Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!

1. mclaren

   1 December 2008 at 2:22 pm

   A FM note about this comment:

   First, personal attacks are not allowed on this site. If calling me names is the best you can do, I suggest you do it elsewhere. If this was directed at someone else I would edit it, and any more such behavior would result in your comments being moderated (prior review and approval before appearing). Since it was directed at me, I’ll let it slide.

   Second, since this is a point of personal privledge — calling me a crackpot — I will interject comments into the text.

   Third, IMO such comments illustrate the essence of the pro-AGW propaganda capaign. People like Mclaren “know” it to be true, but cannot muster even the ghost of a case. So they resort to ad hominem attacks and making stuff up.

   Fourth, does Mclaren even read my posts? There are few signs of it. He’s shown poor reading skills, such as in this comment, in which he says bad things about me — replying to a comment written by Erasmus. No apology or retraction posted yet.

   Last, this is IMO one of the most over-the-top comments I have seen on this site. Mclaren’s comment has almost no relevance to anything I actually said. It’s a rebuttal to some fantasy he composed in his own mind. It is, however, typical to pro-AGW comments on this site.
   * 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
   * Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!, 1 December 2008
   .
   .
   Mclaren’s comment:

   Juan, it’s pointless to produce evidence and use logic supporting the AGW hypothesis, since you’re dealing with a classic crackpot here. FM has shown himself to be a crank on the subject of AGW on many occasions, most notably when I cited 13 leading peer-reviewed scientific journal articles supporting AGW and challenged FM to produce at least 3 peer-reviewed journal articles specifically rebutting each article.

   ** This is nonsense. Mclaren produced a list of citations without titles, with no evidence that he had any idea as to their contents, or that they were in any way relevant to to the discussion. I’m not going to do his work for him — finding out what they articles said — and then finding rebuttals. That’s nuts.

   ** Second, I cited several sources — and the articles I linked to cited many more. A few examples from the FM reference page Science, Nature, and Geopolitics (also note the articles on the solar cycle, an alternative climate driver):

   (1) “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARS“, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES (2006) — aka The North Report.

   (2) Report of the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Hockey Stick Global Climate Reconstruction”, commissioned by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 2006) — aka The Wegman Report. Also note this excerpt from the Q&A session of the Dr. Edward J. Wegman’s testimony.

   (3) “The role of statisticians in public policy debates over climate change“, Richard L. Smith, American Statistical Association – Section on Statistics & the Environment Newsletter (Spring 2007) — One of the too-few reports by statisticians on the climate change literature.

   (4) “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System“, Stephen E. Schwartz, Brookhaven National Laboratory, June 2007

   (5) “Global Warming: Forecasts By Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts“, Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, Energy and Environment, vol 18 No. 7+8, 2007.

   Of course he was unable to; in fact, he couldn’t even tell us the titles of the articles I cited, since I used journal name, volume and issue numbers, and page numbers.

   ** This is dumb. Any reader of this site can verify that level of capability. Who do you think you are to set such tasks for other people, and declare that their lack of compliance to your tricks means anything? This is arrogant behavior, probably the worst such I have seen on this site.

   Clearly FM hasn’t even bothered to read the peer-reviewed scientific literature on AGW, much less any peer-reviewed articles skeptical of the AGW hypothesis, so it’s a waste of time to try to debate him using the scientific evidence. FM hasn’t read it, doesn’t know it, can’t cite it, and has no idea that all the objections he brings up have been debunked in the peer-reviewed scientific literature long ago.

   ** Interesting that Mclaren poses here as if he has great familarity with climate science literature. But there is no evidence of this in any of his comments. Indeed, he seldom cites any supporting evidence for his claims.

   Instead, take a close look at FM’s behavior. It’s worth observing in detail, because this is exactly the kind of crackpot mindset we’ve seen in the Republican party over the last 8 years on every subject from the financial system to OSHA to the minimum wage to outsourcing to contamination in food to FEMA. In every case, if something goes wrong, it’s never an indication to rethink basic beliefs — instead, it merely means (according to classic crackpot logic) that you need to do more of whatever you’re doing.

   So when tax cuts for the rich failed to produce new jobs, this only meant to the crew in Washington that we needed even more tax cuts for the rich, and so on. Standard behavior for kooks.

   ** Note Mclaren’s repeated behavior. Rather than discuss the subject at hand on any level of detail, he discusses irrelevant material. In this case, absurdly so — as this site has been a major critic of the Bush Adminsitration in almost all aspects of policy.

