Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Recalling, once again, the two most important and elusive items from my list of twenty things that are absolutely non-partisan or damn well ought to be:
8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
9. [blank] and [blank] are functionally equivalent; they are not different in any meaningful way.
Former Vice President, and losing presidential candidate, Al Gore says Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.
Current President Barack Obama says this is not the case. Those two positions are meaningfully different; they are not the same. They are mutually exclusive from each other.
Anthony Watts has picked up on this. Actually, that isn’t quite right. The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, picked up on it and put up a billboard about the clear contradiction, and Watts accentuated the problem by conducting an online poll.
This has liberal blogger Ed Darrell in an absolute tizzy. In a move that would do Hillary Clinton proud, he’s lunged for the “taken out of context” excuse. Oh, and he’s provided the context. And I got a mention, too! Only by Christian name though, no link. But that’s okay. It’s nice to have a purpose.
Here’s the observation I’d like to make: It is true that, when you see these quotes given the way CFACT has put them on the billboard, they contradict each other; and, when you see them in “full context” the way Ed has offered them, you might say they no longer contradict each other, they reconcile with one another the way he says. You might say that. You might feel that way. That’s the key.
Go read President Obama’s statement — but — top to bottom. Go on. I’ll wait.
Back yet? See, this is typical of the way Obama gives His speeches. “Wet…BUT…dry.” An unworkable contradiction, and yet He makes it work. But how does He do that? The answer lies in the audience selection of His speeches. If you do your thinking like a grown-up, putting your feelings on the back burner and envisioning the problem as one involving hard thinking skills and STEM curricula, you’re left wondering, WTF? You know why that is? Because you’re not the kind of person He is addressing; He’s talking to the immature types, who feel their way around life’s problems rather than thinking their way through them. So when He’s done speaking, it feels like it all works out…even thought it doesn’t. President Obama just took fact, reason and logic, and flipped ’em topside, like a pancake. “We can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change…I am a firm believer that climate change is real, that it is impacted by human behavior and carbon emissions…in my first term, we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That will have an impact.”
So let’s bottom-line it. Ed managed to make the unworkable contradiction go away, by quoting some more from President Obama, because President Obama habitually talks in circles. Keep on quoting until you come to the next elegant hairpin turn, and the contradiction is all worked out. Who cares about what those annoying mature-adult-thinkers noticed: Al Gore says human activity caused Hurricane Sandy, Barack Obama says that isn’t what happened. Thing That Should Be Non-Partisan #8: Different things are different, they are not the same. What works for one does not work for the other.
Steven Goddard notices something else about liberal logic. His example is the LAPD nutcase who’s out assassinating his former fellows, and he summarizes the health, or lack thereof, in liberal thinking:
• Police are evil, abusive, hateful, violent, racists who can’t be trusted. Therefore they are the only ones who should be allowed to have guns. Citizens should not be allowed to own guns, because the police will take care of them.
• Dorner believes that the only way he can clear his name is by shooting people with his gun, but citizens should not be allowed to own guns to defend themselves from psychos like him.
I have previously noticed — on this subject, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go chasing after my previous links, of which I’m sure there are many — that liberals are engaged in a curious sort of a dance. They feel like they are in the process of building something, and what they’re building is very grand and big. But their specific efforts are destructive. They cannot define what it is they are building, exactly, although they can certainly define what it is they are trying to destroy. And their opponents would not be able to define what it is the liberals are trying to build. But their opponents can certainly, just as easily, define what it is that the liberals are destroying. So it’s more-or-less settled, even though few will state it outright outside of the nutcase crazy right-wing-blogs, that liberals are primarily destructive. They aren’t creating anything, they’re destroying things. We all know it, we just aren’t allowed to mention it in mixed company.
And nobody labors under a heavier burden of this obligatory cognitive dissonance, than our friends, the liberals. They have to act like they’re creating something. While they work hard to destroy things.
I think this warps their brains. To disregard non-partisan-thing-number-eight with regard to creative-versus-destructive efforts, is to entirely rupture it. I think, from that point forward, the “thinker” has stripped himself of this vital ability to tell things apart from other different, in fact oppositional, things. From that point forward, wet is dry, up is down, North is South. Ed Darrell just proved it. Keep President Obama talking until He comes up across the next hairpin turn, and the contradiction is all worked out.
Did human activity cause Hurricane Sandy? Al Gore says yes. President Obama says no…and yes. So there’s no contradiction here, move along. Just a bit more of this useless rhetoric, this disorienting mumbling, and everything is made right. Things are the opposite of whatever they are…because we say so. And look how sophisticated we look when we give our speeches!
You can’t build anything real, that actually works, thinking this way. But you can certainly grab hold of a lot of power. And, you can destroy things. Destroying things takes a lot less intellectual discipline than building things.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s called quote mining, poring over someone’s longer statement to find a sentence or phrase that can be ripped out of context and made to appear to say the opposite of what the speaker actually said.
I posted the entire statements of both men. They said the same thing, that it’s time to act against climate change. They agreed that human-caused pollution has altered the climate so that storms do more damage than they did before.
Why are you in a tizzy about this, that you claim others are in a tizzy, and then you fall victim to the hoax Watts set up?
Are all conservatives so gullible, or just those of you with verbose blog posts?
- edarrell | 02/09/2013 @ 18:31Oh, and Goddard? You trust that guy after he so badly screwed up his predictions about Sandy?
- edarrell | 02/09/2013 @ 18:33Alright then, I guess I’m convinced.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 20:13Oh, and Obama? You trust that guy after he so badly screwed up his predictions about [the “stimulus” / Obamacare saving money / the oceans receding and the planet healing / etc.]?
Jeez.
- Severian | 02/10/2013 @ 09:46Al Gore says Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.
No, that’s not what he said. Please read it again.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 05:34http://blog.algore.com/2012/10/statement_on_hurricane_sandy.html
Actually, I formed my summary after reading what he said. All of it.
If your take-away from it is different than mine, it’s possible I’ve misunderstood something. Possible. From the twenty things that are non-partisan or damn well ought to be:
6. A possibility is not necessarily a likelihood.
So it’s an equally legitimate interpretation, that you’re the one who misunderstood. If that is the case then it’s silly for you to say “read it again” and paste in a link I already have.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 06:52But you see, Morgan, if they just cut-and-paste “read it again” with the link fifty more times, you’ll surely change your mind. After all, isn’t that what has happened in at least three threads and over 500 comment posts up to this point? I know that’s why I don’t participate in those threads anymore — I was a complete skeptic about Global Weather, but the three hundred and ninety first re-post of the exact same standalone bibliographic citation changed my mind. Hail Gaia!
- Severian | 02/11/2013 @ 07:24This brings up a question I’ve had, yet one more time: Why do liberals need tactics?
Go back and read what Ed said, it’s the same thing that The Zachriel said when you get down to it: “You and I disagree, so that’s proof you don’t know what you’re talking about.” So in both cases, it boils down to their own confidence that they’re so, so right…but this is not the way people behave when they know they’re right, of course. When you’re right, and you know you’re right, you don’t need tactics.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 07:29Good question, that.
I’m guessing it’s because they seem to place such high value on verbal dexterity that it often seems like the only tool in the box. The ol’ “when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail” effect. Combine that with their unwillingness — or, as I increasingly suspect, inability — to ever grant even the smallest rhetorical point to their enemies, and you sometimes find them defending the indefensible.
For instance, this
sure as hell sounds like the Goracle claiming that Sandy was caused by anthropogenic climate change — “The environment in which all storms develop” + “a tropical cyclone” = an upgrade to a devastating hurricane.
But of course we can argue about that word “caused.” Algore isn’t baldly proclaiming that there would be no storms whatsoever without pollution, and therefore you’re lying when you say he claimed Hurricane Sandy was “caused” by global warming, and that’s so anti-science, why do you hate science?, lookit the knuckle-dragging wingnuts, can’t wait to tell everyone on Twitter about this, neener neener neener.
Facts win arguments, in other words, but tactics “win” “arguments.”
- Severian | 02/11/2013 @ 07:54Absolutely — but of course, that applies much more to Watts than to Gore or Obama, particularly with regard to climate change. Watts is the guy who has made a career out of disclaiming science whenever it disagrees with his predetermined political views — the apex being when he disowned his own carefully-gathered data when analysis of them showed exactly the same warming trends everyone else in science had found.
Severian, can you find the conflict between what Gore said, and what Obama said, particularly with regard to the policies going forward?
Watts is the Duane Gish of climate change on the science side, and the Aaron Burr on the political side. All tactics, not even his own facts any more.
Can’t imagine why Morgan throws in with him.
- edarrell | 02/11/2013 @ 08:21Pretty strong streak of denialism you got going there, Zachriel.
Are you creationist, too? Flat-Earth? Refuse to use your passport because we have a Kenyan as president?
- edarrell | 02/11/2013 @ 08:32mkfreeberg: Actually, I formed my summary after reading what he said. All of it… So it’s an equally legitimate interpretation, that you’re the one who misunderstood. If that is the case then it’s silly for you to say “read it again” and paste in a link I already have.
We were just giving you the benefit of the doubt.
mkfreeberg: Al Gore says Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.
Gore: While the storm that drenched Nashville was not a tropical cyclone like Hurricane Sandy, both storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.
So Gore didn’t say that humans caused Hurricane Sandy, but that the storm was strengthened by climate change. AIt’s like baseball and steroids. Increase the batter’s overall strength, and he will tend to hit the ball farther, and thereby hit more home runs. By misreading Gore’s statement, the entire point of your original post is lost.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 08:41edarrell: Are you creationist, too? Flat-Earth?
We prefer a Jovian-centric cosmology.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 09:56Severian, can you find the conflict between what Gore said, and what Obama said, particularly with regard to the policies going forward?
Oooh! Oooh! Oooh! [waving hand frantically]. Is it the part where Obama basically recaps everything Gore said, while simultaneously saying that’s not the case? You know, the whole thing that occasioned Morgan’s post in the first place?
Do you even read the posts you’re commenting on, or are you helping the Zachriel beta-test the Outrage-o-Matic Inane Comment Generator?
- Severian | 02/11/2013 @ 11:53“For many, Hurricane Sandy may prove to be a similar event: a time when the climate crisis—which is often sequestered to the far reaches of our everyday awareness became a reality.”
“[B]oth storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.”
“As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful. Hurricane Sandy, and the Nashville flood, were reminders of just that.”
“Hurricane Sandy is a disturbing sign of things to come. We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis. Dirty energy makes dirty weather.”
Be darned if I can see what the controversy is over. It’s true that Gore isn’t saying that global warming created the whole concept of storms out of whole cloth; even he must know that storms pre-dated the Industrial Revolution. It’s equally clear that he blames the severity of Sandy on global warming; in other words, he asserts that global warming made one specific storm, Sandy, much more severe than it would have been without the evil impact of mankind.
In contrast, the President, in a rare show of sanity, was unwilling to blame any particular bad weather event on global warming, even though he continues to believe in global warming as a broad long-term trend. Conflating those two positions would require some serious mental gymnastics on the scale of “isn’t it terrorism just as much when a bank makes a loan as when some eelbrain member of Hezbollah shoots up an Israeli bus? They both involve damage and a certain amount of fear.” The only thing the two positions share is a belief in the broad trend of global warming. From there they diverge: one is willing to attribute immediate local severe weather to the general trend while the other is playing it a bit safer, perhaps because he knows there’ll be a deadly bitter cold season somewhere in the world soon and he finds it too embarrassing to explain how warming paradoxically causes cooling.
That sensitivity to the appearance of insane contradiction surprises me a little, actually. Normally things like that don’t seem to bother him much. He knows hardly anyone is paying attention, and most of those will edit the statement in their heads to remove any appearance of contradiction.
