The definitive rebuttal to skepticism about global warming!
Here we have the finale of Mclaren’s discussion of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW). After 7 rounds of discussion — one of which I lifted into a post of its own (“Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?” — he delivers an intellectual thunderbolt.
Mclaren’s comments (esp on other subjects) show him to be an intelligent and well-educated person; as such his reply tells us much about the general public’s understanding of AGW (but not, of course, about climate science) — and the propaganda campaign that created it. Hence his comment deserves close study.
The main event (wait for it)
To this Mclaren replied as follows (here):
This is too good to be true. If folks like Mclaren keep this up, people will accuse me of inventing these pro-AGW comments!
Let’s deconstruct this to see what we can learn — esp asking why an intelligent person considers this a sensible comment.
- If this was his reply, what did the post say?
- Is it logical to say “Fabius Maximus is a troll”?
- What does Mclaren consider strong evidence?
- A trivia note about Mclaren’s past comments.
1. If this was his reply, what did the post say?
He posted a comment to a regular feature of the FM site, “recommended readings for the weekend.” These list online material of interest, with little or no analysis. He posted to “This week’s report on the news in climate science“, which gave excerpts from the following articles:
1. “Operating Environment 2008“, US Joint Forces Command, 25 November 2008, 56 pages — “A strategic framework that forecasts possible threats and opportunities that will challenge the future joint force.” Note Part II, chapter G “Climate Change and Natural Disasters.”
2. “Emulating Mannian CPS“, Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 2 December 2008 – The struggle continues to get “hockey stick” Mann’s computer to code to work. Only then can Mann’s work be replicated. Odd that it appears in peer-reviewed journals; one wonders what “reviewed” means when the code does not run.
3. “Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations“, ScienceDaily, 3 December 2008 — An example of the large flow of peer-reviewed literature on alternative drivers of modern climate changes. The subject of the article is “Exploratory Analysis of Similarities in Solar Cycle Magnetic Phases with Southern Oscillation Index Fluctuations in Eastern Australia“, Prof Robert G. V. Baker (Prof at the School of Environmental Studies, U of New England), Geographical Research, December 2008, Pages 380 – 398.
4. “Mann et al 2008 – Another Error Notice“, Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 5 December 2008 — Another correction by Mann, who seems unable to credit his critics.
5. “Satellite derived sea level updated“, Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That, 5 December 2008 — “The short-term trend has been shrinking since 2005.”
It also alerted readers to watch for the transcript (or watch the video today) of this pro-AGW event: “Climate Change, Security, and Earth Observation“, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 5 December 2008.
2. Is it logical to say “Fabius Maximus is a troll”?
First, what is an Internet troll? Per Wikipedia:
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internetslang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
Since this is my blog, by definition anything I post is relevant. A person cannot be a “troll” on his own blog. You don’t pay for this material; if you don’t like it — don’t come here.
Note: name-calling like this violates the FM Comment Policy. However I tend to give a pass to ad hominem’s directed at me.
3. What does Mclaren consider strong evidence?
We should be grateful that Mclaren gives links, unlike his past practice of giving only sketchy descriptions and claiming victory. Here are the references in his pithy reply.
- “Anti-global heating claims – a reasonably thorough debunking“, Brian Angliss (electrical engineer), Scholars and Rogues, 23 July 2007.
- “Skeptical Arguements“, John Cook (undergraduate major in “solar physics”, an “ex-physicist”), Skeptical Science, no date — Gives a brief rebuttal to each.
- “Top 10 Global Warming Myths Debunked“, Nicole Hughes, posted at “takepart”, 7 April 2008.
- “Climate change: A guide for the perplexed“, Michael Le Page, New Scientist, 16 May 2007.
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
From a brief review the first 3 appear to be articles of the “move on — no debate here” variety, rebuttals which ignore the evidence and logic of the skeptics (just propaganda). Esp note the use of “debunking” in 1 and 3, as if no scientists were skeptics on this (obviously false), and ignoring the obvious physical evidence (e.g., surfacestations.org). That shows them to be true believers, zealots who see only one side of an issue. IMO no matter what the issue, the proper place for such folks is in monasteries. Only through debate can we resolve these important and complex issues.
LePage’s is an op-ed, how humanity thinks out-loud about issues.
The last (6) is of course a compendium of the pro-AGW case, the subject of the debate — to a large extent written by the key pro-AGW scientists about their own work.
4. A trivia note about Mclaren’s past comments
Mclaren has still not posted a retraction or apology for this mistake. This is a small matter, but indicative of his attitude to the facts. Some blogs would ban him for this behavior. But making gross errors does not violate the FM Comment Policy. Nor does it require ‘fessing up.
If you are new to this site, please glance at the archives below. You may find answers to your questions in these.
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 words max), civil, and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
For more information from the FM site
To read other articles about these things, see the FM reference page on the right side menu bar. Of esp relevance to this topic:
- Posts about Science, Nature, and Geopolitics– this lists not only posts on the FM site, but also a wide range of other online sources.
Posts on the FM site about climate change
- A look at the science and politics of global warming, 12 June 2008
- Global warming means more earthquakes!, 19 June 2008
- An article giving strong evidence of global warming, 30 June 2008
- Worrying about the Sun and climate change: cycle 24 is late, 10 July 2008
- More forecasts of a global cooling cycle, 15 July 2008
- Update: is Solar Cycle 24 late (a cooling cycle, with famines, etc)?, 15 july 2008
- Two valuable perspectives on global warming, 4 August 2008
- President Kennedy speaks to us about global warming and Climate Science, 7 August 2008
- Solar Cycle 24 is still late, perhaps signalling cool weather ahead, 2 September 2008
- Update on solar cycle 24 – and a possible period of global cooling, 1 October 2008
- Good news about global warming!, 21 October 2008
- One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature!, 27 October 2008
- “Aliens cause global warming”: wise words from the late Michael Crichton, 15 November 2008
- A reply to comments on FM site about Global Warming, 17 November 2008
- Is anthropogenic global warming a scientific debate, or a matter of religious belief?, 22 November 2008
- Weekend Reading, watching the world change before our eyes, 29 November 2008
- Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!, 1 December 2008
- Mystery solved, providing an important insight about the global warming debate., 2 December 2008
- This week’s report on the news in climate science, 7 December 2008