   What FM has tossed out here in a failed “rebuttal” to your comment is classic junk science. Here’s Bob Park’s “Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science” — see how many of these FM’s discussion of AGW exhibits:

   1. A discovery is pitched directly to the media, bypassing peer review, e.g., Pons & Fleischmann’s claims about cold fusion and Dennis Lee’s claims about free energy.
   Notice that FM has made a great discovery. AGW is a hoax! But, oddly enough, FM refuses to submit his claims to a scientific journal for peer review. Why is that? Well, of course, the answer is obvious…

   ** One of the Mclaren’s annying habits is just making things up. I claim no discoveries or even work in this field, just reporting the work of others. As for “AGW is a hoax”, this post says exactly the opposite:
   

   “Serious people believe that it {AGW} is an issue. There’s a lot of promotion and hype, but that doesn’t mean that, underneath it all, there isn’t a problem. No one’s shown that it’s not an issue. The hardest part for someone trying to understand the issue from first principles is locating a clear A-to-B exposition of how doubled CO2 produces a problem and I’m afraid that no one’sbeen able to give such a reference to me – the excuse is that such an exposition is too “routine” for climate scientists. That’s the first attitude than has to change.”

   2 A powerful “establishment” is said to be suppressing the discovery.
   A cabal of powerful scientists blocks FM’s heroic efforts to debunk the AGW hoax! How nefarious of them!

   ** More just making things up. Note he almost never uses quotes, which would reveal the bogus nature of his allegations.

   3. An effect is always at the very limit of detection.
   FM conveniently cites studies which are right on the edge of the noise threshold, the better to make sure his anti-AGW claims can’t be debunked. He tosses in lots of irrelevant citations to various types of temperature measurements, neglecting to mention that the fact that all these different methods of measurement converge on the same conclusion (i.e., that global warming is occurring) obviates methodological problems with any one temperature measurement.

   ** Your evidence, please? Or are you still just making stuff up?

   4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

   FM’s fabulous discovery that AGW is a hoax is, unfortunately, not supported by any significant percentage of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not to worry, AGW deniers! It’s just more proof that an evil conspiracy has buried the evidnece disproving AGW! (Notice also that FM’s stance conveniently resists disproof. The absence of peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting FM’s claims isn’t a problem with his claims, it’s a problem with the deluded mindset of those foolish and evil scientists, who are all in a massive conspiracy to promote AGW. Claims which by their very nature cannot be disproved are a classic hallmark of the crackpot, as for instance the wonderful case of the ufologist who claims that UFO abductees aren’t even aware of being abducted because the aliens use memory erasure on their victims. And the aliens’ superior technology of course leaves no physical forensic evidence of the abductions. How convenient…!)

   ** The most annoying aspect of Mclaren’s comments is that he just ignores everything I say. He prefers to natter on about Republicans and make stuff up.

   Just to mention one counter-example: the pictures at surfacestations.org are hard data. They are surveying the entire US network, and their photos show a low degree of compliance with the siting guidelines. That is prima facia evidence. That is science, in its pure form.

   5. A belief is said to be credible because it has endured for centuries, i.e., commits the fallacy of appeal to tradition. E.g., acupuncture and Ayurvedic medicine.
   FM loves this one. Global temperature exhibit homeostasis and have done for many thousands of years, so why worry now? The global climate is self-regulating. Don’t worry, be happy.

   ** Again, making stuff up. No quotes, of course.

   6. An important discovery is made in isolation (the “lone genius”).
   Yes, our hero FM is a lone genius, the only hero with enough moxy and enough savvy to see through those scientific shysters and reveal the amazing truth about the giant scientific conspiracy to bury the anti-AGW evidence. Seriously…need we say more?

   ** Again, making stuff up. I claim no actual work in this field, just reporting the work of others. Isn’t this obvious?

   7. New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. A common lament of parapsychologists.
   FM hasn’t yet fallen into this one. But it’s doubtless only a matter of time.

   ** Not worth a reply.

   For bonus points, Juan, see if you can identify how many times FM exhibits intellectual dishonesty in his failed and futile non-rebuttal “rebuttal” of your citation of the available peer-reviewed scientific evidence for AGW. You may be shocked.

   ** I have asked Mclaren to provide quote to support his assertions about what I say in future comments. Without this they are difficult to refute. Of course, this might be why he does not provide quotes, despite my repeated requests to stop making things up (for example, here and here). Note that he never defends his allegations — even when they are obviously false (here).**

   Loading...

   Reply
2. AMac

   1 December 2008 at 3:01 pm

   McLaren (comment #1, supra) does not address the substance of FM’s points on AGW. Suppose for sake of argument that FM is indeed an irredeemable crackpot. McLaren and Juan presumably agree with me that many of this site’s readers are not–else, why pen comments here (other than the possible thrill of participating in Monty Python-like skits)?

   FM follows in the footsteps of Steve McIntyre by starting his inquiry with the data and the computational methodology. Actually, one step back from those two: they start with questions about transparency. Many links at this post and other FM posts refer to specifics, many of them pointing to posts at Climate Audit where these matters are discussed in detail.