- Texan99 | 02/11/2013 @ 14:31About destroying things: I’ll get back up on my free-market podium. I’m sometimes a big fan of destroying things. Not just demonstrably horrible things like the Nazi regime, but things that are in the process of losing the competition with a better way — what Schumpeter called “creative destruction.” The difference between the liberal and the conservative view on this issue is that the liberal would imagine a future that could contain cars and start agitating for the abolition of buggy whips right away, so we could “build the future.” A conservative would wait to see if people started to prefer cars, and if that happened they might be sorry to see the idle buggy-whip factories close down, but they wouldn’t try to get in the way of progress. Meanwhile, the liberals would want to subsidize all those poor displaced buggy-whip-factory workers, and they’d already be thinking of a good reason to destroy the cars so we could move on to high-speed rail.
Take Adam Smith. He had a pretty clear idea how the free market worked. He also had some concerns about it and predicted some troubles it might face, while proposing some methods for improving it here and there, always supposing that people would experiment with some changes and see how they liked the results. In other words, he knew it was possible we’d find some better ways of doing things and wasn’t worried by the idea that change would happen. In contrast, Karl Marx had no real notion how the free market worked, being an ignorant ivory tower type who was humiliated by his bourgeois money-grubbing Jewish origins and was supported in idleness all his life, first by his bourgeois father and then by the wealthy Engels. But he foresaw a future Utopia run by socialism, even though he’d never seen a socialist society work and hadn’t a clue how to make it economically effective. (And so of course when it was tried people just starved in droves.) Nevertheless, he couldn’t wait to see capitalism dismantled so we could progress to this airy fantasy of socialism.
I’d say that’s the difference between creative destruction and bloody-minded destruction.
- Texan99 | 02/11/2013 @ 14:44O: You know, as you know, we can’t attribute any particular hit by a batter to steroids. What we do know is that the batter’s arms have grown to the size of oak limbs. I am a firm believer that steroids have impacted batting.
G: Hitting in both games was strengthened by steroids.
Those statements are not inconsistent.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 15:21Zachriel said:
By Jove, now you’ve got it!
- edarrell | 02/11/2013 @ 15:45Right, so you’d be silly to say, “That specific hit proves steroids.” You’d be on firmer ground to claim, “The statistical results of batting over the last ten years are convincing evidence of the impact of steroids.”
One of the speakers tried to say the equivalent of “That specific hit shows that we have to stop steroid use,” while the other said something more like, “We have a steroid problem, because there is a long history showing that steroids came onto the scene in X year and created an obvious discontinuity in the batting record starting with that year — a discontinuity big enough to swamp the little ups and downs you always see in the batting statistics.”
- Texan99 | 02/11/2013 @ 16:01So we can count you as a member of the Gore camp rather than the Obama camp on this subject, assuming that the point of that comment was to argue that a specific local weather event (or two) can be conflated with a long-term climate trend. And what will you say about severely cold weather happening somewhere else in the world? Or doesn’t that happen any more?
I have to laugh a little at the idea that recent storms are “significant” on a scale of centuries. Nature laughs at the self-absorption of the modern inhabitants of the Northeastern United States.
- Texan99 | 02/11/2013 @ 21:04edarrell: Right, so you’d be silly to say, “That specific hit proves steroids.”
Every hit made by a batter on steroids is cheating.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 05:19Yes, if you already know that a particular batter is on steroids, you can say that no hit of his is untainted.
If you’re know that some batters use steroids, though you’re not sure which ones, you can say that a broad statistical long-term view of batting shows a pattern of increased hitting at about the time steroids became popular.
If you haven’t reached that point yet, you’d be on shaky ground pointing to a particular hit and saying, “That was a very powerful hit. Not the biggest hit ever, but really impressive. I’m sure that means steroid use is going on here.”
Once you’re pretty sure for other reasons that steroid use is rampant, you can say “This decade had lots more mega-hits than last decade, and I think it’s not so much that people worked harder, as that they were on steroids.” You could even say, after every good modern hit, “I really doubt whether that hit would have been likely 20 years ago, before steroids. But these days, everybody and his brother is on steroids, and I think every hit is tainted.”
Of course, you still have to deal with the fact that some hits are weak. Is that because of steroids, too? Or are we always going to see a pattern of hits of variable strength, and have trouble attributing each success or failure to the broad-brush theory of steroid tainting?
If you want to retain credibility, you’ll stay away from making points with individual hits, because people will say, “But what about this weak hit? If individual hits are so telling, why do you ignore the individual weak hit?” The right approach is to use broad-based evidence to explain broad trends, and not try to score temporary propaganda points with individual events that happen to be hot news items today. You’ll score points with people who aren’t paying close attention, but you’ll lose credibility with those who are trying to evaluate your data dispassionately. Reputation is incredibly important if you’re trying to persuade people to mobilize global resources for your pet project. Why would you waste it?
I know some of your most common subsidiary points can be made better than you’re making them. I’ve seen it done, by people with a much firmer grasp of why they believe what they believe. They can do it briefly and cogently, without repeating mantras. There is some excellent and helpful information at these sites, which are by no means anti-AGW strongholds:
http://physicsdaily.com/physics/Global_warming
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/14889/are-the-ipcc-climate-change-models-overestimating-sensitivity-to-carbon-dioxide
That’s how people argue and marshal facts and evidence when they’re listening to each other and using logic instead of insisting on leaping to a predetermined conclusion.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 10:35Texan99: Yes, if you already know that a particular batter is on steroids, you can say that no hit of his is untainted.
That’s right, given global warming, every storm is tainted.
Texan99: If you’re know that some batters use steroids, though you’re not sure which ones, you can say that a broad statistical long-term view of batting shows a pattern of increased hitting at about the time steroids became popular.
Every storm is tainted, because they all spawn in a higher energy environment.
Texan99: If you haven’t reached that point yet, you’d be on shaky ground pointing to a particular hit and saying, “That was a very powerful hit. Not the biggest hit ever, but really impressive. I’m sure that means steroid use is going on here.”
No single storm is ‘proof’. Our point was that Gore’s comments were misrepresented in the original post. Nor did Gore say that a single storm was ‘proof’ of global warming, but a “sign of things to come”.
Texan99: There is some excellent and helpful information at these sites,
Thanks. We’re already familiar with the information provided by Physics Daily. Notably, under global warming controversy they say, “The controversy occurs almost entirely within the press and political arenas. In the scientific press and among climate researchers, there is little controversy about global warming”
We are also familiar with Aldrin et al. mentioned in your tertiary reference. They use a simplified model to provide limits to climate sensitivity. They emphasize that the project’s findings “must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming.”
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 11:39“That’s right, given global warming, every storm is tainted.” Yes, if you already are convinced there is global warming, you can rest assured that every storm is tainted. If you haven’t yet convinced your audience that there is global warming, you will not do so by calling storms tainted. You will only destroy your reputation for clear thinking, and people will stop paying attention to you.
I didn’t suppose you were entirely unfamiliar with either the sites I linked or the arguments contained in them, especially the ones that support your position (and as I said, these are generally pro-AGW sites). What I was (apparently unsuccessfully) calling to your attention is that these sites reference a mixture of arguments, some of which support your position and some of which acknowledge a great deal of doubt and uncertainty. They appear to be trying to deal with the points of dispute with honesty and intellectual integrity. But when you read them, you apparently can see only the bits of conclusions that support your predetermined opinion, so your flourish those, while continuing to miss the point that argument are constructed in pieces, assembling facts and logic in a persuasive pattern. It’s really just an argument to authority: “See, someone prominent agrees with me! I don’t know why, exactly, but I’m going to repeat his conclusion again! Why do you remain unconvinced?”
That’s why you’re not very persuasive. The sites I linked are somewhat more persuasive than you, precisely because they attempt to acknowledge counterarguments and present relevant, measured, cogent responses. By doing that, they demonstrate some mastery of their subject rather than come off as faithful but confused parrots. One may read those sites and remain somewhat unconvinced, but they will at least spur curiosity about digging further into specific subsets of the disputes. Your canned, off-point, superficial approach almost never does that.
I’m basically telling you: up your game. Like much of your audience, I’m more open to persuasion than you imagine, even on this subject. People who argue honestly with me often make some progress in persuading me. You’re not subjecting yourself to intellectual rigor, which is why you’re not making any progress changing anyone’s mind, except other people who respond trustingly to authority.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 12:13If you’re not convinced of warming, you’re not paying attention.
==> 120 years of warming growing zones mapped by USDA
==> Increasing frequencies of El Nino and La Nina, which can only be driven by more heat worldwide
==> Rising tree lines in the Rockies, Sierras, Appalachians
==> Rising tree lines across the latitudes of the Arctic tundra,
==> Changing rain patterns, driven by warmer air
==> Changing snow patterns, heat-driven again
==> Changed migration patterns of hawks
==> Changed migration patterns of butterflies
==> Dramatically changed migrations of songbirds
==> Death of coral reefs, due to rising temperatures of water
==> Deaths of western American forests, apparently due to increasing low daily temperatures in summers
==> Increasing range of insect damage on conifer forests, due to expanding range of insects, due to lack of long duration freezes
==> Expansion of range of Argentine fire ants in North America — they can’t live where it freezes a couple weeks every year.
==> Declining glaciers, especially in lower latitudes, like the High Uintas, Wasatch Ranges, Rocky Mountain National Park, and especially Glacier NP
Clouds, air, water, plants, animals, and even the rocks have been shouting the news for 50 years that they only spoke about for the previous 100. If you’re not convinced, you’re in denial.
And you’re a hazard to rational policy making.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 12:23Let’s provide context for that quote:
The page goes on to quote from Kenneth Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. After that is a breakdown of proponents and opponents of the original IPCC climate change assessment, according to positions popularly believed within those factions, among which is this bullet point:
Two of the bullets underneath the proponent position, are:
Followed by, “opponents of GWT maintain some or all of these assertions are not proven or not correct.” Those opponents exist both within and outside of the scientific community. So at least some of the proponents are guilty of playing fast-and-loose with the concept of “consensus.”
It is terribly odd that, of all the species that exist on the planet of both flora and fauna, only humans have come through their existence with this stigma attached to them, this implied obligation to neutralize their effect on the ecosystem. For a species to impact the system in which it lives, is only natural, given that the organisms and the ecosystem have a symbiotic relationship with one another. If a controversy exists with the idea of “global warming,” it exists in the idea that immediate action is imperative to head off some disaster. And if there is urgency in settling whatever uncertainty remains, it is there as well. And where the science has become dirtiest and most questionable, and mostly reliant on anti-science “become wiser by sunning facts and learning less” methods, it is there.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 12:26Texan99: “That’s right, given global warming, every storm is tainted.” Yes, if you already are convinced there is global warming, you can rest assured that every storm is tainted.
Meaning Gore and Obama’s statements were not inconsistent, and Gore’s statement was misrepresented in the original post.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 12:28Yeah, Steve Goddard laughed, too. He made it a point to try to ridicule James Hansen for saying the water would ever flood the West Side Highway, even with a passing rogue wave.
Then Sandy flooded the West Side Highway with a surge, and left it under water for a while. Sandy beat Hansen’s prediction by a good decade, too, making Goddard’s denials all the more silly, and mean-spirited.
Connecticut has had two thousand-year floods in the last decade. Only someone completely unfamiliar with disaster planning, geology, the newspapers and common sense, would let the meaning of that escape them. That’s not Nature laughing, it’s warming denialists as they hear the GOP cut off funding for the flood insurance they bought — GOP cut it off, of course, because FEMA’s been paying out more than predicted on the 100-year floods, let alone the 500-year and 1000-year floods.
It’s the laughter of madmen.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 12:34mkfreeberg: Followed by, “opponents of GWT maintain some or all of these assertions are not proven or not correct.”
Yes, that’s what they “maintain”, but are unable to support.
mkfreeberg: Those opponents exist both within and outside of the scientific community. So at least some of the proponents are guilty of playing fast-and-loose with the concept of “consensus.”
Consensus in science means general agreement, not unanimity. The few remaining skeptics have offered very little in terms of substantive evidence to support their positions. They usually publish only on tangential issues.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 12:37Curses. Here’s how that was supposed to be formatted:
Enormously beneficial to bromus tectorum, or Russian brome, or cheat grass. It chews up cropland, increases the frequency and intensity of wildfires, and spoils the land.
