Summary: This was a small mystery, whose solution revealed something important about the public debate about anothropogenic global warming (not the science, but the propaganda).
In a discussion about global warming with Juan Delmastro (a courteous correspondent, who made some good points), we have the following dialog (see the full comment below):
FM: 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):…
Delmastro: 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.
By”BTW” I meant, of course, by the way. But what is Delmastro talking about? He explains on his website, The Contingency Monitor:
If you are new to read about global warming literature, expect this two common abbreviations: BTW – skeptics to the hypothesis (or conclusions) of human contribution to Global Warming, in climate change, and pro-AGW or AGW…
I do not recall ever seeing this usage of “BTW”. I did a google of RealClimate, which I consider the best pro-AGW site (a must-read for anyone interested in this important issue). Nothing but “by the way”. I did some googles for “BTW” and GW-relevant terms. Nothing. I asked the readers of this site to investigate. Was this a foreign language acronym or misunderstanding of Enlgish? Perhaps a new, obsolete, or infrequently used term? I emailed Delmastro, asking for clarification.
Update
See Delmastro’s reply, comment #8. No retraction, just the “wounded gentleman” schtickt. He changed the entry on his blog to read (bold emphasis added), with no mention of any correction:
If you are new to read about global warming literature, expect this two common abbreviations: Con-AGW– skeptics to the hypothesis (or conclusions) of human contribution to Global Warming, in climate change, and pro-AGW or AGW…
Here is my guess what happened… The pro-AGW comments on this site contain numerous instances of making stuff up. With a few exceptions, those making these comments do not defend their made up stuff when called on it — although they often post new comments (often with more made up stuff). Here we see the extreme example: posting a rebuttal to “by the way.” That is, Delmastro probably “knew” what I said was wrong even if he did not recognize the term “btw”. So, rather than ask — or google “btw” — he wrote a strong rebuttal.
When called on it, he choose not to admit his mistake. Instead he invented a definition of “btw”, guessing that nobody would bother to follow-up. This would be trivia, except that it is symptomatic of what you see in many of the pro-AGW comments on the FM site — and in so much of the public debate about AGW.
Almost none of these pro-AGW comments display any knowledge of the case for AGW (which is real, hence the debate). That is why I say their support is almost religious in nature, based on faith. Immune to logic or data. Since they just “know” their belief is necessary for the world’s salvation, they can comfortably attack any sketpics in severe terms — disregarding any normal conventions of logic or honesty — making stuff up, which quickly become lies).
For more on the ethics of this post, I recommend reading phageghost’s comment (#10 below).
The full text of Delmastro’s comment follows, posted as #13 in reply to “Another pro-global warming comment, effective PR at work!”
—–
In #10. Part A by 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?
— {end comment} —
Afterword
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