   Those threads make depressing reading, for a scientist. The questions posed by the skeptics are usually germane. The rebuttals offered by adherents of the AGW consensus are usually deficient. “I refuse to share the complete data archives and I refuse to fully explain my computational methods because…” is a sign of junk science irrespective of the clause that completes the sentence.

   Boosters of the AGW consensus should pressure Hansen, Mann, and its other foremost advocates to start playing by the heretofore-accepted rules of the scientific method. Why does this eminently reasonable demand fall on deaf ears?

   FM, McIntyre, and other skeptics are canaries.
   .
   .
   Fabius Maximus replies: I agree on all points.

   One point: the people doing the real work — like Steven McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and Ross McKitrick — deserve the praise. Folks like me just report to a general audience what’s happening on the front lines of science. It is a battle today against rigid othodoxy, as it has always been. And probably always will be.

   Loading...

   Reply
3. Paul

   1 December 2008 at 4:48 pm

   Fabius, you aren’t the first who I’ve seen who compares Global Warming Orthodoxy to Religious Orthodoxy, I direct you to this article from Alexander Cockburn, from the April 28th/29th 2007 Counterpunch blog, entitled “Is Global Warming a Sin?”

   In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet’s rapid downward slide.

   Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in “carbon credits” is in formation. Those whose “carbon footprint” is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.

   The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world’s present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind’s sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter’s Basilica by offering a “plenary” indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.

   It’s good to see that skepticism on the Left, unfortunately it’s a minority viewpoint on both the Left and the Right.
   .
   .
   Fabius Maximus replies: Thank you for posting this. I wonder if Cockburn paid a high price in credibility in the leftist “community” for breaking with othodoxy in such a big way. Kudos to Counterpunch for publishing this.

   Loading...

   Reply
4. Tom Grey

   1 December 2008 at 5:07 pm

   Good job, FM. I’m fairly confident the pro-AGW folk will fail your clear request for data, not model, to show how CO2 increases track with temperature increases AND apply that data to the last 1000 years to include the Medieval Warming followed by the Little Ice Age followed by … modern warming.

   I would demand, from any climate change theory, confirmation about the following facts, and an answer to the questions the facts lead to:
   1) Was there a Medieval Warm period?
   2) Was there a Little Ice Age?
   Q1-2) Why did the Warm period turn into a little ice age?
   3) Has there been warming from the Little Ice Age?
   Q2-3) Why did the Little Ice Age end?

   No climate change theory that is unable to explain ‘recent’ events should be a major point in public policy.

   Nevertheless, I support gas taxes and even carbon taxes, as preferable to income taxes.

   Loading...

   Reply
5. seneca

   1 December 2008 at 5:21 pm

   Rank amateur, here! However, applying literary analysis to FM’s rebuttals in the original post, I note that he tends to attack popularizers and epigones of AGW rather than the original reports that support it, and tends to attack the **style** of argument rather than the facts. Of course, common folks and bloggers repeat a lot of nonsense without first-hand evidence and add a lot of illogical argument, but that doesn’t invalidate the core theories and research they are echoing.

   I note also from the comments above, and the citation of Alexander Cockburn, that AGW theory is somehow associated here with leftist thinking, which association itself makes me suspicious that anti-AGW arguments are coming from a biased conservative orientation.

   As an environmentalist, I believe the principle of “do no harm”, when faced with choices about which there is not full knowledge and agreement, is a good one to follow. What is the harm of trying to develop a less carbon dependent economy? On the other hand, there seems to be great potential harm in acting as if there is no global warming.
   .
   .
   Fabius Maximus replies: A few points, minor ones.

   (1) “he tends to attack popularizers and epigones of AGW rather than the original reports that support it”

   Agreed. Not being a climate scientist, or anyone with relevant skills, I just report the debate. Also, the public debate reveals so much about the decision-making process (aka OODA loop) of our society — and its serious defects. (Also — “epigone”, a great word! No day is wasted when one learns a new word.)

   (2) ” tends to attack the **style** of argument rather than the facts.”

   An example, please. I do not see any instances of attack on style rather than substance.

   (3) “which association itself makes me suspicious that anti-AGW arguments are coming from a biased conservative orientation”

   Probably true. As is true that many leftists see AGW as a way to extend their control of society. Most large scientific debates develop poltical components — unrelated to the science. The heliocentric solar system, evolution and relativity are just a few examples.

   (4) “What is the harm of trying to develop a less carbon dependent economy?”

   This is assumes either that doing so is inexpensive or our resources are unlimited. Neither is true. For more on this see point #7 here.

   Loading...

   Reply
6. senor tomas

   1 December 2008 at 5:24 pm

   There is indeed global warming. The controversy seems to be over the cause of it, whether it is a natural cyclical climatic change, the result of human activities, or the combination of both.
   .
   .
   Fabius Maximus replies: Agreed. The ice pack no longer extends near Scotland, nor is Iceland encased in the ice pack, as during the little ice age.