Wheat doesn’t do so well with increased CO2, nor with warming. Nor barley, nor potatoes. Nor oats. The great starch crops that civilization was built on are all harmed by warming. Overall, there may be more plant growth, but it’s mostly weeds that destroy cropland and ruin farmers.
Sure, wheat weather extends into the Canadian tundra — but you can’t grow wheat in the tundra. Not enough topsoil, too acid, etc., etc.
We passed the “small amount” of beneficial global warming in 1910. Now it’s all destructive to human enterprise.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 12:39“Meaning Gore and Obama’s statements were not inconsistent, and Gore’s statement was misrepresented in the original post.” Yes, just as 2 + 2 = 5 for small values of 2 and large values of 5. At last we see eye to eye! We turn out to be saying the same thing even when the untutored reader would imagine that we are contradicting each other! Put her here, bro.
“And you’re a hazard to rational policy making.” Yes, my ideas are terribly dangerous. Perhaps they should be banned?
“Yeah, Steve Goddard laughed, too. He made it a point to try to ridicule James Hansen for saying the water would ever flood the West Side Highway, even with a passing rogue wave.” Not the sacrosanct West Side Highway, surely? New Yorkers have an amazing ability to believe they’re entitled to keep forever whatever conditions they got used to for a few years in their little corner of the Earth. (See “rent control.”) Since they rarely turn their attention outside the island of Manhattan, the variety of real-life events out in the wide world never fails to take them by surprise. Witnesses the high rises stuffed full of people caught without food, water, or sanitary facilities for weeks because they couldn’t believe they lost the hurricane jackpot this year. “But it can’t happen here, can it?”
“We passed the “small amount” of beneficial global warming in 1910. Now it’s all destructive to human enterprise.” Wow. All of it? The picture is rarely so clear. You’re to be congratulated on having found a corner of the world you can completely understand and about which you can make dogmatic, absolutist statements. No wonder you’re winning the worldwide political battle to institute the Kyoto protocols.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 13:21There may be a little daylight between saying “Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans” and “Hurricane Sandy was a sign of things to come, and what’s going to come is avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans,” but I have to say it may be too subtle for me.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 13:29“Scientists are people, so we have a methodology to minimize subjectivity, the most important of which is peer publication of results, independently deriving results with differing methodologies, and by establishing consistency across related fields of science. Edarrell gave a few examples in relation to climate science, including agriculture, oceanography, forestry, meteorology, ornithology, entomology and glaciology.”
Those all sound like fine protective mechanisms against subjectivity. Why aren’t any of them working for you?
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 13:30Texan99: There may be a little daylight between saying “Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans” and “Hurricane Sandy was a sign of things to come, and what’s going to come is avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans,” but I have to say it may be too subtle for me.
You might start with accurate quotes, or as they are sometimes called, facts.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 13:47Zachriel: You might start with accurate quotes, or as they are sometimes called, facts.
Sorry. You probably meant it as a paraphrase. Nevertheless, the two statements are still not the same. The first is a statement that humans caused Hurricane Sandy. The latter is a warning of what human activities could bring in the future. They are not the same literally, or in their connotation.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 13:58<blockquote<It is terribly odd that, of all the species that exist on the planet of both flora and fauna, only humans have come through their existence with this stigma attached to them, this implied obligation to neutralize their effect on the ecosystem.
Fascinatingly and fantastically conceited of you to assume without any evidence that humans are the only species who think of the future and whether their children and grandchildren will have a chance to survive and thrive.
And while it seems odd that you think that concern for the future is a bad idea — certainly not according to the three Abramic faiths, nor most others, nor even ethical thought apart from religion — the reality is that it’s quite selfish and self-defeating NOT to think of how we might conserve resources.
You exaggerate, of course, into extreme silliness when you talk about an “implied obligation to neutralize” effects on the environment. Humans passed that possibility at least 80,000 years ago, maybe longer. Nor does it even come close to adequately describing the conservation ethic.
Of all the great civilizations that have existed, almost all were wiped out because of environmental error, or waste, or failure to prepare for the consequences of human change in the environment. Thus the canals that supplied water to the great city in the desert, Babylon, silted in, and the civilization collapsed. The volcanic explosion that caused the tsunami that wiped out Minos literally blasted the civilization into the back pages of history. The salted orchards and fields of Carthage could not hold back the desert (Tunis still pays the price). Silt from the Yellow River has, with too much regularity, caused massive floods that kill hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands. Lead leaching from the wine vessels of the Romans made them stupid, and the Goths didn’t suffer from that problem. Etc., etc.
Eratosthenes was not a grasshopper, and he would be shocked his name adorns such a grasshopper haven.
- edarrell | 02/12/2013 @ 14:07“You might start with accurate quotes, or as they are sometimes called, facts.”
I was comparing our host’s paraphrase with your explanatory counter-paraphrase. You claimed he was misrepresenting Mr. Gore and that your take was more accurate. I pointed out that his take and your take seemed pretty identical to me.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 15:14“Fascinatingly and fantastically conceited of you to assume without any evidence that humans are the only species who think of the future and whether their children and grandchildren will have a chance to survive and thrive.”
I’m less and less sure I know what you mean by “evidence.”
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 15:16Texan99: I was comparing our host’s paraphrase with your explanatory counter-paraphrase.
Here’s mkfreeberg’s version, Gore’s actual statement, and our paraphrase. Note that none of these match what you wrote, nor does mkfreeberg properly represent Gore’s statement.
mkfreeberg: Al Gore says Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.
Gore: While the storm that drenched Nashville was not a tropical cyclone like Hurricane Sandy, both storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.
Zachriel: So Gore didn’t say that humans caused Hurricane Sandy, but that the storm was strengthened by climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 16:54Al Gore goes ON to say:
So, not only did I paraphrase him correctly, but you ended your quotation prematurely. Something I’ve seen you do before. Was this an accident?
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 17:30mkfreeberg: So, not only did I paraphrase him correctly,
No, you didn’t. You said “Al Gore says Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.”
You are confusing strengthening the storm (Gore’s statement) with causing the storm (your faulty paraphrase).
mkfreeberg: but you ended your quotation prematurely.
The additional text only extends his actual statement, but doesn’t support your paraphrase.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 17:35^ That is incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 17:37mkfreeberg: That is incorrect.
It’s not that difficult. Read carefully.
mk: Hurricane caused by
G: Hurricane strengthened by
Those are not the same.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 17:40From the Twenty things that are non-partisan and ideologically neutral or damn well ought to be:
You are running afoul, here, of #9. “…damage to the environment, by humans” is not “different in any meaningful way” from “by continually dumping 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every single day, we are altering the environment in which all storms develop.”
Of course, if you think there is such a difference, you’re welcome to opine at length trying to justify it. In a way that is persuasive to others, who are not initially inclined to march with you wherever you go, in lock-step…good look on that.
You and edarrell seem to be having a whole lot of trouble with #8 and #9 today.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 17:41It’s not hard for most readers to see that these two statements are not “functionally equivalent”.
mk: Hurricane caused by
G: Hurricane strengthened by
They mean different things.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 17:43Alright, I have read very, very carefully. One says caused by, one says strengthened by. I declare these to be functionally synonymous, since Gore is arguing that avoidable damage was caused by human activity, through the storm.
You are welcome to contest this. You will NOT be given the benefit of the doubt, any more than a taxpayer contesting what the IRS has found his tax liability to be. So make it good.
Go.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 17:43Our last comment was clear enough.
You seem to be arguing that what you meant was “Al Gore says that some of the damage from Hurricane Sandy was caused by avoidable — and predictable — damage to the environment, by humans.” You should have simply corrected your original post instead of defending it endlessly.
So now we have
Gore: Some damage caused by climate change
Obama: we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.
Those two statements are not inconsistent. While Gore is referring to excess damage from the storm, Obama is referring broadly to the storm itself.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 17:57I said, “functionally.” There is no functional difference between saying “The storm was caused by humans” and “the storm was strengthened by humans.” Those two things are functionally the same.
I invited you to functionally distinguish them. Using an argument that would be persuasive to others, who are not initially inclined to march with you wherever you go, in lock-step. And, I specified that you would NOT be given the benefit of the doubt, any more than a taxpayer contesting what the IRS has found his tax liability to be. So make it good.
You…have…FAILED. So far. Is there something else I need to understand about this, or are you ready for me to hand down my verdict on how well you did?
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 18:01mkfreeberg: There is no functional difference between saying “The storm was caused by humans” and “the storm was strengthened by humans.”
Yes, we understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t make sense. Strengthening modifies the storm, while causing it brings it into existence. Consider the inverse statements.
Without Global Warming, the storm would not be strengthened.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 18:12Without Global Warming, the storm would not be caused.
I agree with those two alternative statements as you have laid them out.
Without Global Warming, the storm would not be strengthened.
Without Global Warming, the storm would not be caused.
Here’s the thing though: It is one or the other. If my paraphrasing is not fair, then yours must be; and, frankly, it’s not. Nowhere in Gore’s statement does he say anything that comes close to “we should expect storms like Hurricane Sandy now and then, but because of the human influence it packed a bigger whallop than it should have.” In fact, later on he explicitly says,
This is significant. He doesn’t say “Hurricane Sandy being as big and as bad as it was, is a disturbing sign of things to come.”
You have drawn a distinction that is functionally meaningless.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 18:21mkfreeberg: Nowhere in Gore’s statement does he say anything that comes close to “we should expect storms like Hurricane Sandy now and then, but because of the human influence it packed a bigger whallop than it should have.”
Gore: While the storm that drenched Nashville was not a tropical cyclone like Hurricane Sandy, both storms were strengthened by the climate crisis.
Gore: As the oceans and atmosphere continue to warm, storms are becoming more energetic and powerful. Hurricane Sandy, and the Nashville flood, were reminders of just that.
Gore: Sandy was also affected by other symptoms of the climate crisis. As the hurricane approached the East Coast, it gathered strength from abnormally warm coastal waters. At the same time, Sandy’s storm surge was worsened by a century of sea level rise.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 18:39So in summary, when you said, “none of these match what you wrote, nor does mkfreeberg properly represent Gore’s statement,” you were WRONG.
- mkfreeberg | 02/12/2013 @ 19:15“Gore: Some damage caused by climate change
Obama: we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.”
Sorry, still seeing a contradiction. One claims the damage from a particular event is at least partially caused by climate change. The other says we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.
If your point is that the president was saying we can’t attribute 100% of any weather event to climate change, only the portion of it that happens to make it newsworthy and interesting, then OK. In that tortured reading, the two statements are completely consistent. By the time you’ve watered down the statement that much, who really cares any more? Fine. The two guys are totally coordinated and on the same page. They just sound different.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 21:32Today’s libs seem to be all about asking “What difference does it make?” in the wrong situations.
Back to things-that-should-be-nonpartisan numbers eight and nine: When the point you seek to make, relies on pretending different things are the same, and things that are functionally equivalent are somehow different — then, the point you’re making is probably not a good point.
“Functionally.” Seems we have a partisan split right there, at that word. The people we today call liberals don’t understand the meaning of the word, because they don’t have reason to. Living in a non-functional world, pushing non-functional policy proposals.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 03:23Texan99: One claims the damage from a particular event is at least partially caused by climate change. The other says we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.
Those are distinct statements, and not in contradiction.
mkfreeberg: “Functionally.”
Strengthen and cause are functionally distinct terms.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 05:56“Gore: Some damage caused by climate change
Obama: we can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change. “
Close.
Gore: Some damage from this particular newsworthy weather event is attributable to climate change.
Obama: We can’t attribute any particular weather event to climate change.
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say that Obama really meant that you can’t attribute a weather event to long-term climate change unless you can say that 100% of it wouldn’t have happened without climate change, even if he privately believed that a big chunk of the impact was attributable climate change. Was he using the bully pulpit to say something that trivial? That’s how trivial it would have to be to be consistent with Gore’s statement.
I don’t understand the controversy, anyway. Why is it so important to you to prove that Gore and Obama are on the same page? Maybe Obama’s just smarter than Gore. Everyone seems to think so.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 06:35Texan99: Was he using the bully pulpit to say something that trivial?
