Inhofe (who sent a threatening letter to the NSF IG). Other climate scientists have faced harassment and even death threats. I myself have faced harassment at my workplace (and I am merely a physicist, not a climate scientist), so potential concern trolling is something I take seriously.
I also think it is a mistake to distinguish between those who deny the basic science of climate change and those who deny the serious consequences it will have. Both are denialists. It is merely a question of how wilfully ignorant they are.
Also, when I say that the consequences of climate change are not bounded, I am saying this in the sense of risk management rather than mathematics. I personally do not think it will result in the extinction of the human species. There are credible scenarios in which it--in conjunction with overpopulation and degradation of global productive capacities--could result in the destruction of human civilization. It is irresponsible of "inactivists" like Lomborg, Dyson et al. to ignore these.
Make no mistake. This is a war.
Oh stop being so dramatic. It's not war, it's public policy debate. On the internet.
You should have stopped at the apology. Trying to justify your disgraceful attitude by whining about the nasty tactics your opponents have used just makes you look like a child: "He started it..."
In future, things will go a lot smoother for you if you respond to the things people actually say, rather than lashing out in paranoia and anger against the positions you imagine them to hold.
That said, apology accepted. I now consider the matter closed, so let's move on.
Something Arbitrary,
We have a Senator abusing his position to harrass climate scientists. We have right-wing radio hosts advocating torture and murder of climate scientists. We have oil and coal companies pumping millions into discrediting climate scientists.
What part of that do you not understand?
@57: air travel is a rather small total contributor to CO2 emissions; it's dwarfed by electricity generation (the real biggy) and by road transport. There's nothing wrong with a climate activist flying to somewhere they need to be to contribute to the science or the policymaking.
llewelly@63 I agree that claims of unbounded risk (or even the mere extinction of humanity) are fucking stupid.
But calling a_ray_in_dilbert_space@52 "fucking stupid" would be uncivil and insufficiently specific. (There are FS arguments on both sides of the issue.)
-- Viadd
The part where you attack anybody you think disagrees with you.
If a Senator is harassing scientists(citation needed), take it up with the Senator. If radio hosts are advocating torture and murder(citation needed), take it up with the radio hosts. If oil and coal companies are pumping millions into discrediting climate scientists(citation needed), take it up with the oil and coal companies.
But don't pick pointless fights with people who've done none of those things. If you're going to argue on behalf the side that makes its decisions based on reason and calm consideration, it would be nice if you acted reasonably.
Ask yourself: when you automatically switch into attack mode whenever you think you see a hint of disagreement with your position, how many minds are you going to change? Faced with hostility, people dig in to their established positions. By acting like a jackass, you're actually diminishing the chances of getting people to consider the evidence rationally.
People like you give liberals a bad name. Please adjust your attitude.
The one sense in which I think heel-digging line-drawing territorial politics can be a good thing for liberalism, or for atheism, is the strengthening of the side. But it comes with its costs.
Until the slow collapse of neoconservatism in the second Bush administration, conservatives had a pretty darn good lockstep going; now it's moderates vs Tea Partiers (and yet they still managed to effectively nix every major policy proposal with a minority in both houses). To some extent, liberalism may need to become like that — either you agree with us on AGW, or you're against us — and to some extent, I don't want to see that happening, both because of the backlash and the way it can erode itself.
It's tough to have a "discourse" with people who are Obviously Wrong. Yet merely by my using that phrase — Obviously Wrong — I've excluded myself from discourse. We want to change hearts and minds; at the same time, we can get discouraged that there ever were hearts and minds to change. It's a dilemma…
(There are days when I sort of think, "Why didn't the Haiti earthquake make religion vanish in a puff of logic?")
Something Arbitrary, your comment number 70 could have been written by Chris Mooney.
I agree with a_ray_in_dilbert_space, there is a war (metaphorically speaking) going on, where people are actively working on suppressing science. Scientists receive death threats for daring to actually report their findings, and certain politicians actively tries to ruin the careers of the same scientists.
@72: Ah. I can see how you might have gotten that impression. To clarify: I am not asking a_ray_in_dilbert_space to be nice to denialists; I am simply asking him to behave like a rational adult and confirm whether someone actually is one before going on the offensive. Not an unreasonable position, surely?
SA, OK you asked for it:
Letter to the IG for NSF from James Inhofe
Quote by Rush Limbaugh on the IPCC:
Death threats:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017905.ece
SA, these are just 3 examples. I myself have been threatened and harassed. So, when engaging on this subject, I like it out in the open who I am dealing with.
If you think that it is intolerably dismissive and condescending to contend that blithely dismissing the consequences of climate change on the only habitable planet we know is irresponsible, then perhaps you should look into what those potential consequences actually are. Surely that is not an unreasonable position.
Inactivist.
I'd like to offer an alternative: procrastinist. It offers the rational (rightly or wrongly) that we'll be better equipped to deal with it later.
Cap and Trade vs. Carbon Tax.
A lot of people railing against cap and trade were probably praising emissions trading when it came out 20 years ago. It looks to me like the main difference with carbon trading will be it's much larger scale. For this reason, I favor the simplicity of a carbon tax.
Times are tough right now. Climate guys are a convenient scapegoat.
@74: You're not listening to me.
I think it is intolerably dismissive and condescending to assume that the person you're talking is blithely dismissing the consequences, or that they haven't looked into the consequences. My problem is not with your attitude towards deniers, its with your eagerness to assume that whomever you're talking to is a denier. This entire thread, you've come across like someone who's spoiling for a fight. For instance:
Not "Since you asked...", not "Here are my sources". "You asked for it". That's the kind of thing you say just before you punch someone, not an appropriate lead-in to presenting your evidence.
And speaking of the evidence, are you seriously telling me that that's your basis for saying "This is war"?
The death threats I'll concede: it's disgraceful that Phil Jones is being threatened, and the people who're doing it should be prosecuted. But from the story it appears they only started after the CRU scandal, so I get the sense the people threatening him are doing so not because he's advocating action on climate change, but because they believe he was cooking his books to present a phony case. No doubt the people making the threats are your equivalents on the other side - people who are in a war mentality and have lost their sense of perspective.
The letter - try as I might, I can't see how you'd call this "harassment". It's a letter to the NSF asking that an investigation that is set to happen anyway be expanded to consider national as well as local issues. You might well say (and I'd agree) that it's unseemly for a senator to get involved in such a minor issue, but considering that national politicians are apparently so idle that congress recently considered a bill to change the playoff procedure in college basketball, it's not really a shocker, and it's certainly not an act of war.
Limbaugh: You're joking, right? Rush Limbaugh is a despicable man and I absolutely loathe him, but surely no reasonable person would think that "drawn and quartered" was a serious suggestion? When was the last time we had a quartering? Has there ever been one in America? It's a hostile phrase from an idiotic blowhard, but to call it "advocating torture and murder" takes a wilful suspension of reason. Again, you confirm me in my opinion of you as someone so desperate to get into a fight that you'll search for anything to be offended by to act as your casus belli.