   Loading...

   Reply
7. Seamus McClary

   1 December 2008 at 7:21 pm

   Very happy to see this discussion at this site. FM has established a reputation as rather a stickler for logical argument. Self-described environmentalists like “seneca” 08/12/1 17:24, as well as McLaren and Juan, do not appear to recognize their own deficient logic.

   Clearly FM is attempting to get at the facts about AGW, rather than promoting a particular POV pro or con. Politics is irrelevant, or should be. The scientific method and a dispassionate approach to determining “the facts” appear to be less important subject matter at many universities than they were at one time, if Juan et al can be considered representative.

   The precipitate rush to extreme action over AGW at national and international levels without taking the trouble to determine the facts, is why many apolitical, areligious, pro science skeptics have taken the time to speak out.

   Loading...

   Reply
8. Juan Delmastro

   1 December 2008 at 9:30 pm

   I recognize I expressed myself wrongly when I said: in (2) …"do not likely prove that climate change, or either global worming are not well identified and a valid scientific conclusion".

   I meant "do not likely prove that (anthropogenic) climate change…"

   This leaves the door open to comment Ner6 of the possibilities of consensus of AGW or either BTW as “a cause” or conclusion, that would become useful to draw new hypothesis and let the “scientific process” keep advancing as it has been despite all of us here in FM’s blog. The process of understanding of GW science is clearly in what we are all now as a world community of bloggers, scientists, logicians, philosophers and etc (common folks included, why not).

   As for Mr./Mrs. Seamus McClary and Seneca, I believe I have develop pretty much good logic out there, and I hold no heart feelings for your opinions as in comment Ner5 "Of course, “common folks” and bloggers repeat a lot of nonsense without first-hand evidence and add a lot of illogical argument". I would argue that “first hand evidence” must be in the behold of the scientific community and not me as a “common folk”.

   I totally agree with the personal position of comment Ner5. of “do no harm” when faced with choices about which -there is not full knowledge and agreement…

   THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THERE IS A WORLD-WIDE GW DEBATE GOING ON !!!

   this is healthy as long as we keep manners.…

   Loading...

   Reply
9. Juan Delmastro

   1 December 2008 at 10:27 pm

   [Part A]
   Interesting Fabius, I am reviewing all the arguments and links you posted. Although I can say I agree that there is controversy in the GW scientific arena, I would be totally respectful on the checks and corrections of the “scientific process” run by a variety of scientific communities -specialized in the GW- in relation to the hypothesis of GW, and, you may call this the “consensus” I would support.

   I feel that you presumed about my "final" position on the topic. As stated in my blog The Contingency Monitor “An organic and vibrant publication that challenges your thinking”, if you read my disclaimer (which I suppose you did) there you can see that I stated that my personal thoughts and opinions are built under contingent information (from where the blog name came) and that my posts do not represent my final views over any subject, as information changes and becomes available, so do opinions and views. Totally in accordance to the "scientific method" you alleged I "show little understanding".

   Of course my opinions here flow in the same way. Reading your sources, I give credit to the skeptics of AGW (the BTW), no problem with that. But I also keep giving credit to the Pro-AGW. Hence you find myself now respecting both hypothesis of GW -AGW and BTW, also totally in accordance to the "scientific method".

   For your pint (6b): However, as any ordinary student of this issues may presume, we walk the contradictions of the “scientific process”, as even the National Academy of Science (NAS) has pro AGW and BTW reports and books published over time. I believe in a “brief and sketchy” actual review -as you alleged, you can find both. See One Earth, One Future: Our Changing Global Environment, page 65 (1990) NAS. I recognize this is from 1990, but scientific information and conclusions from the NAS 90’s literature are still valid hypothesis. As of now, with this situation of Pro and Cons, I would choose a Darwinian variation, and selection of ideas and hypothesis, and lets see which are the valid causes and future trends of GW (AGW-BTW) that might survive.
   .
   .
   Fabius Maximus replies: Two brief and minor comments.

   (1) Page 65 is just a freshman level description of atmospheric gases, and non-controversial. This was known in the 1970’s (e.g., Manabe et al in 1975). But it tells us nothing about the AGW debate.

   (2) “For your pint (6b): … as even the National Academy of Science (NAS) has pro AGW and BTW reports and books published over time.”

   Agreed. But you said the “National Academy of Sciences, which now TOTALLY ENDORSES the likelihood of “anthropogenic global warming.” I cited the most recent investigation of NAS (2006) as a rebuttal of that statement.

   Loading...