It’s hardly trivial, but a reminder of a basic finding. The relationship between storms and climate change has spawned very interesting new research in understanding the probability and trends of rare meteorological events.
Texan99: Why is it so important to you to prove that Gore and Obama are on the same page?
They both overstate or make incorrect claims on occasion. But the question was introduced in the original post, and the first thing we noticed was the misstatement of Gore’s position.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 06:47“It’s hardly trivial, but a reminder of a basic finding. The relationship between storms and climate change has spawned very interesting new research in understanding the probability and trends of rare meteorological events. “
That must have been the point that Obama and Gore were making when they coordinated their seemingly contradictory but subtly convergent statements. They wanted to draw attention to research into the meaning of rare meteorological events.
Well, not all rare meteorological events. Not the ones that suggest stasis or even cooling. In those cases, it’s just weather, not climate.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 07:08Strengthen and cause are functionally distinct terms.
Oh, really? I mean in this context, they are? Let’s test that, right now.
Gore, as I quoted him: Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans.
Obama: We cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.
Contradiction.
Gore, with your niggling “gotcha” thing all ironed out and addressed: Hurricane Sandy was strengthened by humans.
Obama: We cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.
The…same…contradiction.
So with the matter under discussion, they are not functionally distinct. You’re insisting they are, because you have to. Because this is a scam. It is only persuasive when people are distracted from the true questions and concerns.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:16Texan99: They wanted to draw attention to research into the meaning of rare meteorological events.
That’s precisely the meaning of Obama’s statement, though he is clearly relying on expert opinion, not his own independent analysis.
Texan99: Well, not all rare meteorological events. Not the ones that suggest stasis or even cooling. In those cases, it’s just weather, not climate.
That’s not correct. The study of weather events includes cold and warm, wet and dry. Here’s a simple example:
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:33http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VHMNOZwwMb8/ThUVVm_q11I/AAAAAAAACPA/-FfWcipNz1k/s1600/temp.records.063011.jpg
mkfreeberg: Gore, as I quoted him: Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans.
Think you mean paraphrased.
Hurricane Sandy was caused by humans. ≠ Hurricane Sandy was strengthened by humans.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:35Although, in this context, they are functionally identical statements.
If Gore meant to say the damage done by Sandy was augmented by human activity, this would contradict President Obama’s statement.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:41mkfreeberg: Although, in this context, they are functionally identical statements.
Sorry, but strengthened ≠ caused. There’s just no way to read it otherwise. Indeed, we noticed it right away, which is why we checked your source. It’s obvious to any fair reading.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:45You can’t possibly have a reasonable discussion on any topic when you can’t read even simple statements charitably.
This is standard standard in climate science. Only very recently has it become possible to tentatively determine whether storm intensities are related to climate change, though it’s been suspected for some time. You might pick a bone with Gore on that. But misrepresenting his statements doesn’t make an argument.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:49Actually, it is a standard standard in liberalism itself. You and Ed, by persisting in this gotcha game of “strengthened does not mean caused,” have identified the common bait-and-switch tactic of modern liberalism.
“There is a problem and so we must do this solution.” Out here in the real world…the functional world…a question then arises, which liberals cannot address: Okay, if we do what you want, does the problem go away? Obviously the honest answer to that has to be toward the negative, if by merely taking Al Gore at his word, I’ve shown I can’t read even simple statements charitably. But then the question that arises after that in the functional world would be: Well, then, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to make future storms weaker, is that the deal? Set up these carbon exchanges and we’ll have milder storms? Kind of like President Clinton’s safer guns and safer bullets?
At that point, the scam is exposed for what it is.
So is that the road we’re heading down here? You’re the one who pointed out strengthened ≠ caused, which would have to mean, it’s got to be one of these things or the other. Are we trying to make storms go away, or weaken them, so we can have milder storms and future generations will say “Hooray grandma and grampa, for going for the global warming hooey, so that this storm only washed out my driveway and not my whole house.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:54mkfreeberg: But then the question that arises after that in the functional world would be: Well, then, what are we trying to do?
Revamp the energy sector to emit lower amounts of greenhouse gases in order to stabilize the climate at some reasonable level.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:57Stabilize the climate. So we ARE trying to get rid of storms after all. I’m so confused.
See, we embarked on a plane of silliness when Gore overplayed the hand of “this disaster happened because we don’t have my program in place yet” snake-oil salesmanship.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 08:00“The study of weather events includes cold and warm, wet and dry.”
Of course, the proper study of weather events includes both favorable and unfavorable events. Which is why it’s silly for a politician or activist to try to make points with individual events, choosing only the unfavorable ones. You won’t see Gore saying, “Wow, that was a severe cold spell in Siberia. Think how much more severe it would have been without global warming.” Or even, “Hey, the weather is beautiful today. This is a sign of things to come.” A sensible activist would say, “You can’t make too much out of a single weather event, whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent. The only meaningful approach is to look at long-term trends.” But you don’t get asked to go on the lecture circuit saying things like that, or at least not if you’re Al Gore. He requires sensationalism and logic-free appeals to emotion.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 08:30“Ambition and recognition is probably a much greater problem than scientists getting rich on grants. Science seems to muddle along. In any case, we can test for this by checking with scientists outside the U.S.”
I’m relieved to hear that ambition, recognition, and a willingness to subvert one’s scientific integrity for grant money is a problem confined to the U.S. From now on, we can ignore anything produced domestically but accept the products of Brazil and France uncritically.
Systemic bias can’t be cured by sampling the entire system.
I followed your link just now because you made an attempt to state briefly what you thought was established in it, beyond the ultimate conclusion “warming real, warming bad.” I thought I should encourage you, so I checked the link (without being able to confirm that it said what you claimed). But now you’re back to links whose relevance you can’t articulate. I don’t follow those.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 08:35mkfreeberg: Stabilize the climate. So we ARE trying to get rid of storms after all.
As the surface warms, storms will, on average, be stronger. Stabilizing the climate will help limit the high end of the scale.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Bellcurve2.jpg
mkfreeberg: See, we embarked on a plane of silliness when Gore overplayed the hand of “this disaster happened because we don’t have my program in place yet” snake-oil salesmanship.
The claim is that the disaster was exacerbated by climate change, and that such events will become more frequent as the globe warms.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 08:45So, then, future storms will be milder. And that’s how we’ll know it worked. Right?
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 08:50Texan99: Systemic bias can’t be cured by sampling the entire system.
Ah, so the systemic bias of the U.S. is the same in China and Russia too.
It’s a nice theory that involves thousands of scientists in many different countries, in many different cultures, in many different political systems, in many different fields of study, in many different scientific academies. Sure, it’s possible. After all, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers…
Texan99: I followed your link just now because you made an attempt to state briefly what you thought was established in it, beyond the ultimate conclusion “warming real, warming bad.”
The chart illustrated record high and low temperatures in the U.S. As we said, it was just a simple example. We’d be happy to provide a citation to a more formal study, but …
Meehl et al, The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S., Geophysical Research Letters 2009: “The current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one.”
Texan99: now you’re back to links whose relevance you can’t articulate. I don’t follow those.
… we can’t make you read them.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 08:55mkfreeberg: So, then, future storms will be milder.
No, because there is little hope for the climate to return to its previous equilibrium. Keep in mind, we’re talking averages.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 08:57In business, the kinds of questions to which I’m subjecting you are the very first step. Before anything can get started at all. You have to charter the project, you have to write up a bunch of stuff, you have to define the milestones and the deliverables. You have to define the delta between consequences of doing the project, and not doing the project. A lot of organizations even require you to put a dollar amount by the cost of not doing anything, and then to quantify it. With citations. Who knows, maybe you’d like it…
Al Gore’s statement — and Obama’s, as well, really — typify the public-sector resistance to this. The climate change solutions are constantly being sold to us with an emotional appeal, exactly the sort of appeal that is systematically spurned in business. And, in households as well. Those who want to sell the program, consistently resist a logical presentation. We see lots of wordy papers and pretty graphs and we’re constantly told the answer is in there…somewhere. When it comes to specifics, though, we keep getting all this nonsense, like this-or-that storm was caused/strengthened because of human influence on the climate. Created. Made worse. What difference does it make. It isn’t testable, and Al Gore knows this, that’s why he chose to make the claim. That is why he and Barack Obama are being singled out for criticism. They know they’re making “durable” claims in that the claims are untestable, therefore inherently scientific…so they start babbling nonsense, and end up contradicting each other. You and Ed say the problem is context and misquoting. But you’re actually missing the point. They’re saying whatever they need to say in order to sell the scam, and making fools out of themselves. The storm can be “attributed” to climate change or else it can’t be. If the contradiction is avoided because they’re talking about matters of faith that are not testable, then they’re no longer talking science. By definition.
But I suppose we can’t come to agreement on that either, huh.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 09:04Have we misunderstood each other again? I thought I was asking for support for your proposition that climate amelioration would cost less than climate warming. Why are you sending me links showing that warming has occurred?
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:20“It’s a nice theory that involves thousands of scientists in many different countries, in many different cultures, in many different political systems, in many different fields of study, in many different scientific academies. Sure, it’s possible.” Or, we could posit that each well-documented admission of bias in a leading member of the campaign in several countries is a one-off, local occurrence. That’s possible, too, though perhaps a lot to hope for. I’d love to think that the problem is confined to the U.S.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:25mkfreeberg: A lot of organizations even require you to put a dollar amount by the cost of not doing anything, and then to quantify it. With citations.
There is a lot of research on cost-benefit analysis of climate change and various policy options. Captain Midnight provided a citation to a conservative analysis, the Copenhagen Consensus: They state that “global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive.” That is our position as well. They further state “The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in
later years.”
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fCC%2fPress%2fUK%2fcopenhagen_consensus_result_FINAL.pdf
Here’s another:
Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet: “adapting to climate change is very likely a cost-effective investment in almost all cases and should be central to any climate change policy”
http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/
mkfreeberg: It isn’t testable, and Al Gore knows this, that’s why he chose to make the claim.
It’s actually an active area of research, and yes, scientists now believe they can demonstrate that storm strength is related to global warming. Grinsted et al., Homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:25Texan99: Or, we could posit that each well-documented admission of bias in a leading member of the campaign in several countries is a one-off, local occurrence. That’s possible, too, though perhaps a lot to hope for. I’d love to think that the problem is confined to the U.S.
Bias is a given in science. In order to support his cosmological theory, Galileo wrote a treatise on tides that nearly everyone knew was wrong the moment it was published. Galileo was an arrogant and stubborn man who insulted those who disagreed with him. Yet, he was the greatest scientist of the age.
You have a very wrong notion as to how science progresses. It doesn’t progress because scientists are unbiased. It’s the scientific method that separates the wheat from the chaff.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:31It’s the scientific method that separates the wheat from the chaff.
It’s supposed to be the scientific method that separates the wheat from the chaff. That’s why we can get into such trouble subverting the scientific method. The individual biases of scientists here and there are not usually much of a problem. For one thing, they tend to cancel each other out. But a systemic bias is harder to get at. When the guys in control of the peer-review system succumb to it, it can take a really long time to fix. In the meantime, it’s very important not to give politicians and activists trillions of dollars to spend on the strength of the products of the broken system.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:41Texan99: When the guys in control of the peer-review system succumb to it, it can take a really long time to fix.
You act as if there is only a single, tightly controlled peer-review system. But there are different journals, different scientists, different political systems, different cultures. And journals love groundbreaking science. Every scientist wants to overturn orthodoxy, but that requires evidence, evidence which is lacking for the climate skeptics.
Sure, it’s possible. After all, they laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers…
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:53http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/carlsagan163043.html
From the abstract of the paper you mentioned:
Note, this abstract makes two mentions of frequency. Zero mentions of strength. So…the creation of…not strengthening of…Hurricane Sandy, and similar events.
As I’ve already said, to me it’s just six of one and half-dozen of another, since Gore is being completely unscientific in his remark and it’s not possible to know if he was placing great importance on the differentiation between creating, and strengthening, a storm. I’m inclined to believe he wasn’t getting that far into it. But if we’re going by what the science says, and this abstract is a representation of it, then the creation of the storms is more of a consideration than the strength of any particular event.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 09:55Was this the gobbledegook you wanted me to read in the DARA link?