   Reply
10. Juan Delmastro

    1 December 2008 at 10:30 pm

    For your pint (3a): If you state: “Einstein and Newton needed no petition drives, nor did Watson-Crick-Wilkins (structure of DNA)”. I would argue that it is otherwise for a question like what the climate will do after we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here we encounter so many nearly chaotic influences that we can know the main facts only roughly and not as Einstein and Newton may have done just with maths or more common observation. Hence, the level of reliability can only be established through checks and corrections by a variety of scientific communities, and scientific fields over extended periods of time, with their observations and their contradictions, each dealing with its own piece of the problem.

    For your pint (2b): I never quoted to “recommend spending trillions of dollars — vitally needed elsewhere — to control CO2 emissions”. And I certainly would reflect upon that as to my understanding spending is spending, and not saving. I personally strongly differentiate from AGW scientific hypothesis, the political public policy you advocated in that argument. Given that one, is possible without the other.

    Finally, it was interesting as per your post title “PR at work” and the introduction "about effective use of propaganda to mold public opinion in our society". I believe that for all the institutions I posted, the information available on-line and in books and journals regarding GW can be viewed as pure science in the “scientific process”, whether you find a Pro-AGW or a BTW piece in them.

    For your pint (3a, 6b and 2b): I would say you too used pretty much of the strawman argument (per your pint 2a).
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: As you are not (at least, so far as we know) a climate scientist, your presentation reflects (more or less) the popular opinion of AGW — not the views of a climate scientist (which I could only “debate” by asking questions and giving references, as I am not a scientist either). Since few of your comments were accurate in any meaningful sense, this shows the power of the well-executed PR strategy to convince people that AGW is a serious threat — far beyond what the record shows with any reliability.

    “For your pint (3a, 6b and 2b): I would say you too used pretty much of the strawman argument (per your pint 2a).”

    In what sense are these “stawman” arguements? That sounds nice, but does not correspond to what I actually said. 6b and 2b are simple factual statements; there is no point “3a”; #3 replies directly to your assertions (by giving relevant links).

    Loading...

    Reply
11. Erasmus

    1 December 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Whilst on a long drive a year or so ago I was listening to a CBC program called ‘Ideas’ about the genesis of modern science in which the host described Locke’s initial skepticism regarding the new method as being promulgated by a millionaire-type promoting the notion of peer-review. I am only loosely paraphrasing but my memory of this objection was that ‘even if 20 people analysing the same data find consensus, this will not necessarily change a contrary belief of others and that ultimately such conclusions come down to belief’. To my mind, this accords with my own observations that what we perceive as ‘fact’ is a function of a priori assumption. I believe that quantum experiments with physical particles have ‘proven’ that mind and matter are not mutually exclusive and that indeed the mental (belief) continuum in which the physical universe is cognated within the realm of human experience is a joint production, i.e. the notion of an external ‘objective’ reality is essentially fallacious.

    This conclusion, reached many decades ago, has been largely ignored by most ‘scientists’ and the population at large which still regards ‘science’ as a discipline that deals with ‘hard quantifiable facts’. And yet both the AGW vs GW and the GW versus GC debates illustrate to me, as an amateur observer, that the field of science does not deal in objective fact alone since it appears there is no way for them to resolve their arguments. If the scientific method was as described, various relevant factors in the debate should, in theory, be able to be settled definitively. The fact that they cannot says more – to my mind – about the field of science as it does about the issue in question.

    This – to me – is the elephant in the room. I find that FM’s posts often show glimpses of this elephant without necessarily pointing it out as such.

    As has been memtioned in both this thread and the one earlier that spawned it, FM’s style of contribution is mainly to highlight the logical/intellectual aspects of an issue rather than claiming to provide definitive conclusions about it. I find this both valid and valuable. But in the context of this thread, perhaps it invites another that examines the philosophical and methodological underpinnings of the scientific method itself, its history and role in current society. For it seems to me that this is really the underlying subject matter, not the specifics of the issue per se.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: All powerful questions, discussed at length during the 20th century in history/philosophy of science field. Karl Popper’s work is well worth reading, and even more so Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (which I strongly recommend reading).

    Loading...

    Reply
12. Juan Delmastro

    2 December 2008 at 3:40 am

    Sorry I meant (4a).

    For your pint (4a): If you state: “Einstein and Newton needed no petition drives, nor did Watson-Crick-Wilkins (structure of DNA)”.

    I would argue that it is otherwise for a question like what the climate will do after we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Here we encounter so many nearly chaotic influences that we can know the main facts only roughly and not as Einstein and Newton may have done just with maths or more common observation. Hence, the level of reliability can only be established through checks and corrections by a variety of scientific communities, and scientific fields over extended periods of time, with their observations and their contradictions, each dealing with its own piece of the problem.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: I do not understand your point. How do petition assist in the process your describe?

    Also note, the very point you describe is one of the great holes in the case for AGW: what is the magnitude of the temperature increase produce by a given increase of CO2. As Steve McIntyre says (source):

    The hardest part for someone trying to understand the issue from first principles is locating a clear A-to-B exposition of how doubled CO2 produces a problem and I’m afraid that no one’s been able to give such a reference to me – the excuse is that such an exposition is too “routine” for climate scientists. That’s the first attitude than has to change.

    He has done some extensive reviews on Climate Audit of the literature on this (I don’t have the links at hand), and the evidentiary basis for this critical point is astonishingly weak.

    Loading...

    Reply
13. Juan Delmastro

    2 December 2008 at 5:44 am

    In #10. Part A Fabius Maximus:

    As you are not (at least, so far as we know) a climate scientist, your presentation reflects (more or less) the popular opinion of AGW — not the views of a climate scientist (which I could only “debate” by asking questions, with references). Since few of your comments were accurate in any meaningful sense, this shows the power of the well-executed PR strategy to convince people that AGW is a serious threat — far beyond what the record shows with any reliability.

    Juan Delmastro replies: my presentation reflects both popular opinion and some views of climate scientists. Some of your comments also were an extension of your own views and not mines (your ‘straw argumentation’ particularly calling me holding PR and suggesting that I advocate for trillion $USD spending as a corollary for me being Pro-AGW…).

    I can hold now very accurately that your ‘comment replies’ towards my arguments do also extend far beyond into suppositions not well based in facts. Also your position to convince people that BTW is a valid rebuttal would go far beyond record too, also BTW is susceptible of PR and politics. I don’t need to dig into this.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus: Three brief and minor comments.

    (1) Page 65 is just a freshman level description of atmospheric gases, and non-controversial. This was known in the 1970’s (e.g., Manabe et al in 1975). But it tells us nothing about the AGW debate.

    Juan Delmastro replies: I would insist, it says there in p.65 “… Only in the last decade have scientists become aware that other, trace greenhouse gases can also be important contributors to global warming. Concentrations of many of these trace gases are known to vary naturally, but there is widespread agreement that human activities are contributing to the current increases”.

    (2) “suggesting that I advocate for trillion $USD spending as a corollary for me being Pro-AGW”

    My exact words were “The pro-AGW folks recommend spending trillions of dollars — vitally needed elsewhere — to control CO2 emissions.” This does not attribute these words to you, but does represent the public policy recommendations of many (most?) leaders of the pro-AGW “community.”

    (3) “I can hold now very accurately that your ‘comment replies’ towards my arguments do also extend far beyond into suppositions not well based in facts.”

    Do you have a specific example?

    (3) “Also your position to convince people that BTW is a valid rebuttal would go far beyond record too, also BTW is susceptible of PR and politics.”

    I used BTW to mean “by the way”, in the following quote:

    BTW – the “skeptics” have stated endless times that they they are providing a rebuttal — not providing a proof of an alternative theory. As Steve McIntyre said (source; one of his countless statements like this):…

    On his site he says that BTW means “skeptics to hypothesis of global warming.” I don’t recall seeing that usage, but that clears up this minor point. Has anyone else see this usage?

    Loading...

    Reply
14. Juan Delmastro

    2 December 2008 at 5:46 am

    In #10. Part B

    Fabius Maximus: #2

    For your pint (6b): “… as even the National Academy of Science (NAS) has pro AGW and BTW reports and books published over time.” Agreed. But you said the “National Academy of Sciences, which now TOTALLY ENDORSES the likelihood of “anthropogenic global warming.” I cited the most recent investigation of NAS (2006) as a rebuttal of that statement.

    (1) Juan Delmastro replies: I totally agree that I was wrong when I said “full endorsement from NAS”, but also I would cit the even much more recent investigation from NAS: “Ecological Impacts of Climate Change, NAS (2008)”, p.1:

    Human actions have been a primary cause of the climate changes observed today, but humans are capable of changing our behavior in ways that modify the rate of future climate change. Human actions are also needed to help wild species adapt to climate changes that cannot be avoided.

    Also from your first source cited for rebuttal “Surface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2,000 Years, NAS (2006)”, one reads in in p.1 “

    In response to a request from Congress, this committee was assembled by the National Research Council to describe and assess the state of scientific efforts to reconstruct surface temperature records for the Earth over approximately the last 2,000 years and the implications of these efforts for our understanding of global climate change.

    (2) Then in p.3 {FM: I have added the bold emphasis}:

    It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies … Despite these limitations, the committee finds that efforts to reconstruct temperature histories for broad geographic regions using multiproxy methods are an important contribution to climate research and that these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions contain meaningful climatic signals. The individual proxy series used to create these reconstructions generally exhibit strong correlations with local environmental conditions, and in most cases there is a physical, chemical, or physiological reason why the proxy reflects local temperature variations.

    (3) Then in p.4

    Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence.