While a full reassessment of the costs of adaptation is beyond the scope of this report, this Monitor’s findings imply that it is very unlikely that the adaptation costs currently facing developing countries could be less than 150 billion US dollars per year today — double the highest of previous published estimates of around 75 billion US dollars per year — simply because a number of key climate change impacts assessed here, such as Heating and Cooling, or water represent quasi adaptation costs by virtue of how they have ben calculated — autonomous adaptation at cost (or gain) being assumed.
costs of climate change, developing countries could be facing a minimum of over 1 trillion dollars of annual adaptation cost a year by 2030 (in 2010 dollars PPP) — an order of magnitude higher than any previous estimate.
While those figures represent minimum amounts, it is unlikely that the margin of error exceeds much more than double the minimums estimated here, whereas the impact of climate change is estimated to incur several times greater losses for developing countries: 500 billion dollars for 2010 and 4 trillion dollars for 2030 (2010 dollars PPP non-discounted).
On the basis of existing literature on the subject, adaptation costs are therefore very likely to be less than the costs of the impacts of climate change — as a result adaptation represents a cost-effective investment across a broad range of sectors, meaning resources spent on adaptation are almost certain to reap net benefits for affected countries and for society as a whole.
An important qualification to any estimations of the costs of adaptation however is that climate-related uncertainty significantly increases costs, since planning is ideally robust to the full (or nearly) range of potential outcomes which may include opposites, such as more water, and inundation, or less water but drought.
If so, I have to ask whether you chose this link because you thought it did an unusually good job quantifying a comparison between the estimated costs of climate change and the estimated costs of amelioration.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 10:10mkfreeberg: Note, this abstract makes two mentions of frequency. Zero mentions of strength. So…the creation of…not strengthening of…Hurricane Sandy, and similar events.
The paper is all about storm strength. It’s not that difficult. It’s like counting people over six feet tall to help determine if people are getting taller.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 10:21You act as if there is only a single, tightly controlled peer-review system.
I definitely have a concern that the much-resisted disclosures of statements by prominent and influential members of the peer-review system demonstrate a wide systemic problem. They are admitting a practice of suppressing inconvenient research, even when they can’t identify anything wrong with it scientifically, and enlisting their colleagues in an effort to dream up plausible reasons for spiking its publication.
Yes, I would like to think that there is enough competition among respectable journals that an article spiked in one publication will reach the light of day in another. In fact, I have read articles questioning various critical aspects of the warmist thesis that are lucidly argued and well supported by facts. Warmists tend to dismiss them because they aren’t published in the “right” journals. Well, duh.
In the meantime, the problem of combined partisanship, messianic fervor, ambition for celebrity, grant money, cliquishness, and fundamental dishonesty has reached such proportions that I’m not sure I’m justified any longer in hoping that the competitive market in the journal establishment is performing its sanitary function. At a minimum, it makes me discount arguments along the lines of “There’s no evidence at all for the contrary opinion!” Lacking faith in the ability of the peer review system to bring all arguments out into the open, I fall back on asking logical questions of warmists. When the responses raise every red flag I’ve got (non sequiturs, indifference to dishonesty, inability to stick to the point, a reliance on non-specific links, and evasion of specifics on critical questions like cost-effectiveness, and every logical fallacy in the book), I’m not convinced. In other words, I’m left skeptical.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 10:26Texan99: Lacking faith in the ability of the peer review system to bring all arguments out into the open, I fall back on asking logical questions of warmists.
We’d be happy to look at whatever supposedly suppressed evidence you might have.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 10:35Texan99: In fact, I have read articles questioning various critical aspects of the warmist thesis that are lucidly argued and well supported by facts.
We’d be interested in those journal articles that question “critical aspects” of climate science.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 10:37The paper is all about storm strength. It’s not that difficult.
As I said multiple times. This distinction means absolutely nothing to me, and it likely means absolutely nothing to Al Gore. The ONLY way it has become relevant in this conversation is that you and Ed wanted to use the tried-and-true “not fair he was taken out of context” anti-science tactic, to nudge aside and discard information that poses a problem to the dogma.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 11:10We’d be happy to look at whatever supposedly suppressed evidence you might have. Wouldn’t it be nice if anything that had been suppressed were safe here in my possession? The point is that if people in charge of peer review admit that they’re in the business of suppression, then I can no longer draw firm conclusions from silence. As I said, I have to fall back on asking questions. If I get irrational answers, I’m left skeptical.
We’d be interested in those journal articles that question “critical aspects” of climate science. I’ve already linked to some here. You looked at them and came back here quoting the bits you liked, ignoring the bits you didn’t. That’s my whole point: the problems that are created when you look only at data that support your pet theory. Your mind is closed to doubt. That probably has psychological benefits, but it doesn’t make you persuasive.
In any case, here are some more articles questioning critical aspects of climate science.
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity (Nir Shaviv: empirical estimates of climate sensitivity yield a relatively low value that corresponds to net cancelation of a variety of negative and positive feedbacks)
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming (something similar, but more informal, from the same author: Earth’s climate sensitivity should be revised down, and the upper range of sensitivities should be discarded and with it, the apocalyptic scenarios which they imply)
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK (same author, somewhat different details and graphs)
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/new-climate-sho.html (not a journal article but a summary treatment of problems with the approach of published research)
In keeping with your established rule that it’s the ideas that matter, not the personal characteristics or credentials of the authors, I hope we won’t have to go off on any rabbit trails about whether these are “approved” publications. I’m not interested in playing “my journal is better than your journal” or “my expert has ‘climate’ somewhere in the title painted on his door, while yours is a mere physicist.” I’d just like to know what, if anything, is supposedly wrong with these seemingly cogent objections to critical aspects of warming theory.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 11:10mkfreeberg: This distinction means absolutely nothing to me
Yes, you’ve shown repeatedly to be uninterested in important distinctions.
mkfreeberg: and it likely means absolutely nothing to Al Gore.
Of course it does. He’s spent years on the topic.
mkfreeberg: The ONLY way it has become relevant in this conversation is that you and Ed wanted to use the tried-and-true “not fair he was taken out of context”
The way to avoid that is not take people out of context.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 11:53But, again, according to the abstract of the paper you offered, the more salient point is about the frequency of the stronger storms. Hence, their existence. So Gore was not taken out of context or misquoted, in any meaningful way.
You have had a chance to define how this is relevant. Your own citation contradicts you directly. So that settles the matter.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 12:56mkfreeberg: Your own citation contradicts you directly. So that settles the matter.
“A measure of storm surge intensity would therefore be a good candidate measure of cyclone potential impact. In this paper we construct such a record, using long-term tidegauge records from stations that have been operational for much longer than the satellite era… Rather than a simple number count of cyclones, we produce a yearly probability distribution of storm surge intensity. We then apply a robust method of estimating confidence intervals to the frequency of extreme events.”
“Rather than a simple number count of cyclones” they are interested in the “distribution of storm surge intensity”.
(If you don’t have access to the full paper, email angel at zachriel dotcom.)
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 13:24Texan99: The point is that if people in charge of peer review admit that they’re in the business of suppression, then I can no longer draw firm conclusions from silence.
Pretty neat little conspiracy theory you got there, involving thousands of complicit scientists in multiple fields of study, multiple countries, multiple cultures. Even Galileo wasn’t faced with that. He only had to contend with the Inquisition, but his works were freely distributed across Europe outside Italy.
Texan99: In keeping with your established rule that it’s the ideas that matter, not the personal characteristics or credentials of the authors, I hope we won’t have to go off on any rabbit trails about whether these are “approved” publications.
More than happy to look at any evidence.
Texan99: (Nir Shaviv: empirical estimates of climate sensitivity yield a relatively low value that corresponds to net cancelation of a variety of negative and positive feedbacks)
Actually, his first-order approximation is 2.0±0.5°K, which is in line with IPCC. His cosmic ray hypothesis hasn’t held up, so we can ignore those adjustments. (See Rahmstorf et al., Cosmic Rays, Carbon Dioxide and Climate, Eos, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 2004. Also, recent cosmic ray studies show an inverse trend. Sloan & Wolfendale, Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover, Environmental Research Letters 2008: “The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it.”)
Texan99: (not a journal article but a summary treatment of problems with the approach of published research)
If a doubling of CO2 results in 1°C warming, and an increase from 290 to 390 increased temperatures 0.74°C, then that would represent an amplification of about 75%. Something is wrong with the chart.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 13:24If a doubling of CO2 results in 1°C warming, and an increase from 290 to 390 increased temperatures 0.74°C, then that would represent an amplification of about 75%. Something is wrong with the chart. Could you explain this comment a bit more? How are you calculating an amplification of 75% from those two data points, when the author gets a sensitivity of 1.4? Are you using amplification to mean what he refers to as sensitivity? What are the units of the amplification you’re referring to?
Is it your position that the science of the impact of cosmic rays has yielded uncontroverted answers and a broad, firm consensus, or would you describe the area as one of competing views, developing research, and doubt?
I can see that you’re not persuaded there is a serious problem with the peer-review process, but instead of responding in any way to the very embarrassing admissions on that subject from a number of professionally and geographically diverse climate-change opinion leaders, you preferred to take the position that bias is unimportant because it will be corrected over time. If bias is important enough for you to feel a need to snipe at a belief in its existence, then it would be appropriate for you to confront the direct evidence of bias and related shenanigans contained in my quotations — you know, argue that they were taken out of context and so forth. Otherwise, we should take the bias as fully established, and you can continue to argue that it’s simply irrelevant.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 14:04Texan99: Could you explain this comment a bit more? How are you calculating an amplification of 75% from those two data points, when the author gets a sensitivity of 1.4?
x = 290 ppm
y = 390 ppm
z = 580 ppm = 2x
0.74°C / ( log2(y/x) / log2(z/x) ) = 1.72°C
Texan99: Are you using amplification to mean what he refers to as sensitivity?
If CO2 causes a warming of 1°C, and it is amplified by 72%, then the resulting warming is 1.72°C, which is called the climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Of course, this ignores other effects, such as aerosol cooling.
Texan99: Is it your position that the science of the impact of cosmic rays has yielded uncontroverted answers and a broad, firm consensus, or would you describe the area as one of competing views, developing research, and doubt?
The evidence does not support the cosmic ray theory.
Texan99: If bias is important enough for you to feel a need to snipe at a belief in its existence
Huh? Of course there’s bias. There’s personal biases. There’s institutional biases. And there’s inertia. Science is a conservative process. New ideas need solid evidence to take hold.
Take Shaviv. He clings to his theory even though the evidence seems to be against it. Perhaps he is right, but the theory just hasn’t been fruitful as yet. Good theories are hypothesis generators. Great theories spawn entire new fields of study.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 16:25Re sensitivity and amplification, it does not appear to me that you’re using the words in the same sense as the article, or calculating on the basis of the same data reflected in his chart. The author cited an increase of CO2 from 280ppm (125 years ago) to 385ppm (today), corresponding to an increase of 0.6 degrees C. He calculated that a temperature increase of that amount corresponded to a sensitivity of 1.37, then applied that sensitivity to a projected increase of CO2 from 385ppm (today) to double that amount (in the future). This second calculation yielded an additional temperature increase of about 1.3 or 1.4 degrees C between now and the date in the future on which CO2 has doubled from today’s concentration. What is it that you object to about these calculations?
Q: Is it your position that the science of the impact of cosmic rays has yielded uncontroverted answers and a broad, firm consensus, or would you describe the area as one of competing views, developing research, and doubt? A: The evidence does not support the cosmic ray theory. OK, now you do realize that’s not an answer to the question, right? I don’t doubt the unambivalence of your own conviction, but I wasn’t asking about your subjective state of mind. I was asking whether you perceived a broad, firm consensus in the field of climate science, or instead a context of competing views, developing research, and doubt?
About bias, I can’t keep track of your position. It’s a conspiracy theory, it’s obvious it exists, what? I quote from people who admit that their bias leads them to deliberate dishonesty. Is that an important issue for you, or do you see it as business as usual?