    (4) Hence the rebuttal you provided to the statement is not consistent with the information and evidence this paperback contains. In fact, your commenting reactions are becoming also very similar to the use of “cherry picking”.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Quite a few points of interest here. The debate goes quite smoothly and rapidly when comments include specific quotes, as Delmastro does!

    (1) Thank you for mentioning the 2008 NAS report. That’s in the lower reaches of my reading basket, and deserves to be read! Also, I’ll list it on the FM Science reference page.

    (2) Why does this quotation support the case for AGW? It is a strong statement of the current consensus by all sides of the debate about the climate trends: the Earth’s temperature rebounding from the lows of the Little Ice Age. I know of nobody who doubts that. It explicitly does not support claims that the current period is the warmest in a thousand (or more) years.

    Similarly, the statement about proxy data is agreed upon by all. Proxy’s respond to local conditions. Their use for global climate reconstructions is the issue.

    (3) Again, this is a strong statement of the agreed-upon consensus. Does anyone deny that humans are affecting the climate? The question is as always in the details, things such as the following:
    * magnitude of the warming (e.g., temperature increase resulting from a given increase in CO2 levels),
    * the role of other cyclical factors (e.g., solar cycles — perhaps initiating a cooling cycle),
    * feedbacks (e.g., warm weather => more clouds => reflecting sunlight away from the surface => reducing the warming).

    (4) ” In fact, your commenting reactions are becoming also very similar to the use of ‘cherry picking’.”

    I do not see in your comment any examples of me “cherry picking (selective response to specific points). If you have an example, please mention it. I try to respond to every major point to avoid “cherry picking.” Hence the numbering I insert into comments, so others can follow the flow of my reply. Since replies are dashed off in haste due to time pressure, sometimes I overlook (or worse, misinterpret) comments.

    Loading...

    Reply
15. Juan Delmastro

    2 December 2008 at 6:04 am

    I have posted and ongoing rebbute to FM in my blog, although I agree in some points, and find some information was valuable, I found also some of his arguments were very weak showing no evidence to even have read the introduction of his primary sources. This makes me think of someone very close minded into the hypothesis of AGW, and not fully compromised with the search of the truth of the causes and future trends of GW. This for me, turned out to be also a political view-point fully evidently, in which I am not interested.

    Hence, that’s it for me in the current discussion here, if you would like to comment further, please do the follow-on in my blog: The Contingency Monitor

    Regards to all.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Typical of the pro-AGW comments on this site, if somewhat better than most. After ten rounds he finally get to something specific (text from the NAS study), then he says “I win”, another bizarre assertino, and runs off. This is his right, of course. Note that the previous comment shows that his quotes do not remotely match his bold words here.

    Loading...

    Reply
16. Stefan Saal

    2 December 2008 at 9:58 pm

    A mathematical book, entitled Flatland, describes the problems a two-dimensional being must have in comprehending three dimensions. By the same token, we human beings must be humble about our abilities to comprehend matters that exist on a plane higher than our own. On the scales of time and size, we are wee mites in comparison to the Earth, and as its inhabitants we are nested subsets of it in a logical hierarchy.

    So the “knowability” of this kind of stuff is pretty tough. I will pass over the problems of “measurability” of climate, with which weather forecasters are familiar. And I will not mention the issues of “uncertainty” and “complexity” that pervade the study of even the smallest physical systems. The mere phrase “opinions of experts” causes chills. (Could such chills be sufficient to offset global warming?)

    On the other hand, what if the mean global temperature were rising? And, what if this rise in temperature were not –repeat, not– caused by human beings? Even so, would it be possible for human beings to lower the future mean global temperature? Would this effort be beneficial? Would such an experiment be advisable? Would it be practical? What would it entail? On net, would it be worthwhile?

    Keep in mind, civilizations are built on “believing” — in “god”, in “science”, in “the rights of man”. . .

    Loading...

    Reply
17. Chas. Garvey

    2 December 2008 at 10:50 pm

    AGW has become the politically correct orientation toward climate issues. Being politically correct, it is to be believed and supported against all detractors.

    This means that the scientific questions being asked have become trifling irrelevancies. To even ask such questions, or to demand scientific accountability, is in exceedingly poor taste. Everyone at the UN understands this. Everyone in Hollywood understands this. All significant journalists are quite clear on this point. Needless to say, all university professors of philosophy, history, the social sciences, and language studies are very clear on this point–and consider themselves experts on climate science regardless of background.

    Just repeat “every peer reviewed study shows”, “no reputable scientist can deny”, “there is no longer any debate on the science, which is completely settled”, and so on. Eventually, if you repeat the politically correct mantras of truth, you too will think correctly, with a mind in accordance with consensus. Stop trying so hard. Just let it happen!

    Loading...

    Reply
18. el zorro

    4 December 2008 at 3:46 pm

    1) Garvey, is AGW politically correct? Is terrorism politically incorrect? Correctness, should be a measured in number of life threats. We are not talking about policy making…but likelihood of life threats !

    So so sad for some of you there, too much thinking in your little offices got you confused believen you have it solved in your centered bias thinking….and very much of an automata I would say.

    2) Stefan Saal, the usual centro-european skeptic posture that makes you “look good”? grown ups ! if we cannot understand the likelihood of a volcano eruption, it proves wise to go on vacation somewhere else…WITH ALL YOUR FAMILY !! This is the “wrothability” and value of social construction in the modern civilized world.
    .
    .
    Fabius Maximus replies: Why do the pro-AGW comments on this site mostly (almost all) look like statements of religious faith? Few (none?) even attempt to defend their beliefs.

    Worse, on simple matters of logic they just ignore opposing views — such as the madness of the way the precautionary principle is usually applied.

    There are many other vital needs that deserve funding, needs far more substantial. There are a large number of high impact – low probability scenarios (”shockwaves”), of which AGW is just one. We can not defend against them all. I discuss this in greater length at this post; here is the key point:

    Commission a group to collect as many shockwave scenarios as possible, with a brief analysis of each. Fortunately there are thousands of interest groups willing to pitch in and help! Then apply a common analytical framework to rate them on both dimensions: probability and impact. The results would prove quite interesting, and allow more rational public policy discussion about which to act upon.

    Loading...

    Reply
19. well-duh

    22 January 2009 at 9:39 pm

    On the other hand…the fear of global warming might be funded by all those rich folk who own that sea side urban and resort property (including actors in the cause). A common global warming statistic notes that 90% of property wealth is in the flood zone. So who definitely loses in the long run? The current wealthy because much of their wealth is attached to current coasts. And of course plenty of minor animal species.

    I note that flood waters generally won’t rise faster than people can walk, barring tsunami from major falling ice flows and extreme procrastination. Actually a week’s walk could put most people out of the worst case flood zone and ready to build new homes. Most third world countries have plenty of undeveloped arable land inland of the flood zone.

    But wait! In the history of the Earth has the planet ever lost major percentages of species and without man’s help? Sure. And actually more likely more times than the fossil record makes evident because – minor species often are not recorded (due to limited area of rocks explored and how few individuals normally get preserved as fossils).

    And the polar bear? Well the species might die out but mainly because we will be shooting them in downtown. Polar bears can in fact eat almost any meat including human (examples exist). They can probably eat vegetation with a little absorbed bacterial help (eat guts of those who can). Their only large disadvantage versus other bears is a white coat in summer…and I suspect that interbreeding and such would fix that in a few generations.

    Loading...

    Reply
20. think twice

    22 January 2009 at 9:46 pm

    yeah governments hate the idea of property loss in global warming. but where weather changes and rain goes away one place, warm seas guarantee more rains will appear elsewhere.

    the thing governments really hate is that no one can accurately predict where the NEW good crop growing weather might be. too many changes.

    think of all that prime antarctic farmland that will be exposed. and no ecological considerations left to get in the way. no native land animals once the penguins go way.

    Loading...

    Reply
21. Juan Delmastro

    10 February 2009 at 4:53 pm

    I have written a piece in my blog, loyal to the mystic of The Contingency Monitor, showing evidence of the skeptic hypothesis of AGW. Please consider it part of my debate also, which address the ongoing scientific production of this matter. Clearly not solved in the ‘scientific consensus’ yet -i mean, as did newtons’ gravity.

    “Climate Change: Is it man-made Co2, or is it the Sun? The Agenda Towards a World Government“, posted at The Contingency Monitor, 14 December 2008 — Opening:

    “Accepted theories about man causing global warming are “lies” claims a controversial TV documentary. Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2. Al Gore and the “global warming alarmists” are incorrect in accordance with these documentaries and all the personalities (scientists, academics, and politicians) interviewed.

    “Nobody in the documentary defends the greenhouse effect theory, as claims that climate change is a natural outcome and has been occurring always in history, where ice falling from glaciers is just the spring break-up and as normal as leaves falling in autumn. This new breed of Global Warming Scientists -backed by eminent research- are set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans”.

    Loading...

    Reply
22. Rice R.

    5 September 2009 at 3:21 am

    There have been many ice ages in Earth’s past, yet the world warmed then without the help of mankind. So how did the world warm then? There were no man made emissions, no industrial revolution to create smog or airborne pollutants, no cars, no carbon monoxide, yet the world warmed and the ice ages retreated.
    Where are the ice ages now?
    The religion of environmentalism seeks to control what we do and the energy we consume and impose a Penalty . Money will solve the problem. They will take our money and fix the worl! Ha! More socialist agendas. Man is so vain, he thinks he can control global warming, but cannot even predict the weather.

    Loading...

    Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.