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 18:27Texan99: What is it that you object to about these calculations?
0.6°C is not consistent with the modern estimate of about 0.80°C from the late nineteenth century. We used the more conservative 0.74°C for the period from 1906 to 2005.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12781
And even then, it ignores other mechanisms that make up the climate system, such as aerosols. Somebody should really study aerosols.
Texan99: I was asking whether you perceived a broad, firm consensus in the field of climate science, or instead a context of competing views, developing research, and doubt?
Cosmic rays have been largely ruled out for explaining the current warming trend. Scientists are still studying the historic role, but there’s no evidence to support the theory.
Texan99: About bias, I can’t keep track of your position.
Our position hasn’t changed.
Bias is a given in science… {Science} doesn’t progress because scientists are unbiased… Galileo was an arrogant and stubborn man who insulted those who disagreed with him. Yet, he was the greatest scientist of the age… Of course there’s bias. There’s personal biases. There’s institutional biases.
Texan99: I quote from people who admit that their bias leads them to deliberate dishonesty.
Quote-mine, you mean, echoing through the echo chamber.
If they are guilty of deliberate dishonesty, then they should be fired. But for some reason, whenever there are investigations, these scientists, working in different institutions, are exonerated. A vast conspiracy that includes … everybody.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 18:480.6°C is not consistent with the modern estimate of about 0.80°C from the late nineteenth century. We used the more conservative 0.74°C for the period from 1906 to 2005.
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12781
And even then, it ignores other mechanisms that make up the climate system, such as aerosols. Somebody should really study aerosols.
What you’re objecting to is his input, then, not his calculation. If you were correct that the proper rise in temperature for the century from 1906 to 2005 was 0.74, then the calculation should be done with 0.74, though that’s hardly an incontestible number — just your opinion of the best number — so it is not some kind of settled science as to which there can be no possible dispute. It’s important to keep straight what pieces of this puzzle are still quite tentative, and this is one. What’s more, it makes no sense to say that the calculation ignores the other factors affecting greenhouse warming, such as aerosols. The point of the calculation is to look at the empirical, historical pattern of the entire climate system in the last century and run it forward into the next century. If aerosols are relevant, then they showed up in the pattern over the last century and are included in the sensitivity the author calculated for that period. They will therefore be equally accounted for in the calculation running from today into the future.
Q: I was asking whether you perceived a broad, firm consensus in the field of climate science, or instead a context of competing views, developing research, and doubt? A: Cosmic rays have been largely ruled out for explaining the current warming trend. Scientists are still studying the historic role, but there’s no evidence to support the theory. Again, you’re citing your own opinion of the state of this question, which is not what I’m asking. I’m asking you whether you perceive that there is any remaining debate over this point in the scientific community generally, or whether instead it’s broadly accepted as a done deal, no more research, no more pending questions. Is my question not clear to you?
But for some reason, whenever there are investigations, these scientists, working in different institutions, are exonerated. A vast conspiracy that includes … everybody. Not everybody, of course, but one has to wonder about the echo chamber in which they were “investigated.” It’s a bit like having Gordon Liddy investigate Nixon over the burglary. Shall we have Goldman Sachs investigate the housing market collapse, too? Did you even read those statements? Do you honestly think there’s some kind of context that could alter their plain meaning? Have you lost all sense of what dishonesty looks like? Is there any incriminating statement in the world you wouldn’t dismiss as “out of context”? Because that excuse is getting really, really stale for people caught red-handed.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 20:52Texan99: If you were correct that the proper rise in temperature for the century from 1906 to 2005 was 0.74, then the calculation should be done with 0.74, though that’s hardly an incontestible number — just your opinion of the best number — so it is not some kind of settled science as to which there can be no possible dispute.
Um, it’s not our opinion, but the results of scientific investigation.
Texan99: If aerosols are relevant, then they showed up in the pattern over the last century and are included in the sensitivity the author calculated for that period.
That’s the whole point, of course. Aerosols mean the curve is not a perfect logarithm. It requires more than a simplistic extrapolation to determine the future of the curve. But even a simplistic extrapolation yields a climate sensitivity of 1¾°C or more per doubling of CO2.
Texan99: Again, you’re citing your own opinion of the state of this question,
Saying cosmic rays have been ruled out is not a personal opinion, but the results of scientific investigation.
Texan99: I’m asking you whether you perceive that there is any remaining debate over this point in the scientific community generally, or whether instead it’s broadly accepted as a done deal, no more research, no more pending questions.
Our perception, based on the available scientific evidence, is that cosmic rays do not have the influence on the current warming trend as proposed, and that there is as yet no support for their historic influence.
Texan99: Do you honestly think there’s some kind of context that could alter their plain meaning?
Yes, we looked at the first one. The propagation, along with same ellipses, through the right wing echo-chamber, is a dead-giveaway. You just fired a leading expert in dendrology, Edward Cook, because he tried to spiked a paper he thought was not worthy of publication.
Maybe Cook was being overly harsh, but rejecting a paper because it didn’t show that the errors changed the results in the original paper is not fraud. It’s something that should have been shown to warrant publication in a journal on environmental sciences.
Poor statistical methodology has been a problem in climatology. The original researchers started on a shoe-string, and had to compile data from multiple institutions from around the world, often with legal strings attached. They weren’t, for the most part, statisticians. However, subsequent rigorous analysis has shown that the original claims were largely correct, and that the original analysis, while not perfect, were sufficient to determine the trends. This has nothing to do with the integrity of the researchers, and has been largely resolved in favor of the original researchers.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 06:05This has nothing to do with the integrity of the researchers, and has been largely resolved in favor of the original researchers.
Can we eliminate the adverb “largely” from that sentence?
Why or why not?
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 07:04Um, [the notion that the proper calculation of the temperature rise since the beginning of the industrial age 125 years ago is exactly 0.74, not 0.60, is] not our opinion, but the results of scientific investigation. You are describing a level of exact certainty in the “settled science” that does not exist in the real world. This is not like calculating pi out to another few decimal places, where the answer is definitively wrong or right. When you argue that there can be no gainsaying a climate-change position because it is “settled science,” this is evidently the kind of thing you mean. That’s why you have no credibility.
On the question of cosmic rays, the question you are refusing even to attempt to answer is whether you perceive any ongoing debate in the scientific community, or instead a settled uniformity of opinion. The fact that you continue retreating to your formulation of “this is the results of investigation” or “the available evidence shows there is no support” means to me that you are incapable of judging whether a question is still debatable among the entire scientific community, regardless of whether you allow that debate to intrude into your own consciousness. Again, it undermines you whenever you refuse to entertain a contrary thought because it’s against “settled science.” I don’t personally know how controversial the cosmic-ray approach is today, and I can’t find out from talking to you. You either don’t know or are afraid to say.
Maybe Cook was being overly harsh, but I don’t care about that. What I care about is that he found a paper that identified mathematical or statistical problems in Cook’s work that ought to be examined by the scientific community at large. Instead of facing up to that, he spiked the paper, because it might lead someone to doubt the Tornetrask reconstruction of some earlier work. That is dishonest. The context does not salvage it. Is this how you work? In the scientific community in which I was raised, this kind of behavior would arouse revulsion and distrust. “Poor statistical methodology has been a problem in climatology.” I’ll say, and it could use some more people pointing out its flaws, not engaging in a cover-up to “protect” the public from “confusion.”
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 07:09Texan99: You are describing a level of exact certainty in the “settled science” that does not exist in the real world.
That the Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century is as settled as anything in science. Unless you have contrary evidence, you’re just handwaving.
Texan99: The fact that you continue retreating to your formulation of “this is the results of investigation” or “the available evidence shows there is no support” means to me that you are incapable of judging whether a question is still debatable among the entire scientific community, regardless of whether you allow that debate to intrude into your own consciousness.
Everything is debatable, and everything in science is considered tentative, including the movement of the Earth. Whether a particular position is plausible depends on the evidence.
Texan99: What I care about is that he found a paper that identified mathematical or statistical problems in Cook’s work that ought to be examined by the scientific community at large.
Would it have affected the results? If not, then it is of little interest to environmental scientists. There’s always other statistical tests, more advanced techniques. That may be of interest to statisticians, but rarely to empirical scientists—unless it changes the results. That’s what the paper needed to explore to be publishable.
Texan99: “Poor statistical methodology has been a problem in climatology.” I’ll say, and it could use some more people pointing out its flaws, not engaging in a cover-up to “protect” the public from “confusion.”
As we said, the shortcuts used by earlier researchers have been shown to not have affected the results. For instance, reanalysis of Earth station data confirms the warming trend. It’s actually quite an accomplishment, to work from penciled records made over the last century in different countries and languages, using different protocols, and successfully piecing together a temperature trend that can withstand scrutiny by modern statistical analysis using advanced computer technology.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 07:34Texan99, is there any significant relevance to cosmic rays in relation to climate change and global warming?
Can you explain why this question has any relevance to the science of climate change? Or is this just a wild hare that has you completely by the throat, and despite your and its drowning in insignificance, you can’t get out of its clutches?
- edarrell | 02/14/2013 @ 11:48You raised the science of cosmic rays as an objection to the Shaviv piece. Why did you think the point was relevant?
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 12:00I didn’t raise cosmic rays at all.
Nor did you answer my question.
Why is your question about cosmic rays relevant? Can you explain?
- edarrell | 02/14/2013 @ 12:02Maybe a little broader, and more enlightening to you if you try, and to us, if you answer: How do cosmic rays affect either global warming or the price of bananas in Brooklyn?
- edarrell | 02/14/2013 @ 12:03Why is your question about cosmic rays relevant? Can you explain? Certainly. I referred you to an article calculating a lower sensitivity than you were advocating. You dismissed the article in part because the author relied on a theory of cosmic rays. You implied that this was cut-and-dried. I’m curious whether you acknowledge any current debate in the scientific community on this subject. Is it an area where the dust is still settling and different practitioners have different views? Or is it an area where, in your view, no reasonable climate scientist has any significant remaining doubt? Is this one of areas where the science is clear enough to say “the science is settled”?
It should be an easy question to answer, even if you’re not persuaded of its relevance. What’s hanging you up? Either you’ve looked into it, and know whether there’s a controversy, or you haven’t looked into it, in which you can simply say you don’t know. If you think it’s irrelevant, why not say why you think that?
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 13:15Texan99: You raised the science of cosmic rays as an objection to the Shaviv piece.
Because Shaviv based his calculation on a theory that has been repeatedly rejected due to lack of support. He was attempting to determine climate sensitivity from natural climate change of the past. Here are a couple of recent studies using somewhat less simplistic assumptions.
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.
Pagani et al., High Earth-system climate sensitivity determined from Pliocene carbon dioxide concentrations, Nature 2009.
Keep in mind that a single study is rarely definitive; however, multiple studies using various techniques are helping to limit the range of plausible values. Here’s a review article that discussing several approaches to the problem.
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 13:48Two things: You appear unwilling and/or unable to accept the fact that there is no showing of significance OR fact to the claim that “cosmic rays make it look like warming is a problem when it’s not,” and what appears to be your misunderstanding that it could be significant in the discussion.
As with many things in science, water in the air is a paradox. On the one hand it’s a greenhouse gas. On the other hand, when vapor turns into clouds, they reflect heat away from the Earth and back into space.
So, the question scientists asked 100 years ago, that we studied 40 years ago, and that is a constant source of study for refining climate models, is, “How much do clouds cool warming, if at all?” coupled with “is water vapor a net boon or hurdle in evening out climate to avoid the damages of pollution-caused warming?”
A few years ago there was a wild claim that warming was refuted completely because cosmic rays cause clouds to form.
As it turns out, cosmic rays do play a role in cloud formation, and one can show it in a lab. Zap a chamber saturated with water vapor with rays equal to cosmic rays, and clouds form. However, other factors affect cloud formation more, including the heat of the oceans and presence of other clouds . . .
In the end, the added heat in the oceans cannot put enough water vapor in the air to make enough clouds to reflect enough heat to mitigate warming caused by increases in CO2 in the air, and the role of cosmic rays in that entire process is inconsequential enough that the models run accurately without considering cosmic ray variation in any form.
So you’re arguing a level of arcana that is really mind-boggling; you want to know about peer review (and you refuse to accept the answers) on a process that is so far as we know almost inconsequential to cloud formation (an answer you refuse to accept regardless the peer review), which appears to be almost inconsequential in mitigating global warming at all (which you also appear unwilling to accept).
You’re arguing the want of a nail in a horseshoe, when it turns out the battle doesn’t involve horses at all.
I wanted to hear you try to explain it.
- edarrell | 02/14/2013 @ 13:55What’s hanging you up?
Two things: You appear unwilling and/or unable to accept . . . ” etc.
You shouldn’t let your fears about my state of mind keep you from answering simple questions. It makes you look shifty, and like one of those people who feel they have to shade the truth in order to protect the public from error.
In the end, the added heat in the oceans cannot put enough water vapor in the air to make enough clouds to reflect enough heat to mitigate warming caused by increases in CO2 in the air, and the role of cosmic rays in that entire process is inconsequential enough that the models run accurately without considering cosmic ray variation in any form. (I hope you don’t mean the temperature projection models, none of which have ever run accurately prospectively, and all of which have to be re-jiggered retroactively with previously-neglected now-critical factors. Let’s assume you mean more successful models pertaining specifically to cloud formation.) You still really can’t address my simple question, can you? Yes, I understand your personal view on the subject. Do you think you’re in the mainstream? Do you think it’s irrelevant whether you are in the mainstream or not? Is the existence of a mainstream particularly persuasive in this context, and if not, why is “the science is settled” your go-to argument for the ultimate conclusion of catastrophic global warming?
So you’re arguing a level of arcana that is really mind-boggling. I’m not arguing one way or another about cosmic rays. I was probing to see whether you were capable of acknowledging something less than nearly total consensus — a/k/a settled science — on a subsidiary issue that would shed doubt on an element of your case. If you thought the science of cosmic rays was settled, I’d have looked into it to see whether your view was eccentric or not, which would shed some light on other areas where you avoid specifics and claim that the science is settled. If you turned out to be right, you’d have gained a little credibility. If you turned out to be wrong, obviously the opposite. If you thought the science of cosmic rays wasn’t settled, I’d have wondered why you couldn’t see that doubt about sub-issues translates into doubt about ultimate issues. What I didn’t expect was all this squid ink: a blank refusal to take any position at all. It’s very shifty.
If you asked me for a simple explanation of why evolution is a better scientific theory than creationism, I could answer you without crawfishing and without an appeal to authority, even though I know perfectly well there are lots of people out there who vehemently doubt evolution. That’s because I know why I believe what I believe. Frankly, if it were otherwise, I would have to face the fact that my understanding was superficial, and I should get more up to speed. That’s why good schools subject candidates to oral examinations: because nothing reveals the weakness of a case like an inability to respond calmly and relevantly to close skeptical questioning. When the candidate bursts out with “But that’s just arcana! That’s irrelevant! No one thinks that’s important! All the best minds have rejected that thought!” — the examiners know they have a dud.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 15:02Texan99: Or is it an area where, in your view, no reasonable climate scientist has any significant remaining doubt? Is this one of areas where the science is clear enough to say “the science is settled”?
We rarely use the term “settled” with regards to science. Cosmic rays may very well have had an influence on climate over the long history of Earth, but are not thought to be the cause of current warming because the trends are opposed.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_GCRsvsTemps.jpg
As for Shaviv’s specific hypothesis, that has been called into question due to problems with dating. We suggested you compare his results with those with more expertise in the area. You haven’t shown any more interest in that than in any other science that doesn’t fit your preconceptions.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 15:29While you may avoid the term “settled,” you frequently rely on the argument to authority: there’s no controversy, there’s no evidence, no one thinks that, and so on. In the next breath, you’ll come back and say there’s no certainty in science, but when the proposition is one that’s important to you, you’re right back to “there’s no real controversy any more.” Why split hairs?
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 15:40Texan99: While you may avoid the term “settled,” you frequently rely on the argument to authority:
Mostly, we rely on appeal to the evidence. For instance, we didn’t say that Shaviv’s hypothesis was wrong because it was rejected by other scientists. We pointed to papers that provided evidence and arguments as to why his findings were in error. In addition, we pointed to studies of climate sensitivity based on historical climate change that analyzed, in much more detail, specific historical periods that arrive at quite different results than Shaviv’s facile calculation.
There is quite a bit of interest in cosmic rays and their influence on climate. They don’t seem to explain the current warming, though.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 15:56Here, I’ll intervene to save some time & effort…
The Zachriel do more than merely rely on appeal to authority now & then.
It is their position that, in some situations at least — and perhaps by default, if I read their previous comments correctly — appeal to authority is quite legitimate, and ought not be classified as the logical fallacy we know it to be.
There is some accuracy in what I say here, correct?
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 15:57mkfreeberg: appeal to authority is quite legitimate, and ought not be classified as the logical fallacy we know it to be.
Appeal to authority is not always a fallacy, and people rightly rely upon expert opinion in their everyday lives.
“Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
“Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
However, we have a strong preference for appeals to the evidence, as we explained in our previous comment.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 16:25Mostly, we rely on appeal to the evidence. For instance, we didn’t say that Shaviv’s hypothesis was wrong because it was rejected by other scientists. We pointed to papers that provided evidence and arguments as to why his findings were in error. You did, after much delay, and I was proud of you, the more so because that wasn’t even the question I was asking you. But you thought it was the question I was asking you, and after about 25 exchanges you finally managed not only to point to other papers but to explain what you thought was in them that was relevant. That’s great. I knew you could do it. Now please don’t backslide! You’re more interesting when you stick to facts and logic.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 16:41Wikipedia’s article on fallacies is excellent.
The takeaway from this is, a fallacy may very well be used to “prove” something that is in fact true, and/or proven or supported thoroughly by some other means. But it’s still a fallacy. In other words, you say “X proves Y” and, due to some other evidence-gathering and experimentation, we know Y to be true. And, X also may be true. But it’s a fallacy to say there is a connection between X and Y, even though on an emotional level, that may seem to be the case.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 16:42Texan99: You did, after much delay
Our first reply on Shaviv cited Rahmstorf et al., which addressed problems with Shaviv & Veizer; and in the same comment, we also cited Sloan & Wolfendale, which studied the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover, finding the link doubtful. We also noted that his first-order approximation was 2.0±0.5°K, which is in line with IPCC.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 16:50mkfreeberg: The takeaway from this is, a fallacy may very well be used to “prove” something that is in fact true, and/or proven or supported thoroughly by some other means.
A valid appeal to authority is an inductive argument, not deductive. It doesn’t prove, but supports, a proposition. For instance, if you go to three independent doctors, and they agree that you have cancer, they may be wrong, but they are more likely to be right than your three buddies at the saloon.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 16:58…they are more likely to be right than your three buddies at the saloon.
Just wanted to get your position on the record.
But, you’re wrong. If there is a medical fad going on and the three docs are susceptible to it, then they’re more likely to be wrong than the three buddies at the saloon, as long as the three buddies are showing an independence of thought not shown by the daffy docs.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 17:01mkfreeberg: If there is a medical fad going on and the three docs are susceptible to it, then they’re more likely to be wrong than the three buddies at the saloon, as long as the three buddies are showing an independence of thought not shown by the daffy docs.
Seriously? You rely upon your buddies at the saloon for medical advice over doctors? Heh, heh! Why have experts! Just pick a random person off the street and have him remove the tumor. Ha!
Nevertheless, even though doctors are sometimes wrong, they are more likely right about medical matters than the average beer buddy.
Another example is that a professional pilot is probably better at flying planes than the average plumber, while the pilot probably calls a plumber when his toilet backs up.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 17:09Seriously? You rely upon your buddies at the saloon for medical advice over doctors? Heh, heh! Why have experts! Just pick a random person off the street and have him remove the tumor. Ha!
It does seem that is at the heart of the disagreement: Should we retain UNLIMITED faith in our institutions. You say yes, I say let’s continue to use good judgment.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 17:30mkfreeberg: Should we retain UNLIMITED faith in our institutions.
No.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 17:59And yet, if the docs say one thing and the guys at the saloon say the other, not only are you strongly persuaded that the docs must be right, but it is an entirely settled matter. You’re obviously none too fond of, or have anything good to say about, anyone who will continue to mull it over. “Heh, heh! Why have experts!”
See, it’s not an all or nothing thing. You can have experts, and have a purpose for them, without believing every single thing they say. Let them find things out. Let them explain how they got the information, what they think it might mean. But, think independently about it and notice the contradictions.
And not go flying off the handle like a Sex in the City actor.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 04:16mkfreeberg: And yet, if the docs say one thing and the guys at the saloon say the other, not only are you strongly persuaded that the docs must be right, but it is an entirely settled matter.
Most people aren’t in a position to evaluate the medical evidence independent of expert advice. Generally, if several doctors agree that you have cancer, then you should take that opinion seriously. If doctors don’t agree, then you might question the diagnosis. That’s why people often seek a second opinion. Even then, they could be wrong.
This isn’t a difficult concept.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 05:05Most people aren’t in a position to evaluate the medical evidence independent of expert advice. Generally, if several doctors agree that you have cancer, then you should take that opinion seriously. If doctors don’t agree, then you might question the diagnosis. That’s why people often seek a second opinion. Even then, they could be wrong.
This isn’t a difficult concept.
No, it isn’t. Observational information, and the reasoning that flows from it, is all overwhelmingly likely to make us dumber; it is a liability instead of an asset. So instead of seeking to learn more, we need to find excuses to partition it off and not become aware of it in the first place, like “most people aren’t in a position to evaluate…” How did the guy say it in Billy Madison: “Everyone in the room is now dumber for having heard what you said.”
So, it’s anti-learning. Anti-science. People who want to place unlimited faith in these institutions, insist that everybody else do the same.
In Galileo’s time, they’d be the ones putting him under house arrest, insisting “We’ve provided multiple citations” as they bolt the door closed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 05:15And right on cue, we have an example.
Yes, the picture becomes clearer. Figure out the desired answer first, then get rid of all information that doesn’t fit it. Chisel and sculpt the block of marble down into a horse.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 05:52I think we’ve already established the Zachriel’s definition of a “valid” (that word!) appeal to authority. It was something about physics, wasn’t it? All available sources say X, including every single professor in every single university… hell, even Werner Heisenberg agrees to keep quiet on the subject, after a personal appeal to old family friend Heinrich Himmler…. and proceeds to take a fat paycheck from the government as the head of their nuclear weapons research program.
In other words, it would be impossible for any inquirer to believe anything but X under these conditions, short of doing his own bench research from the beginning, which — note carefully — “most people are not in a position to do.”
But that’s NOT valid, say the Z.
But when it comes to their sacred cow, we’re back to “the consensus says,” as if this were holy writ. Texan99 finally prodded them into sort-of answering the question they seemed to believe she was asking… and, not coincidentally, they immediately cuttlefished on over to a discussion of “appeals to authority.”
Now we’re supposed to go another 75 more posts on why appeals to authority are valid, and if that doesn’t work they’ll go to “no, appeals to authority are inductive not deductive” and we’ll have to go another 75 on that, and if that doesn’t work they’ll cut and paste a few more articles attacking Shaviv, and we can start all over again.
In the interests of efficiency, I’ve linked a site that explains all their objections in brief terms.
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 07:38That’s funny, Severian. You complain about an “appeal to authority” in citing real science, then ask that we instead listen to your pet cuttlefish as an authority on why all other authorities in physics are not authoritative.
Constant entertainment in watching denialists scramble to do anything other than discuss the facts.
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 09:22You complain about an “appeal to authority” in citing real science, then ask that we instead listen to your pet cuttlefish as an authority on why all other authorities in physics are not authoritative.
I assume that was supposed to be sarcasm, right? ‘Cuz that’s what I was doing: Holding my pet cuttlefish up as a real authority.
See, that’s sarcasm. Yours would’ve worked, except you had to get all self-righteous there in your second sentence. You’re not very good at this whole “internet” thing, are you?
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 09:30I wish it were more sarcastic than accurate.
But you’re right: It’s difficult to tell with climate denialists where their odd reality ends and parody begins. Just like creationists and fundamentalists.
Your last name wouldn’t happen to be “Poe,” would it?
In the end, all you have is sarcasm? Yeah, we knew that from the start, didn’t we?
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 09:47Funny thing is though, “discuss the facts” seems to consist mostly of posturing, and coming up with reasons why certain people should not have input. We’ve been here before a few times over the years, haven’t we?
As a reminder, here’s the kind of person Ed thinks should have input. Qualified to speak authoritatively.
If you knew from the start that all I had was sarcasm, dear heart, then why on earth did you bother? 🙂
I really do wonder about this. If I’m a “denialist” — functionally no different from “creationists and fundamentalists” — then by definition I can’t be brought into the light, right?
“Denialism,” as you and the Zachriel use the term, means that I reject not only the premises of your arguments, but the very method by which you arrive at those premises. Am I right? There are several threads’ worth of posts by all of you arguing implicitly that “denial” of the global warming conclusion is a denial of the scientific method itself.
Which makes all of this uniquely pointless.
If, you know, you’re actually trying to convince me of something, and not just getting off on your own moral superiority.
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 10:03“…and they DO talk with their eyes closed.”
(Some of the audio not appropriate for a work environment.)
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 10:18I love it! “Yeah, carbon causes smog, but hybrids cause smug, which is far worse.”
The easiest way to tell if someone’s a liberal: They look totally stumped when you ask them, “if you do a good deed but nobody’s around to see it, did it really happen?”
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 10:32Yes, they’re character-deficient. Character, the way J.C. Watts defined it.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 10:33My husband corresponds with a wealthy guy who owns two Teslas and powers them exclusively from his home grid of solar panels. Just about every other hybrid driver in the world is congratulating himself on his clean car while charging it up with energy derived primarily from burning fossil fuels.
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 11:00mkfreeberg: People who want to place unlimited faith in these institutions, insist that everybody else do the same.
No one should place unlimited faith in human institutions.
Severian: I think we’ve already established the Zachriel’s definition of a “valid” (that word!) appeal to authority.
We use the orthodox assessment.
Severian: All available sources say X, including every single professor in every single university… hell, even Werner Heisenberg agrees to keep quiet on the subject, after a personal appeal to old family friend Heinrich Himmler…. and proceeds to take a fat paycheck from the government as the head of their nuclear weapons research program.
Two problems with your appeal, a single university does not represent a consensus of authorities in the field, and there is evidence of undue bias. The appeal to authority fails.
Severian: Now we’re supposed to go another 75 more posts on why appeals to authority are valid, and if that doesn’t work they’ll go to “no, appeals to authority are inductive not deductive”
Mkfreeberg reintroduced the question of authority. Our own strong preference is to discuss the evidence.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 11:43mkfreeberg: Funny thing is though, “discuss the facts” seems to consist mostly of posturing, and coming up with reasons why certain people should not have input. We’ve been here before a few times over the years, haven’t we?
Who said “certain people” shouldn’t have input? But in science, you have to have evidence. But you’ve already said you weren’t interested in the evidence concerning climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 11:47Those who fib in small things will fib in big things. Q.E.D., both ways.
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 11:50Nor should science be replaced by opinions not supported by the facts or authoritative review, from humans who maybe should be in institutions.
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 11:51You don’t think Peggy Joseph should have input in the political process? Mighty white of you there, buddy.
Or maybe she shouldn’t have input on the whole “climate science” debate? As in, if she shows up here to comment, we should throw her out?
Where’s the fib, exactly?
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 11:53Severian: All available sources say X, including every single professor in every single university …
Sorry misread that. If the vast majority of physicists worldwide agree to a proposition about physics, then we can probably safely ignore the bias of a small minority of physicists in Germany. Based on that, it would be a valid appeal to authority. So if scientists agree, for instance, that atoms are made up of smaller components, then, absent evidence otherwise, then it would be reasonable to have a *provisional* belief that atoms are made up of smaller components.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 11:54humans who maybe should be in institutions
And I’m still left wondering why you bother. If Morgan (and Texan99 and myself) are so whacked-out that maybe we should be in institutions, shouldn’t you be referring us to mental health practitioners, instead of “debating” us?
Dude, you really aren’t so hot at this whole “internet” thing. Here’s a free pro tip, Sparky: it’s generally not a good idea to call into question the mental health of people with whom you compulsively argue.
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 11:58Those who fib in small things will fib in big things. Q.E.D., both ways.
She likes Obama. From all I’ve seen of you for years now, fidelity to the dogma is the only criteria there is — that is competence. Is there another requirement you’ve been imposing? I’ve not seen that. And I think I’d have seen it by now.
Z: Who said “certain people” shouldn’t have input?
E: Nor should science be replaced by opinions not supported by the facts or authoritative review, from humans who maybe should be in institutions.
Z, that would be what I’m talking about. Pretty much a constant in DarrelLogic: We’ll figure out later on how to solve the problem or make anything better, for right now can we just get those undesirables out of the room while we make our grown-up decisions. About THEM. (Oh, and make sure they leave their wallets behind, we like that part of them.) Pretty much modern liberalism in a nutshell.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 12:24Come to think of it, I’ve had occasion to produce that video before, Ed. I never did get a flat-out denial from you that she must be one of the smarty-pants types, did I? I think you did concede that Krauthammer and Sowell might have an edge on her, but they were liars or on the take from the oil companies or something…
But the point is, in that big wonderful brotherhood of progressive politics, everyone who is on the good side of the fence, knows what they’re talking about, no matter what. Everyone across the fence from them, is evil, stupid, etc. It’s pure tribalism.
So really, they shouldn’t even be doing science. They shouldn’t try to do it for real, and they shouldn’t be play-acting at it. You really think you can dress up tribalism in a science suit, and no one will see the difference?
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 12:32Why do you assume that? Do you assume you’re impervious to the facts? “Denial” doesn’t have to mean “stupid” or “unable to recognize reality.” Most of the denialists I’ve dealt with over the years did it for money, like the tobacco lobby.
Who, incidentally, fund the anti-Rachel Carson efforts, and who fund the pro-global-warming-do-nothing denialists, too.
You’re not doing it for money? Then perhaps you can be persuaded. I’m hopeful.
Or, you’re neither stupid, nor doing it for money, you just like the dark side?
I’m hopeful that’s not the case, too.
That site where there is an indictment of “Pretending safe things are dangerous: Global warming?”
You refuse to do anything but pick nits with the science, and then you insist the nits are really rogue elephants. I posted a list of global warming effects, each of which is a disaster — and you didn’t even bother to answer that.
Seriously? You don’t see that you’re a denialist? I mean, at least the old Tobacco Institute guys and Stephen Milloy do it for money.
Tell us again how the West Side Highway will never be underwater. Do you seriously believe that, only from your repeatedly denying the evidence?
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 12:36Morgan, another one gone to “moderation.”
Heck, I moderated all the real invective out of it, really!
When does the picture REALLY start becoming clearer to you guys?
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 12:38Still untrue. Are you ever going to correct that?
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 12:40mkfreeberg: Z, that would be what I’m talking about.
Well, children and those who are institutionalized due to mental incapacity are excepted, of course.
Edarrell’s comment didn’t seem to be intended literally, but exasperation.
edarrell: Morgan, another one gone to “moderation.”
More than one link sends it to moderation. Mkfreeberg has been very generous about allowing comments.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 12:45Here’s the complete episode.
Ed, I know it’s not fair to expect you to be up to speed on the EXACT points of contention — and I’m not being facetious in saying that, it would really be unfair because it’s been going on for hundreds and hundreds of posts…but, on the other hand, since you’re a pure tribalist I do have my doubts that you even care.
My position: I don’t accept that we’re even talking about science. The more arguing is done about it, the more it becomes clear that a new field of science has to be started just to study this “science” itself. When it creates more questions than answers, then it isn’t illuminating anything. And no, I’m not talking about hypotheses that have to be tested, something real science is supposed to do. I’m talking about people making an effort to be confusing, obviously intending for the other side to get frustrated, get tired of being insulted, throw up their hands and say “Fine, whatever, I quit. Go ahead and charge me my green taxes so I don’t have to listen to this anymore.”
You can call that science if you want to. You go down that road without me.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 12:45Mkfreeberg has been very generous about allowing comments.
Yeah, I want this free and open. My standing policy is I trap stuff and get rid of it only if it’s obviously spam, or illegal. If something’s trapped that shouldn’t be, I try to jump on it…including with the cell if I’m out and about…still, I am human and there are delays. There’s frustration too on occasion, we’ve already had one comment (apparently) disappear into the it’s-around-here-somewhere zone. Well, we do the best we can.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 12:48Exactly the tactics of the Heartland Institute, AEI, CEI, Africa Fighting Malaria, and others.
It is indeed exasperating to constantly be accused of the tactics of the guys you suppport. But, as Franklin said, in a fair fight truth wins.
Doing our best to keep the fight fair.
(I sense a little umbrage at my heads up on moderation — is there a different route we should take to notify you?)
- edarrell | 02/15/2013 @ 12:53mkfreeberg: I’m talking about people making an effort to be confusing, obviously intending for the other side to get frustrated, get tired of being insulted, throw up their hands and say “Fine, whatever, I quit. Go ahead and charge me my green taxes so I don’t have to listen to this anymore.”
Rivers on fire from pollution, and children told to stay indoors because breathing the air was dangerous. If the trends had continued … but it didn’t, of course. Laws were passed. People changed.
You’re unlikely to ever be convinced. However, in a generation or so, when the problem has been largely addressed by others, you will be able say you knew all along that it was overblown. “Rivers on fire? Preposterous!”
mkfreeberg: I don’t accept that we’re even talking about science.
Well, the only way to determine that would be to look at what climate scientists claim to be scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 13:00Well, Ed, you sure showed me….
….how to be a ridiculous self-parody in the space of a few posts. See, this is why you’re my second-favorite liberal. You illustrate my points so, so well.
For instance, when you argue that I’m either stupid, evil, or in the pocket of the…. tobacco companies? Or whoever is paying me off to be a “denialist.” And that right on the heels of me pointing out, yet again, that you’re “arguing” with someone who by definition can’t be persuaded by your arguments. I’m either too stupid to understand them, too evil to care, or — and maybe this is what’s got you so incoherently revved up — too well-paid to ever come into the light. I guess we can test that one, though. Let me hereby state, for the record, that I’m prepared to be the biggest global warming hysteric in America if the price is right. Go ahead, kiddo — make me an offer.
You also dismiss a post about moonwalking with…. a truly excellent illustration of moonwalking. Much as I hate to quote myself
Your followup:
And let’s not forget the maudochromatic nature of your complaints. Let’s count the adjectives: “denialist.” “likes the dark side.” “stupid.” (Not that reading comprehension’s your strong suit, Ed, but do note that you left it an open-ended question: Or, you’re neither stupid…) Some truly Periclean persuasion there, pal.
And last but certainly not least, there’s –once again — your befuddlement at obvious logical contradictions:
Now why on (the not even warming the teensiest tiniest bit) Earth would I do that? Given, you know, that I’m either stupid, evil, or in Exxon’s pocket.
I hate to break it to you, kiddo, but you’re terrible at this whole “internet” thing. Surely there are better ways to get your virtue fix. Have you thought about volunteering at the local animal shelter or something?
- Severian | 02/15/2013 @ 13:18(I sense a little umbrage at my heads up on moderation — is there a different route we should take to notify you?)
No. And no umbrage, except occasionally with myself for not being quicker. You use WordPress too, you know the drill: The Captain of the vessel, which is me, claims certain exclusive privileges including the privilege of getting in everybody else’s way when he’s not paying attention to things. You also know, on occasion some threads get busy. I’m just trying not to get in the way, but “real life” gets busy too, and we live in a universe that has limits in it. That’s all. One tries to hustle as one is able.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 16:35